Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: Lord Karnik on August 17, 2010, 05:10:23 PM
-
So what do we think in the early stages of 8th edition it's legacy was, also now that 7th is finished what was its legacy?
I believe 7th was the have and have not edition. Some armies had it (DE, Demons, VC) everyone else did not. It was also the skirmish style battle edition as big blocks were not common.
I Think 8th will be the power and clean edition. All Armies seem to be close to each other, and thus I think Power list will emerge for each army and this list will be very common in tournament settings but will also become boring to face. However in the friendly arena I think the edition will shine as the game has become very clean and very simple.
Just a brief thought feel free to through in your 2 cents
-
I started with the 7th last fall after a break from the early days of the 5th edition and I think that the 7th was a game of elites. Few standard troops had a Chance against Chaos Warriors, Swordmasters, Black Guards and so on. The limits in numbers of characters gave the same outcome, vampires and the such kicked generals of the Empire around and the cheap characters was mainly there to raise the Ld of their troops. Dragons and monsters was used to bring Lords up to elite levels for a few armies and the lists that did not have access to good monsters had to stand back and put their fate in warmachines and shooting to diminish the numbers of the elite units.
The 8th edition seems to be a step towards hand to hand combat. All units has the Chance of killing everything they facing and hold against whatever they is killing them. I think that the 8th edition is going to be bloodier than the 4th edition with its killing machine characters and devastating magic.
-
Imho GW is on the right run this edition. Several Editions got their special problems. 2nd Edition was so Character-dominated for an example. 3rd one was in the focus of insane magic items combos and magic. 7th Edition was one of the biggest jokes about balancing. Additionally there was nearly no use for 30+ infantry blocks. For example Vampire Death Star or things like that dominated the game.
8th seems to be a good one. Elite units still crush other units, but now they receive a lot of damage even by weak mass units. Skirmishers and flyers got nerfed and especially infantry got buffed a lot. The interesting one is that GW didnt nerfed powerful units directly. They just buffed lesser used units.
The question is....GW did too much of redesign? Actually i would say no, but may be the time will show.
Imho Demons and Vampires got back to average till good strength instead of being a class of its own with Dark Elves. Dark Elves are still a very powerful race. The high I gives them a big advantage, but they will eat more dmg by the "remove from back"-rule which hurts every low armored elite race a lot.
May be GW will fix the last jokes (like hate on Hydras) and so on with the new Armybooks.
-
Eight will be remembered as the time of the Empire.
Mark my words.
-
Eight will be remembered as the time of the Empire.
Mark my words.
Live it up!
Its our time.
-Grutch
-
Eight will be remembered as the time of the Empire.
Mark my words.
I did. :smile2:
-
Eight will be remembered as the time of the Empire.
Mark my words.
Let us not get to excited. Skaven are still out there and I here that there is a call for another great Waagh.
I am curious about how Ogre Kingdoms fares in this edition. The stomp attack and the monstrous support rule means that they will be better, the question is if they are good enough to go toe to toe with the big boys.
-
Pfft! It is still the time of the warhammer and cannon, but most importantly of all, it is the time of the HALBERD and finally we can stand up proudly, show of our codpieces and declare "I´d take strength four any day!"
-
I really like what they've done with most of the rules, a few exceptions, but that's not bad considering...
What will probably make or break it I guess will be how they fare with keeping the army book sensible. Fingers crossed that they hold it together...
-
my long time gaming pals all pretty much gave up with 7th - it was just too much about characters, killer list building and playing your special rules upon some poor sucker who hadn't read your book. And there was always a new super-unit/character/gadget out there to ruin the fun.
8th restores a lot of balance to the game, and makes massed melee combats and the battle line sensible again. I'd say it's a move to "realistic melee play" and now all the special stuff is there to weaken up his battle line so you can have a better chance to break it. Feels more "historical" in the sense that melee matters, which is should for this type of period. 7th was virtually like 40K or modern warfare. This feels like massed armies coming to grips.
We all are enjoying the slamfest of fighting, yet there's plenty of room for maneuver and tactics. Hopefully, this trend will continue!
-
Except that 75% of warhammer infantry will take that halberd out of your hand and crack that codpeice in half with it.
Empire is not the top dog this edition, but we are certainly in the top 25%, which is something that couldn't be said ever really.
Phil
-
Some armies had it (DE, Demons, VC) everyone else did not.
Never had excessive problem with Vamps or Druchii probably averaged 50/50 with Warriors, Asrai, and Empire.
Few standard troops had a Chance against Chaos Warriors . . . The 8th edition seems to be a step towards hand to hand combat.
Chaos Warriors are and always have been Core . . . Melee still isn't Empire strength. That is not to til after the enemy has taken a couple Turns of Artillery and shooting to deal with. Sounds alot like my 7th ed army personally.
