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.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Pelas Mir'san wrote:
Playing warhammer isn't just how statistics look. There is random chance to dice in this game, a roll of 1 is still a fail...

Nothing is certain, that's why you have to think your way out of it. If you can not fathom a way around these "super" characters, then you do not possess the skill you claim to have.

On other notes EoT is epic and I hope that the next book is just as epic as khaine was.

I can accept them in warhammer, and that there are counters to them, but not all armies possess those counters. Which is not suitable for a balanced playing field.When I go to my local club, I now only take my double banishment Empire gunline, because it's a hard counter.

That has little to do with the End Times and more to do with you being a very..."competitive" person.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Pelas Mir'san wrote:
Playing warhammer isn't just how statistics look. There is random chance to dice in this game, a roll of 1 is still a fail...

Nothing is certain, that's why you have to think your way out of it. If you can not fathom a way around these "super" characters, then you do not possess the skill you claim to have.

On other notes EoT is epic and I hope that the next book is just as epic as khaine was.

I can accept them in warhammer, and that there are counters to them, but not all armies possess those counters. Which is not suitable for a balanced playing field.When I go to my local club, I now only take my double banishment Empire gunline, because it's a hard counter.

That has little to do with the End Times and more to do with you being a very..."competitive" person.

No. I want to run a Skaven army with no seer, assassins or rares. A fluffy clan pestilens army.

Or a pure combat beastmen army.

Or Combat Dwarfs.

Or infantry Brets.

Or Lizardmen with no Tetto, skinks or scar vets.

How are any of those, A)Competitive, or B) Able to deal with models like Nagash/KFA/Malekith/Imrik/Tyrion?

If you want to run them; then run them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to run them; then run them.

I don't play games that are situations where I lose because of army choice. If I wanted to do that I'd play 40k.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to run them; then run them.

I don't play games that are situations where I lose because of army choice. If I wanted to do that I'd play 40k.

Just ask your opponent to NOT bring those characters. Problem solved. If they say no find another opponent or say "OK how about we use them this week & next week we play without them?"

Your opponents are people, talk & reason with them like human beings & they'll probably be more than accommodating. One of my opponents runs an empire list that comes in at a 27 on Swedish comp at 3k points. When I play him, he asks that I not bring my 2 list as it's a bit of an uneven matchup. In the interest of both of us having fun I oblige.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to run them; then run them.

I don't play games that are situations where I lose because of army choice. If I wanted to do that I'd play 40k.

Just ask your opponent to NOT bring those characters. Problem solved. If they say no find another opponent or say "OK how about we use them this week & next week we play without them?"

Your opponents are people, talk & reason with them like human beings & they'll probably be more than accommodating. One of my opponents runs an empire list that comes in at a 27 on Swedish comp at 3k points. When I play him, he asks that I not bring my 2 list as it's a bit of an uneven matchup. In the interest of both of us having fun I oblige.

TDA is a tournament player though, so he might not have that luxury in a competitive environment. It's a fair point, in that respect.

That said, my best friend and I do what you suggest with Alarielle(s). He plays skaven. I rotate weeks where she's open to be in the list, and then rotate off. I don't even bring her all the games i "can", because honestly, in a well built list, she's almost as not-fun to play as she is not fun to play against (and yes we army swapped after we each built lists, and i can definitively say i built the dirtiest Alarielle list i could conceive of, and it was about as much fun as having my nuts smashed with a rock hammer). We both feel that Avatar of Isha is ridiculously undercosted, and Incarnate of Life is fairly undercosted. As i don't play WHFB competitively (not to be misconstrued as i'm not a competitive player, i have played many games competitively, very seriously so), my primary focus is a fun time, so i'm cool with this, especially as she can be as boring for me to play as un-fun for my opponent to play against.

But i'm with you here ; in a non-competitive environment, talk with your opponent and come to a mutual agreement. Most people are more than happy just to play a game and have some fun, and will accommodate most reasonable requests.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to run them; then run them.

I don't play games that are situations where I lose because of army choice. If I wanted to do that I'd play 40k.

It's warhammer, it's as bad as 40k for "army choice" crappiness. Worse, in fact.

 Haight wrote:

TDA is a tournament player though, so he might not have that luxury in a competitive environment. I

Warhammer is not a tournament game. It is not designed or balanced for a competitive environment. You can adapt & change the rules to better fit it but the creators of the game have said that is not how they design it so I feel his complaints aren't as legitimate. The game is NOT designed for tournament play so obviously it will not be BALANCED as such. If you want to adapt it to that purpose you'll have to do some legwork on your own (comp) such as desicding to not allow use of those things you think are broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to run them; then run them.

I don't play games that are situations where I lose because of army choice. If I wanted to do that I'd play 40k.

It's warhammer, it's as bad as 40k for "army choice" crappiness. Worse, in fact.

