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.

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

You got that right. It seems like everything I face with my Ogres has immunity to psychology, has high leadership, or also causes fear. It's annoying that I have to pay as much as I do for Ogres when a primary ability never seems to see play.

Also, I really doubt any "rumors" that point to a total overhaul of the system.

I think 7th fear rule was to harse but along the right lines. Instead of 'if I outnumber you, you auto break from fear' to 'if my unit strength doubles yours you auto break from fear' or even if I outnumber you , you take a penalty to your ld test. At the mo fear is poo, its done nothing for me and my ogres might as well not be there and reduce the cost of my minis!

Aerethan wrote:
Some stuff

Alpharius wrote:
Aerethan nailed it there!

I don't want to derail the thread, and RedZeke answered anyway. Suffice to say that for those who haven't tried 8th Edition yet, the jury is out on whether it's pants or it's the greatest thing since canned booze; I tend towards the latter. Play a few games, and you might enjoy it. The gaming community where I am certainly do, and no-one misses 7th Edition, not even the VC players.

9th Edition, take your time getting here. Not only are some us loving 8th Edition, but I'd like GW to actually do some playtesting, proofreading and independant reviewing this time.

 Aerethan wrote:

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

Prepare for more pain: Not only did I pay money for those Tyranid Warriors, they STILL see play as Alphas in my army.

 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

Keep pretending, Kroot.

Keep pretending yourself that 1991-1993 is the same as 2000-2006
Heck, GW didn't even sell those models in 2000.
That said, I personally like Bighat Chaos Dwarfs now, knowing their background story.

I have to say I really enjoy 8th (Please, don't lynch me just yet)

Every game I've played so far has been balanced, magic has only been a deciding factor in a few games (foot of gork/mork + Ogres = game over turn 2) and the way everything works rule wise seems pretty stable. I'll be sad to see 8th go...unless 9th IS better.

 Breotan wrote:

Keep pretending, Kroot.

Yeah, 1992 was pretty awful. Thankfully those models were long OOP by 2000. Can anyone with a straight face proclaim the newer plastic Bret infantry are better than the old Perry sculpts?

 Aerethan wrote:
)

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.

I look at models from last century and more often then not think "How did I EVER think these looked cool???" The outragouesly over sized weapons in particular just look awful on so many models.

And as a more casual guy, I'm also glad plastic is becoming very common amongst almost all "core troops" in the GW games(if not all at this point.....). Sure, you had freedom with metal, but there are a lot of pains that come with it too. If I have a hoard of guys, they need to be easy to put together and paint.

 japehlio wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
)

I don't think 5 cav should break a 50 man bus on the charge 100% of the time

Not 100% of the time no (but then it never was 100% of the time), but they should have a very good chance with a flank charge.

What I really want from 9th is the return of the meaningful movement phase and the toning down of magic, steadfast needs some work as well. As it is 8th has become a very static game.

Dont waste your time... 9th will be just like 8th, they will only change small parts of the rules, but exactly those ones who change playstyle enough. Them, they will have an excuse to re-do all the army books, adding new shinning units of hell to it...

(who will be the new most expensive kits available).

 Aerethan wrote:
Random charge distance

I think those are here to stay. As long as "forging a narrative" is their design goal, then things like rando-charge won't ever go away.

 Alpharius wrote:
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.

Easy answer would be to make a unit with disrupted ranks not have steadfast. You'd still need to get a sizable unit into their flank, but breaking steadfast would make the effort to do so worthwhile. Right now with steadfast. any sort of flanking maneuver means -all because they WILL be stubborn and shrug it off, when historically a flank charge against a unit was pretty darn near an auto-break.

And yes, I do realize that this is a game with mages and dragons. That doesn't change the need for versimilitude (god, I hope I spelled that right...) in the aspects that DO parallel reality.

Being a long time WE player, I can say that I really don't like 8th edition. Not just because it turned my army to crap. (Steadfast did that all by itself, but there are other villains as well) But the whole concept of huge infantry and cavalry units total takes away from the ability of a guerrilla warfare army to even exist. the casualties you can inflict in a game of such a short period are not remotely meaningful, so hit and run tactics don't work anymore. I for one would rather have a new WE army book, but I would settle for a 9th ed Rulebook with drastic changes to the combat system and the magic spells. (Note I said spells, love the new system)

One final note, why does GW hate skirmishers so much, every edition trys to out do the previous one on who can hit my skirmishers in the face the hardest with the nerf bat. =/

I keep coming back to this thread when I see it has new posts thinking there might be something new. But it seems like its become another spot for people to vent about all the things they don't like about 8th edition. Your right to do so and all that, but do we really need to do this (again) in a news and rumor thread?

