Warhammer 8.ed - 2010

[Enigmatik1]

Originally Posted by eldratch the fallen

Skeletons bairly need to hit you to wipe core units out.

LOL! Skeletons CAN'T hit you, unless you're throwing Peasants or Zombies at them. Skeletons have an extremely hard time breaking opposing Core units with help (forget it if you can make your units immune to Fear, which is really easy), much less alone.

They're too expensive to reliably outnumber opposing Core units, their stats are terrible so that they will lose combat to much cheaper Core units...throw in a character or special/rare...forget it. That's a 20-model skeleton unit wiped out in the first round of combat nearly every time.

The only way Skeletons are any good is in a VC army, with the Helm of Command and backed by Van Hels and/or Corpse Carts. Otherwise, they're the most inefficient infantry in the game.

Having said all that, change the way the Undead rule works and make my Skeletons able to actually win combat sometimes and you can have Fear.

[CaptainSarathai]

The complaints that I'm reading through this thread seem to be on two different levels.
Stubborn dwarves with an out-dated book, who want to keep playing the game the way they've always played it, and newer players who are saying that things aren't as bad as they seem.
All of this is valid, as the older books are having a tough time of it, but the opposition is equally valid: fear is one of the least broken things about this game.

I wish they'd redo some books before they turn around and redo the rules, but then, it is true that it's better to be first in line. I'm just very leary of the turn around. I picked the game up in 5th edition, and it seemed that every edition change killed one of my armies, or opened the door for a total powershift (not through the edition change itself, but through the books following, which are written to capitalize on those rules).

I don't think that they're going to change the artillery rules however. I can see them perhaps doing it with the skaven just to make it a bit simpler for their weapon-teams, but too many armies are still functioning on the old artillery rules. What are they going to do for Empire, with their T7 cannon and their T3 crew? Would they release an FAQ for that? They would be causing themselves more hassle.

I just hope that they don't start taking the approach of 40k and start simplifying the rules. If I notice that trend, I'll cry, and you'll never see me on this forum again. Objectives aren't too bad, although it really will force a huge shift (I'm pointing at Empire and Dwarves, and laughing). I've played several objective games, and they're really fun. It's a lot more than just "swing in and kill everything". As long as they don't write some stupid rule like 'only core choices are scoring'. That would utterly destroy the game and several, several very limited armies (High Elves).

Well, either way, I am looking forward to the rumors that it's Orcs and Empire. My Empire army comes from the several of the old 6th-ed sets, and I still have my Orcs from there as well. Now I've got a horde of 200+ goblins from the 7th-ed set, and more from the 8th-ed set will mean that I finished off the better part of an army by essentially buying rule-books. That'd be a great deal.

As for what armies they put in: nothing that's too hard to play, or too weird. They want to make the game approachable. They don't put Dark Elves into a starter box because it means that Timmy and Tommy's first exposure to the game will be the Dark Elf book, with it's naked sadomasochism. They'd rather let Timmy and Tommy laugh at the orks and look at the simple and clean armies of the Dwarves and Empire. Nothing perverse, nothing overly dark, nothing to make mommy and daddy say "oh dear, this game is too mature for you".

[lewbot1]

Well said Captain, I wouldn't mind objectives being more central to fantasy battle but it would be hard to limit what can score and what can't,

e.g. My terradon riders with special character who allows you to enter play on a later turn, swoop in and land on as many objectives as possible, to contest or capture.

Would utterly break some games, Also, armies like Dwarves would be nigh on unplayable in objective matches, if they change the way some games are played, they will screw over a LOT of armies, and conversely over power others.

However, this happens with most rules changes, albeit on a smaller scale (only affects one army) an edition change affects everyone, which is why they must get it right WITHOUT over simplifying.

[Ancalagon]

WHFB doesn't need a new Edition just yet, this seems to me that GW just want to change the rules so that they can make all the FB players buy a new rulebook. But then I suppose something good might come out of this new edition, but like many of you I'm worried that they might try to simplify the game like they have with 40k.

I have to admit that I've never experienced an edition change in fantasy, as I started collecting my first army just a few weeks after 7th came out, but I've got familiar with this ruleset, and I like it, so I hope the changes are only minor.

I don't like the idea of 40k style objectives. They work in 40k because of the more fluid nature of that game, units have fewer models and they're all skirmishing, and all units have some shooting capability, and often enough to wipe units out. This makes having to hold an objective challenging, and just about any unit can move towards an objective. FB tends to work differently, I imagine when most people play, they get the two armies lined up opposite one another usually running most of the length of the board. It's much more difficult in that situation to be trying to direct units towards objectives rather than holding their place in your battle line.

Plus the fact, that as other people have mentioned, FB races have differing movement stats, and some armies would be at an unfair advantage or disadvantage if they had to dash across the board to try to sit on an objective.

As for the starter box, really there's quite a limited choice of armies that can be included. They basically need armies that don't have many special rules so they play in a 'standard' way. After all, the starter box is intended to teach people the core rules of the game, so they're unlikely to include armies that do away with the core rules.

So I'd say this rules out skirmishing armies (wood elves, beastmen) and undead (TKs, VCs) straight away. I'd also rule out Daemons, as they're qutie different to 'standard' armies.

Ogres seem unlikely as they aren't that popular, and I'd expect GW would want the troops in the box to be standard man sized one wound type guys. Bretonnia is also unlikely because one of the core aspects of their armies is the Lance formation, a special rule. Though they could conceivably include them and ignore the lance formation, rather like how the dwarf warriors in Skull Pass are always stupidly shown in 4x3 formation and so don't get a rank bonus.

