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.

Not hypocritical?

If you play warhammer, your a nerd. You can't justify otherwise.

I see what your saying about the rules, but I've never really had arguments with people over rules. They are pretty clear to me (unlike the mess that is 40k)

Though, I will give you the Skaven Book...*shudder*

Have you checked the length of the WFB FAQ? Hardly clearer than 40k. Lets call things for what they are heh.. I like both games, but the reason I like WFB is not because I enjoy its often unbalanced rules

Both games have things that could be changed for the better but fantasy is in no way easier to read

The last 40k codex that followed the WFB style (in terms of massive amount of character/unit options and customization) was the last edition chaos space marine book.. and it required 20 pages of FAQ

It's a shame all the sacred cows are going to be left alive and kicking with this edition.

First their was rogue trader with it's individually based models. Then came the idea that you could just squish them together into blocks, but still have them fight individually.

Eight editions and 27 years later and we're still stuck there. Even though we know GW has made other rules that don't have this 80s holdover like Warmaster and War of the Ring.

Bring on more of the same I guess... sigh.

@karon: I'm a hobbyist.

If all you want is a simple game with no rules arguments, there's one just for you: it's played with two factions of Tzeentch discs fighting on a multi-colored grid field. It has TLOS and everything. In case you haven't guessed, it's checkers. Enjoy!
When it all comes down to it the hobby is here to provide adults with an excuse to play with toy soldiers. Guilty as charged!

Karon wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but Fantasy 8th is going to be much, much stranger than 7th.

Which is sad, because I REALLY like this edition...

A lot of this seems really unnecessary though... The changes to charging and magic are particularly troubling...

Well, looking forward to picking up the new rulebook though. General's edition FTW!

QFT, I really like this edition. It sounds insane, but I would rather 8th edition come out next year LOL.

Maybe that's just because I barely have tasted 7th edition yet. No, that's not it.

It's because 7th really defined the difference between 40k and fantasy.

8th looks like 40k, but with shittier weapons and magic.

Exactly. I mean, if anything's made 7th ed. crap, it's the newer Armybooks. I'm looking at you, Daemons, Dark Elves, Beastmen and Vampire Counts...

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but Fantasy 8th is going to be much, much stranger than 7th.

Which is sad, because I REALLY like this edition...

A lot of this seems really unnecessary though... The changes to charging and magic are particularly troubling...

Well, looking forward to picking up the new rulebook though. General's edition FTW!

*cough* writing-our-own-7.5th-edition *cough*

Eh, if 8th is the pooptasm it's sounding like, then I finally have no excuse to keep avoiding Infinity

- Salvage

I will be updating the first post here later, but here are the main things in the meantime:

High Elves ignore all the 3 of the same specials 2 of the same rares restrictions as they have the Elite Army special rule.

Heavy cavalry
• Unchanged. Rumour was wrong, heavy cav march as normal.

Determining Spells
• Each lore now has 7 Spells. One Basic Spell and other spells numbered 1 - 6.
• While writing the armylist, you will have to note which lore your magic users will use. You may not wait until you see the enemies forces. - I'm not sure how well that will actually work in practice...
• Next you need to see which casters can have which spells. Roll D6 and see which spell you got, similar to how it is now. Any spell can be swapped for the Basic Spell. If you roll double for a spell you have to re-roll until you have the required number for the wizard level.
• As no two spells from the rulebook Lores can be duplicated in the army (except the Basic Spell), if you want more than 1 wizard to have spells from the same lore you now have a choice to make.

Example: You have 3 wizards you want to use the Lore of Fire. A level 4, a level 3 and a level 1.

Do you give the level 4 wizard 3 spells + the Basic Spell? Or 4 spells and leave the remaining 2 spells plus the Basic Spell for the level 3 wizard? The level 1 wizard has no options other than the Basic Spell in this example, as all the other spells have already been taken.

• There are some exceptions to this way of choosing spells:
Bound spells
Spells the caster knows "naturally", eg Warrior Priests or Khemri Priests
Spells that are not rolled for but bought, i.e. Necromancers.


Flaming Sword(s) of Rhuin: Unit Buff Grants +1 to wound and flaming attacks.

Great weapons can be used in 2 ranks.

Magic Items
• Magic items – 10-20 items in each category.

Dwarfs and Daemons of Chaos do not have access to Common Magic Items. Army book values for magic items override the Rulebook if different.

Nothing there that I can't live with, even though I play every army but Skaven & Ogres. I kinda wish they'd left in the no heavy cav marching. It'd make medium cav (like Dark Riders w/shields) a more useful unit. Oh well, we aren't playing WishHammer.

I'm, well, not liking the "no duplicate spell" thing. Just sounds pointless in most instances, though I guess that's their only way to prevent armies from attempting to spam their super-spells without actually having to think about how to fix it. "Er, hey. I have a problem. See, the Skaven players can potentially cast Plague some three times in a single turn." "My god, you're right!" "Yeah, perhaps we should do something to ch-" "No spell duplications!" "Wait what?" "Thanks for pointing that out. No spell can be duplicated in a list now. Open and shut case."

