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.

 Sigvatr wrote:


The book clearly shows the change of GW from a hobby company that really has the gamers in mind (the book 25$!!!!) to a money-greedy, souless company that hates gamers from the heart. The General's Compendium just oozes love for the hobby. It's such an awesome book. Man, what has GW become in the last 10 years? So sad :(

Because people arent buying miniatures as we have established?

Unless its CMoN Kickstarters

It'll be fun when 10 empire state troopers will cost $40

Heck they just stopped Online Bitz Selling, probably trying to get more people to buy from them or something

Meh, I'm done for the next few years. 1850 Necrons, 3000 pts Goblins - the next thing I'll buy is...well...idk. I won't buy the new O&G army book if it's 80+$...I guess it will either be the 9th starter or the 9th small rules book, depending on which armies are in the starter. No O&G => only buy the small rulebook.

So, back to the rules speculation:

I seriously expect big monsters to become more favoured by GW. Perhaps they will relax restrictions (i.e. 2 max per rare choice)? Disregarding cannons, their biggest problems are not being able to break steadfast, and being vulnerable to things like Death and 6th level spells. Though I doubt that they'll get rid of ways to snipe them, I can see them improving them versus Steadfast - perhaps something like monsters getting a better Thunderstomp if they charge, which can negate rank bonus and thus steadfast.

Steadfast was a direct counter to big monsters. It seems unlikely they'll simply reverse that. Because then 100 fodder units will get broken on turn one because they are never going to do as many wounds as a monster Tstomping their faces.

From an economic standpoint, lotsa little guys > one big guy. If you can get a viable 300pt in $50 they're going to make a whole lot less money on that than 6 boxes of rank and file and corresponding paints. I like to think they balance more fluffy, but it IS a business.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Steadfast was a direct counter to big monsters. .

This seems unlikely to me. Big monsters never really dominated 7th edition. I think steadfast combined with the step up rule was designed to counter cavalry and small elite infantry units from breaking large blocks of infantry.

JWhex wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Steadfast was a direct counter to big monsters. .

This seems unlikely to me. Big monsters never really dominated 7th edition. I think steadfast combined with the step up rule was designed to counter cavalry and small elite infantry units from breaking large blocks of infantry.

Correct.

Everything ran from terror big monsters and were overrun and smushed.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Everything ran from terror big monsters and were overrun and smushed.

Actually, no. Terror tests are off of leadership and even without the bsb reroll if you halfway knew what you were doing it just wasnt that big of an issue for most armies.

Demons, vampire counts, tomb kings, all immune to psychology and dont give a fig about terror

Lizardmen have cold blooded and rarely fail their panic tests, even skinks

All the elves and dwarves are high leadership armies so terror tests are not a huge threat.

Even low leadership armies could keep their main units near the general if a terror causing monster was on the board. The worst that usually would happen is that a flying terror causing monster would land near some flanking warmachines or chaff. Terror was just not that big of a deal, the hydra and abomb and bloodthirsters were dangerous for other reasons. Ground pounding terror causing monsters just did not have the movement to charge, cause a terror reaction and run down a unit with any reliability.

A lot of those rules didn't exist or were very different in 7th. It doesn't amazingly matter, but trust me, fear and terror were huge. Google it.

DukeRustfield wrote:
A lot of those rules didn't exist or were very different in 7th. It doesn't amazingly matter, but trust me, fear and terror were huge. Google it.

You dont know what you are talking about. Lizards have had cold blooded since they were re-introduced in 5th edition. Undead and demons have always been immune to psychology. Elves, and dwarves have always had high leadership. I played many games of every edition and have the seventh edition rules right in front of me. Units have been able to use the general's LD since 4th edition and there was no terror rule in 3rd.

Everything I wrote was in the context of seventh edition. Indeed fear and terror were not huge in 7th compared to 4-5th. The importance and effect of psychology tests have been reduced and dumbed down every edition starting with the transition to 6th.

I agree with JWhex, while every once and a while you'd suffer due to bad dice terror wasn't that dominant in 7th. Once a unit passed a terror test they didn't have to test again.

Fear and Terror were only really effective if you outnumbered the enemy in combat. That was the requirement for the auto breaking in combat if the fear/terror causing unit won.

I commonly see it misremembered that a terror causing monster would just kill a couple guys in that 60 strong unit and they'd auto break.

JWhex wrote:
Indeed fear and terror were not huge in 7th compared to 4-5th.

Seriously. Google. Hell, search this forum for fear and restrict it to the time period of 7th edition.

As for 4th edition, the fear there was nothing compared to the terror of seeing Mat Ward projectile vomit rusty nails* while flapping open and closed the latest DoC army book. And interestingly, neither concept has anything to do with this thread.








*I've never met Mat Ward nor seen anyone projectile vomit nails.

DukeRustfield wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Indeed fear and terror were not huge in 7th compared to 4-5th.

Seriously. Google. Hell, search this forum for fear and restrict it to the time period of 7th edition.

Seriously I dont need to Google it I was there. You said the rules I mentioned were not in seventh edition, I corrected you and all you do is repeat to Google it. I played many games with a low leadership army, Beastmen. Neither fear nor terror were that big of a deal in 7th, you are just speculating and obviously have never played 7th or you would not have made the comment earlier that the rules I mentioned were not part of 7th edition.

But seriously.

Google it.

You were there makes it sound like 'Nam. But it wasn't the battle of Chow Puk Poo. It was what the gaming community thought. Not what you thought. Because unless you're buying tens of thousands of units, you mean jack. Not sure why you're thumping your chest about this, but the BRB between 7 and 8 changed. You know, it's why it's a new edition.

