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.

Kalamadea wrote:I find most games are more tactical at smaller scale where you can't just buy everything you want and throw dice at whatever you want to die until it does, then throw dice at the next thing till it dies.

That said, 'too small' a game favors most heavily whatever faction/codex has the most powerful 'required' models.

Chaos doesn't mind making a 500 pt list. Neither do SW or most other Marines. Necrons go 'DURRRR????'.

Although this debate could go on forever, I would say that the 'right' size for 40k is 1750 to 2000.

For Warmahordes, I think the right size is 50. Although 35 is probably the most common, 50 is the size for events and appears to be the level that PP balanced for and treats as 'standard'.
Anything materially below 35 is about who has the most powerful warcaster/feat.

Of course, the opposite of that is that in smaller games a few unlucky dice rolls can deprive you of a significant part of your army, leading to an inevitable and inexorable tipping of t he balance in your opponent's favor.

PhantomViper wrote:

You are saying that you like Steadfast because it means that an ubber lord from 4th edition Herohammer can't kill your units? Really? That is you whole argument in favour of steadfast?

And you could always use terrain in your favour, as a matter of fact, terrain has a lot less impact in the game now than it did in previous editions, especially for Wood Elves. I would in fact argue that the impact that terrain has in the game currently is preacticaly 0 (zero).

Correct, when you outnumber something you usually don't lose morale as easy. It also balances the units at the core, so you rely more on the core of your army, and not how much you can cheese out a hero/lord with items and magic. Terrain now has magical properties, and effects. Negative and positive, and they can really change the outcome of the game. The tower that causes frenzy and hatred. makes block units even more effective. If you can occupy and keep your opponent from over 6 inches away you get the advantage. Terrain has a much larger impact than it ever did, because now it does all sorts of crazy things, which also makes movement even more of a tactical decision.

The largest tactical devision you can make in WHFB is movement? Really? When your charge distance is defined by a dice roll? When charging isn't nearly as important as it was before? When harassment models don't have nearly the same effect in the game that they used to have?

Yes, because of the free wheel, and how you can now close the gap once you make base to base contact. You have to really think about movement, and anticipate your opponents moves. There is some risk involved due to the dice rolls, but you can always average out what it would be and go from there. I have seen movement really screw people over in WHFB because if you leave a gap and I expand it, your charge distance is now even further, and your chances of rolling the proper distance are even less. Then add in the fact of all the special effects terrain has now.

Also, if all your trucks get destroyed in the first turn on a game of 40k, then you are a lousy 40k player and I would advise you to read some of Dashs BRs so that you could pick up some tips on how to prevent such an ocurrence.

LOL, so since I lost my Trukks in one game I am horrible? We played the scenario whoever deploys first goes first. So I ran my Trukks in a line. However, my opponent at the time rolled a 6 to steal the initiative, so it is not like I wasn't playing the odds. Him, being a Tau player, had enough firepower to toss at my Trukks that I eventually failed my KFF save, and he rolled enough damage to immobilize, destroy, or otherwise take them out. If we played that scenario again, I would probably do the same thing because the odds of them rolling a 6 to seize the initiative are not going to happen that often, and then I just all out move my trukks and can assault by turn 2.

However, way to make some pretty solid assumptions there...

There was a time when WHFB was a real tactical game, where movement and placement where the things that won you games. When varied army lists with things like skirmishers and fast cavalry matered. In those days 40k was considered the "kid game" and WHFB was for more mature players. Now those roles are reversed, I just hope that 6th edition 40k doesn't make to that game what 8th edition did to Fantasy.

It still is.

Hi Folks.
As said before Kings of War is free , and nice change of pace from WHFB.
Armies of Arcana is probably worth a mention too.(As it has TWENTY THREE army lists with a provable level of balance!Like a tactical version of WHFB thats balanced for tournament play!)(I thisnk the rule book was £20 last time I looked, and the army lists were free downloads...)