Grimstonefire wrote:Parry
• The hand weapon & shield combination grants an unmodifiable 6+ Armour Save against everything in combat to the front, except against impact hits and crush them/destroy them attacks. It is not a Ward Save; it is an unmodifiable Armour Save against high strength attacks in combat that would otherwise negate armour entirely. This replaces the +1 to Armour Save gained by fighting with HW & shield.

I know this doesn't make anything better in the empire book, but i have been secretly praying that halberdiers may end being the best choice after the dust settles here. With casualties being taken from the back and with two ranks fighting, and with parry just being this piddly 6+ versus strength 5 and higher... Did halberds just pop over the WS4 swordsman in effectiveness?

Is reality emulating fluff in the lands of the elector counts?

Grimstonefire wrote:
• As no two spells from the rulebook Lores can be duplicated in the army (except the Basic Spell), if you want more than 1 wizard to have spells from the same lore you now have a choice to make.

Minsc wrote:I'm, well, not liking the "no duplicate spell" thing. Just sounds pointless in most instances, though I guess that's their only way to prevent armies from attempting to spam their super-spells without actually having to think about how to fix it. "Er, hey. I have a problem. See, the Skaven players can potentially cast Plague some three times in a single turn." "My god, you're right!" "Yeah, perhaps we should do something to ch-" "No spell duplications!" "Wait what?" "Thanks for pointing that out. No spell can be duplicated in a list now. Open and shut case."

Minsc, check the bolded part. If that part's true, Skaven and other books with unique Lores can still spam the same spell.

I had to edit out the Parry rule, it seems I misunderstood. It may be a stackable combat ward save.

Grimstonefire wrote:I had to edit out the Parry rule, it seems I misunderstood. It may be a stackable combat ward save.

And the army based off the Landsnceht goes back to being gladiator-movie rejects...

This is all really pointless until the rulebook actually comes out, but great fun nonetheless. Thank you all for letting me vent.

Great weapons can be used in 2 ranks.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!

Bestigors! Be reborn!

Parry
The hand weapon & shield combination grants a 6+ Ward Save in combat to the front only. It provides no benefit if you are attacked in the flank or rear and does not work against impact hits and crush them/destroy them attacks. This replaces the +1 to Armour Save gained by fighting with HW & shield.

As ward saves do not stack normally, you won't get any benefit from Parry if you already have a better ward save.

Ok.

So, going from the very reliable Save rumor (which makes sense), in CC, you get your armor save fighting w/ a HW/Shield, and then you get the 6+ ward save if fighting in the front.

Nice bonus, I prefer it over the +1 to armour save in CC.

Edit: Oh, but how would this work with say Warriors of Tzeentch, they already have a 6+ ward save, and if they fought w/ HW/Shield, the mark of tzeentch would be literally useless.

mark of tzeentch also gives +1 to any ward save you already have.. Id imagine it would go to a 5++

I'm not sure, though I would play it like that.

The problem there being you still need to be fighting a S6 or better foe before you make use of the 5+ Ward Save (or, if it doesn't stack, S7 or better before you start taking a 6+ ward) instead of the regular save. Something that isn't too common in WHFB. The rule gives a very limited use to some equipment combinations (for instance, Savage Orcs now gain literally nothing from a shield), but in other places can be quite helpful (When someone only has a shield or just light armor & shield, it can be used a bit more often against shock troops and cavalry).

Funnily enough, this means Parry is going to be applied most to stuff like cavalry charges and monsters instead of things you'd typically expect a parry to be used against.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Karon wrote:Pretty hypocritical of you, John, eh?

GW always does this, the more simple it is, the larger the age group it attracts, and generally invites less-intelligent people to play.

No, not really.

The clearer the rules are, the fewer ahole & dhead stuff goes on, letting people actually play vs argue.

You know, simple and clear aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. That said, I'd rather they clarify the rules without dumbing it down. While I like rolling tons of dice for certain things (like my Helblaster Volley Guns or charging Cold One Bus), everything I've seen here depresses me. Frankly, I'm on board with Salvage's 7.5-edition idea (and if you want to tag-team, let me know!). I'm reserving final judgement until I read the book, but if these rumors are to be believed, then it's not really WHFB 8.0, it's a whole new game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cryonicleech wrote:

Karon wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but Fantasy 8th is going to be much, much stranger than 7th.

Which is sad, because I REALLY like this edition...

A lot of this seems really unnecessary though... The changes to charging and magic are particularly troubling...

Well, looking forward to picking up the new rulebook though. General's edition FTW!

QFT, I really like this edition. It sounds insane, but I would rather 8th edition come out next year LOL.

Maybe that's just because I barely have tasted 7th edition yet. No, that's not it.

It's because 7th really defined the difference between 40k and fantasy.