Additionally there was nearly no use for 30+ infantry blocks. For example Vampire Death Star or things like that dominated the game.
Aren't Deathstars the very definition of a 30+ Infantyry block? Just saying. MSU had it's place and so did Deathstars. Just depends on your army's style of play.
7th - it was just too much about characters, killer list building and playing your special rules upon some poor sucker who hadn't read your book. And there was always a new super-unit/character/gadget out there to ruin the fun.
Maybe it's just my style but . . . My Empire and Asrai armies could hardly be said to have had uber characters. Part of the game is coming up with killer list - always has been and will be for some folks. Anybody who plays the game should be willing to research his opponent's capabilities - if not cool, but don't expect to be competitive in anything in life without a little effort though.
Just a few thoughts on the above ideals about the so-called "legacies". Ther are a ton of things I liked and disliked about 7th. and I can already see the same for 8th. (I just happen to HATE TLoS for any miniature game) Relax , Enjoy, have fun with your friends or participating in Tournaments. Just remember your game and some other guys might be different and that should be okay, whether it's in a LGS or while discussing the game on the internet. Peace
PS: Empire Artillery and Asur ASF ae going to be big in 8th. Play nice
-
Warhammer 8E is, first and foremost, and attempt to take the edge of the game's learning curve. I can recall many instances where a new guy showed up for a tournament at my LGS, got slaughtered, and never showed up again. And we weren't even playing ultra-cheesy armies like you hear about on Warseer.
Honestly, though, I think they went too far. Acrobatic characters and steadfast took the edge off the consequences of being flanked. Flank cav, skirmishers, harpies, et cetera have been hit by the nerf hammer now that it's really difficult to be march-blocked, tactical fleeing is very risky, and units can redirect charges at the drop of a hat.
Five years from now, the game will be larger but with a dumber fanbase.
On the positive side, I like premeasuring. It narrows the learning curve without dumbing down the game. The random charge distances make it impossible to spend tons of time carefully arranging units to make the enemy's charges fail by a centimetre(this happened in the demo game of Flames of War I played and kill my interest in the game). I do wish it had been something more reasonable though, like Move+1d6+2. I've seen some pretty ridiculous charges succeed....
-
glad to see this is taking off. have to say I think the Dwarfs may prove a tuugh match in 8th for just about any one
-
Ninth edition shall be on the horizon and 100 man units will be the norm then if the trend continues.
-
I think the ease of flanking is what made 7th such a pain in the butt. 5 knights shouldn't be able to take away the rank bonuses of 40 men. However, a unit of knights charging a unit of infantry will very often win even under 8th. No outnumber bonus and the +1 for charging mean the infantry blocks have a harder time winning combats in many cases, they just stay around a little longer.
Phil
-
I think the ease of flanking is what made 7th such a pain in the butt. 5 knights shouldn't be able to take away the rank bonuses of 40 men.
Who took 40 men in 7th, or even 6th?
5 knights in a flank should be able to bust apart 20 guys, now they have no chance.
However, a unit of knights charging a unit of infantry will very often win even under 8th. No outnumber bonus and the +1 for charging mean the infantry blocks have a harder time winning combats in many cases, they just stay around a little longer.
Cavalry this edition is crap. I expect 9th edition to boost cavalry effectiveness, as all the movies with the glorious cavalry charges will sway the game designers pens.
Magic is too overpowered this edition. All that really needs to be done, is either restore double 1's = miscast, or allow players an attempt at dispelling IF spells.
Skaven is the powerhouse this edition. They excel at everything this edition boosted, and I expect most Tournies to have Skaven rating highly. Again.
-
Who took 40 men in 7th, or even 6th?
Who took cavalry at all? I was saying that if they kept the rules the same for infantry, 8th wouldn't have been any different in terms of army comp.
Cavalry this edition is crap. I expect 9th edition to boost cavalry effectiveness, as all the movies with the glorious cavalry charges will sway the game designers pens.
I had my boar boy unit mince its way through two full units of orcs. A total of over 50 models with only 15 boar boyz. If you think cavalry is crap, you aren't trying.
Magic is too overpowered this edition. All that really needs to be done, is either restore double 1's = miscast, or allow players an attempt at dispelling IF spells.
The only game I saw magic approach too powerful was when I watched a slann roll a 9 and an 11 on two rounds of magic. Other than that, it has been potent, but no moreso than shooting or melee. If anything, I am impressed that they have managed to get it to fit into the rest of the game without being too good or too bad. It just is. The way it needed to be.
Skaven is the powerhouse this edition. They excel at everything this edition boosted, and I expect most Tournies to have Skaven rating highly. Again.
Very likely. Orcs and Goblines along with Empire have similar advantages. Chaos Warriors and dwarves got big bumps too. I am actually thinking dwarves might be the dark horses of this edition. They shoot and fight better than empire, and can shut down the magic phase nearly as well.
