WHFB - 9th Edition

[Vipoid]

I don't really like the current I order system and I don't see any reason for it tbh, it's just not needed with step up.

I'm actually the other way round - I'd like the keep the current I system, but abolish ASF and ASL wherever it appears.

Originally, it was there to allow HE to still be fast, even when charged.

However, now that charging no longer grants ASF, we don't need it. We already have a perfectly functional initiative scale, which determines when units strike. So, what's the point of even having such a scale, when 2 entire armies (probably 3 when wood elves are done) just ignore it entirely? And, HEs have good initiative, meaning they should be striking first against most units anyway. Basically, its a throwback to an older edition, which should have been removed in 8th - not made even more widespread. Same goes for ASL - just make it an I penalty or, failing that, have those units strike at I1.

I just don't see the point in having a perfectly good 1-10 scale for initiative, then making a ton of units that just ignore it.

 

[logan054]

The problem I find with the current system is that while cavalry needed a nerf, 8th took it to far. With 7th the issue wasn't so much that you got to strike first for charging, the problem was (most the time) you didn't get to strike back, step up fixed this issue. Steadfast resolved the issue of a small units 5 knight + a hero charging in and killing 40+ strong unit. Striking in I order no matter who charges only really nerfs low I cavalry like saurus, boar boyz, empire, brets, etc. It doesn't effect the likes of blood knights and chaos knights.

What this change also did was require to the ASF to make it worth taking, A change that I don't think is all that good for the game, now we have far too many models that a less prone to bad luck because of all the rerolls.

What real difference does striking at I1 and ASL make, bar a few units none really, its just book keeping change.

 

[Vipoid]

The problem I find with the current system is that while cavalry needed a nerf, 8th took it to far. With 7th the issue wasn't so much that you got to strike first for charging, the problem was (most the time) you didn't get to strike back, step up fixed this issue. Steadfast resolved the issue of a small units 5 knight + a hero charging in and killing 40+ strong unit. Striking in I order no matter who charges only really nerfs low I cavalry like saurus, boar boyz, empire, brets, etc. It doesn't effect the likes of blood knights and chaos knights.

It seems like cavalry should be aiming to charge the flank of a unit though. Perhaps a bigger bonus for charging the flank/rear of a unit (breaking steadfast would certainly be a good start) would be the way to go - to better reward the manoeuvrability offered by cavalry.

 

[logan054]

It seems like cavalry should be aiming to charge the flank of a unit though. Perhaps a bigger bonus for charging the flank/rear of a unit (breaking steadfast would certainly be a good start) would be the way to go - to better reward the manoeuvrability offered by cavalry.

How does striking first on the charge change this? doesn't removing ASF just create massive issues with armybooks?

 

[Vipoid]

How does striking first on the charge change this?

Because I think cavalry should be getting bonuses from movement, rather than just from charging.

I just think ASF from charging is a terrible idea, because it basically makes initiative pointless 90% of the time.

doesn't removing ASF just create massive issues with armybooks?

So did putting it into 8th edition.

In any case, it's what I'd *like* to see - not what I expect will happen.

No, like a vestigial tail, I'm sure ASF will still be around in 9th.

 

[logan054]

Because I think cavalry should be getting bonuses from movement, rather than just from charging.

I just think ASF from charging is a terrible idea, because it basically makes initiative pointless 90% of the time.

While now I don't care if I get the charge or not, if I'm using my chaos then against most armies I will be striking, but hey, they got +1 combat res! I know I don't see many boar boyz and saurus cavalry, possibly the changes hit them to hard

So did putting it into 8th edition.

Thats a matter of debate, changing to always to striking in order is what prompted the change to ASF, ergo, the problem with ASF was created because they needed to compensate for the loss of the bonus it provided.

 

[Sanai]

I would honestly consider changing how skirmishers work- the current system of trying to arrange them in a perfect rectangle is fairly time consuming. It can be solved with a movement tray but that movement tray ends up being fairly large and a bit awkward considering skirmishers often end up in and around terrain.

 

[Bullhax]

I would honestly consider changing how skirmishers work- the current system of trying to arrange them in a perfect rectangle is fairly time consuming. It can be solved with a movement tray but that movement tray ends up being fairly large and a bit awkward considering skirmishers often end up in and around terrain.

