Topic: Eighth Edition fan? Here is the EEFL forum information

[The Real Rick Salamone]

I am playing a little AoS. It's ok. Not warhammer but ok. It appears that the majority of folks here are still interested in EE and W-E appears to be staying as-is. This is a great community, I've been here for maybe 11 years and I love it here. For people who want to dive deeper into EE stuff, please join us over at EEFL.freeforums.net.

Here's what's going on right now at EEFL:

-the first draft of the new updated Bretonnian army list

-rules development for using the new Stormcast Elementals (Sigmarines) in EE battles

-painting and hobby stuff

-EE list review



I would like to add that our rules development and administration is being led by my good friend Kevin Coleman. He wouldn't want me to brag about him but he has written extensively for white dwarf and the citadel journal, wrote the Indy GT army books for dwarves of chaos and most recently wrote Warhammer: Grom (an all-Goblinoid army book). He was also one of the last official play testers before GW phased out the program.

This is all to say that Mr. Coleman is very passionate about warhammer fantasy and has a great track record of rules development.


Just to be clear, here is something that the EEFL community will NOT be doing. We will NOT be changing the existing EE rules. While some players see this as an opportunity to "fix" warhammer, and we respect their angle,new plan to play EE AS IS. Simply put,mew like the rules and don't want to make a mess by tinkering with them. We do feel, however, that change can happen through the eventual "fixing" of the army books. Some armies, of course, haven't gotten much live from GW in the last decade or so. Since WE not own warhammer fantasy, we can use our skills to revise the armies.

Some are interested in moving on to AoS and that's fine. It is not warhammer but people can still find entertainment in playing it. If you, like us at EEFL, plan (at this point) to be playing warhammer fantasy for the rest of your life, we would like you to join in iur discussions and show us your pics. Play test with us, meet up with us for EE events. Warhammer belongs to is now, let's enjoy this new age together.


EEFL.freeforums.net

EEFL!

[jaggedjimmyj]

I'm not convinced that adding rules for AoS models to 8th is a good path to venture down. I might be alone in holding this view but I, still being interested in 8th, would steer well clear of any ruleset with rules for AoS models.

[wilsonthenarc]

I completely x1000 agree that we can take the AoS models and make rules for them in 8th.
 

Once I realized I could put Sigmarines on 40mm x 40mm square bases and play with them as Infantry / Monstr. Inf. - I was excited about the models again. The thread on the EEFL forum is a good place to discuss not the IF, rather the HOW of getting these big dudes into 8.1 with a fair and balanced stat line.

[Darknight]

I'm not convinced that adding rules for AoS models to 8th is a good path to venture down. I might be alone in holding this view but I, still being interested in 8th, would steer well clear of any ruleset with rules for AoS models.

Well, just don't play with them - the rules for 8thEd aren't changing on EEFL forums; they specifically say they are keeping them the same.

[jaggedjimmyj]

To do that I'll need to play vanilla 8th Ed. If I play the EEW...something some dude will show up with AoS or End Times models and suddenly my fantasy battlefield is filled with sci-fi models.

[Darknight]

Well, that is just an agreement - "no fan lists, no End Times stuff". It's still the same game.

[The Real Rick Salamone]

@Darknight.  That is true. EEFL is about using the EE rules AS IS but we are open to revising the existing (as they were at the time of abandonment) army books.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Orcslayer]

Ayup. Signed up. Thanks for the link. May eighth live on in more than our hearts and minds

[Baron von Klatz]

I turned the EEFL forum down upon seeing the administrator's Bretonnian ideas. Steel arbalests, no questing knights, bowmen without stakes and a guy with his own version of ideas was moved to another topic instead of comparing and changing ideas to suit everyone present.

No thanks.

[iatroblast]

Imo the EE rules should remain absolutely unchanged in order for that game to survire as long as possible, and this goes for the books as well. Anything else is not EE

BUT since AoS armies were not present in the older version, well... it may be a chance to create new armybooks. The challenges here, is for the fans to keep their stats and rules as close as possible to their AoS ones. And for the collectors to have as many models as needed to compete against the larger 8th edition armies (which due to their prices is difficult). Also don't forget that AoS armies are designed to fight in a skirmishing formation, so ranking them up could result in very disappointing results. I'd even suggest to make rules that allow them to use their round bases, as models not using square bases is not something strange for Fantasy (Steam Tank, war machines and terrain features-like buildings- didn't use bases at all)

[The Peacemaker]

I turned the EEFL forum down upon seeing the administrator's Bretonnian ideas. Steel arbalests, no questing knights, bowmen without stakes and a guy with his own version of ideas was moved to another topic instead of comparing and changing ideas to suit everyone present.