Phil
-
Cavalry this edition is crap. I expect 9th edition to boost cavalry effectiveness, as all the movies with the glorious cavalry charges will sway the game designers pens.
I had my boar boy unit mince its way through two full units of orcs. A total of over 50 models with only 15 boar boyz. If you think cavalry is crap, you aren't trying.
Really? Did you have a character in it? Did the Orc Boyz? Did you have a banner? Any BigUnz?
Taking a guess at equipment:
Your Boar Boyz had Spear, Shield, LA and FC
Enemy Orc Boyz had Choppa and Shield
And a total of 50 Orcs = 2 full units? Maybe in 7th ed, not in 8th. 25 would hardly be enough. And you pitted them against an 8th ed sized cavalry unit?
Looking at the points costs, 15 Boar Boyz would have cost roughly 400pts, while 2 units of 25 Orc Boyz would have come out at roughly 360. I should hope your big unit of cavalry could break these small (by 8th ed standards) units of Orcs.
I think cavalry is crap compared to the boosts everything else received. The requirement of a full second rank for basic cavalry (not your hammer Chaos and Blood Knights) mean they need high numbers to break units, making them expensive for their use. Going all out with a unit of cavalry of size 15+ is an expensive investment, and one that needs to pay back its points quickly.
I can try and make cavalry work. And they can. But the point is, the way the rules are currently, they are overcosted for their use (again, leaving the hammer cavalry out of this).
-
I have to agree that I don´t like to include cavalry in my lists. Perhaps I try a unit of Dragon Princes as their fire immunity gives them a slight advantage but still Infantry is better compared points wise.
-
If you think cavalry is crap, you aren't trying.
Amen, gone are the ridiculous 5 knight units that spammed the board.
I am also miraciously agreeing on your take on magic - nice but unpredictable.
-
If you think cavalry is crap, you aren't trying.
Amen, gone are the ridiculous 5 knight units that spammed the board.
But they aren't gone. Those 5 knights of Chaos, or 5 Blood Knights will still be on the board. They were the real problem with Cavalry, and they haven't gone anywhere.
I do like that you need more knights to break apart units, but 5 knights would easily be able to bust apart 20 men.
Cavalry should only need 1 rank to negate ranks against battle bus formations. They should require a second rank to break apart horde formations.
I am also miraciously agreeing on your take on magic - nice but unpredictable.
Don't get me wrong, I am liking the magic this edition. But there is no proper dis-incentive for throwing 6 dice at a spell just to get the IF. Especially combined with the two main killer spells of Purple Sun and Dwellers Below. The fixes I suggested would not change anything, except give the caster a reason to have a second thought on whether throwing all their dice at the killer spell is the best choice. Because as the edition goes on, this will be something people will keep complaining about (or doing). Mark my words.
-
But they aren't gone. Those 5 knights of Chaos, or 5 Blood Knights will still be on the board. They were the real problem with Cavalry, and they haven't gone anywhere.
Now Warlord, how can these expensive units spam the board?
I am talking about cheap cavalry that broke ranks and made tough units run away like little girls.
Because as the edition goes on, this will be something people will keep complaining about (or doing). Mark my words.
Don't need to.
After all this is the internet, there are a million screen game designers, and everyone knows best... So there will be a shitload of stuff to whine about.
-
I do like that you need more knights to break apart units, but 5 knights would easily be able to bust apart 20 men.
Cavalry should only need 1 rank to negate ranks against battle bus formations. They should require a second rank to break apart horde formations.
I like the idea. Perhaps cavalry should only need 4 files to form a rank, 5 for infantry, 4 for cavalry and 3 for monsters.
-
In essence, 10 cm of frontage equals a rank. Which is my dream situation.
20 and 40 mm wide don't change, 25 becomes 4 per rank.
-
I am on bored with the Magic issue.... there is no real down side to throwing a crap load of dice at a spell. Certainly not for a slann who has the throne up.
As for Cav I think tehy stil have a place. It only makes sense that if ranked units got bigger that the cav would also have to get bigger. in this eddiion if you want a unit to break and run so you can start turning the battle in your favor then you need a strong flanking unit and I belive cav can still be this unit.
-
Cavalry was never able to break ranked, trained infantry. In the game, untrained infantry are represented with a lower leadership score and so run more often.
Warlord: Concerning the boar boyz. Yes, they were a 430 point unit, and defeated two units of 30 orcs, one with a BSB and the other had a 4th level orc shaman in it. Two ranks of cavalry is nasty. It is a pile of attacks and they can take plenty of hits and wounds while still remaining potent.
As for throwing 6 dice, fine. If people are throwing the 6 dice then they they can only get two spells off per phase. Look at the damage dwellers and purple sun will do and thats probably going to be about the same damage as 2 or 3 mortars tops.
Phil
-
I dont think 8th ed will last 5 years fwiw.