I'm gonna diasagree, 40k is MUCH worse when it comes to army choice and auto-win. In fantasy a "soft" army can beat a "hard" army because of the movement phase & arc of site. This means player skill means more than in 40k where I can park my wraithknight in area terrain & because he's so big, bombard any point on the map from my nice safe 4+ cover save.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to run them; then run them.

I don't play games that are situations where I lose because of army choice. If I wanted to do that I'd play 40k.

It's warhammer, it's as bad as 40k for "army choice" crappiness. Worse, in fact.

Having tabled an OnG gunline with MSU combat Elves, I can say for a fact that this is a lie.

As for the army choice thing, it's either myself, or my opponent doesn't get a game as we play with the models we bring to the club.

 thedarkavenger wrote:


As for the army choice thing, it's either myself, or my opponent doesn't get a game as we play with the models we bring to the club.

Schedule ahead of time. "Hey, next week want to play a game without supercharacters?" Then you're both prepared. My group does this all the time. We have our own forums we go on & schedule our games a few days in advance.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Haight wrote:

TDA is a tournament player though, so he might not have that luxury in a competitive environment. I

Warhammer is not a tournament game. It is not designed or balanced for a competitive environment. You can adapt & change the rules to better fit it but the creators of the game have said that is not how they design it so I feel his complaints aren't as legitimate. The game is NOT designed for tournament play so obviously it will not be BALANCED as such. If you want to adapt it to that purpose you'll have to do some legwork on your own (comp) such as desicding to not allow use of those things you think are broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to run them; then run them.

I don't play games that are situations where I lose because of army choice. If I wanted to do that I'd play 40k.

It's warhammer, it's as bad as 40k for "army choice" crappiness. Worse, in fact.

I'm gonna diasagree, 40k is MUCH worse when it comes to army choice and auto-win. In fantasy a "soft" army can beat a "hard" army because of the movement phase & arc of site. This means player skill means more than in 40k where I can park my wraithknight in area terrain & because he's so big, bombard any point on the map from my nice safe 4+ cover save.

I never personally said it was, Shas. I don't play it competitively as i don't think its a game conducive to competitive play (most beer and pretzel games aren't).

However, TDA by his own admission in lots of places does play the game competitive, which is a completely valid choice. From that lens and respect, if the tourney he's playing in allows for Nagash and KFA, then the "agree not to play them" thing isn't an option.

There really isn't any denying any of this microcosm of the debate ; we may not play WHFB competitively (well, not sure if you do, i don't think you do, but i'm not certain. I know i dont), but people DO play tournaments with the game, and TDA is a player that opts to play in those tourneys.

I play both but I definitely lend to casual. I'm not saying it is wrong to play in tournaments. I am sayig it is wrong to play in tournaments AND expect the game to be balanced for tournaments out of the box when the company has stated it does not do that.

TDA seems to whine that the super characters aren't tournament balanced & my argument is "well no gak, the company explicitly says they do not balance for tournaments.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I play both but I definitely lend to casual. I'm not saying it is wrong to play in tournaments. I am sayig it is wrong to play in tournaments AND expect the game to be balanced for tournaments out of the box when the company has stated it does not do that.

TDA seems to whine that the super characters aren't tournament balanced & my argument is "well no gak, the company explicitly says they do not balance for tournaments.

Definitely fair. I was sort of losing where you were going. I get it now.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
[...]TDA seems to whine that the super characters aren't tournament balanced & my argument is "well no gak, the company explicitly says they do not balance for tournaments.

I disagree with this statement. GW may not balance for tournaments, but so long as armies don't fall outside a certain range (i.e. 7th edition demons) that doesn't mean the game itself isn't balanced.

Even if GW made it their explicit directive to create a balanced game, that goal is effectively unachievable because balancing books isn't the same as balancing lists. That's what the metagame is. If the metagame is 1+ armour saves then books that can't deal with these (i.e. beastmen and tomb kings) fall to the bottom of the standings, whilst armies that either a) have 1+ saves or b) can deal with 1+ saves rise to the top.

And that is why these characters aren't such a big deal. Yes they're unbalanced...but so is Banner of the World Dragon. So are skullcrushers and nurgle demon princes. So is the Casket of Souls. So is the Herdstone. The question is: do other armies have the tools to deal with these guys, and the answer is unequivocally yes. Some armies will struggle, but given that you get 1000 points worth of tools to deal with Nagash any general who keeps this in mind during list building will bring them.

What will in effect happen is that the meta will shift, to be defined by super characters and armies that can deal with super characters. People like TheDarkAvenger will whine to the high heavens about how they need to change up their style because the meta has moved away from them, but everyone else will just quietly deal. Some armies might fall out of favour (as they always do), but others will get picked up.

That could not be said any better.

No lie, I think that GW can't balance a game of WFB or 40k, or make a good game out of WFB of 40k any more, if their livelihoods depended on it. End Times is more like death throes of a game. Really think that this is all gonna be in 9th edition or is it all going to have been a dream (again)?

