Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
i dont know!
do you like the 8:ed rules?
I like them, but they added in too much random chance. They're new and refreshing and I'll play it and have lots of fun, but I'll still argue 7th edition was better at making a better general win more often.
US Master's Midwest Advisor.
Come join me at my GT this September www.brewfestgt.com
I totally agree with Pinkus.
I am right 94% of the time, why worry about the other 3%.
I like them, was one of the first to vote, didn't really think to expand on it though.
Several changes made are quite advantages to me as a player, mainly guess range weaponry which will get me hit with a frying pan from the more skilled of engineers among us I enjoy the magic changes though still harbour a longing for 6th edition miscast tables...
My only complaint would be towards skirmisher changes, yet I could see massive changes occuring since Beasties were let out of the pen.
Overall I enjoy a little chaos and unpredictability in a game. I have delighted in the seeming impossible and unlikely in prior games and the opportunity to revel freely in a chaotic whirl of numbers is vaguely appealing. I don't think most of my friends approve though
Fantasy: Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Beastmen and Tomb Kings.
LotR: Misty Mountains and Rohan
I think they will try to phase out mele skirmishers, and make skirmish a rule set suited for the ranged troop (waywatcher, skinks etc).
Mele will be for Hordes, Ranked Units, Monsterous Infantry and Huge Monsters now.
I am a wood elf player so I have lost my dryads+wardancers, but Ive gained Treekin.. Overall Im happy with that because High toughness + saves is what I was really missing in 7th ed and now I have it.
- Wood Elves + Orcs & Goblins since 2009 -
There's definitely more chance in 8th edition. I don't think anyone's going to claim that there isn't. However, I feel that the addition of more chance has made it a more fun game, overall.
The problem in 7th edition, was that a skilled general playing a top tier army could only be beaten by another skilled general playing a top tier army. A less skilled player had literally no chance, and as someone who's relatively new to the game, I assure you that it's no fun to be stomped flat by an all but invincible foe, especially when it happens every single game. Also, it's equally disappointing to be a skilled general who loves a low-mid tier army (for fluff or personal reasons) and have no chance at beating equally skilled players, simply because of their army choice.
As it was, I don't think warhammer fantasy was going to survive. New/younger players were getting frustrated with the steep learning curve, and more experienced players were getting frustrated with only having about 3 armies to choose from if they wanted to consistently win in a competitive setting.
However, despite its advantages, 8th edition does have three flaws though.
First, strategy within the game is being simplified, almost to a 'paper-rock-scissors' state. Only it's 'fast units-warmachines-infantry'. You need fast units, like fliers, chariots, or cavalry to chase down the war machines, although the fast units don't have a chance against large blocks of infantry, as long as the infantry doesn't get shredded by war machines. Magic, however, can possibly deal with any of the three.
Secondly, some of the changes to the rules were so drastic that many point costs aren't in line with reality yet. A good example are chaos marauders with great weapons. In my opinion, they're now easily worth 9 points each, but cost a measly 5. This is because when the codex was written, great weapons weren't nearly as likely to strike in close combat. Giving them to a unit that wasn't resilient was a gamble. Now they're basically guaranteed to strike. On the other hand, heavy cavalry isn't nearly as effective as it used to be, no matter how tough and powerful they are, making Chaos Knights only worth about 2/3 of their cost.
Third, armies that rely heavily upon fear/terror, cavalry, and/or skirmishers all took a major hit, as none of these things can be expected to win the game for you on their own anymore. The armies that were hurt the most were Vampire Counts, Bretonnians, and Wood Elves. As it stands, there really isn't a way to play any of them competitively. Oh sure, you can create a relatively balanced list with any of them, but these aren't armies that were meant to be a balanced force. They're meant to be specialized, and now those specialties are no longer in demand. Until they get new army books, they'll pale in comparison to armies that were designed to be balanced.
All in all though, my reaction to 8th edition is quite positive. It's fast paced, and the random elements added to movement and magic make things more fun. They'll just have to tweak with the FAQ/erratas a bit more if they want it to be a truly balanced game.
Last edited by mynameisgrax; August 10th, 2010 at 16:10.
"Any job worth doing, is worth doing with a powerklaw."
I'm fairly neutral about the change. It's nice that the game is moving away from Many Small Units tactics and that elite characters & units are more likely to bog down than grind out entire legions of lesser enemies. Magic is more egalitarian, which means the less-magic armies can compete and the high-magic armies, while less effective, at least have the points freed for secondary tactics.
On the other hand, leadership is very frustrating. It's almost like 40k, where you can do lots of great stuff to your opponent if he 'fails a leadership test'...but almost every opponent you face will have no more than a 1 in 6 chance of failing, assuming they aren't simply exempt. Similarly, a lot of disadvantages, like one ones associated with frenzy and hatred or committing to a charge, can be reliably ignored. Does anybody even try to march-block or bait a frenzied unit anymore?
So, some good and some bad. I still play.