But like 7th ed, the real test will come when the new army books start being released and those oh so problematic special rules (like ASF) that did the real damage in 7th
-
The miscast table is horrible, how is that not a disinsentive for throwing loads of dice?
-
Throne of vines.
-
I had a mage kill 14 of the greatswords he was with on a miscast on Sunday. No doubt he was able to bluff his way out of a beheading by saying that it was the fault of the shaman in the goblin army. :-D
That said, there are some overlooked items that let a caster ignore their first miscast. There's a 20 point magic item in the High Elf army, for instance.
-
I think as a lizard player msi cast do not bother me..... I typically have throne of Vines up or I have cupped hands so i can dish it off the first time. But I think I might have to try a unit of 11 Cold one riders at some point and see how thy do??
-
Lord Karnik, you really have to double check your posts. You so often seem like a dyslexic 12 year old for whom english is a second language!
:D
And thats coming from me, who makes constant speed typing mistakes.
Phil
-
I started with the 7th last fall after a break from the early days of the 5th edition and I think that the 7th was a game of elites. Few standard troops had a Chance against Chaos Warriors, Swordmasters, Black Guards and so on. The limits in numbers of characters gave the same outcome, vampires and the such kicked generals of the Empire around and the cheap characters was mainly there to raise the Ld of their troops. Dragons and monsters was used to bring Lords up to elite levels for a few armies and the lists that did not have access to good monsters had to stand back and put their fate in warmachines and shooting to diminish the numbers of the elite units.
The 8th edition seems to be a step towards hand to hand combat. All units has the Chance of killing everything they facing and hold against whatever they is killing them. I think that the 8th edition is going to be bloodier than the 4th edition with its killing machine characters and devastating magic.
Having re-started playing WHFB after almost 20 years break ( after 3rd. actually ) I can only subcribe to what Johedl said.
The few games a played with 8th. already gave a lot more fun then 7th. and the "gut feeling" about my 3000 pts Armies ( Imps, Dawi, O&G, and WoC ) could be called "just about right" - as it should be. Having said this, I must admit, that I am by no means a tournament player, and their take will probably very different - but since I am playing in a club with a lot T-players, I can say that many are still quite positivwe on the changes.
Army composition now can still generate some very hard armies, but this is now true for many of the factions, not only few elites.
So how will WHFB look like when I am 56 ( in five years ) ? I hope not too much different then today. There are certainly a few points here and there, especially with regard to certain army books, and of course, with more experience, people will find out , which new issues hall be adressed in 9th. Maybe we see one or two new factions and maybe some changes in the existing factions ( new or changed existing troops / characters ).
However, I hope, that a kind of drastic change like from 7th. - to 8th. will not be necessary.
Most important is, that it should still provide enough fun to play it - afterall, that's what counts.
-
Too early to tell, so far basic rules are ok, things kind of blow up way to much for my taste, but it is still tolerable. As always, it will come down to army books. For once i would like special characters that are not completelly out of place in the game and that every tourny out there allows them not just the gw ones.
The one thing i am afraid of, is that this edition lends itself way too much to power gamming for my taste, but again, it will come down to army books.
Also, i am kind of afraid of games getting finished by turn 2-3, it kind of takes the fun out of it, and sadly, i read somewhere that is what GW is going for.
-
Too early to tell, so far basic rules are ok, things kind of blow up way to much for my taste, but it is still tolerable. As always, it will come down to army books. For once i would like special characters that are not completelly out of place in the game and that every tourny out there allows them not just the gw ones.
The one thing i am afraid of, is that this edition lends itself way too much to power gamming for my taste, but again, it will come down to army books.
Also, i am kind of afraid of games getting finished by turn 2-3, it kind of takes the fun out of it, and sadly, i read somewhere that is what GW is going for.
Aye, true. I helped my daughter play her first game of warhammer with a 1500 point HE list against my buddy and his 1500 point VC list. Granted, it was his first 8th edition game, but he is a veteran gamer, and it was over in turn three. Every last one of his undead was annihilated, while my daughter only lost 4 Spearmen and 4 Reavers. I like to think that now that he understands 8th a little better, as good as he is, he'll build a list that can take HE in 8th Ed.
With Vampires, however, could we all agree that in 7th they were maybe 2nd or 3rd out of 15, and now they've dropped to about, what, 13th or 14th? Including the guy above, I know three Vamp players who have given up on Vamps for eighth, one of which won't even play his Chaos Warriors anymore after Kholek got spanked by a group Phoenix Guard buffed with the Mindrazor spell. I do see where many people think this is "Warhammer for Dummies" or power gaming. I believe the Warhammer "snobs" are very upset at 8th . . . me, I'm too busy loving the no-partial rule on templates to notice . . . :happy:
-
How does this edition lend itself to powergaming?
-
Throne of vines.