However, most people trying out non GW games are pleasently suprised how much gamepaly can be achived with fewer pages of rules!(KoW is just 12 pages of rules!)

If WWII takes your fancy.FoW is a great way to get into this period .

Have a good old look around, and start enjoying the wider table top minature game hobby.
I am sure you will be pleasantly suprised!

marielle wrote:

Cutlass for my Pirate fix.

Star Mogual for Sci-Fi

RAFM's USX line for Modern Horror.

Dr Who Miniatures for.... DR WHO.

There are a few Pulp games for Pulp. ( Rattrap, Pulp figures, etc.)

Golgo Island and a number of others for some campy stuff.

Pulp City, and Superfigs for my Superhero gaming.

Blackwater Gultch, and some other cowboys and indians games for that wild west thing.

And pretty much anything else I want to get into without being tied down.

Warmahordes is OK. These are better.

Which is a long winded way of saying that you have no opinion...

I don't see how you came up with that, unless your just trying to be clever.

I've got 101 other options to GW's Bullgak, then the average bear.
People are drinking hard kool-aid over Warmahordes, I tasted it earier in its life, and didn't like the taste.
Still got it all, but it isn't the be-all and end-all miniatures game alternative to GW, either.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, I've given up playing Warhammer Fantasy, not because of some GW protest, but because I came to the conclusion that after x amount of games, it's not really up to much. The other day I won a game simply because I hold two 6's to get a spell off, which destroyed a unit, and panicked three others into fleeing the board. Other games I've lost because of an uber -powerful unit, or a jammy spell cast. Where's the skill?

Welcome to 4th edition fantasy......Wheee, I play the ultimate magic card, get off that cool spell, you lose 2 units, or half your army. I saw this a long way off. 8th edition fantasy SO reminds me of 4th edition fantasy, only with dice instead of power cards.

sourclams wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:I find most games are more tactical at smaller scale where you can't just buy everything you want and throw dice at whatever you want to die until it does, then throw dice at the next thing till it dies.

That said, 'too small' a game favors most heavily whatever faction/codex has the most powerful 'required' models.

Chaos doesn't mind making a 500 pt list. Neither do SW or most other Marines. Necrons go 'DURRRR????'.

Although this debate could go on forever, I would say that the 'right' size for 40k is 1750 to 2000.

For Warmahordes, I think the right size is 50. Although 35 is probably the most common, 50 is the size for events and appears to be the level that PP balanced for and treats as 'standard'.
Anything materially below 35 is about who has the most powerful warcaster/feat.

The 500 pt Combat patrol style of playing in my region seems to satisfy the complaint of being "too small". No GW plans are large games on a 4x6 table. Other companies are IMHO taking into limitations of size of army and size of game area to play that army.

aerethan wrote:I've played since 2000 and I'll likely play another 11 years. Then again I play mostly against my wife so if we don't like how something plays then we just house rule it to fit our style.


I think that any game can get stale after a while. Fantasy is much different than it was 2 editions ago, and this will likely be the case 2 editions from now. Right now magic plays a major role. That may change next edition.

40k is just point and shoot "Hey look my gun is bigger I win".

Then again my distaste for 40k mostly comes from the amount of young people who are too immature for my taste and I've noticed that many more 40k armies are bare plastic than fantasy ones.

Thats pretty inaccurate TBH. 40K is far more complex then I have the biggest gun. APOC maybe, but not 40k

KingCracker wrote:

aerethan wrote:I've played since 2000 and I'll likely play another 11 years. Then again I play mostly against my wife so if we don't like how something plays then we just house rule it to fit our style.


I think that any game can get stale after a while. Fantasy is much different than it was 2 editions ago, and this will likely be the case 2 editions from now. Right now magic plays a major role. That may change next edition.

40k is just point and shoot "Hey look my gun is bigger I win".

Then again my distaste for 40k mostly comes from the amount of young people who are too immature for my taste and I've noticed that many more 40k armies are bare plastic than fantasy ones.

