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.

I don't want deathstars to go away. I don't want herohammer to go away. I don't want all cav, gunlines, heavy magic, big stompy, or MSU elite armies to go away. I just want them to be on equal footing with horde and block armies. I know it will never happen, but I really want a large variety of viable army types.

I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

I would say the only thing about Fantasy I don't like now is the lack of game play options. We've created our own, which isn't hard. But when the basic game is just annihilation, it gets rather bogged down. Objectives, Capture the Flag, Annihilation, etc would infuse and give different strategies to different scenarios.

I'd like to see rank bonus get modified so you get +1 for the 2nd rank, +2 for the 3rd rank and +3 for the 4th rank. This wouldn't have much of an effect on big ranked units fighting each other, but would make it much harder for small units and characters to run through a unit by itself.

bbb wrote:I'd like to see rank bonus get modified so you get +1 for the 2nd rank, +2 for the 3rd rank and +3 for the 4th rank. This wouldn't have much of an effect on big ranked units fighting each other, but would make it much harder for small units and characters to run through a unit by itself.

Yes rank bonus needs a run through but not like that, that would make it too powerful. I think generally the main factors should be the models you killed and outnubering. Perhaps you get 2+ for outnumbering by 5.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

I'm with you on that. It makes sense. O&G are normally the first book they re-release.

One thing I'd like to see which won't happen because it will mean selling a few less models, is to change the 5-wide for rank bonus rule. I understand why they want it like that (other than for model sales) but I think it should be dependent upon base size. So, 20mm = 5 wide, 25mm = 4 wide. And maybe the ogre sized stuff (40mm?) could be 3 wide?

Not everyone likes big blocks of troops. I'd rather have a variety of 20 man units over less units in bigger blocks.

Eldar Own wrote:

bbb wrote:I'd like to see rank bonus get modified so you get +1 for the 2nd rank, +2 for the 3rd rank and +3 for the 4th rank. This wouldn't have much of an effect on big ranked units fighting each other, but would make it much harder for small units and characters to run through a unit by itself.

Yes rank bonus needs a run through but not like that, that would make it too powerful. I think generally the main factors should be the models you killed and outnubering. Perhaps you get 2+ for outnumbering by 5.

it would be very powerful early in the game, but after 6 wounds the typical 4 ranks x 5 wide unit will have the benefits taken away.

I think one of the main issues with making WHFB an objective type game is the fact it is 25mm on a 6x4 table. This may in part be due to my 15mm wargaming background, but I have found that objective games generally require two main things:

1: A moderately large number of units, such that the concept of flanks and reserves has meaning beyond 2 units on the left, two on the right and one in the back.
2: A playing space large enough that most units need to move to interact with other units, forcing a trade off between action and movement, such that movement becomes a strategy.

Now, I don't know that WHFB can't do this. I certainly haven't played enough of it to know. However I have seen similar issues with other 25mm or greater wargames played on a small space. Without having lots of room to maneuver, big blocks of troops have little to do other than smash into each other, and without having lots of units to maneuver there are very few possible decisions to make on what gets moved where. (The very open terrain of WHFB exacerbates things too perhaps)

Personally, I would think an 8'x5' table would be needed for things to really work, as well as allowing for more units and more turns perhaps. Of course, at that point you are signing up for 4-5 hour games, and most people might not be up for that.

Necros wrote:One thing I'd like to see which won't happen because it will mean selling a few less models, is to change the 5-wide for rank bonus rule. I understand why they want it like that (other than for model sales) but I think it should be dependent upon base size. So, 20mm = 5 wide, 25mm = 4 wide. And maybe the ogre sized stuff (40mm?) could be 3 wide?

Not everyone likes big blocks of troops. I'd rather have a variety of 20 man units over less units in bigger blocks.

My thoughts are the same, I play Chaos Warriors and it is really hard to win with only the normal ttacks and wounds, the need to go back to ranks of 4.

16 Saurus in a box? Too bad, now you just have to get another 4 Saurus to make it usable!
This pisses me off. Change the rank bonus rules and a couple of other rules and I'm happy.
Not that I wouldn't be happy now but still

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

Games Workshop FAQ

Orcs & Goblins wrote:ERRATA Page 25. Fanatics, add to the Special Rules: "Immune to psychology"

Minsc wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I want fanatics to be immune to psychology....

Games Workshop FAQ

Orcs & Goblins wrote:ERRATA Page 25. Fanatics, add to the Special Rules: "Immune to psychology"

Wow! That was fast!

Fanatics are listed as immune to psyche in my O&G book.

My first reaction was "whaa...it's too soon!" but then I looked it up and realized that 7th Ed. came out in September 2006, and that four years was a pretty good stretch. Unlike many people here apparently I was the only way around and only played one game of 4th Ed. 40K but played 7th Ed. WHFB pretty regularly. But I don't see how the game is going to be any more of a rules adjustment than 6-to-7 was.