I thought that too --- then rolled a bloody 1 the first time I miscast. And that was the only time i was able to get the damned spell off during the game. :eusa_wall:
I also had a big unit of knights, buffed with a spell, chew up and spit out an infantry unit. It's awesome when you can hit them in the flank and they don't get supporting ranks.
-
I am really not agreeing with the whole 'Warhammer for Dummies' concept. The game wasn't that hard under 7th comparatively. Everyone complains about how flanking has been reduced. That was really all 7th was, and it wasn't that complicated. Move a faster unit to a flank or get someone stuck in with an unbreakable unit. Is that all that difficult? No, not really.
At least now you need to KILL something. Thats the name of the game. Mass slaughter. And I love it!
Phil
-
How does this edition lend itself to powergaming?
The magic spells themselves are far more brutal, even if, with the new "winds of magic" you might just get enough dice to get only one spell off. We can now bring far more cannons and mortars, and with no more partials, very brutal.
I am really not agreeing with the whole 'Warhammer for Dummies' concept. The game wasn't that hard under 7th comparatively. Everyone complains about how flanking has been reduced. That was really all 7th was, and it wasn't that complicated. Move a faster unit to a flank or get someone stuck in with an unbreakable unit. Is that all that difficult? No, not really.
At least now you need to KILL something. Thats the name of the game. Mass slaughter. And I love it!
Phil
The fact that you can measure anything at anytime lends itself to that. We've already discussed on other threads, being Empire players, that guess ranging our cannons really seperated the men from the boys, especialy those diagonal shots across the table. Now, not so much . . .
It also took a certain level of skill to guess that charge range, especialy with wheeling/turning/maximizing frontage, now it's just a matter of dicehammer.
Don't get me wrong, the game goes smoother and faster now, I think, without the near endless/almost game ending "no, you had to wheel that extra 1/2", so you're short/but I already measured that, so I'm not short" arguing in the middle of the game.
In the end, all that matters is, I enjoyed 7th, and now I'm enjoying 8th, just different rules . . . :-)
-
In the end, all that matters is, I enjoyed 7th, and now I'm enjoying 8th, just different rules . . . :)
:eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap:
-
In 5 years time, we'll probably either have or be looking forward to 9th edition which, if the pattern holds, will be a "tidying up" of 8th (i.e. edition 8.5).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does this edition lend itself to powergaming?
Large Deathstar units will likely be the main recourse of powergamers - it's easier to reach the enemy lines than in 7th since avoidance/diversionary tactics aren't as viable and the enemy would have to wipe out the entire unit to score any VPs. Magic and artillery can be very devastating (as TexasYankee points out) and the main tool for dealing with Deathstars: however, they are far less reliable and usually won't outright win you many games.
-
I think there is a lot more balance in 8th edit. 7th was all about (as someone else said) flanking and luring, which is all well and good, apart from the fact that it was boooooooooring. I've always hated certain things about 7th that has been fixed, such as the front rank being killed so that you can't hit back, apparantly people just stood around and waited for the chaos warriors to chop up the guy in front of you.
2 ranks fighting also makes a lot of sense obviously meaning that infantry is good now, that's not the same thing as Cav sucks, cavalry still has it's place, especially our immortal 1+ cavalry, but they can't break a horde on their own, however in combination with a horde or smaller infantry unit they can be devastating ... much like lord of the rings when the Rohan Riders charge in the rear of the Orc hordes and wipes them.
The main problem with cavalry is the cost, 23 points for a knight is expensive, especially when the cost for your inf has upped, since you need so many guys, but in my games I've actually often found myself in a situation where I'd wish I had 9 knights with a priest to break of a unit in which my flaggies or halberdiers (or tank) was stuck.
The main change in 8th is that the game is agressive instead of passive, by that I mean you want your blocks to move across the field and kill things head on. In 7th you wanted to use your eagles to move units out of the way and into infavorable positions, sometimes to keep them out of the game for a couple of rounds. With the "free reform" when you wipe out a unit and almost impossible bait and flee changes you have to make an army that can actually either fight or move very fast. Wood elves, for instance took a great hit and I still consider them completely unplayable in 8th because a lot of their tactic was 7th edit reliable.
However I didn't win much with my woodies in 7th either, it was just that they where better at using a specific tactic than they are now, now they have to actually fight at some point instead of just running around in circles (and they can't really fight)
So the tiers of the armies have changed, leaving woodies and vampires near the bottom, while boosting all other armies (especially Empire, and even Tombkings)
For the magic ... well, to me it's awesome. I think dwellers below is over the top because it can be combined with throne of vines for a devastating effect on hordes, on the other hand, catching the wizard is easier now with the longer charge ranges, or if you think you'll be facing life just pick death and tear him apart with sniping spells. (this is hard to do with a Slann, but possible)
I'm not a big fan of TLoS, I liked the old system for LoS better since TLoS is subjective and thus always seems to be a way for players to disagree and stall the game. I don't like it in 40K and I don't like it in fantasy.