Thats pretty inaccurate TBH. 40K is far more complex then I have the biggest gun. APOC maybe, but not 40k

I agree, but 40K has a ton of balance issues. I really wish GW would go to an action point based system similar to warzone. It would need balancing tweaks but I think that overall is the best strategic gaming system for a modern warfare game. 40K is more about risk assessment, and assaulting. Assaulting is huge, since you can assault after you shoot, which allows you to put the whoop on someone. I still don't like the phase based game play in high action science fiction games as much as I like the action point system.

40K 2nd edition was all about cheesing out your characters, not so much in 5th.

2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade".

I was always ok with my friends putting as much of their army into one guy as they good. It made "pick that gak up and get it off the table" much more satisfying.

To answer the OP, I was looking at WHFB just before 8th edition. If I had not been otherwise occupied when 6th hit, that might have brought me back (I was entirely out of miniatures games at that point). I was sort of hoping for a return to something like 6th, but what 8th ended up as is not for me. So instead of WHFB, I started with a few other games (in addition WM/H, which was what got me back into miniatures gaming).

Worglock wrote:2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade"

...carried by an Imperial Assassin...on a bike...that could Dodge the Vortex grenade after intentionally fumbling it....sigh...

On WM/H points levels, 35 pts and 50 pts are the levels that I feel work best for competitive play. BB is in a class of its own; good for the beginning player. 15 pts and 25 pts are not necessarily about who has the best feat (although 15 pts sometimes look a lot like that), but it limits your possible builds. In 15/25 pts you are building very simple, one-trick-pony style lists (a bit less so with the Mangled Metal format) and certain warcasters/warlocks, whose abilities scale up, are not all that good. At 35 you feel a bit strapped for points when designing armies (which is an exercise all of its own, and one of the reasons I love 35 pts games), at 50 pts you can build very interesting lists with a lot of freedom. At 75 pts you feel spoiled...especially when coming from 35 pts.

I can't really comment on 100+ multicaster games in Mk2.

Crom wrote:
Correct, when you outnumber something you usually don't lose morale as easy. It also balances the units at the core, so you rely more on the core of your army, and not how much you can cheese out a hero/lord with items and magic. Terrain now has magical properties, and effects. Negative and positive, and they can really change the outcome of the game. The tower that causes frenzy and hatred. makes block units even more effective. If you can occupy and keep your opponent from over 6 inches away you get the advantage. Terrain has a much larger impact than it ever did, because now it does all sorts of crazy things, which also makes movement even more of a tactical decision.

You do realize I was beeing sarcastic, right? You do realize there where two editions called 6th and 7th that had already solved the "Herohammer" issue, right?

You do realize that terrain having random properties REMOVES tactics from the game, because, once again you are taking control away from the players and deciding even more stuff on dice rolls, right?

Crom wrote:
Yes, because of the free wheel, and how you can now close the gap once you make base to base contact. You have to really think about movement, and anticipate your opponents moves. There is some risk involved due to the dice rolls, but you can always average out what it would be and go from there. I have seen movement really screw people over in WHFB because if you leave a gap and I expand it, your charge distance is now even further, and your chances of rolling the proper distance are even less. Then add in the fact of all the special effects terrain has now.

You already had the free wheel in 6th edition and no, now you don't have to think and antecipate your opponents moves because with these crappy rules, even if you make the most terrible movement and placement possible and your opponent is a tactical genius and moves and places his units perfectly, you can still solve everything if you get lucky and roll the 2 right dice. And before you say that combat is also solved by dice rolling: in combat you usually roll alot more dice wich causes fewer "odd" results like all 6's and all 1's.