8th looks like 40k, but with shittier weapons and magic.

Exactly. I mean, if anything's made 7th ed. crap, it's the newer Armybooks. I'm looking at you, Daemons, Dark Elves, Beastmen and Vampire Counts...

Now THAT's QFT. Power creep is doing bad things.

Sudden thought: If GW's primary motivation for the edition change is to sell models (by requiring buckets of infantry, as alleged), and we generally assume that Skaven and Beastmen were written with 8th in mind, answer this:

Why then, for both armies, did they develop new monsters with crazy abilities that everyone is playing with, and NOT make models for them? Why include a monstrosity like the Hellpit Abomination if you have no model, and the rules will largely preclude its use once you DO have a model?

Every time I see a new rumor, and combined with this new thought, I can't help but wonder if we're being intentionally BS'd by someone...

Your last point is what everyone has to keep in mind.

A lot of this could be complete bs. So judging ANYTHING now is foolish.

Judge when you read the words in the book, not stuff some bullshitter said earlier (like a guy did earlier)

Manfred von Drakken wrote:I'm reserving final judgement until I read the book, but if these rumors are to be believed, then it's not really WHFB 8.0, it's a whole new game.

I wish that were the case. I've been sitting out of fantasy for the last two editions and was hoping the new one would be up my alley. But it's not really that much of a change.

Same army books. Same basic rules. Tweaks that can be easily summarized on a page or two in White Dwarf rather than selling a whole new book.

I wouldn't call it 8.0, but 6.2.

frozenwastes wrote:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:I'm reserving final judgement until I read the book, but if these rumors are to be believed, then it's not really WHFB 8.0, it's a whole new game.

I wish that were the case. I've been sitting out of fantasy for the last two editions and was hoping the new one would be up my alley. But it's not really that much of a change.

Same army books. Same basic rules. Tweaks that can be easily summarized on a page or two in White Dwarf rather than selling a whole new book.

I wouldn't call it 8.0, but 6.2.

Are you reading the same thread I am? The changes to the movement phase add a lot of unnecessary randomness to who gets to charge. Striking in pure Initiative order removes the value of charging. The magic phase is being reduced to an afterthought, rather than either a viable tactic or (in the case of some armies) a necessity. Combat involves buckets more dice than previously allowed. Army composition up in the air.

Totally not a fan.

It's pretty obvious that this new version is heavily based on WotR. That's what confuses me though. No one can say WotR is anything other than a total flop so why would they take one of their core games and turn in into another version of that mess? Do they think the only reason people don't play WotR is because of the terrible models? Even if WotR was awesome (it's really, really not) why would you want two games with the same basic rules? It's just really weird.

The suits at GW don't think WotR is a total flop - its sold very well and encouraged people to buy lots more LotR boxes and all the movement trays.

What gamers want =/= what GW commercial dept thinks will sell well.

In all my life I've seen maybe four games of WotR played in Games Workshop stores and never anywhere else and I regularly go to one of the top selling Games Workshops and a bunker. All the hardcore LorR players in the area hated WotR since it removed the skirmish aspect they liked and "turned it into Warhammer Fantasy." I can't believe it has sold very well unless there are super secret underground WotR leagues or something. People certainly can't be buying their super expensive (even for GW), yet hideous models (a few awesome kits aside) just to have can they?

Ixquic wrote:In all my life I've seen maybe four games of WotR played in Games Workshop stores and never anywhere else and I regularly go to one of the top selling Games Workshops and a bunker. All the hardcore LorR players in the area hated WotR since it removed the skirmish aspect they liked and "turned it into Warhammer Fantasy." I can't believe it has sold very well unless there are super secret underground WotR leagues or something. People certainly can't be buying their super expensive (even for GW), yet hideous models (a few awesome kits aside) just to have can they?

Your area =/= the world.

There's a rather sizable WotR group at one of the stores around here, I assume they exist elsewhere, too.

Just because YOU don't see it played doesn't mean that's how it is elsewhere and doesn't mean it didn't sell.

Ixquic wrote:In all my life I've seen maybe four games of WotR played in Games Workshop stores and never anywhere else and I regularly go to one of the top selling Games Workshops and a bunker. All the hardcore LorR players in the area hated WotR since it removed the skirmish aspect they liked and "turned it into Warhammer Fantasy." I can't believe it has sold very well unless there are super secret underground WotR leagues or something. People certainly can't be buying their super expensive (even for GW), yet hideous models (a few awesome kits aside) just to have can they?

OT
So how do you explain all of the metal units turning into plastics? If WotR were not selling, we would see an increase in metal, and decrease in new plastics.
Currently we see the opposite, so that makes me think it must be selling well.
I think most LotR or WotR players stay home. They don't play at the shop, so you would never see them. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
If WotR was the flop you think it is, Battlehosts would not have just come out.

Also, what kits do you think are hideous? The majority look just like the stuff in the movies. And those were good designs for the most part.