I agree, it is awefully clunky and they could just recieve a save vs templates. It does look more 'real' when they are spread out, but in action the cool-factor declines heavily when having to move each model individually or have the worlds biggest movement tray..

 

[Blutsauger]

I would honestly consider changing how skirmishers work- the current system of trying to arrange them in a perfect rectangle is fairly time consuming. It can be solved with a movement tray but that movement tray ends up being fairly large and a bit awkward considering skirmishers often end up in and around terrain.

I agree, it is awefully clunky and they could just recieve a save vs templates. It does look more 'real' when they are spread out, but in action the cool-factor declines heavily when having to move each model individually or have the worlds biggest movement tray..

My other army is lizardmen, and I use quite a lot of skinks.

To be honest, the problem isn't moving the models. It's easy to knock up a movement tray, and they aren't too oversized. The main problem is constantly having to take your models OFF that movement tray to re-arrange them in a more compact formation for combat. And only slightly less annoying is having to try and move your skirmishers through forests and ruins and things.

 

[Dimreapa]

The problem with fixed charged ranges was the little dance we all did to try and get the charge, maybe it wouldn't be as bad with always striking in I order which removes some of the importance of charging. I don't really like the current I order system and I don't see any reason for it tbh, it's just not needed with step up.

To be honest, I'll take the little dance over the reliance on luck, and not having the actual option of ever ruling out the possibility of being charged because charge ranges have stupidly large potential. Besides, in previous editions charging was more or less make or break. In modern editions it would be daft to return to a time when it was all about getting the charge.

The problem is, Ward decided just to screw up the entire point of trying to use clever manoeuvres. But that was a large part of what made WHFB "supposedly" such a tactical game. Movement matters more in every other Core. It's a sad state of affairs when LOTR is the most tactical of the 3.

The obvious solution is to bring back finesse in movement, and give charging a decent bonus, but not the outright game-changer it used to be.

Why Yes I did actually, 2nd to 6th and the improvements to the psychic phase only strength my point

Now, sure, but you said "never"

What real difference does striking at I1 and ASL make, bar a few units none really, its just book keeping change.

I'll take book-keeping changes to get rid of daft and largely redundant rules. Why are ASF and ASL needed when Initiative is exactly what it was designed for? Besides, I1 does matter from time to time, only against ASL does it seem like an upshot. But having I1 isn't an upshot. Having an I1 unit means your troops probably have their brain stuck up their arse. Or worse, it fell out... Or they have a very heavy weapon.

At that point it's about being there, not being actual fighters. But getting back to it, why create a meta-abstract that isn't necessary when the primary abstract (i.e. Initiative order) works perfectly well? As 40k ably demonstrates. Consistency is a word GW are LONG overdue looking up in a dictionary.

It seems like cavalry should be aiming to charge the flank of a unit though. Perhaps a bigger bonus for charging the flank/rear of a unit (breaking steadfast would certainly be a good start) would be the way to go - to better reward the manoeuvrability offered by cavalry.

Well historically, that is exactly what Cavalry was used for. Flank charging to break an infantry deadlock. The problem is, steadfast is there because it needs to be, the same as ASF, ASL, removing any obvious bonus for charging etc. The entire reason falls down to a clunky ruleset that needs various abstracts to cover up glaring problems from a convoluted and faffed with ruleset. What the core should be doing is being refined enough to reward various tactical decisions, and not relying on one obvious fix to force list tailoring. Although I know which one makes GW more money.

Sure, army books have ASF and ASL in them, but army book upheaval should never, ever decide things about how the core ruleset functions. The army books have had unnecessary and ridiculous control over the core for far, far too long already. The sooner GW starts writing wargames and not faff-fodder for plastic we'll start getting somewhere.