And now, allow me to be something of a hypocrite, and continue to take this thread off topic

Maybe I'm in the minority in thinking a lot of the concerns are overstated- for example steadfast is being slowly brought back into line with the new books. Look at the pricing on empire infantry and marauders, and you start to see that they're making it tougher to pay for those huge steadfast busses. The biggest complaint people have with steadfast is usually skavenslaves, but that's really more of a complaint about slaves than it is the steadfast rule, I think...

Coyote81 wrote:
One final note, why does GW hate skirmishers so much, every edition trys to out do the previous one on who can hit my skirmishers in the face the hardest with the nerf bat. =/

Really? In what way did 7th try to hit skirmishers in the face with a nerf bat?

I recall skirmishers being a staple of those armies that could access them, and they were quite, quite powerful (skinks, shades, gutter runners, dryads) Skirmishers got toned down a little for 8th (though they're still pretty good), but one edition doesn't exactly make a trend.

 japehlio wrote:


I quoted you Aerethan for a small thing, but 5 guys arent stubborn, they need to have at least 1 rank, which the first 5 dont technically count as...

This is incorrect, btw. It was my comment that Aerethan quoted too. To be steadfast, you simply need more ranks of five (or three if you are a monstrous xxxx) than the enemy. Does the monster have any ranks of five? No? Then a single rank will suffice. Check page 54, and note that it requires ranks, not rank bonus.

 Red_Zeke wrote:
I keep coming back to this thread when I see it has new posts thinking there might be something new. But it seems like its become another spot for people to vent about all the things they don't like about 8th edition. Your right to do so and all that, but do we really need to do this (again) in a news and rumor thread?

And now, allow me to be something of a hypocrite, and continue to take this thread off topic

Maybe I'm in the minority in thinking a lot of the concerns are overstated- for example steadfast is being slowly brought back into line with the new books. Look at the pricing on empire infantry and marauders, and you start to see that they're making it tougher to pay for those huge steadfast busses. The biggest complaint people have with steadfast is usually skavenslaves, but that's really more of a complaint about slaves than it is the steadfast rule, I think...

Excellent observation. Steadfast is much needed for some units in order to stand a chance - my Night Goblins would be in serious trouble w/o it. The real problem is overpowered stuff like Skaven having LD 10 slaves (that should have Instability...seriously.). Just let Steadfast test on the unit's own LD and do not allow Steadfast when your rank bonus is denied. Suddenly, fixed.

That's correct- 5 models is a rank, even if it doesn't seem like it!

And I agree that steadfast in some form is actually a great thing.

If 5 cav still don't negate ranks then the rule should be that 5 cav negate 50% rounded down of the rank bonus at least.

I'm fine with Steadfast as a mechanic, but it needs to be regulated much heavier than the auto tarpit that it is. Slaves might as well be unbreakable with the way it currently works.

I don't think everything needs a major overhaul. I do think that certain things need to be brought back and certain things need to be toned down a good bit.

 Aerethan wrote:
If 5 cav still don't negate ranks then the rule should be that 5 cav negate 50% rounded down of the rank bonus at least.

I'm fine with Steadfast as a mechanic, but it needs to be regulated much heavier than the auto tarpit that it is. Slaves might as well be unbreakable with the way it currently works.

I don't think everything needs a major overhaul. I do think that certain things need to be brought back and certain things need to be toned down a good bit.

Precisely. What we need is WHFB 8.5, not 9th. Basically, make ETC restrictions official. Suddenly, one of the most balanced rulesets out there.

Slaves are overpowered, that's the problem, not Steadfast.

Cavalry should be able to break Steadfast on the charge (@flank / rear), but not with only 5 vs. e.g. 50 models. 5 vs. e.g. 20, yeah, but 5 vs. 50? Doesn't make much sense.

Agrreed. the game doesn't need a lot of changes.

Tone down steadfast a little.

A disrupting unit doubles it's ranks for purposes of steadfast.

-1 for fighting fear causing unit
-2 for fighting terror causing unit.