I hope that the game will evolve in this direction for the next 5 years, that the armybooks will be more balanced than they where in 7th and that all armies will be viable choices for tournaments.
-
I hope that the game will evolve in this direction for the next 5 years, that the armybooks will be more balanced than they where in 7th and that all armies will be viable choices for tournaments.
It would seem that it is heading that way, If you read this article on GWs site:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=0&aId=12400019a&start=1 (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=0&aId=12400019a&start=1)
It is basically an acknowledgment of everything everything that was wrong about 7th edition and that most ppl complained about. So at the very least they know that they fucked 7th up. Lets hope they dont repeat their own history.
This army composition system, lends itself way too much to power gaming, that is the sad truth about it. Having said that, there will always be ways to break any system thought by man, the way to check this is by the scenario system. The only real problem i see with this thus far, is that scenarios are not that different enough, you have 1 capture scenario, 1 weird banner scenario and 4 pitched battle scenarios. It would have been better if at the very least it would have been 2 for each, chances are you will end up playing the old pitched battle with different deployment rules, which would not have been an issue if flanking and rearcharging were as important as they were in the past.
Let me give an example from 40k, take IG with a multitude of core choices, thats awesome for Capture and Control but absolutely sucks for Kill points (as they are easily killed), now lets bring this to Fantasy, Lets think banners, there is no downside to having as many banners as possible (baring retarded choices as 10 man halberdiers with full command and no shields). There is no downside to having a 1k fenix guard unit with a MR(2) banner bunkering a lvl 4 Life/shadows Archmage with book of hothek (or what ever its name). This unit has ward save 2+ against magic, ward save 4+ and hits like a ton of bricks, it cost half your army, you dont get half its points, it does well in any scenario and you still need to kill it in all of them either for VP, to keep it from raiding the tower or for its breakpoints. This is just an example off the top of my head, i am sure there are way more optimal choices.
Bottom line, as always, it will come down to army books, my guess is that we will get a much clearer idea as to were things are heading with the release of the first 8th edition army book.
As for what many define this as the retarded Fantasy edition, i would have to agree, not for 1 thing in particular but for many that just add up a lot.
1- Steadfast is too powerfull, it should be cancelled if flanked, not being so diminishes the nessesity and tactical skill to flank.
2- Horde+Steadfast, makes it so that in many cases (if not most of them) you can substitute tactical skill for shear numbers.
3- Redirecting, is not only very unrealistic fluf/history wise (and i am not ussually one to complain about that) but it also removes the tactical component to screening and baitting.
4- +1 CR for charging in the world of "steadfast" and "step up" is borderline irrelevant.
There are some others but this are the ones that bother me the most.
-
1- Steadfast is too powerfull, it should be cancelled if flanked, not being so diminishes the nessesity and tactical skill to flank.
I agree, if you manage to take the flank, it should cancel. That said, I don't find units stay steadfast for long. Most units that are relying on the rule are going to be consumed in a real combat.
2- Horde+Steadfast, makes it so that in many cases (if not most of them) you can substitute tactical skill for shear numbers.
In every case I have seen, horde units cannot maintain both steadfast AND horde for more than a single round. They take too many wounds and must reform unless they have more than 60 models.
3- Redirecting, is not only very unrealistic fluf/history wise (and i am not ussually one to complain about that) but it also removes the tactical component to screening and baitting.
It isn't really any different than in 6th, just a little harder with the leadership test and all.
4- +1 CR for charging in the world of "steadfast" and "step up" is borderline irrelevant.
There are some others but this are the ones that bother me the most.
Well, I have found it valuable in my games, but maybe its just me.
Phil
-
The main thing 8th Edition will be remembered for was the Almost Edition. 8th edition is certainly different then 7th and emphasizes different aspects of the game. But is it truly better? Is it balanced? Are all phases of the game no more dominating/devastating then another? Almost...
They had some great Ideas...and almost fixed the game. The initial talk was in balancing, at least around the stores here. How GW would make the game balanced, fun and PDF the armies to remove/correct the aspects of certain armies that made them broken. GW Almost did...but not quite and the PDF changes were mostly a superficial change with little or no impact.
7th Ed. was all about micro movement, combat and Combat resolution. Shooting was mediocre, magic could do damage but could not destroy an enemy army in one turn.
8th Ed. They removed the total focus on/from combat resolution and micro movement to large infantry blocks slugging it out over many turns and put it on Magic and to some degree shooting/artillery.
The magic phase, unlike previous editions, can (and often does) absolutely dominate the battle field. The ability for magic to decimate a unit or multiple units in a single phase is unbelievable.