Crom wrote:
LOL, so since I lost my Trukks in one game I am horrible? We played the scenario whoever deploys first goes first. So I ran my Trukks in a line. However, my opponent at the time rolled a 6 to steal the initiative, so it is not like I wasn't playing the odds. Him, being a Tau player, had enough firepower to toss at my Trukks that I eventually failed my KFF save, and he rolled enough damage to immobilize, destroy, or otherwise take them out. If we played that scenario again, I would probably do the same thing because the odds of them rolling a 6 to seize the initiative are not going to happen that often, and then I just all out move my trukks and can assault by turn 2.

However, way to make some pretty solid assumptions there...

You really don't get it do you? Yes, because you failed to plan your deployment for the very real possibility that your opponent could steal the initiative from you, you are a bad 40k player, or at least not a very good one. That kind of thing will happen in 1 out of 6 games, its not that far fetched. Go read some tournament reports from some decent 40k players and more often then not they will tell you that the deployment that they made was not the best deployment possible, but that they took into consideration the possibility that their opponent could steal the initiative.

THAT is tactical thinking.

Crom wrote:

There was a time when WHFB was a real tactical game, where movement and placement where the things that won you games. When varied army lists with things like skirmishers and fast cavalry matered. In those days 40k was considered the "kid game" and WHFB was for more mature players. Now those roles are reversed, I just hope that 6th edition 40k doesn't make to that game what 8th edition did to Fantasy.

It still is.

No it isn't.

Worglock wrote:2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade"..

Mrs. Virus Grenade was way cooler.

I myself fall into the "love 8th edition camp." Here's why:

Things I hated in 6th/7th.

1) My models never felt like they were fighting. Paint 20-25 guys up, usually have 5-6 attacks tops, and very often 2-3 (after kills.) Never had incentive to build a regiment beyond 30 guys, even for races that were "horde style" (skaven, goblins...)

2) Psychology was way to powerful. Game could flip in favour after a few failed Panic/Terror tests.

3) Large monsters/characters on monsters could easily break a unit in one charge. Why buy and paint a regiment when they can be taken out so easily?

4) Terrain was a female dog. Avoid at all costs. Failed charge into a wood? Say goodbye to that unit, you'll never see them again.

5) Constant arguing in top table tournaments about how far a wheel was during a critical charge (not the free wheel that closes the door.)

6) Gross imbalances in army books. Many tournaments having to give handicaps to "low tier" armies like Ogres and Orcs (as much as 25% extra points!)

7) No missions. Always pitched battle. 2 editions of JUST pitched battle (except for tournament play.)

About steadfast:

As you can probably tell, I'm heavily in favour of this rule. When I think of Warhammer Fantasy, I think of armies and regiments charging into battle. Steadfast encourages players to take large regiments, which IMO should be a iconic image of Fantasy.

Ways around steadfast:

Vortexes.
Spells that target every model in a regiment.
De-steadfasting them with woods or your own deep regiment.
Tying them up with a small elite unit or a Monster with at least a 4+ save.
Blast/Template weapons.

My 2 cents. Good gaming!

Zoned wrote:I myself fall into the "love 8th edition camp." Here's why:

Things I hated in 6th/7th.

1) My models never felt like they were fighting. Paint 20-25 guys up, usually have 5-6 attacks tops, and very often 2-3 (after kills.) Never had incentive to build a regiment beyond 30 guys, even for races that were "horde style" (skaven, goblins...)

2) Psychology was way to powerful. Game could flip in favour after a few failed Panic/Terror tests.

3) Large monsters/characters on monsters could easily break a unit in one charge. Why buy and paint a regiment when they can be taken out so easily?

4) Terrain was a female dog. Avoid at all costs. Failed charge into a wood? Say goodbye to that unit, you'll never see them again.

5) Constant arguing in top table tournaments about how far a wheel was during a critical charge (not the free wheel that closes the door.)

6) Gross imbalances in army books. Many tournaments having to give handicaps to "low tier" armies like Ogres and Orcs (as much as 25% extra points!)

7) No missions. Always pitched battle. 2 editions of JUST pitched battle (except for tournament play.)