I still think that getting the charge should matter, but it shouldn't be the make or break nonsense that earlier editions promoted. I'd stick with my preferred solution, of unifying impact hits into something that always occurs through charging, varying the amount by size or killiness, and having spears and pikes inflicting impact hits (only?) on units that charge them. From there onwards, it goes to initiative order.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

I agree with the initiative order. A few months ago I was playing around with something like:

Combat is resolved in Initiative order.
ASL = I1
ASF = I10 - However it needs to be reviewed on who this is applied to. I think elves whilst fast, should not be the uber speed they are now, certainly not fast than say a Herald of Slaanesh or Lahmian vampire. They just need something like a high base I6 so they high first against the majority of things.
Infantry charging = +2 to initiative in first round
Cavalry charging = double initiative in first round (max 10)
Impact Hits = I10

Then some tweaks to some of the weapons:
Spears (Cavalry) = impact hit at base strength
Spears (Infantry) = cause impact hit when charged by cavalry, at base strength
Lance = impact hit at +2 strength

So then when you consider some of the scenarios:

Heavy cav with lance charging unit of swordmen. The cav are going to hit bloody hard, just as they should IMO. They should have enough clout to break up a smaller unit, but still likely get bogged down in larger unit.

Heavy cav with land charge Spearmen. The heavy cav are still going to do some heavy damage, again which is right. However they are also likely to suffer as they hit the forest of spears.

In regards to charging, I agree that the current +2D6 is too much, yet just the pure distance measuring is also too certain. I would prefer to go back to the previous double distance for charging with something like:

For each charge roll 1D6 resolved as follows (I haven't bothered with fluff, you get the idea):

1 - Stumble: Unit charges using normal movement value only
2-3 - Straight In: charge resolved at normal double movement
4-5 - Move It!: Add D3 to charge distance
6 - AAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH: Roll one D3 and add to charge distance and charging unit initiative for first round (in addition to the standard initiative bonus for the model type).

Probably needs tweaking but you get the idea, the charge can go worse or better than expected. Encourages players to may take a little risk of getting more distance, plus you do get a little bonus for charging but no one I feel is too much.

 

[Vipoid]

ASF = I10 - However it needs to be reviewed on who this is applied to. I think elves whilst fast, should not be the uber speed they are now, certainly not fast than say a Herald of Slaanesh or Lahmian vampire. They just need something like a high base I6 so they high first against the majority of things.

As a question, don't elves already have I5-6 across the board (higher for their leaders)? It's one of the reasons ASF seems redundant, because they should already be striking first against most enemies.

I guess you could make them minimum I6, if you feel they should strike before WoC. But, having even the basic elves strike before anything else in the game just seems silly.

Infantry charging = +2 to initiative in first round
Cavalry charging = double initiative in first round (max 10)
Impact Hits = I10

Looks like ogre charges will be getting really painful.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

Not really, their impact hits can remain as is. They get their infantry as standard, but yes their infantry will be quite powerful, but again, shouldn't they be considering their size?

 

[logan054]

To be honest, I'll take the little dance over the reliance on luck, and not having the actual option of ever ruling out the possibility of being charged because charge ranges have stupidly large potential. Besides, in previous editions charging was more or less make or break. In modern editions it would be daft to return to a time when it was all about getting the charge.

Personally I like the fact you can predict how far a unit will move, you have a rough idea how far it will charge but nothing is certain. The Dance before was very annoying and made M6+ very important, hence the lack of infantry armies.

I do miss flanking being as useful as it was, I don't think you need to remove random charges to make movement more important. We need better terrain rules like we had in earlier editions, we need proper skirmisher rules. What we don't need is predictable charge ranges.

I'll take book-keeping changes to get rid of daft and largely redundant rules. Why are ASF and ASL needed when Initiative is exactly what it was designed for? Besides, I1 does matter from time to time, only against ASL does it seem like an upshot. But having I1 isn't an upshot. Having an I1 unit means your troops probably have their brain stuck up their arse. Or worse, it fell out... Or they have a very heavy weapon.

Until 8th ed I have never had a issue with ASF, my issue with asf is the rerolls to hit, thats it. ASL what your talking about with representing heavy weapons, it's a pointless change, much like it was with 40k. I don't see the point in changing something for the sake of it.

Lance = impact hit at +2 strength

I like this idea, I'm pretty sure I suggested something along these lines ages ago! it would make lances really effective

 

[Dimreapa]

Personally I like the fact you can predict how far a unit will move, you have a rough idea how far it will charge but nothing is certain. The Dance before was very annoying and made M6+ very important, hence the lack of infantry armies.