No thanks.

Really?

I hope tho isn't the case of a fan boy getting his hands on a website.

If you look at what other 8th edition books gw released its not hard to figure out what brets would be. You basically just update it WS 3 for peasants and readjust the points throughout the book and expand the available wizard lores.  Bam minimum 8th edition update.

Seriously, questing and grail knights are worth it if they are cheaper.


And if you really want to change some rules you simple just tweak them. Like the blessing always being 5+ ,   grail knights get  4+ ward.

Pretty much everyone could agree to these simple changes.

[Rein]

I turned the EEFL forum down upon seeing the administrator's Bretonnian ideas. Steel arbalests, no questing knights, bowmen without stakes and a guy with his own version of ideas was moved to another topic instead of comparing and changing ideas to suit everyone present.

No thanks.

Really?

I hope tho isn't the case of a fan boy getting his hands on a website.

If you look at what other 8th edition books gw released its not hard to figure out what brets would be. You basically just update it WS 3 for peasants and readjust the points throughout the book and expand the available wizard lores.  Bam minimum 8th edition update.

Seriously, questing and grail knights are worth it if they are cheaper.


And if you really want to change some rules you simple just tweak them. Like the blessing always being 5+ ,   grail knights get  4+ ward.

Pretty much everyone could agree to these simple changes.

I think the simple greatest weakness is the ability to always have to go last in a match. Just grant them the blessing without giving up first turn!

[The Real Rick Salamone]

The Bret rules are in their earliest play test phase...but thank you so much for your feedback on the forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KevinC]

I turned the EEFL forum down upon seeing the administrator's Bretonnian ideas. Steel arbalests, no questing knights, bowmen without stakes and a guy with his own version of ideas was moved to another topic instead of comparing and changing ideas to suit everyone present.

No thanks.

Baron,

It's funny how people can have such negative views. I wonder, Baron, did you come to EFFL because you wanted to be apart of a new forum dedicated to 8th edition? Or did you come looking for hate?

My Bret list is in its first draft. A first draft is not a final product. When I wrote the Indy GT Dwarfs of Chaos book, we had so many haters of the first draft (and throughout the project in fact! How dare I try and write an army book!). But when it it was finished, GTs across the world used in there games.

When another member was talking about their bret rules under the topic for my list, I kindly asked them to discuss it in another topic because I was seriously getting confused on what exactly they were talking about. It was not meant in any negative fashion. I completely encourage discussions. The very reason the list is in a very raw draft state is specifically for feedback. Flaming arrows, for example, was an oversight - it will be fixed in the next draft. Take a closer look Baron, questing knights are there, can you find them? But I welcome anyone and everyone to come over and rip my Bretonninan army list apart for whatever reasons they see fit, it's what I'm looking for in fact. Though I do like to see some play testing to back things up too.

I've been playing Warhammer since the 80s and I've always been positive about it. The thing I don't get about these forums is members like Baron Von Klatz who sees every idea different from their own as some kind of threat or negative in some way. A respectable person who is "turned off" by the forum would simply not be involved and that's that. Spoilers and haters go around and promoted negativity for no reason.

[Baron von Klatz]

Oh dear, my sincerest apologies. I certainly didn't mean to attack you, I'm very sorry and hope you don't feel that I was bashing your forum.

I went to the forum wondering what was being done and it certainly looked good, I approve of the Bretonnian prayers that you created, I just felt that Bretonnia as a whole was being made for gaming balance instead of respecting it's fluff. I foolishly put your Bretonnian ideas down as another fan creation that had little real effort behind it, I did not know of your renowned work on other armybooks.

Once again I apologize and will sign up on the forum to give my thoughts instead of being negative on other forums, that really was foul of me to do so.

In the end I just want everyone to have fun, that's the point of the game in wargames. 