Fear and Terror were a lot more important in 7th due to them actually being a threat to nearby models, often making units run. They could be game-changers, but overall, I'd say that 7th was all about Herohammer. Then again, keep in mind that both USR now appear to be a lot stronger than they might have actually been due to them being useless in 8th.

Actually I'd agree with the herogammer, VC and DE with their unkillables..

The thing about fear and terror was because it was on the STRONGEST ARMY (Daemons)

Nobody gave a feth about Ogre Kingdoms having all fear, or undead having all fear.

Ogres were pretty lousy though before their switch. They didn't have Stomp, bull charge, were expensive and their magic wasn't real magic and their casters weren't decked-out in super magic armor and such. People weren't really afraid of Ogres because they were a substandard army to begin with.

Terror just had to be near you at the start of the turn and you had to test or flee.

Don't have the old VC book but as I recall they were more expensive for not drastically better.

I think putting some polls up would be good.
Maybe even sending GW our suggestions (What the hell druchii net seemed to have some influence on the min correction in that one edition (4th or 5th I think?).

My thoughts:
Bought Terrain yes, precedence for some things like woodies with their forest and the portable tower. If it goes well they then could re-do siege as a mid cycle release and bring back some more tactical aspects of the game. Makes financial sense

Steadfast must get negated by flank or rear charges by non skirmishers, or some measure of size wounds etc. Brings back some of the tactical appeal ie movement matters.

Terrain needs to have an impact and TLOS needs to be tweaked.

Spells need major tweeking, balance the lores, magic resistance should be pluses to saves where saves are allowed, multi wound models can't be insta killed by the power spells max 1 wound to each model in the unit . The biggest one to me a miscast MUST have as big a negative consequence as the positive of not being able to dispel. Just keeping the same results table but not allowing any saves would be more balanced.

Allies makes to much financial sense for them not to do it and there is plenty of precedence also lets DOW or Mercs in.

My 2 cents. Which in Canada now would be rounded down so worthless mmmmmmmmm.

Dogs of War tend to be horrendous ideas. They are very difficult to balance. An example of a DoW in the game are Giants. Lots of armies have them, their rules and cost are pretty much identical. No one uses them. Because if they were too good, all the armies would look identical. What point is there being an OK army or O&G army if 25-50% of your forces are identical?

I'd like to see spells less random. I think the army book lores in 8th tend to be less uber. Which is a sign to come.

But for the record, 9th, according to the last few releases, wouldn't be coming out until around 2016.

Allies are almost a sure bet for 9th edition. It makes financial sense but I always thought that allies were either a crutch for a poor player or a crutch for a poorly conceived army book.

Every army book should have a strong theme and be able to hold its own against the other armies. The inclusion of allies is just an excuse for GW to be even more careless when revising army books.

During third edition allies were everywhere but that was a very different game and a different era. In those days not very many people had huge collections of a single race and in a lot of the US, Citadel figs were not easy to find.

Had a random thought about a change of Steadfast rules, after i was watching a battle report...


...unit is stubborn up until the point that they lose combat by more than their Leadership.

The example i saw was when something like 18 models in a unit died to a single round of attacks from a steam tank or something, but there were more than 5 left so they had a rank and therefore were steadfast and didnt care that more than 75% of the unit was decimated.

I could see an Allies book, or rather a Mercenaries book being released that has a whole bunch of units and heroes. Each entry specifies which Warhammer armies can purchase the unit/model in question.

Heroes purchased as Mercenaries can't be your General. And you could purchase up to 25% of your army in Mercenaries.


Generic Mercenary units, basically empire state troops without the special rules, Cannons(prone to misfire), Bolt Throwers, Stone Throwers, etc...

Freelance Knights. HA, Shield, non-barded steeds, lances, can swap for GWs.

A few eliteish units that are pretty expensive. Like Tilean Pikemen. Fight in 2 extra ranks(so 4 ranks normally), HA, bucklers(+1 armor in combat, even with a pike)

Pavise Arbalesters. Light Armor, Pavise(+2 armor against shooting), Arbalest(str5 crossbow)

Ogre Maneaters without the BTDT special rules.

Dwarf Slayers

Arabyan Camel riders. Light cav, Vanguard, light armor, bows, cause fear in cavalry.

Generic Wizards with 25 points of magic items.

Generic merc captains with maybe 25 points of magic items.



basically a list of fairly customizable units that arn't really game breaking but can shore up a slight weakeness in every book without smothering the original army.

 Micky wrote:
Had a random thought about a change of Steadfast rules, after i was watching a battle report...


...unit is stubborn up until the point that they lose combat by more than their Leadership.

The example i saw was when something like 18 models in a unit died to a single round of attacks from a steam tank or something, but there were more than 5 left so they had a rank and therefore were steadfast and didnt care that more than 75% of the unit was decimated.

The problem there is that the game goes right back to an elite unit being able to kill enough enemy to just overcome their advantages and make them flee. If the elite unit isn't killy enough to do it, well then next game just add more geared up characters, before long you'll be able to score enough kills to overwhelm even Ld 9. It means the whole idea of hammer and anvil, and therefore the existance of unique troops that are more than just their killing potential, will disappear.


The simple fix to the problem you saw above is for monsters to count as having a rank. That'll stop the silliness of 5 goblins holding up a steam tank for another turn.


The other thing will be for flanking by two ranks or more to cancel steadfast (so flying monsters can't do it, but decent sized cavalry units can). That one means protecting your flanks becomes essential again (and so gives an important role to fast flanking units).

Yeah, fear and terror used to be super strong. Fear causing an auto-break if you outnumbered and terror forcing a test if you were just nearby... really awesome.