"My tanks have names, my men have numbers." -Col. Edmund Grahvess, 23rd Kronecker Prison Guard
I've been away from WFB since...wow...5th Edition? At first glance, and I haven't read the new rulebook, 8th Edition seems to be harkening back to the old days of WFB and I approve of that.
All they need to do now is fix some of their new models.
I've been playing for a LONG time, consistently. You might all remember me when the rumors were out, talking about how they were killing the game and generally griping that the entire thing was going to the dogs. Turns out that I like the game, but I have some complaints all the same.
Pre-measuring, No Guessing, Random Charge Distance- this is all utter garbage. I understand that there were people who had a tough time with distance estimates. There's a kid in my group who seriously thinks that 6" is about the distance from your thumb-knuckle to the tip of your forefinger, which puts him an inch short (I think he's been lied to a lot, if you know what I mean). But it wasn't the right change for the game. Pre-measuring should have gone out the window. Now it's a necessity, because you have no idea how far anything is going to go, but it lets ranged armies make the most out of everything. The elimination of guess-ranges has just made Warmachines like cannons absolutely disgusting. I think you should at least need a roll-to-hit for these things! The artillery dice should just go the way of the dinosaur, except for Scatter weapons. I'm an Empire player- I'll still gripe about this one. And Random Charge Distance means that a skilled player is losing games just because he flubs a dice roll. Fortunately, charging isn't everything anymore (unless you have Lances) but it's still a pain whenever your specially planned "pincer attack" fails because you flop a dice roll. It also increased the speeds of EVERYTHING, so that it almost feels like 40k (get in as quickly as possible and mix it up by turn2)
Move Through Terrain- this is a mixed blessing. I remember Woods in 7th edition being no different than Bottomless Pits, because there was no way that anyone was going to bog down a regiment going half-speed through difficult terrain. But that was tactics. Now though, regiments can walk right through a wood, so long as they don't march or charge. And if they do march or charge, they only have to take a 1/6 dangerous terrain check. If that's how they want to do it, why not set it so that just moving forces a check, and you can never march or charge?
True Line of Sight- I hated this about 40k, and I hate it now about Fantasy. It just causes too many arguments on the table. It's actually quicker to play with the 'values' for how tall a model is. If they didn't want Hounds screening Infantry, they should have broken it down by troop type: Large > Monstrous > Cavalry > Infantry > Warbeast
No More Unit Strength- that's a biggy. There needs to be changes for this, as ranks and Unit Strength are not the same thing. Cavalry and Monsters pretty much NEVER negate flanks anymore. I can hit you with a dragon but unless I hit you with 2 ranks of dragons, you'll still have your rank bonus. And you're Steadfast if you have 5 ranks of 5 (25 models), but if I have 4 ranks of 10 (40 models) you aren't afraid of me. Was it too hard to do simple multiplication? Once again, they could've fixed this with ease: Cavalry and Monstrous Cavalry/Infantry count as 2 ranks. Even if it's just a single line of models, it counts double for the purposes of removing rank bonuses.
Steadfast- just shoot me please. This rule is so easily abused it's not funny. As much as they want people to go with HUGE regiments, this is just a failed gimmick that they never thought to playtest. I can see it now, what went through their head:
"Horde will let them attack in an extra rank, so they'll want to go 10 models wide."
"So if they take their existing 5x4 blocks and spread them into 2 lines, they can attack with everything. That doesn't sell more models."
"We'll make them always attack in 2 ranks, regardless of deployment. Now they'll need 3 ranks to benefit."
"Maximum rank bonus is +3, they'll just buy 2 boxes and have 10x4 for maximum abilities."
"But we can get them to buy more! <insert Steadfast rule>"
and at no time during the conversation did a tournament-minded player step in and say:
"What if I just buy 2 boxes, and field a regiment that's 5x8 and nearly unbreakable"
Do you see what I mean? Steadfast means that no matter how many people I kill, no matter how many banners I have, no matter how many flank-charges I hit you with, you will get to test on your basic leadership. Stubborn troops are all-but worthless now unless they're too pricey to field in droves.
Frenzy- Frenzy is just an ill-planned pain in the butt now. If you are M+12" away, you have to take a leadership test, and with random charge distances, that means that if you fail, you're going to be in a rough spot (unless you roll double-6's).
Other than those things, the game is awesome. I love the random magic, as it's always been that way, and it's incredible. I wish they'd separate Miscast and Irresistible again, as we're seeing suicidal wizards, but that's fine. The Step-up rule was a much-needed equalizer (and I'm a cavalry player) and the Stomp is pretty awesome. There's been a lot of improvement, they did a good job simplifying or streamlining the things that needed it (moving sideways or backwards at half speed is a good example) and making sure that the rules are pretty solid compared to previous editions. The reintroduction of Missions was nice, and the fact that the missions themselves are actually different, balanced, and playable makes the game a whole lot more entertaining than just bashing people's heads in for 6 turns.
8th edition gets the same score for me that 7th edition did. 4/5. Now I'm just worried what 9th edition will bring, in 2014.