So that leaves High & Dark Elves, Dwarfs, Empire, O&G, Lizardmen, Skaven and WoC.
And with those there are also a few army wide special rules floating around, just not to the same extent as in some of the other armies.

We can also be fairly sure that it won't be Dwarfs v O&G again, as that's what they've had in 7th. You can't rule out O&G though, they seem to be a very popular starter box choice. I'd say there's a good chance that GW might put Orcs in the next box instead of the goblins that they put in the current one. And, with O&G, you get the added advantage that whatever the other army in the box is, the Orcs have a valid reason for fighting them - it's a good scrap!

I think Empire vs WoC would make quite a good starter box actually, but we'll have to wait and see.

[lewbot1]

Lizardmen wouldn't be a viable starter choice, They have altered leadership due to the cold blooded special rule, not really ideal for teaching new players about leadership.

Also who would they fight? Fluffwise they only really fight Skaven clan pestilens, empire treasure hunters (ruling out cannon and artillery) and Dark Elves, but as captain said,

"They don't put Dark Elves into a starter box because it means that Timmy and Tommy's first exposure to the game will be the Dark Elf book, with it's naked sadomasochism."
Which I think is pretty sound reasoning. I really hope they don't go into 8th just yet, theres nothing that I can think of that is really broken, even if fear is slightly over bearing at the moment, they could just redress those armies books, not try to fix everything and make a hash of it

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by lewbot1

Lizardmen wouldn't be a viable starter choice, They have altered leadership due to the cold blooded special rule, not really ideal for teaching new players about leadership.

Also who would they fight? Fluffwise they only really fight Skaven clan pestilens, empire treasure hunters (ruling out cannon and artillery) and Dark Elves, but as captain said,

"They don't put Dark Elves into a starter box because it means that Timmy and Tommy's first exposure to the game will be the Dark Elf book, with it's naked sadomasochism."
Which I think is pretty sound reasoning. I really hope they don't go into 8th just yet, theres nothing that I can think of that is really broken, even if fear is slightly over bearing at the moment, they could just redress those armies books, not try to fix everything and make a hash of it

Yeah, but I knew that the lizzies have been in a starter box before and the cold blooded is a relatively minor special rule compared to some armies. But realistically, you're right, Skaven are about the only race they can fight for a proper grudge match type clash. And as the Captain said, DE are unlikely. So that leaves GW with an even smaller list.

[Stunted_Merc]

This sounds like crap, and the O&G book is good as is, I doubt they need another update before the half dozen or so books without a 7th edition book. But this is all BS to me until a more concrete announcement is made.

-K

[CaptainSarathai]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

Yeah, but I knew that the lizzies have been in a starter box before and the cold blooded is a relatively minor special rule compared to some armies. But realistically, you're right, Skaven are about the only race they can fight for a proper grudge match type clash. And as the Captain said, DE are unlikely. So that leaves GW with an even smaller list.

Actually, the same time that Lizardmen were included in the starter box (5th ed. by the way) Brettonians were featured in the starting box. This was before Cold Blooded, but the lance formation was extremely different then, and you had a counterpart to it known as the Arrowhead formation, for breton archers (which is why they're still a big part of the list).

In some ways, they've made important changes to Fantasy that 'streamline' the game. In 40k however, the changes aren't for quickness and playability, they're for sheer simplicity.
For instance: you used to have a system of magic item cards, and also a system of magic cards. The 'Winds of Magic' were actually random and determined what spells your wizards could cast on a TURN-BY-TURN basis! This has been done away with, simply to cut about 30mins off the game time. Magic items have become MORE prevalent, and magic has become more tactical as a result, because you can actually plan on what your tactics will be.

As for objective games-
they're not the same as they are in 40k. Because of the flanking rule, and the other game mechanics which you stated, 'holding the line' becomes important. It's a more realistic battle scenario, where the entire line must advance either to, or beyond, the objective. You make an overall 'push' for the objective with strong units, targeting it with artillery and the likes, but you have to support that push in the 'negative space' around the objective with other regiments. Otherwise you'll take the city, but be encircled and routed. If they would implement rules like this for 40k, you'd see a much more tactical game that would actually play like an engagement in a modern war.

[The bearded one]

The quote in the first post says Orcs vs Empire, which is pretty reasonable. It's the 4th time in a row there are greenskins in the starter set, isn't it? Goblins I believe vs high elves, orcs vs empire, dwarfs vs night goblins and now orcs vs empire again. Maybe skull pass isn't selling as well as the previous? Or maybe they think they can make the starterset more attractive for new people to buy. Who knows?
All I know is, that I've always got 1 warmachine, 2 thanes, an entire block of 20 warriors and 10 thunderers of skull pass in my army. And I'm loving it.

[waЯu]

One thing I'm really holding out for is a greater emphasis on infantry.

The thing that made initially made Fantasy Battle so much more appealing to me than 40K was the spectacle of a deployment zone full of big blocks of regimented infantry, it's something I'm seeing less and less of because it just doesn't work. I'm starting to get totally sick of seeing armies built around an uber character and Rare monsters.

I play against 3 bolt throwers, Star Dragon, Dragon Princes and minimum core armies. Slann, 2 Engine and minimum core armies. Blood Knights, Manfred and minimum core armies. Black Dragon, Dual Hydra, Shades and minimum core armies...

I know it's the fault of the books for taking the newest big kits and jacking the rules up to 11 to make them "must buy" items, I'm just hoping there's some tweak to the way that combat resolution works that could return us to the days when a Blood Thirster couldn't charge unsupported into ranked unit and be 99% certain to win.