Artillery, with the indirect fire has now come into its own. never before were artillery pieces as effective as they are in 8th Ed. (Rocket Battery being the assinine unit now)
While they did balance portions of the game, they did so while destroying balance in others. Sure the DoC and VC are not the nastiest armies in the game, they simply moved that title to armies with decent infantry, superior magic defense and artillery.
In steps our Empire.
So, looking back, it will be the edition that “Almost Was”...Balanced.
So, looking back, it will be the edition that “Almost Was”...Great.
-
It isn't really any different than in 6th, just a little harder with the leadership test and all.
Phil
You are right, it was almost if not the same in 6th, that being said, changing it back to 6th was a step back, a bad move, it removed a tactical aspect of the game, with out adding neither smothness of functionallity what so ever.
-
Redirection is essential. The removal of it in 7th simply made stupid situations happen where units couldn't carry through into units only an inch further than the enemy they just charged, which fled.
Phil
-
Redirection is essential. The removal of it in 7th simply made stupid situations happen where units couldn't carry through into units only an inch further than the enemy they just charged, which fled.
Agree. 7th ed pursuit made less sense, and was more just a rule that could be exploited by a canny general, than what would actually happen were the WHFB world a bit more real (realism is a bad argument in a Fantasy game, I know)
-
I hear a lot of emphasis placed on Magic, saying its over powered…….. But is it not true that magic is just that magic, calling for the elements and controlling a man making him do things he otherwise would not. Sound pretty powerful to me. Also I have watched a few games and the magic phase seems to be pretty even in rounds 1-3 if both players have taken a fairly even amount of magic. It seems to start to tip the battle to the first player to gain the advantage IE killing an enemy wizard or killing themselves with IR.
This actually make sense to me… once you have magic and the other player does not you should be able to turn the game in your favor. I think the same could be said for War machines. IF you have them and your opponent does not why would you charge across the field on turn 1 and lose an advantage you have?
So I guess I agree that magic is more powerful but I do not think unbalanced, especially as units are moving across the board much faster with the new charge rules
-
In my opinion, magic is weaker.
Sure the spells are tough, but on average you'll have 7 power dice against 4 dispel dice.
that leaves 3 dice + your level (simplified approach of course). That means 1 big spell/2 smaller ones per turn ?
Provided the opponent isn't the Sigmarite Empire...
-
I really don’t understand the complaint on the steadfast rule, and that it should be removed on a flank charge.
In 7th edition charging the flank didn’t give you a huge advantage when it came to fighting. Facing 4 men in the flank wouldn’t be much more dangerous than facing 5 men in the front. In 8th edition the number of attacks you get in return is reduced with at least 50% in most chases even more. That means that charging the flank is a huge advantage. In many cases it will also remove rank bonuses, and a combined charge on both the flank and front is awesome. Adding “removing steadfast” would make flanking even stronger than in 7th edition, and flanking was already too powerful. The reason for the changes was to make it possible to use huge infantry units. I would think twice before investing in a horde unit that would auto break by a single flank charge.
-
I still think 7th edition was not the problem and had solid rules. It was the army book that came after that jack everything up. If I follow the example with 7th edition army books, 8th edition will be broken in 5 years as we wait for 9th to fix things.
-
I still think 7th edition was not the problem and had solid rules. It was the army book that came after that jack everything up. If I follow the example with 7th edition army books, 8th edition will be broken in 5 years as we wait for 9th to fix things.
agree 120%
-
Except that it still suffered from the issue that the rules simply made infantry unecessary. The best armies used manuverability to win.
Phil
-
Provided the opponent isn't the Sigmarite Empire...
You say that like it's a bad thing! :happy:
Currently running an Arch-Lector and two Warrior Priests in my 3,000 point list, and have yet to lose! :-D
For Sigmar!
-
Currently running an Arch-Lector and two Warrior Priests in my 3,000 point list, and have yet to lose! :-D
Me too. And me too!
This combo has a tremendous feel to it. Throw in a lv4 and lv2 and I think this is maybe our most powerful combo for the right point costs.
-
Except that it still suffered from the issue that the rules simply made infantry unecessary. The best armies used manuverability to win.
Phil
Cheap overpowered cav is at fault there, not the BRB.
-
Except that it still suffered from the issue that the rules simply made infantry unecessary. The best armies used manuverability to win.
Phil
Cheap overpowered cav is at fault there, not the BRB.
Nope, lack of steadfast, lack of stepup, lack of make-way was the fault, so yeah, it was the BRB
-
Disagree. Because now overpowered cav is still powerful, while underpowered cav is useless.
-
Completely disagree. My boarboyz have done fine and they are a below average cavalry with a low I, WS, AS, and strength (a S4 and S5).
Phil
-
Only not versus my helstorm :engel:
Phil's right though- just take a large block of them and they'll still kick ass.
-
Yeah, a large block.
And a large block in 7th of underpowered cav was good also.
But in 7th, a unit of savage boar boyz was a force to be reckoned with.