They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Broken army lists are a problem with that army, not the core rules, and should be fixed in that armies codex. No need to reboot the entire system.

Hollismason wrote:They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Hollismason wrote:They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

Untrue.
You are actually hard pressed using the daemon army book to make a 'poor build' and instead are presented with a great many powerful builds and then some super-powered builds. Dwarves on the other hand, Beasts and Ogres are all fairly hard pressed to create a decently competitive build.

There is an unbalance between daemons and the rest of the armies.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

MDG, I appreciate your position as a servant of two masters here, but look at 40k: there are a half dozen nasty builds, with another dozen solid builds. Over half the codices have something that can truly compete. That's simply not true of fantasy.

It's a fine line between a person "being a dick" and taking the self evidently good choices in a book. How hard would it be to have a dozen competitive players spend a long weekend with an army book and find the broken, so they can tone it down.

Quirky things like Nob bikers (which really only got good with an edition shift) are one thing, in that they took a while for the community to discover and break. Fantasy books come with the good stuff readily apparent, and it simply isn't too much to ask for GW to catch some of that stuff.

Modquisition on. Politeness is required here people. Callign people names, even generic players ist verbotten. Lets move off it shall we.

It still comes down to an Army Book thing and not a Core Rules thing. If all armies were on par with each other the system would be great. I'm fortunate that my gaming group has an unwritten rule when it comes to power builds (so I won't bring my Popemobile if you don't bring your Regenerating Grave Guard Deathstar) and even O&G can compete with the other armies.

It is silly that the Daemon book is as broken as it is. It's even sillier that it won't likely be changed for the next several years.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Hollismason wrote:They should do for fantasy what they did for 40k 3rd edition and just do a complete reset. Honestly the game is terrible to play its not any fun at all.

That's not to say I do not enjoy Fantasy I enjoy what the rules were in the GEnerals Companion and Warbands. That was a fething blast.

I really wish they would take a cue from Warmaster allowing mixed units etc..


It'd like to be able to take Heavy armour units up front supported by spearmen in the rear.


The game overall is broken though with Chaso Daemons and some codexes being just ridiculously overpowered.

Speak for yourself about the reset.

The game is simply not broken. At all. Some Army Books have truly filthy builds, sure. But most lists are fine to play against, and each offers it's own subtly different challenge. Whilst I would love to see books without the super-filthy builds, I find 9 times out 10, it's the person taking the list being a dick.

Untrue.
You are actually hard pressed using the daemon army book to make a 'poor build' and instead are presented with a great many powerful builds and then some super-powered builds. Dwarves on the other hand, Beasts and Ogres are all fairly hard pressed to create a decently competitive build.

There is an unbalance between daemons and the rest of the armies.

First up, and this is a general thing rather than to yourself specifically, but I do not post speaking from my position of employment. My opinions are my own, and nobody elses. I don't flaunt it, so please don't reference it yourselves. It's rude, and somewhat condescending to suggest that due to a part-time job, my opinion is somehow less valid.

Now, to business.

I have honestly never had a problem with Daemons of Chaos. I've spanked them, they've spanked me, and everything in between. I thoroughly enjoyed every single game I had. Daemons do have some weak builds, due to the generally high points costs, variances in movement etc. But like every list in my personal experience (barring silly stuff like all Snotlings!) can be just as deadly in the hands of a competent player.

The books and the game are simply not written with competitive play in mind. The game always has been designed around the models, rather than the rules. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to consider competitive play, but the danger there is going too far and restricting background based builds. For example, any kind of unit type ratio (ala previous Skaven 'mainstay') would render for instance, my all Savage Orc List useless, because as it's monicker suggests, it consists of 100% Frenzied troops.

And on the subject of Competitive Play (remember though, I don't partake of this angle of the Hobby) it has always struck me that certain lists are derided for doing well in a Competitive setting. This seems a bit, well, confusing to me. If I took a Daemon list which was naughty in the right places, and placed well in a Tournament, rather than be applauded for my list writing and generalship, I would instead be lambasted for almost borderline cheating. Surely if you are going into a Competitive Environment, you should expect balls out play, and do so yourself. I genuinely believe that the vast majority of gamers can arrange 'friendly' games with their opponents. Now due to Geographical Situations (like being the only gamer for a hundred miles, to give an example) I have no doubt some poor souls have no real venue to play at other than organised events. But again, there is nothing stopping them 'gunning up' for serious competitive play.

And thus I feel the problem lies with the players. My local club is quite Tournament Oriented, but having had a bit of a whinge, I made it clear that when I play a game, let me know in advance what level you hope to play at. Give and Take on both sides, and everyone is happy. After all, if you really feel the need to tackle a naughty level Tournament list, I'll wheel out the Double Hydra List I've had for 6 years, and give you a run for your money. But if I have no game arranged, and I've brought my Savage Orcs, please meet me with a list not designed for the Competitive Arena, or at the very least, a list for Tournaments which is as yet untested.

Variety is the spice of life, and the same is true of gaming.