About steadfast:

As you can probably tell, I'm heavily in favour of this rule. When I think of Warhammer Fantasy, I think of armies and regiments charging into battle. Steadfast encourages players to take large regiments, which IMO should be a iconic image of Fantasy.

Ways around steadfast:

Vortexes.
Spells that target every model in a regiment.
De-steadfasting them with woods or your own deep regiment.
Tying them up with a small elite unit or a Monster with at least a 4+ save.
Blast/Template weapons.

My 2 cents. Good gaming!

This sums it up for me really.

Add to this the following issues with 6th and 7th edition -

1) Chargers always striking first, casualties stopping attacks from the front rank. Take 1 elite unit of calvary and laugh at the horder when you obliterate the front rank, win by default and run it down. Welcome to the Chaos Knight or VC Blood Knight death star.

2) Power dice being linked to caster levels, dispel dice the same - got an army with lots of cheap casters and PD generation? Magic phase is yours. GG. I think a friend summed it up with the old Hordes of Chaos army book with his 26 power dice 1500 point army. Just a wee bit ridiculous if you ask me.

I haven't stopped playing Warhammer Fantasy, but I have stopped caring about it to any appreciable degree. I know that 7th Edition had some serious problems with power builds and over-the-top armies, but it also rewarded players that were able to maneuver and control the battlefield. I miss being able to hit units in the flank and actually have it matter, or use my fast cavalry to encircle an opponent's force and put them in a real tricky situation should their battle lines break. Eighth Edition is just too straight forward and dice-based for my liking, so while I still enjoy the models, I don't really feel any need to pay attention to the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aerethan wrote:

40k is just point and shoot "Hey look my gun is bigger I win".

Says the guy who has clearly never played a single game of Warhammer 40k, ever. Not only is this gross over-simplification, it's just outright inaccurate. Take your bias elsewhere.

Zoned wrote:I myself fall into the "love 8th edition camp." Here's why:

Things I hated in 6th/7th.

1) My models never felt like they were fighting. Paint 20-25 guys up, usually have 5-6 attacks tops, and very often 2-3 (after kills.) Never had incentive to build a regiment beyond 30 guys, even for races that were "horde style" (skaven, goblins...)

This is a mater of taste, so fair enough. I don't understand how you could possibly think that HAVING to put together and paint 30+ exactly the same models to be competitive is a good thing, but kudos if you do.

Zoned wrote:
2) Psychology was way to powerful. Game could flip in favour after a few failed Panic/Terror tests.

This is a gross exageration. And most armies with low Ld had various ways of making up for it.

Zoned wrote:
3) Large monsters/characters on monsters could easily break a unit in one charge. Why buy and paint a regiment when they can be taken out so easily?

This is an outright lie. Charging a fully ranked unit means that you would need to kill 6 models to even win combat by 1. How many monsters / chars could kill 6 models regularly?

Zoned wrote:
4) Terrain was a female dog. Avoid at all costs. Failed charge into a wood? Say goodbye to that unit, you'll never see them again.

Wich mean't that terrain actually counted for something, and you could even use it to help get rid of all those "scary" units that you disliked so much. But that would mean that you actually had to think to win the game, right?

Zoned wrote:
5) Constant arguing in top table tournaments about how far a wheel was during a critical charge (not the free wheel that closes the door.)

Unless you guys are talking about some diferent free wheel that I'm misunderstanding, the free wheel after charge has existed from as far back as 6th edition...

Zoned wrote:
6) Gross imbalances in army books. Many tournaments having to give handicaps to "low tier" armies like Ogres and Orcs (as much as 25% extra points!)

That only realy hapened after the Daemon army book. If you take that away, the Fantasy has as many imbalances now as it had in 6th/7th.

Zoned wrote:
7) No missions. Always pitched battle. 2 editions of JUST pitched battle (except for tournament play.)

You're right on this one, but 1 good thing does not a good edition makes, much like the Daemon army book doesn't mean that 7th edition was a bad one.