[iatroblast]

I hope you didn't find my interference offensive either. But i have a different opinion from Baron on this one. As i see it, if you find it challenging competing against another army, you should tweak your army list not the stats. Otherwise, it somehow feels like you are cheating
Anyway, that's why i probably stick with the official rules however outdated they may be. But if you guys want to play it differently, then why not?
My suggestion to you though, would be to come up with a new distinctive name for all those fan armybooks, which would make them look like  an expansion for the existing EE (like Storm of Chaos was)

I admit that sometimes house rules come in handy, like with AoS armies who don't use the EE system. Here's another idea which i admit you may find strange. How about some rules that allow Fantasy and 40K players compete against each other? The models are about the same size, and it's a bit downer that you can't play with everyone collecting Warhammer armies. I've heard of that match they had in GW long ago, where Dwarfs barely won a game against Space Marines. There was also a story in an older White Dwarf i think, were some Blood Angels appeared out of nowhere and eliminated a Beastmen camp. The story continues by saying that none ever found out who or what they where, so they thought they were actually Sigmar's angel-like beings. I always found that intriguing, but you may think it's pointless to try that, so no hurt feelings there

[GamesPoet]

I turned the EEFL forum down upon seeing the administrator's Bretonnian ideas. Steel arbalests, no questing knights, bowmen without stakes and a guy with his own version of ideas was moved to another topic instead of comparing and changing ideas to suit everyone present.

No thanks.

Baron,

It's funny how people can have such negative views. I wonder, Baron, did you come to EFFL because you wanted to be apart of a new forum dedicated to 8th edition? Or did you come looking for hate?

This seems too strong of a word for the comment being made.  He seems to have expressed his view, not that I agree with it, and it seems your's has now been explained, thank you and hope your efforts are joyful.

I've been playing Warhammer since the 80s and I've always been positive about it. The thing I don't get about these forums is members like Baron Von Klatz who sees every idea different from their own as some kind of threat or negative in some way. A respectable person who is "turned off" by the forum would simply not be involved and that's that. Spoilers and haters go around and promoted negativity for no reason.

Baron Von Klatz has been known to express his feelings as he sees it, but I'm not aware of him trying to be a "spoiler" nor a "hater".  I actually went to the so called 8th Edition for Life site, and was disappointed that it read, "The REAL Warhammer Forum" infront of it's seemingly intended title.  That was a turnoff for me, but I'm not trying to be a "spoiler" nor a "hater", just disappointed.

[KevinC]

Hey guys,

I apologize too if I came off a bit aggressive in the above post to the Baron. I'm simply tied of negative interpretations.

Everything is so relative.

GamesPot, the thought behind "The REAL Warhamemr forum" was because it's an 8th edition forum, so it's a REAL Warhammer forum, as opposed to Age of Sigmar. It was not meant to say other forums are inferior, or that we are superior, or anything of the kind. I personally promote all editions of Warhammer. I'm a big fan of 3rd edition myself!

Words and phrases have so many meanings that almost any written statement can be interpreted in different ways. The only thing I can think of is to approach things without ego (not that people are approaching views in an egotistical way). But I believe it can influence an interpretation.

iatroblast, what you're saying about crossing the two games is really cool. Back in 3rd, the games were so close that it was very easy to cross the two systems (in fact, I believe they were designed to be crossed). This would be a fun thing to do. I personally have not played 40K since 2nd edition, but I wonder if more experienced 40K players could help out with something like this. It would be fun. I once used my Goblin army as a Gretchin army in 40K and it was pretty neat. I think "Grots" in the current rules are nothing but fodder though. 

Baron, np, just if you don't like the forum, you could simply choose not come back, why bash it? There are Warhammer forums out there that I do not prefer, I've never had the urge to speak poorly of them. I merely don't visit them.

Finally, the Bretonnian army list we are working on (as with any projects we come up with) is by no means to be imposed onto anyone. If people want to use the rules then that is just great, if people don't like them, they don't have to use them - and that is just all fine! I don't expect my Bretonnian army list to be THE Bretonnian army list.

[GamesPoet]

Hey guys,

I apologize too if I came off a bit aggressive in the above post to the Baron. I'm simply tied of negative interpretations.

