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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think lawyers can stop a discussion group from discussing rumours. That's a bridge to far, even for Games "We hold copyright over arrows and skulls" Workshop.

That's probably only after their lawyers had to tell them that they probably wouldn't have a case.

 MisterMoon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think lawyers can stop a discussion group from discussing rumours. That's a bridge to far, even for Games "We hold copyright over arrows and skulls" Workshop.

That's probably only after their lawyers had to tell them that they probably wouldn't have a case.

From the looks of it, GW's lawyers have no clue what constitutes having a case.

It's not so much that GW lawyers are bad at seeing if they have a good case, it's that their lawyers are really good at picking cases against small clients who cannot mount an extended legal defense... then mounting an extended legal attack against them, forcing them to capitulate without the case ever being actually decided by a judge.

In short... GW has more money to spend on lawyers than an independant, so they win by bankrupting the independant and not on the merits of their case.

 Vulcan wrote:
In short... GW has more money to spend on lawyers than an independant, so they win by bankrupting the independant and not on the merits of their case.

That's what GW thought before Chapterhouse and the Amazon-incident. Now, good IP lawyers stand in line to defend the victims pro bono against GW. Professionals now know that the Emperor has no clothes on

But we are off topic again.

So back on topic, are there any rumors of which rules will change?

Major points that people on average have issues with:

Random charge distance
ASF on charge
Magic in general(both in how it works as well as it being pretty mandatory to be competitive)
Steadfast


There are army specific things that I have issues with, but I feel that core rules issues are of course far more important.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point.

They're never going to get it "right"; there's no drive to make the game "more right" with each edition revision. Updates are just a way of changing the game without actually going to any effort to improve it, make the rules tighter, make it a more tactical experience. I haven't played WFB since 3rd ed (I'm a 40K player), but the older I get the shorter this four-year cycle seems to get - and each edition brings nothing but a bunch of relearning all the changes without substantially improving my gaming experience. I am beginning to feel I should get off this hamster wheel.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
Why would they give O&G another book so quickly? Unless they have some more models to shift, it seems a touch pointless to re-release the army book within the same edition.

Because £22.50 to gouge out of Orc players so recently isn't enough.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point. .

I much more fear they get 9th wrong!

8th is a very solid basis. It only has a few important imbalances, mostly overpowered magic, but it just needs a few adjustments to be an extremely good edition. The new army books are pretty damn well-balanced too for the most part.

Give us 8.5, I will gladly pay 50$ for the new rule book. I won't pay for a terrible 9th...

...and separate Goblins and Orcs already! I don't want to make my own Goblin codex all the time

AgeOfEgos wrote:I really, really hope they get WHF right at some point. I love the idea of making an army, I love the fluff behind most of the armies, I love the spectacle when you setup the board.

Then you start rolling dice and looking up rules--and feel like you should be punching a clock.

Noir wrote:The biggest problem with 8th is my biggest problem with 6th 40K. Why the hell do I need magic/psionic, to play the damn game. I know there fantasy games, but you should be able to hold your own even if you don't want to sling spells across the feild.

That's why I play KoW

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

 Aerethan wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

 Breotan wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Which is fair to a degree, but lets look at a few things.

Orcs. 20 for at their peak $35(at the beginning of 6th they were $25).
Now the SAME models are sold 10 for $29. A 65% increase from the 2006 price for 100% the same models.
I'd argue that Empire soldiers are worse now.


Further, I'm not going to argue that newer models aren't better quality and design overall. But if GW honestly does the math and say that X needs to cost Y to be profitable when they make it, how does that item see a price hike not a year later?

I can safely say that the Tactical Marine and Rhino tooling has been paid off by now if the range sells as well as GW claims. So those units have virtually no reason to increase in cost. The ONLY real cost for plastic models once the tooling is paid off is the packaging, and that is pennies per unit.

Alas, we've digressed far enough.

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

How did we manage?

I started playing with 5th edition and I really don't recognize the game anymore. It feels like Monsterhammer to me. I think there are a lot of really nice looking kits and some impressive models, but all the big stuff really takes me out of the game.

I haven't played in a long time and I would be interested in playing again, but right now it just doesn't draw me in. I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon.

Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

Agreed. I saw a lot more monsters(well, ridden ones and Greater Daemons in 5 flavors) in 5th than now.

 Breotan wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 bbb wrote:
Per the info on the wikipedia page:
6th 2000 (6 years till next edition)

The best 6 years of GW.

Agreed. Granted it was the slow beginning of price hikes, but back then they were pretty spread out.

Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Interesting assertion, let me think about my armies:
Empire - nope, all the old models are better than the ones that replaced them, _especially_ the soldiers. Unless you want to field an army of barefoot half-simians. Note the knight and artillery kit is the same. (hell that plastic horse has been around since 1992). the old Empire General on Griffin is one of Citadel's best models ever, replaced with Hasbro Karl Franz on Deathclaw Action Figure. The old LE 6th ed BSB with the mohawk is one of the best Empire models they made. Plus the scads of Mordheim figs I use as militia.
Tomb Kings - all models are the same with the exception of Tomb Guard, and the new ones aren't better.. just different (I used both metal and plastic Tomb Guard). They did replace the meatball head liche priest with... still another awful model, and added undead surfers to the mix.
High Elves - nope, those hamfist plastic spearmen and archers were a gakpile in 6th and they're the same godawful models in 8th just more expensive. the plastic Phoenix Guard are awful, looking like their terrible 4th edition counterparts. My HE's are a mix of 4th edition metal archers and spearmen, 6th edition swordmasters/phoenix guard/white lions, 7th edition plastic chariots.

Seriously, as I think about it, GW's kept their worse models in print. Tomb Kings melonhead skeletons, VC zombies, HE hamfists. I love Tomb Kings so much I would gladly pay even GW prices if they redesigned the basic TK skeletons, as long as they didn't make them look like the turd-legged newer Empire soldiers kit. I own like 200 melonheads, I'd probably double that with a good redesign.

Interestingly, it was post 2006 where the figs started getting crappier. Empire, VC, Demons, they all got fething slowed models that look like they are based on some 14-year old's sketches drawn during class. The design process became: oh man this would be SOOO SWEET if there was this dude with a giant hat with wings on his hat and he had wicked armored with wings on his armor and sweet boots with wings and there were some flames shooting out of his ass and he's got this giant sword with wings and it's all on a winged chariot and instead of wheels there's bats and there's a monkey doing a handstand on the front and when he eek-eeks it's a strength 10 attack against all enemy models on the board only $85!

Bleh, I hope and pray 9th edition is a reset like 6th was. 8th is the new 4th/5th. gakky rules, gakky models, gakky gakky gak. Awful. I'm honestly surprised GW hasn't re-released Nagash as a $90 finecast model, since 8th rules and figures are basically WHFB 4th edition version 2.

uhh, so yeah. end rant i guess.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

Agreed. I saw a lot more monsters(well, ridden ones and Greater Daemons in 5 flavors) in 5th than now.

I haven't seen a game being played for a long time, so I wouldn't know what people actually take. I just know that there are tons more gigantic model kits for armies than there ever was before. They keep putting out bigger and more expensive kits, yet still haven't updated some old and ugly models.

 bbb wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? Monsterhammer? It's pretty much the opposite on the battlefield, you'll see big blocks of infantry rather than a lot of monsters

Agreed. I saw a lot more monsters(well, ridden ones and Greater Daemons in 5 flavors) in 5th than now.

I haven't seen a game being played for a long time, so I wouldn't know what people actually take. I just know that there are tons more gigantic model kits for armies than there ever was before. They keep putting out bigger and more expensive kits, yet still haven't updated some old and ugly models.

Oh well, that might be the case for some armies, but what GW throws out and what people actually field is different.

Top tier armies are Skaven, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms...Teclis of course...Dark Elves too. OK left aside, all of those armies don't field more than a 1-2 monsters. Skaven field 1-2 Abominations are they are *ridiculously* overpowered, Lizardmen...maybe a Stegadon or two, seen a lot with just double Slann and no monsters, Teclis w/ no monsters ofc, OK maybe 1-2 monsters, Dark Elves 2 Hydras.

8th is all about big, steadfast infantry units and magic - the latter wins or loses games, the former contributes as well. Shooting is neglible in most cases unless you got a lot of war machines.

If you prefer a game that's driven by big units instead of a few monsters, 8th is perfect for ya.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you prefer a game that's driven by big units instead of a few monsters, 8th is perfect for ya.

Shooting and cavalry are ineffective. Giant massive columns of infantry in order to soak up the giant stupidly powerful magic spells. If that sounds great, then 8!

 judgedoug wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you prefer a game that's driven by big units instead of a few monsters, 8th is perfect for ya.

Shooting and cavalry are ineffective. Giant massive columns of infantry in order to soak up the giant stupidly powerful magic spells. If that sounds great, then 8!

I disagree.

I'm taking Quarallers again, as they are good at removing chaff while still retaining combat ability with their GW. My High Elves retain Archers, as bad as they are, again to remove chaff. I've lost war machines to massed bowfire, it only takes three 6s to wound to take off an Organ Gun. If your opponent doesn't take chaff, which BS shooting is good against, and only takes 3 hordes, then run him ragged with your chaff while concentrating force against one of his blocks to kill it for the points. If time allows, do the same to a second. The meta here in NZ started with big blocks, but we've adapted pretty quickly to a lot of chaff to support those blocks (reducing the points available for them), to guard flanks and redirect charges. This is where the BS shooting comes in, as cannons and stone-throwers are ineffective against a lot of chaff units. Magic missiles are good, but can be dispelled or stopped by a bad Winds of Magic roll; BS shooting is always there. So I think that while BS shooting isn't optimal against blocks, it still has a useful role to play.