Zoned wrote:
About steadfast:

Steadfast in one fell swoop (along with the new movement rules), killed all unit types that aren't monsters, warmachines and big old blocks of infantry. If you can't see how that is a bad thing for the game in general then I don't know how to explain it any further.

But fanboys will be fanboys. Fact is that 8th edition is destroying WHFB, it practically killed the tournament scene over here, AFAIK FoW and Warmahordes have even surpassed it in sale volume in the states. I used to have 4 WHFB armies, now I'm desperatly klinging to my surviving Dark Elves, hopping that 9th edition will bring back the game I used to love.

I stopped playing Fantasy because warriors of chaos sucked, and then they rocked, and now I think they suck again (because they have no uber monsters).

My Skaven and Dark Elf armies would do well in 8th, but from what I've seen, whoever casts Purple Sun of Xerxes first wins. Also I do not own any Hydras or Hellpit Abominations.

Besides, who wants to rank up and paint all those rats?

I've been playing various Warhammer games a long time across most of the editions. I think it's fair to identify a couple general trends in the design.

In one paradigm units and play generally stay within the framework of the core game and in the other special rules and unique exemptions define an army book or unit ability etc.

In this second paradigm things are often added with extreme variants of risk, for example: kills iteslf on a 1 on a 6 extremely effective.

Some people like this design, and think it's fun, some don't. Im in the dont category.

It seems from what I have read that this edition of WHFB is in the second design paradigm, role double 6s for magic phase and win (to the exclusion of other facets of the game) and that's where the problem lies. AT least for me a fan of the 1st design paradigm not the second.

I quit the last edition of WHFB after playing a game vs empire where a Volley gun misfired, and then shot 30 shots, killing a black dragon and rider, and causing 2 other units to flee after the morale checks. Off a MISFIRE that wasn't a game, that was a single outlandish rule.

Those kinds of games aren't fun. There wasn't any strategy, no one could account for the extreme luck. It effectively ruined the whole game because of a fluke in the rules.

While that was a rare result in the last version it seems like many games may turn out this way in the new version because of the slanted magic phase.

Perhaps some people will find that exciting, I find it random and meaningless, why set up all the troops if it's all decided by magic...?

No thank you.

Worglock wrote:2nd edition also had the "Great Equalizer" known as "Mr Vortex Grenade".

I was always ok with my friends putting as much of their army into one guy as they good. It made "pick that gak up and get it off the table" much more satisfying.

Wrong, displacement fields and dodge saved from Vortex Grenades. So, it became oh my assassin is going to win the game for me since they can dodge the vortex grenade on a 4+ and displacement fields on a 3+.....and in the old rules you could stack saves and equipment, so you could give an assassin a displacement field.

Though, Vortex grenades were ridiculous. If you didn't play an army of the Imperium and didn't have access to assassins you were just screwed. Cannot tell you how many times my hive tryant fell to vortex grenades.

The vortex grenade, at best, is a band-aid approach to fixing a broken rules system.

I nearly cried after playing 8th with my VC, and finding that Fear and Terror were slightly less than useless. Great, the backbone of the armie's effectiveness and ability to actually win combat (and not just tarpit the enemy) evaporated. Sure the magic phase is nice for VC to spam units, but at the cost of their infantry's effectiveness, no thanks.

Other then the nerfing of Fear/Terror;

1) Steadfast: Sure, large units should have a Ld bonus to represent strength in numbers. But when you build a 5 model wide, 10 rank deep unit simply to be steadfast from now till eternity, it makes a unit undefeatable without the gimmic "Hit every model" spells. Used to be that a flank/rear charge could actually cause issues with the above example, and that's exactly what was it's counter (instead of the spells). Now, unless you spam your effective heavy cav (Not an option for VC at least, and iirc prohibitively expensive for most armies apart from Empire and Brets), your flank charges are basically swinging wifflebats.