Tweak monsters. to maximum of d3 wounds vs cannon/stonethrower

if attacking skirmishers also recieve -1 to hit in close combat.

All "models are removed" for spells changes to take wound with no armour, regen or ward save. However magical resistance saves may be taken.

Balance lores a little more, fire is too weak.

I'm prove regular cav by giving additiional CR or +3 I on the charge or devastating charge to riders and mounts.

Cavallery already has a bonus on CR most of the time as they are highly likely to attack and thus get +1

 Sigvatr wrote:
Cavallery already has a bonus on CR most of the time as they are highly likely to attack and thus get +1

Agreed. CAv needs something small, maybe Devastating charge fits.

Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I agree completely.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I would only give it for cav units equipped with Lances and Spears. The long pokey thing should mean something. Vice versa, they should also give ASF to infantry with spears when being charged.

I like steadfast. It's addition actually brought block units back into the game, though agree it needs to be mitigated by a successful flanking. That would end a lot of deathstars.

As for fear and terror, was way too powerful previously and only encouraged ItP armies. There were way too many times I lost a game because I couldn't charge that one model because it caused fear. I like the current version, but agree it is a little weak. Maybe make it you can't use Inspiring Presence when making the checks. Rewards high base Ld armies, but not ones that game it with a Ld bubble.

Lastly, adding pre-measure and random charges did away with what generated the most arguments I saw in the game. Is the unit 1/8th an inch away or not? Guessing ranges rewarded carpenters, not tacticians.

As for the rumors, I don't see another "Ravening Hordes" book coming out. I remember in the D6 Gen interview with Rick Priestley, he mentioned how sudden changes invalidate an entire warehouse of printed material. GW would have to pulp all their army books and I don't see GW abandoning printed material anytime soon.

Plus, as for rules changes, don't just think about simple changes like charges, flanks, and fear. They may be changing the way a turn sequence is done. Instead of the I-go-you-go format, they may switch to alternating units on each side. Adds a far more important tactical aspect to the game and would do away with what is considered an antiquated play format.

silent25 wrote:

Plus, as for rules changes, don't just think about simple changes like charges, flanks, and fear. They may be changing the way a turn sequence is done. Instead of the I-go-you-go format, they may switch to alternating units on each side. Adds a far more important tactical aspect to the game and would do away with what is considered an antiquated play format.

I would love to see this, but I feel this is something GW will never do. Hey I maybe wrong, I would love to be wrong!

silent25 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I would only give it for cav units equipped with Lances and Spears. The long pokey thing should mean something. Vice versa, they should also give ASF to infantry with spears when being charged.
.

Those items give a strength bonus already.

And you mean to say that a charging soldier on a warhorse with a sword wouldn't hit before random infantry with the same weapon? The momentum of the horse charging alone should include impact hits or some manner of bonus to the charge if we wanted to get more realistically accurate.

 Aerethan wrote:

silent25 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Give cavalry ASF on charge. Good buff and makes sense too.

I would only give it for cav units equipped with Lances and Spears. The long pokey thing should mean something. Vice versa, they should also give ASF to infantry with spears when being charged.
.

Those items give a strength bonus already.

And you mean to say that a charging soldier on a warhorse with a sword wouldn't hit before random infantry with the same weapon? The momentum of the horse charging alone should include impact hits or some manner of bonus to the charge if we wanted to get more realistically accurate.

And they use to give initiate bonuses back in 3rd ed, the last edition where all combats were done based on initiative and charging did not guarantee striking first. It is not a new concept for WHFB. If we want to talk realism, mounted troops NEVER charged the front of a ranked unit. They would be met by and impaled on a wall of spears. That is, if their horses would let them. The whole idea was to hit the troops in the flank and cause confusion and disrupt. They risked their mounts being cut out from under them when they would go in the front.

 Aerethan wrote:
Those items give a strength bonus already.

And you mean to say that a charging soldier on a warhorse with a sword wouldn't hit before random infantry with the same weapon? The momentum of the horse charging alone should include impact hits or some manner of bonus to the charge if we wanted to get more realistically accurate.

You've really got a hard-on for cavalry, haven't you?

Am I the only one that finds 8th the most balanced edition to date and likes it best accordingly?.

On a design note, they need to find a way to do away with pivoting units. It is simply too clunky and slows the game down way too much. They need to rethink the movement.