But M6+ should be very important. Now it makes no difference. If I take an army of high speed troops, such as Skaven, for instance, and I get turn 2 charge stomped by Dwarves or Undead, something is fundamentally wrong. There's no point "dancing" for two reasons. Firstly, reach is too great, and with deployment what it is, turn 1 combat is definitely possible. There's no point dodging combat, because with 2D6+M" range, combat is inevitable. Secondarily, who charges makes virtually no difference. There is no reason to avoid combat, other than to hog a gaming table from 40k gamers.

The odd occasions when it does matter, and you had a tactical idea you wanted to perform, the dice will inevitably screw you over, unless Ward wrote your army book, then you'll probably have some means of mitigating it if you bought some new and expensive models for your army.

If I have fast troops, I expect the advantage in movement. This is normally countered in other ways. In previous editions that had this dreaded fixed charge range, this occurred, and made sense. Now there is no point even noticing the movement stat. With 1D6 rather than two, we get some of the advantage back, but the roll becomes so utterly random as to encourage gunlines (which is the problem 40k has).

I like the idea of DoN's table, but I can see that getting tedious rolling that for each charge pretty quickly. As much as I'm not against trying to make a concept innovative, sometimes tradition works best. As fraught with issues as fixed ranges are, they're far more fair than putting oneself in the hands of one of GW's rules gimmicks, which usually means seeing GW's "writers" bestowing re-rolls and buffs onto their favourite armies (i.e. Dwarves and High Elves).

I do miss flanking being as useful as it was, I don't think you need to remove random charges to make movement more important. We need better terrain rules like we had in earlier editions, we need proper skirmisher rules.

I agree that removing random charges isn't necessary, but I don't buy this idea that fixed movement was the problem either. The bigger issue was that getting the charge was far too important, not that you could count on the distance.

I totally agree on terrain and skirmish though.

What we don't need is predictable charge ranges.

What we don't need is Ward writing any more rulebooks. What we do need is a solidly defined and consistent ruleset with some thought to it. With the right amount of work, fixed or random charge ranges can work, but it depends on what the ruleset will be as to which makes sense. If charges become incredibly crucial again, I don't want random charge ranges. I'm sick of being beaten by morons with no clue who have nothing but luck on their side.

If the concept must continue, it needs to be well-written, carefully considered and playtested. It is now obvious, considering what company we are talking about here, as to why I want its removal. They can't muck it up if they don't use it. Nuff said.

Until 8th ed I have never had a issue with ASF, my issue with asf is the rerolls to hit, thats it. ASL what your talking about with representing heavy weapons, it's a pointless change, much like it was with 40k. I don't see the point in changing something for the sake of it.

But it isn't for the sake of it. Why keep ASL when ASF is so utterly daft? Anyway, refinement is never "for the sake of it" in the same way as it isn't a pointless change. It's just a change that rarely has any major impact, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Who strikes first? A Zombie, or a man with a great weapon? I mean really, even with a heavy sword? The Zombie will strike first? Why have initiative basically out of 12 when out of 10 is more round, immediately obvious only by viewing the statline (no need to memorise a pointless and redundant rule). Personally, I find both rules pretty dumb, and I find that great weapons conferring ASL is a little outdated anyway.

If it was a pointless change I'd agree, but it isn't. It's about GW finally making moves towards having a good ruleset. As has already been stated, Elves don't need ASF, nor does anything else. Conceptions such as halving or doubling initiative could be far more appropriate as rules. Even putting it to 10 or 1, at least it's on the friggin' scale, and not by default above or below it. Time to get rid.


On charges, well if charging conferred impact hits, that wouldn't affect ogres, but that would still balance it out nicely. Anything that charges in is going to cause an impact, Ogres already cause a bigger one than most troop types. My solution would at least not make Ogres any better than they already are (and they're already a very powerful faction).

 

[Vipoid]

Not really, their impact hits can remain as is. They get their infantry as standard, but yes their infantry will be quite powerful, but again, shouldn't they be considering their size?

I was referring to doubling their initiative, not the impact hits.