2) Magic: Yup, even as a VC player I bitch about magic. Why? Because it's gone from being too predetermined (6th and 7th ed caster spam for Power Dice) to being f-ing random. Random isn't too bad, but when a player has about a 50% chance of getting enough dice to toss off their Lvl 6 OMGWTFBBQ!1! spell of their Lore, not counting channeling and magic items, the big spells go from being "I'll be lucky if I can cast this at all this game, or I'll have to design my entire army around getting off the big spells" to "Well, I rolled a 6 and a 1 for Winds on turn 1. Say goodbye to [Insert stupidly valuable unit that would fare well against anything but this spell]"

If winds of magic was 2d3 instead of 2d6, or if steadfast meant you didn't get a Ld penalty to your break test (Instead of the unbreakable as it is atm, iirc), then I'd probably play. Until then, I'll stick with 40K (Which has its own set of wonderful, stupid issues)

darkPrince010 wrote:...40K (Which has its own set of wonderful, stupid issues)

NO WAY 40k doesn't have any issues, just last night I played against a....

oh

Grey Knights army.

Ya ok you win.

I've heard much flak against GK, but have never played them to offer my own opinion.

SW/SM/BA and their drop pod spam, on the other hand, can go jump off a cliff and die (Although half of them would land automatically at the bottom anyways).
People complain about abuse of Tau's Positional Relay army, when it's basically a drop-pod army in reverse (Around half of the army shows up on the last turn, instead of the first...)

Honestly, I find 40k a heck of a lot more boring these days. Everyone only players different flavors of MEQ or DE.

My main army is 'Nids and laboring to break open rhinos/razorbacks(or trying to even reach them through ungodly amounts of GK/SW firepower) gets boring fast.

Not to mention that playing against DE is a waste of time since any half competent player will take out your hiveguard with his 4+ Dual Cannon Venoms and 15+ Lances; and then proceed to pick your army apart from long range with ease as you shake your fist at him.

I know I'm sounding bitter, but I also play Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and GW spat in their eyes long ago as well. It just seems these days that GW hates you unless you are one of their poster-boys.

8th took everything I hated in 7th and removed it. No more shadestars, no more Hydras auto-breaking any unit they wish, no more Chaos/Bloodknights rofl stomping what ever they liked, no more alternate dimension trees(face it, any unit that ended up in terrain was out of the game), no more 8 1/2 inches shuffles daring the enemy to come into charge range. To name a few. 8th does have some issues, but it's tons better than 7th.

Viva la 8th!

Tzeentchling9 wrote:...playing against DE is a waste of time since any half competent player will take out your hiveguard with his 4+ Dual Cannon Venoms and 15+ Lances; and then proceed to pick your army apart from long range with ease as you shake your fist at him.

Seconded, I found the DE army to be completely undercosted due to poison. I had similar results in a recent game and I was playing BA versus them, they actually had enough firepower to shoot down, SAnguinary Guard FNP unit, in a turn, AND outfight all the assault squads.... Egregious codex creep.

Really, 8th is almost amazing. They just need to tone down the Winds of Magic nonsense into something a bit more reasonable (Big spells are still an option, but you can't rely on getting them without adding a lot of casters for channeling), de-nerf Fear/Terror (Maybe not to previous levels, but at least so low-Ld troops will get sorely beaten msot of the time in CC, instead of simply being WS1), and making Steadfast a bit more balanced (Become harder to break by a good degree, but not unbreakable. Perhaps +1 Ld per rank above 2 to break tests caused by lost combat, to a max of Ld10? If you lose by 2, but have 8 ranks, you'd save your Ld 5 on a 9 instead or something.)

Oh, that and everyone needs to take a lighter and burn Teklas out of every High Elf army book they can find...

