Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Biophysical wrote:That's a pretty big deal, because they're testing on the General's 7 at that point, which has a much better chance of eventually failing even at steadfast.

Which assumes you haven't already killed the general..child's play if he's on a bell, and not that hard in other circumstances. Also assumes you didn't take lore of death to debuff his leadership or snipe his characters, etc etc etc.

Also, an elite unit like sword masters, with their high number of high strength attacks can go a long way of taking away steadfast, or using bretonnian knights, with their ranks of three, or a hydra or anything with a high number of attacks

DukeRustfield wrote:Chess is a competitive game based on skill. It's pretty much the baseline for games.

Actually, at the grand master level the white player will typically win about 60% of the time. This led to Kasparov gaming the system somewhat, and only trying to win when he was white, and just playing defensively and looking for stalemate when he was on black. It helped him beat opponents even he considered were technically more skilled than himself.

Magic is a competitive game based on the amount of money you sink into it. The fact they have rare cards negates any shred of pretense it's trying to be a balanced strategy game.

Not really, because ultimately those rare cards are accessible to anyone who wants to play seriously. Come the professional level, there is relative parity among the top tier lists, because everyone has their rare card.

Now, I don't like Magic for a whole host of reasons, but there's no point pretending there isn't a professional circuit, because there plainly is. That's something you can't have unless the game is balanced at the top level. It's something WHFB and 40K can't have, because at the most competitive level the game breaks down into nonsense


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:In fantasy each guy represents many guys. What the 3 blocks of 40 guys represents is an army of many hundreds, marching forward in three fighting formations.

Sort of. They have made comments like that in the past, and at other times talked about the combat shown in the game being the focal point of a much larger battle, and all other kinds of stuff which basically boils down to pretending that's what is happening on the field isn't just a skirmish between two company strength units.

That seems to work for some people, it helps them imagine away the problem of armies that just do not look like armies (the old 7th ed standard army that had about 20 infantry in it total) and helps them justify the presence of Teclis in what looks like a pretty minor border skirmish. For other folk it doesn't work at all, because the whole point of a miniatures game is to see the models on the table fight each other, and if we just settle for pretending what's on the board isn't what it is really being represented, it loses a bit of the appeal.

40k and Fantesy breaks down Competitivly because GW fails to proof read or anticipate potential problems. Like the Plasma Siphon, they really should have anticipated the problems that would cause and clarified in the Codex rather then the FAQ.

Grey Templar wrote:40k and Fantesy breaks down Competitivly because GW fails to proof read or anticipate potential problems. Like the Plasma Siphon, they really should have anticipated the problems that would cause and clarified in the Codex rather then the FAQ.

That's part of it, though FAQs and rules mods would quickly come into place if a semi-pro comp came into place.

Nah, the bigger problem is that there simply isn't that strong of a tactical engine underlying either game. There isn't enough to differentiate different unit types (though 40K is way poorer for this than fantasy) and as a result list design revolves largely around 'pick whatever unit is slightly underpriced and take as much of it as possible', then games revolve largely around hoping that the enemy hasn't taken the paper to your rock. In a game with stronger design that philosophy would fail, because different unit types would be essential.

Both 40K and WHFB have improved considerably in this regard in their latest editions, but they have a long way to go.

True,

It would help if GW designed the game with competition in mind. as it is they seem to dismiss its importance and treat it like a side project. Which is odd considering that competitive players are the most likely to buy large quantities of models.

Maybe becaus many tournament players buy stuff second hand from the people who really make GW money – youngsters who quit fast.

What about the subpar units that noobs buy because the Redshirt told him it was a good thing to buy(like Cold One Cavelry)

Yeah tournament players are likely to find ways to not buy from GW

Grey Templar wrote:True,

It would help if GW designed the game with competition in mind. as it is they seem to dismiss its importance and treat it like a side project. Which is odd considering that competitive players are the most likely to buy large quantities of models.

Thing is, I think a stronger tactical system would help more casual players as well as the tournament set. I mean, a stronger tactical game doesn't mean more complex rules, it just means spending more time making sure units have unique roles to play on the battlefield.

Indeed, although I feel this becomes apparent in large games.


If 5k games, non-appoc, were played I feel that those would feel very tactical. You would have enough points to be able to get a bit of everything. Games lasting 7-10 turns would also be interesting, more long term planning to have happen.

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed, although I feel this becomes apparent in large games.


If 5k games, non-appoc, were played I feel that those would feel very tactical. You would have enough points to be able to get a bit of everything. Games lasting 7-10 turns would also be interesting, more long term planning to have happen.

I think the problem really is that in 40K the different unit types really aren't that different. I mean, vehicles have a whole set of rules of their own and all, but at the end of the day you judge their effectiveness on how well they can blow up the enemy. Same for all types of infantry, whether elites or grunts, assault or ranged troops, the question remains 'how good is this unit at killing the enemy, relative to it's points cost'.