 

[logan054]

But M6+ should be very important. Now it makes no difference. If I take an army of high speed troops, such as Skaven, for instance, and I get turn 2 charge stomped by Dwarves or Undead, something is fundamentally wrong.

I agree that M6+ should be important, in previous editions it was far to important, this was a problem with fixed charge ranges combined with the front rank being wiped out and not being able to attack back. 6th and 7th was all about fast moving models and wizards. It wasn't visually appealing, I like how 8th has attempted to make infantry more viable.

There's no point dodging combat, because with 2D6+M" range, combat is inevitable.

Why are bringing up the 2D6+M, I have said the actually rule itself is flawed, I like the concept, I dislike the execution of the idea.

If I have fast troops, I expect the advantage in movement

I agree, again, I haven't said otherwise, I have simply said I have no problem with a rule that allows for a random charge move, this does not equate to me thinking movement should be devalued. I haven't said how random movement should be.

I agree that removing random charges isn't necessary, but I don't buy this idea that fixed movement was the problem either.

The issue with Random movement is it is too random, nothing more, the current rules indeed devalue higher movement rates, this necessarily mean all random movements rules will be bad. Sadly its the typical way that GW try and fix problems, rather than take a scalpel to a problem they take a sledgehammer.

I totally agree on terrain and skirmish though.

But we know it isn't going to happen sadly.

What we don't need is Ward writing any more rulebooks.

What we need is less rules decision based on selling more models,I honestly doubt 8th ed would of been all that different no matter who wrote it. I would imagine that he had plenty of input from other designers, as none of them pointed out any errors (which is a logical assumptions) then they must have been happy with it.

But it isn't for the sake of it. Why keep ASL when ASF is so utterly daft?

na, changing it to be more like 40k is for the sake of it

 

[Dimreapa]

I agree that M6+ should be important, in previous editions it was far to important, this was a problem with fixed charge ranges combined with the front rank being wiped out and not being able to attack back.

It's the front rank removal that was the big deal though really. The fixed charge range was merely fair, easy to understand and straightforward. How horrible...

6th and 7th was all about fast moving models and wizards. It wasn't visually appealing, I like how 8th has attempted to make infantry more viable.

Well, Wizards are still almost as nasty as they were in 7th, and, well, infantry has only gotten better largely from having so many other troop types severely hampered. I like that infantry is somewhat potent, but the ruleset is still so clunky I still find it hard to enjoy WHFB. At least crap rules aren't much an issue for 40k, with WHFB I expect a bit of refinement.

Why are you bringing up the 2D6+M, I have said the actual rule itself is flawed, I like the concept, I dislike the execution of the idea.

I know, but it's the only example of random charges so far, and if the update keeps random charges, there's no guarantee they'll change how it works. Besides, I like overstating that this random charge range is one of the stupidest rules I've ever encountered in a wargame.

I agree, again, I haven't said otherwise, I have simply said I have no problem with a rule that allows for a random charge move, this does not equate to me thinking movement should be devalued. I haven't said how random movement should be.

There aren't many options as to how random movement could be done, and a lot of them are daft in my view.

The issue with Random movement is it is too random, nothing more, the current rules indeed devalue higher movement rates, this necessarily mean all random movements rules will be bad. Sadly its the typical way that GW try and fix problems, rather than take a scalpel to a problem they take a sledgehammer.

Well, not all. Because sooner or later late-edition army books will start completely ignoring it, like every single Dwarf unit getting swiftstride, once again removing the entire point of one of their important weaknesses. It's a lot less likely that a model will get a stupid statline, but a deliberate advantage from modifying a rulebook gimmick happens far, far, far, far, far, far, too often with GW games.

But we know it isn't going to happen sadly.

Agreed. Sigh. Bloody ghost fence.

What we need is less rules decision based on selling more models,I honestly doubt 8th ed would of been all that different no matter who wrote it. I would imagine that he had plenty of input from other designers, as none of them pointed out any errors (which is a logical assumptions) then they must have been happy with it.