I agree that the fear/terror change is sort of dumb. I like steadfast, especially on cheap horde units. In reality a unit of 5 to 10 elites won't have an easy time taking down a unit of 50+ low level core. Sure, it is possible, but it would take them several minutes to chop through the unit, and the unit itself would not be that afraid until the numbers are highly dwindled. I think it could be tweaked, but complicating it any further would be a mess.

I think that Magic needs a revamp. I play as Lizardmen, and Slann are my generals, in fact if you play LM and don't take a slann you are really putting yourself at a disadvantage. I have had spells wipe my blocks of saurus because I didn't have enough dispel dice, and I have had miscasts blow up tons of lizards.

However, in retrospect, I like the new magic system because it is also risk versus reward. Sure you can toss enough dice at a spell and get an irresistible force, but you pay the price. Since LM basically rely on the Slann to deny the enemy mage (initiative based magic is BAAAAD!) 6s and hopefully get the lizards up close enough to attack, and hopefully survive since they always attack last.

I wish you could just give them great weapons.....makes more sense that way since they always strike last anyway.

Believe it or not, some people actually like building and painting models. When you have a deadline, in can seem like a chore. But I probably set aside an hour or so a night to chip away at my developing army. After a week of work I can really see the progress, and after a month I've almost always added two or three units to my army. I find it extremely cool and rewarding. After all, I got into table top games because of the cool models in the first place. I love the game/rule/strategy, but I was initially lured in by the minis.

I also have many friends who have legions of plastic armies who complain about how much work it is to build/paint. I liken building and painting to working out. Make some time, and you'll see the results.

"2) This is a gross exageration. And most armies with low Ld had various ways of making up for it."

Really? Some armies were Ld 9 (Empire, Brets, Orcs, Ogres, Beastmen...) Failing panic is a 1 in 6 chance. Not great when a key unit ran because you effective rolled a "1."

"3) This is an outright lie. Charging a fully ranked unit means that you would need to kill 6 models to even win combat by 1. How many monsters / chars could kill 6 models regularly?"

Bloodthirsters, Hydras, HPAs...you know, the popular ones. Besides, you didn't always want to win the first round. Win/lose narrowly the turn you charge, grind away a rank, break them (hopefully) the next turn and potentially cause more havoc.

"4) Wich mean't that terrain actually counted for something, and you could even use it to help get rid of all those "scary" units that you disliked so much. But that would mean that you actually had to think to win the game, right?"

It'd be nice if you didn't have to resort to veiled insults, but hey, it's the internet, I understand.

My problem with forests in the older editions was that they did too much. They were death traps. A foot regiment goes in for whatever reason, and it never came out or took forever to get back into the game. That is too extreme, IMHO.

Forests today play a vital role: they de-steadfast your opponents. A lot of people forget this. At the club I play at, there are almost always 2-3 forests mid field, and it forces those steadfast units to move around them, since 20 guys or 50 guys get beaten just as easily in a wood.

"5) Unless you guys are talking about some diferent free wheel that I'm misunderstanding, the free wheel after charge has existed from as far back as 6th edition..."

Not the "free wheel" to close the door. The one wheel you were allowed to make when you charged. That was not free. And very often it was critical. And anal players would quibble over half an inch to an inch since it could make a difference.

"6) That only realy hapened after the Daemon army book. If you take that away, the Fantasy has as many imbalances now as it had in 6th/7th."

And VC. Dark Elves and Lizardmen were close to tier 1 back in 7th. Armies are far more balanced now in 8th, especially with the release of the Tomb Kings and Orc army books. Every army has close to a real fighting chance. Some armies are still stronger than others, but not by the margin they were in 6th/7th.

I play Cygnar and Skorne in Warmahordes. I'm building a Cryx army around Venethrax (love the model.) I find the game ok. At the end of the day, 35pt games are not the scale I enjoy, and the mechanics aren't great for beyond 50+ points. My favorite game they produce is Monsterpocalypse, since it's the exact opposite of 40k/WM and does the Monster on Monster combat very well.

More comments later as I have to go to work!

Zoned