I think the happy medium here is to run 'dual usage' Tournaments. For those of us who prefer a gentle meander through the blood soaked battlefields, have a non-placed section, where you just pick a fight and see what happens, whilst elsewhere in the venue, is a Traditional Tournament for those who enjoy the edge of competitive play.

Yerk! Sorry, initial part of my post was referring to Polonius. Guess I quoted the wrong bit!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

First up, and this is a general thing rather than to yourself specifically, but I do not post speaking from my position of employment. My opinions are my own, and nobody elses. I don't flaunt it, so please don't reference it yourselves. It's rude, and somewhat condescending to suggest that due to a part-time job, my opinion is somehow less valid.

Easy killer, I was simply pointing out that it's very unlikely that a GW staff member is going to say "yes, Demons of Chaos are utterly broken and clearly were barely playtested." If you generally post like a company man, and you are, in fact, a company man, I don't think it's totally out of line to point that out. I've been a company guy before, when I sold swimming pools, so I understand your position.

The books and the game are simply not written with competitive play in mind. The game always has been designed around the models, rather than the rules. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to consider competitive play, but the danger there is going too far and restricting background based builds. For example, any kind of unit type ratio (ala previous Skaven 'mainstay') would render for instance, my all Savage Orc List useless, because as it's monicker suggests, it consists of 100% Frenzied troops.

For example, the paragraph above could be from a "Standard Bearer" article.

And on the subject of Competitive Play (remember though, I don't partake of this angle of the Hobby) it has always struck me that certain lists are derided for doing well in a Competitive setting. This seems a bit, well, confusing to me. If I took a Daemon list which was naughty in the right places, and placed well in a Tournament, rather than be applauded for my list writing and generalship, I would instead be lambasted for almost borderline cheating. Surely if you are going into a Competitive Environment, you should expect balls out play, and do so yourself. I genuinely believe that the vast majority of gamers can arrange 'friendly' games with their opponents. Now due to Geographical Situations (like being the only gamer for a hundred miles, to give an example) I have no doubt some poor souls have no real venue to play at other than organised events. But again, there is nothing stopping them 'gunning up' for serious competitive play.

You're lack of experience with the competitive scene shows, to be honest. Competitive players don't want one good list in one army book, they want a range of options, and they certainly don't want insanely obvious good choices.

And thus I feel the problem lies with the players.

Isn't the the GW motto?

My local club is quite Tournament Oriented, but having had a bit of a whinge, I made it clear that when I play a game, let me know in advance what level you hope to play at. Give and Take on both sides, and everyone is happy. After all, if you really feel the need to tackle a naughty level Tournament list, I'll wheel out the Double Hydra List I've had for 6 years, and give you a run for your money. But if I have no game arranged, and I've brought my Savage Orcs, please meet me with a list not designed for the Competitive Arena, or at the very least, a list for Tournaments which is as yet untested.

Variety is the spice of life, and the same is true of gaming.

I hear all that, and I'm much the same way, but wouldn't it be nice if you could, instead of bring two totally different armies, be able to bring 3000pts of O&G that can be either a 2k fun list or a 2k hard list? I can do that with most 40k armies....

I think the happy medium here is to run 'dual usage' Tournaments. For those of us who prefer a gentle meander through the blood soaked battlefields, have a non-placed section, where you just pick a fight and see what happens, whilst elsewhere in the venue, is a Traditional Tournament for those who enjoy the edge of competitive play.

Yerk! Sorry, initial part of my post was referring to Polonius. Guess I quoted the wrong bit!

I like that idea. There are a lot of ways to work about GW producing wildly unbalanced army books, and I think people are willing to do that, but I still think it's fair to simply ask GW to not produce wildly unbalanced army books. I mean, I had an old Ford Escort in which the air blower didn't work unless the passenger kicked under the dash. It was an easy thing to work around, but it was still better when the blower simply worked right.

I see where you're coming from, and I do agree to some extent.

You might have affected the context with where you split my post up though (unintentionally I'm sure). Made the point of illustrating my lack of Competitive Experience so people had a framework of where my thinking was coming from, before just jumping on my lack of knowledge in an area I feely admit to not really knowing that much about.

Did come across a little heavy handed in the first bit though. Was meant to be a polite request to not bring up what I consider an irrelevant bit of information. Besides, this has always been my attitude and viewpoint! :thumbs:

It is still a well-known fact that you work for Games Workshop, and if you posted disparaging remarks about the company, you could concievably be fired.

Well MDG has been posting for awhile and his attitude was exactly the same before he worked for GW so while Polonius and Skyth are correct, I don't think it has any bearing on this discussion.

Also Skyth, I don't think MDG has posted his real name or the store he works for anywhere, there is a bit of anonymity so he can post what he thinks without worrying about rebuke irl.

I could concievably be fired for many things I might say on the Interwebs. Being rude to customers etc isn't exactly conducive to business.

So please folks, don't go just bringing it up. If you have a question for me revolving around it, please please please do it over PM.