Considering Ward's outright arrogance and deliberate overruling of other people's fluff (see Codex: Iyanden where he RUINED Eldar and overruled Kelly) and the fact that, well, it's pretty obvious that his outright cheese from previous edition deliberately, and masterfully put him in a position of power over everyone else. No one else sold BAZILLIONS of Grey Knights, so who on earth can challenge that abomination now? Besides, if executive meddling is so paramount to suggest that Ward isn't the talentless illiterate moron that he very likely is, why doesn't the same factors prevent Kelly and Vetock from writing successfully and Cruddace managing the feat occasionally? If Ward's biased and prejudiced views are in accord with GW fans all is well, this isn't always the case. Odds are it happens occasionally. He still should have been sacked for Codex: Daemons.

I don't doubt meddling played a part, but Ward definitely lacks talent and not only have we paid his wages, we assured his promotion. Aren't we amazing. (readers can probably tell I really dislike this man)

na, changing it to be more like 40k is for the sake of it

Even when it's an improvement? I mean come on. 40k players have endured countless alterations made to our rulesets by going over WHFB rulebooks with a piece of tracing paper. I think it's time WHFB learned how to do things from a better, and more fun game. [EDIT: Don't worry, I fully deserve any and all crap I get for this closing comment ]

 

[logan054]

It's the front rank removal that was the big deal though really. The fixed charge range was merely fair, easy to understand and straightforward. How horrible...

I don't see whats so complex about rolling 2D6 and adding your movement value, it is no more complex to understand than charging a set distance. Charging a set distance doesn't add anything to the game, it simply MC and MI will get even more powerful. I do like how if I decide to use a infantry army my opponent bar sloppy movement isn't guaranteed the charge. I dunno, I find that a little more fun and less predictable.

Well, Wizards are still almost as nasty as they were in 7th, and, well, infantry has only gotten better largely from having so many other troop types severely hampered. I like that infantry is somewhat potent, but the ruleset is still so clunky I still find it hard to enjoy WHFB. At least crap rules aren't much an issue for 40k, with WHFB I expect a bit of refinement.

Certain magic lores are ridiculous, thats a different subject. The only thing that has been hampered this edition is cavalry and skirmisher's, they others are fine (monsters are no worse off than they have been since 6th ed). I don't disagree that the rules are clunky, as I said before, its just how GW tries to solve problem, sledgehammer. I can't stand 40k, fliers ruin the game for me.

[quote']I know, but it's the only example of random charges so far, and if the update keeps random charges, there's no guarantee they'll change how it works. Besides, I like overstating that this random charge range is one of the stupidest rules I've ever encountered in a wargame.[/quote]


I agree we have no reason to assume they will change, I doubt they will tbh, if it was likely to change it wouldn't have been added to 40k. It might be slightly tweaked, thats it. As I said I have no issues with the idea. The stupidest rule i encountered in a wargame was the 40k flying rules.

There aren't many options as to how random movement could be done, and a lot of them are daft in my view.

They are all daft in your view because you dislike random, you like predictability, that's your person choice, I have no problem with having a few pints while playing and taking risks and letting the dice decide.

Agreed. Sigh. Bloody ghost fence.

That's why beer/vodka and warhammer work a treat

I don't doubt meddling played a part, but Ward definitely lacks talent and not only have we paid his wages, we assured his promotion. Aren't we amazing. (readers can probably tell I really dislike this man)

I see no point in the ward hate, I've plenty of interviews with ex designers online making vague comments about the people above. Sadly I think they have a much bigger influence than we like to admit.

If it makes you feel better, a mate of mine went to uni with the guy, he said he was a complete tool, meh, like I said, Warhammer has always have issues with balance, they will be gone, 8th ed bar magic lores has seem more balanced than most previous editions.

Even when it's an improvement? I mean come on. 40k players have endured countless alterations made to our rulesets by going over WHFB rulebooks with a piece of tracing paper. I think it's time WHFB learned how to do things from a better, and more fun game. [EDIT: Don't worry, I fully deserve any and all crap I get for this closing comment ]

For me, changing a rule from ASF to simply having the words striking at I10 makes zero difference to my life, just as in 40k when they changed powerfists from asl to striking at I1.

 

[Dimreapa]

I don't see whats so complex about rolling 2D6 and adding your movement value, it is no more complex to understand than charging a set distance.