And you know I was referring to the difference between single attack cav vs multiple attack cav.
Multiple attack cav can still run around in a small unit.
Single attack cav now need numbers, and will cost more than multiple attack cav, for arguably the same (or less) killing power.
-
Multiple attack cav can still run around in a small unit.
Single attack cav now need numbers, and will cost more than multiple attack cav, for arguably the same (or less) killing power.
Yeah, but then again you need those extra models with both of them either way. This has been talked a lot, for cav to be anything close to effective (bare some very few exeptions), they need to brake ranks, so even if it is less hitting power, you still need 10+ models and most of the time elite armies just cant spare the points for such units, so they end up being less effective as a whole.
-
Breaking ranks is only +3 CR anyway.
And if the multi-attack cav unit combined with infantry to the front can do enough wounds, the back ranks begin to fall off quickly anyway, making the use of bigger single attack cavalry units less economical anyway.
The multi-attack cav units I am always referring to here, are Chaos Knights and Blood Knights (not Dragon Princes)
-
Breaking ranks is only +3 CR anyway.
And if the multi-attack cav unit combined with infantry to the front can do enough wounds, the back ranks begin to fall off quickly anyway, making the use of bigger single attack cavalry units less economical anyway.
The multi-attack cav units I am always referring to here, are Chaos Knights and Blood Knights (not Dragon Princes)
It just does not work for me. I would not risk or see profit out of flank charging a block of halberdiers with 35+ plus a model of knights, to kill 10 points of halberdiers and them slowlly but surelly kill my expensive knights, while chances are they are going to be steadfast any way.
The only way for cav to be usefull is combining its hitting power with rank dennial. Specially for us that we will have the ranks to denny the enemy steadfast.
-
But in 7th, a unit of savage boar boyz was a force to be reckoned with.
Still are. I run a unit of 16, 2 ranks of 6 and one of 4. That gives some casualties to take while maintaining size and they het HARD> Give them spears and make them bigguns. Thats over 550 points, I know. Give them the razor banner and watch the death. The front rank yeilds 24 attacks at S5 -3 AS, the second rank adds 6 more for 30 total. 15 hits and kill 12 against almost anything. Put in a hero and things get really nasty, though they don't need the help really.
Multiple attack cav can still run around in a small unit.
Single attack cav now need numbers, and will cost more than multiple attack cav, for arguably the same (or less) killing power.
They both have their rolls still, they just aren't the kings of the battlefield.
Phil
-
But in 7th, a unit of savage boar boyz was a force to be reckoned with.
Still are. I run a unit of 16, 2 ranks of 6 and one of 4. That gives some casualties to take while maintaining size and they het HARD> Give them spears and make them bigguns. Thats over 550 points, I know. Give them the razor banner and watch the death. The front rank yeilds 24 attacks at S5 -3 AS, the second rank adds 6 more for 30 total. 15 hits and kill 12 against almost anything. Put in a hero and things get really nasty, though they don't need the help really.
Again, you know I was referring to a unit of 5 or 6, not a unit with multiple ranks.
550 pts, compared to one of about 250 is quite different. Though this change is primarily due to a change in Frenzy rules (not affecting the mount, so only 18 attacks, not 24).
Their role has changed, due to their reduction in number of attacks.
Multiple attack cav can still run around in a small unit.
Single attack cav now need numbers, and will cost more than multiple attack cav, for arguably the same (or less) killing power.
They both have their rolls still, they just aren't the kings of the battlefield.
This is precisely my point. There are now two distinct types of cavalry - those that need ranks to be useful, and those that don't.
Breaking ranks is only +3 CR anyway.
And if the multi-attack cav unit combined with infantry to the front can do enough wounds, the back ranks begin to fall off quickly anyway, making the use of bigger single attack cavalry units less economical anyway.
The multi-attack cav units I am always referring to here, are Chaos Knights and Blood Knights (not Dragon Princes)
It just does not work for me. I would not risk or see profit out of flank charging a block of halberdiers with 35+ plus a model of knights, to kill 10 points of halberdiers and them slowlly but surelly kill my expensive knights, while chances are they are going to be steadfast any way.
The only way for cav to be usefull is combining its hitting power with rank dennial. Specially for us that we will have the ranks to denny the enemy steadfast.
I will bold the bit that helps.
Multi attack cavalry are not about rank denial. They are about kills.
A unit of say 40 Halberdiers, charged in the flank by Chaos Knights, and the front with marauders, will lose combat, and have not enought ranks.
The Marauders will have equal or greater ranks, and the halberds will have lost significantly more wounds. 4 halberd attacks in the flank are NOT going to whittle down the Chaos Knights in any significant way, and if they turn to face them, the flank of marauders will negate their ranks.
Multi attack cavalry now needs to combine charge with a unit of infantry. But once they do, the enemy is all but toast.
It sucks for all those point and click players because the now need to learn how to play.