Cavalry can be ineffective in that it doesn't auto-break on the charge. Hooray, that was a crap rule, and I'm glad Steadfast makes infantry worth taking. Cavalry can win on the grind if it's killy enough (Chaos Knights, Monster cav). Other cavalry with character support (the infamous VC Knight bus, Bretonnian lances with paladins) can also grind (or blend in the case of Vampire Lords....). The situation in 7th edition where 5 knights could charge 25+ infantry in the front, break them and then run them down was a travesty in my opinion. Now cavalry commanders need to be careful how to use their heavy horse, exactly as they should. Support them with infantry, attrit enemy blocks with firepower first, flank and combo charges; this is how cavalry should be. Cavalry still offers a combination of movement, protection and shock that is excellent to have; I'd love to take some knights with my Dwarves. I wouldn't under-rate them at all.

This is all my 2 cents worth of humble opinion. But I do think that BS shooting and cavalry are not as dead as they have been proclaimed to be.

I hope that 9th edition keeps Steadfast and Step-Up, two of the best rules to be incorporated into 8th edition.

Flash Felix wrote:


I hope that 9th edition keeps Steadfast and Step-Up, two of the best rules to be incorporated into 8th edition.

Um, what? Steadfast is the most broken thing in the game right now due solely to the fact that you can't negate it except with being MORE steadfast. All that does is promote buses instead of tactics. Why should bother flanking you with my fast cav if you are 10 ranks deep? More so, why should I charge you at all knowing that your bus is essentially a tar pit.

Steadfast and chargers not hitting first on the charge are two very major issues for CC right now. All they do is promote a VERY defensive posture where there is really very little reason to charge.

Reasons NOT to charge:
1. Random distance, snake eyes can kill you here.
2. Steadfast, you'll likely be stuck in that combat all game unless you have massive damage output or get lucky with a failed Ld roll(and with BSB's being damn near mandatory these days, the odds of breaking Stubborn anything with rerolls is slim).
3. Your damage output can be compromised by enemies with ASF or just higher Initiative.

Charging into combat is a heavy gamble these days, and honestly there are easier ways to kill the enemy without tying up so much of your army.


Some form of disruption for Steadfast needs to happen. MSU armies are basically fethed right now from it.

Aerethan nailed it there!

Problem is, Steadfast made the Beancouters happy, so it will be hard to dislodge that particular rule from the books.

Still, I agree that some way to counter it, weaken it, neutralize it, etc. would be the way to go.

Even a simple flank attack to get rid of steadfast would be great.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

Keep pretending, Kroot.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Generally the figures were a lot crappier back then, too.

Yeah, no dino-bots, no GI-Joe flyers and less skulls

Spoiler:

Keep pretending, Kroot.

It pains me to think that anyone spent actual money on those models.

Oof.

I know this is kind of spiraling away from any actual rumors, but I would hope that any method for countering steadfast isn't *too* easy. I think folks might be wearing some rose-tinted glasses with respect to 7th. I was glad to see large infantry units for a change, where before infantry usually just came along so you could bunker/get access to your toys.

There should be some kind of middle ground between:

5 cav blasting through and running down 100 foot-dudes who never even got to swing back at them (7th edition)

and

The last 5 battered infantry in a unit being content to almost certainly hold their ground against a monster... but if they lose one more, then hoooo boy, its time to get the heck outta dodge! (8th edition)

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Oof.

I know this is kind of spiraling away from any actual rumors, but I would hope that any method for countering steadfast isn't *too* easy. I think folks might be wearing some rose-tinted glasses with respect to 7th. I was glad to see large infantry units for a change, where before infantry usually just came along so you could bunker/get access to your toys.

There should be some kind of middle ground between:

5 cav blasting through and running down 100 foot-dudes who never even got to swing back at them (7th edition)

and

The last 5 battered infantry in a unit being content to almost certainly hold their ground against a monster... but if they lose one more, then hoooo boy, its time to get the heck outta dodge! (8th edition)

We had a system in place for this. It used to be called Unit Strength. But apparently that was rocket science and the kiddies couldn't figure it out.
For flanking it should be US10 to break steadfast. So 10 infantry or 5 cavalry. MC muck that up a bit, but it wouldn't be that hard to define.

I don't think 5 cav should break a 50 man bus on the charge 100% of the time, but like you said, 5 infantry shouldn't be stubborn against some huge monster.

Also, Fear and Terror need some kind of usefulness. Right now they are negligible.