Ok, so both have apologized, and I can understand the attitude towards negativity wrapped around WAoS.

Everything is so relative.

True.

GamesPot, ...

  I've been called alot of things in my life time, but that's a first.

... the thought behind "The REAL Warhamemr forum" was because it's an 8th edition forum, so it's a REAL Warhammer forum, as opposed to Age of Sigmar. It was not meant to say other forums are inferior, or that we are superior, or anything of the kind. I personally promote all editions of Warhammer. I'm a big fan of 3rd edition myself!

Words and phrases have so many meanings that almost any written statement can be interpreted in different ways. The only thing I can think of is to approach things without ego (not that people are approaching views in an egotistical way). But I believe it can influence an interpretation.

This is why giving careful consideration to the message is important.  Is it "The REAL Warhammer forum" or a "Eight Edition for Life"?  The latter has enough connotation as is, without adding in the former as the first impression of the site, whether or not egos are involved.

Finally, the Bretonnian army list we are working on (as with any projects we come up with) is by no means to be imposed onto anyone. If people want to use the rules then that is just great, if people don't like them, they don't have to use them - and that is just all fine! I don't expect my Bretonnian army list to be THE Bretonnian army list.

Well with the forum being called "The REAL Warhammer forum", it is only natural that some folks are going to perceive what may or may not be present as being, "The Bretonnian army list".  If I were in your shoes, and valued what you're expressing, than I'd lobby to get the name of the forum changed, or maybe not even use it.

[The Real Rick Salamone]

EEFL!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GamesPoet]

EEFL!

Well the forum name is still as of this post the same, "The REAL Warhammer Forum ...".

[iatroblast]

...
iatroblast, what you're saying about crossing the two games is really cool. Back in 3rd, the games were so close that it was very easy to cross the two systems (in fact, I believe they were designed to be crossed). This would be a fun thing to do. I personally have not played 40K since 2nd edition, but I wonder if more experienced 40K players could help out with something like this. It would be fun. I once used my Goblin army as a Gretchin army in 40K and it was pretty neat. I think "Grots" in the current rules are nothing but fodder though. 
...

If they were ment to be crossed, it's a shame they abandoned that plan, but it's easy to figure out why i guess. Actually, i started collecting Witch Hunters long ago, but i stopped, as none in my group likes sci-fi. So there was no point to continue. Probably that's how i came up with the idea. But i wish you the best with your new books, i'll check them out when they're ready. Btw, i don't want to be pushy, but i do think a smaller extra name logo on the cover could be a good idea to easily identify them from other similar attempts and google them when we need to. It could also help promotion

EEFL!

Well the forum name is still as of this post the same, "The REAL Warhammer Forum ...".

If i understood correctly, i think that's because we are used to see the motto after the title, not before. I agree it seems a little misleading as it is. Eitherway, if you are free to talk about official rules and lists in most topics, i believe it's justified

[GamesPoet]

It strikes me as leading with a claim of superiority, overly prideful, instead of being humble enough to call it what it was originally intended to be.

[The Peacemaker]

I would like to point out that, since its overly apparent, that even discussing crazy whacked out rules quickly leads to people just clicking the x on the browser. Any potential legitimacy is gone.

You can post that its test phase, or first draft, or just brainstorming but still people will skip that intro and just read the crazy stuff.
When writing a rule or set of rules you have to consider both fluff and balance. Otherwise it quickly escalates into fanboydom and wishlisting. There is a reason not everyone gets hired as a game designer and there is a reason playtesting is carried out.

Its like that new swedish comp rules. I looked over it and all seemed good until I read dwarfs get to march tripple distance. I was like WTF? do they even play dwarves? what kind of fanboy crap is this?
Seriously, I read that change and thought "someone played a game and was angry because fast cav ran circles around their dwarfs".

[Baron von Klatz]

I feel I must apologize again, I really should have worded my response better than the way that it came out. At the very least I should have put a IMO.

The EEFL is fine and quite a good forum, I was complaining about the Bretonnian draft not the forum. That's still no excuse for my put down of it though. I just didn't think my opinion warranted that much attention, I'm just a guy who talks about warhammer and makes some drawings from time to time. I certainly don't want to bring anyone's projects or forums down.

Also, I had a good laugh at GamesPot.