There's a difference between this and Storm of Chaos whicy I assume is what you're referencing, GW have control over where this goes. Where as SoC was a worldwide campaign, the outcome of which determined the fluff, and the outcome was pretty silly. So they got rid of it.

Last rumour I saw was 9th will be set before the End Times.

So it will all be a dream then. All back to normal competitive Warhammer.

No it will be before End Times and the End Times and the end times will be an expansion, like it is now...

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So it will all be a dream then. All back to normal competitive Warhammer.

"It's all a dream" is a common trope to sitcoms and other television shows, done to remove changes that were unfavorably viewed by the fanbase.

The timeline of Warhammer has always been a bit wonky. Characters have existed in the army books which have been long dead by the standard of the timeline. Nothing prevents them from turning the clock back for 9th edition while still having The End Times happen.

What is interesting to me is how this all seems to be tying into those the next Fantasy edition rumours a year ish back, with combined books for various races, and a trimming of the fat due to the simple fact Fantasy doesn't sell as well as 40K.

It might all be nonsense.. but the next Fantasy release has me very interested to see if some/any/all of those rumours turn out to be true.

Especially the hints of a connected/replacement Skirmish based game.

As with all things GW, we'll see in time.

However overall, I have been enjoying the changes coming forth in the End times book.

I will be absolutely shocked if the end times are followed by anything other than a 9th edition that is little more than a slightly modified 8th with scaled back magic and a combined-profile monsters, and whose fluff is set after the End Times.

The coolest part of the End Times lore is that theyre putting fog back onto the edges of the map. Civilization will be pulled back to walled towns and major population centres, and there will be more reason for the factions of the world to have conflicts as roving warbands push into the vacant space to carve out little empires for themselves. They've made it so that your battles can have more narrative significance than raids into Khemri/Lustria to steal a bit of gold, or border skirmishes between the Empire and Bretonnia. Nothing ever mattered before, but now there can be real campaigns with stakes that feel like they mattered.


That's always something that 40k had over WHFB. In 40K they can end a campaign with the bad guys winning and some world or other falling to chaos, and even though it made the stakes of that campaign feel high it doesn't alter the balance of the overarching story overmuch. Whereas in fantasy any change feels like you're altering a world set in stone. It won't feel like that anymore, and narrative campaigns or battles will have more freedom to write their own stories within the confines of the game world.

I am pleasantly surprised by the end times, and I hope it will provide a window for GW to give us Dwarf players our bloody golem thing that we all want.
In terms of magic, do the new magic rules have to be implemented in normal games, and how do they work?
This is purely curiosity, since as a Dwarf player magic doesn't really concern me, I just let my opponent do their thing then roll dice when they ask if I'd like to dispell.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am pleasantly surprised by the end times, and I hope it will provide a window for GW to give us Dwarf players our bloody golem thing that we all want.
In terms of magic, do the new magic rules have to be implemented in normal games, and how do they work?
This is purely curiosity, since as a Dwarf player magic doesn't really concern me, I just let my opponent do their thing then roll dice when they ask if I'd like to dispell.

It pretty much bones dorfs. You don't have enough dice/dispel runes to stop everything.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am pleasantly surprised by the end times, and I hope it will provide a window for GW to give us Dwarf players our bloody golem thing that we all want.
In terms of magic, do the new magic rules have to be implemented in normal games, and how do they work?
This is purely curiosity, since as a Dwarf player magic doesn't really concern me, I just let my opponent do their thing then roll dice when they ask if I'd like to dispell.

It pretty much bones dorfs. You don't have enough dice/dispel runes to stop everything.

Tell me about it. Usually I just save my dispel scroll equivalent thingy for dreaded thirteenth, or some other super spell, and let the more minor stuff be decided by dispels (the plus 2 helps).

EDIT: But yeah you're right, dwarves can't stop everything, but then again, most armies can't.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am pleasantly surprised by the end times, and I hope it will provide a window for GW to give us Dwarf players our bloody golem thing that we all want.
In terms of magic, do the new magic rules have to be implemented in normal games, and how do they work?
This is purely curiosity, since as a Dwarf player magic doesn't really concern me, I just let my opponent do their thing then roll dice when they ask if I'd like to dispell.

It pretty much bones dorfs. You don't have enough dice/dispel runes to stop everything.

Tell me about it. Usually I just save my dispel scroll equivalent thingy for dreaded thirteenth, or some other super spell, and let the more minor stuff be decided by dispels (the plus 2 helps).

EDIT: But yeah you're right, dwarves can't stop everything, but then again, most armies can't.

Dwarfs get the advantage of choosing how many dice they dispel with, due to having no wizards.

But, they also get far less dice. With 2d6 and you get the highest, the difference isn't that noticeable. But with 4d6 where you get 2d6, the difference becomes apparent. And with the new magic lores, you'll not be able to actually stop them getting the spells off.