As such, the most notorious lists have revolved around figuring out whatever unit in the list is slightly underpriced, and then taking loads of that one unit, whether it was nidzilla with the old codex or the leafblower lists now just taking as many chimera chassis as possible. It happens because every unit basically does the same thing - kill the enemy, then worry about sneaking some objectives late in the game*. I think the game really needs a full working over, and a redesign of core weapon types, to differentiate weapons . FoW would serve as an excellent model - while you still kill a goodly number of the enemy with guns, at the end of the day you aren't going to wipe a unit, to shift them off an objective you need to send in some kind of assault unit. If you just spammed foot troops you'd find yourself well sorted for holding objectives, but severely lacking in firepower and mobility, if you just spammed tanks you'd really miss having some cheap units that are really hard to shift off of an objective.

WHFB isn't as bad, because there are slightly different roles for specific units (ie artillery might be very good at killing, but it is unlikely to wipe a unit, they're really just there to reduce their numbers enough to swing melee in the favour of your troops, and there are all kinds of roles for support units like skirmishers). The framework is stronger in WHFB, but it needs to be improved considerably, so that if a player took nothing but units of horde infantry he would actually have to say 'damn, I really missed having units of screening troops, and light cavalry support and a core unit of elite troops'.



*Making troops the only unit capable of taking objectives was one step towards giving one unit type a unit role outside of killing the enemy, but when they let troops in vehicles claim objectives they pretty much dropped the ball on that one.

Cerebrium wrote:Yeah, this is why I've never been interested much in fantasy.

If I wanted massive blocks, I'd play goblins or skaven.

This is why I'm starting ogres, although I still don't see them being able to stand up to large blocks.

They can be tarpitted, but they won't lose combat and you'll do your best to have them buffed. You can run a large block yourself. Expensive, I know, just keep a dispel scroll at the ready and your dispel dice in reserve for the dwellers/purple sun and you should be fine. Can run leadbelchers on the side of the large block for shootyness and flank duty, and that tarpit unit isn't going to last long.

Poison/sniper Maneaters take the steam out of your opponents' mages pretty quickly, as well.

(could go on singing the OK praises for several pages, but I'll stop here)

Haha, I think I'm glad I stepped in this latest version of the game ^^

I truly like my army the way I play it: highly mobile, death from a distance and combat-less. I need to say that I see games where there are only great blocks of infantry slamming into eachother, but I don't want to play that way, so I try to make my version of the game work. And because the variety of units and armies is great enough to do that, I do that.

Even though horde armies are common now, the game is still based mostly on tactical movement and strategic army building. I LOVE 8e.

I'll just add that some units should be fielded as hordes and some shouldn't. There is no way that you can apply a blanket statement about unit size to this game.

Do your infantry models cost 5-6 points apiece? Then you are almost certainly going to need 40 to field a functional unit. Your initiative and armor save is likely low, and your offensive output is weak. You'll win a combat by holding and grinding. These units were unplayable in 7th edition. Steadfast made these units good.

Do your infantry models cost 11-15 points? Then there is something special about them. And they don't need 40 to be functional. Either a combination of high initiative and high damage output, or extreme survivability and natural stubborn/unbreakable makes you functional with less models. 20-30 will work here.

Do your infantry models cost 15+? Then you are likey high toughness, good armor AND excellent damage output. Either that or you have an absolute gang-buster special ability that erases any need for 'ablative wounds'. These units are usually run from 12-20.

When the double digit cost units run 40+, they call that a 'death star'. It is a choice, and a seemingly powerful choice to new players, but it has a multitude of weaknesses. Magic is only one such weakness. Interestingly enough, armies with many quick skirmishing units can wreak absolute havoc on big death stars. Not by actually defeating them, but by redirecting, slowing and stalling them so significantly, that the rest of their army gets dismantled while they try and get their 600+ point unit to bear.

If you want to play successfully, but you want units of 20 or so models max, then play elves. Dark, high and wood elves have no need of steadfast. In fact, steadfast is just prohibitively expensive for their good units to achieve. Think in these terms. You don't need steadfast if you are built to win combats, and unless you are fighting against a death star, the only units with the quality to actually beat you with combat resolution will not be running with 8+ ranks.

Cav, monsters, archers, war machines, all have their place in 8th. They are all just different ways to support infantry now. Wood elves and bretonnians are really suffering now, because their army books are full of units that support infantry block combat, but neither of them have even half-decent infantry blocks.

And anyone who is thinking 7th was somehow more tactical has managed to forget the pure garbage that was ASF on the charge. Only first rank gets to fight, and not if they died, and fear auto-break. The game was not about flank charging at all. A front charge on turn 2 with any half decent cav unit into literally anything was a near guaranteed break.

No GW game is competitively balanced and tested. If you want to 'break' 40k or fantasy, with just a little bit of skill (or some internet search skills) you can. It is a beer and pretzel game, says so right in the warhammer rulebook.

Is 8th better than 7th? Hell yes. Is steadfast what 'breaks' fantasy? Nope. Can you play and win with infantry blocks smaller than 40? Depends on the army book.

I play a lot of fantasy with High Elves and Daemons. I've only ever taken horrors in a 40 block, just to have a lvl 4 in a lordless list.

DAemons work great in units of 30. 6 Wide, 5 deep. with the correct matchup the right augment/hex and it's game over.

Elves play almost the same way but look prettier, and die easier. but have much easier acces to a lvl 4

But shep calls it out very very well.