It's not complexity that's the issue. It's a lack of refinement, and ultimately far greater potential for abuse, and also undermining other aspects of the game. Like I said, Games Devs can choose to make select units or whole factions swiftstride, meaning a rule that should be consistent for all isn't. No ruling is immune from this but you know where you stand with fixed movement. That's what I like about it.

Charging a set distance doesn't add anything to the game, it simply MC and MI will get even more powerful. I do like how if I decide to use a infantry army my opponent bar sloppy movement isn't guaranteed the charge. I dunno, I find that a little more fun and less predictable.

Set distances don't add anything to the game, sure. They don't take anything away from it, either. Monstrous Cavalry and Monstrous Infantry being too powerful is an issue in and of itself, and whilst this is one of the advantages of the current system, it's far from a selling point. The game should be balanced to the point that it doesn't need gimmicks to counter other gimmicks. Sadly I think that is also something we'll not see fixed.

Besides, it can happen to the one unit you have that could mulch a MC/MI unit, I'm rather divided on whether or not that's fair. Whereas I know fixed charge ranges work because I use them in so many wargames. D6+M can work as a charge, but I've only seen it work really, really well in smaller scale games where the impact is mitigated by having more things going on.

Certain magic lores are ridiculous, thats a different subject. The only thing that has been hampered this edition is cavalry and skirmisher's, they others are fine (monsters are no worse off than they have been since 6th ed). I don't disagree that the rules are clunky, as I said before, its just how GW tries to solve problem, sledgehammer. I can't stand 40k, fliers ruin the game for me.

In spite of flyers, I enjoy 40k. It definitely has a slightly better playerbase in my experience, although not by much. If I had any choice I don't think I'd play a single GW game that wasn't an SG, but of late I'm trying to relax my standards (it's not going so well).

Sadly that means giving GW money, but most of that is down to the fact that for once, my local GW has an actually good staffer manager, who makes an effort, and listens. It doesn't take much, but sometimes I think desiring even the smallest concessions from GW is overly optimistic. On rare cases such as this I get quite a bit of a surprise. I don't expect it to last though. The Ork Codex is due an update and there are rumours as to who's wrote it.

I agree we have no reason to assume they will change, I doubt they will tbh, if it was likely to change it wouldn't have been added to 40k. It might be slightly tweaked, thats it. As I said I have no issues with the idea. The stupidest rule i encountered in a wargame was the 40k flying rules.

Whilst Flyers are daft, TLOS (in the 40k context) and Wound Allocation from 5th ed 40k are up there. Worst rule ever, I'd argue, is the contact rule from Hell Dorado, but it's definitely not as well known as those 3. Mind you there is also Divination and Magic from Confrontation 3.1, although they're more complicated and badly translated than badly written. But that's a bit off topic.

They are all daft in your view because you dislike random, you like predictability, that's your person choice, I have no problem with having a few pints while playing and taking risks and letting the dice decide.

This is so completely wrong. I love random, actually. But I like it done well. I mean, I play Orks and Skaven. I wouldn't get far with either if I disliked random. What I despise in a gaming sense is silly gimmicks and badly conceived rules that don't work (whether random or not) and the random charge ranges as they are constitute both to me. Besides, with random there's usually risk/reward, but a kind of risk reward that isn't game breaking, nor being based on something that is too necessary.

Getting into combat is too important, especially in a game where there aren't many dice rolls to begin with. Meaning far too much is on the whim of chance. Throw in GW's tendency to start making latter factions considerably superior at utilising them, and I just get sick and tired of the same nonsense. This is the bit in particular that gets me. I could potentially live with a better form of random movement if I knew that GW would leave it alone and not start altering it halfway through the ruleset, but I know better.

Incidentally, if I were playing a game with a few drinks and a fully nonchalant attitude, I definitely wouldn't play WHFB when 40k is far more entertaining, and LOTR offers entertainment and the opportunity to use tactics that don't revolve around army lists. And the company is better. I take WHFB a bit more seriously, but I always saw it as the more mature, and refined game, not ashamed of its roots. Besides, I don't have a lot of time to play games each month, so taking it without some amount of mental awareness isn't going to happen. And GW games are too expensive for me to ever consider it otherwise.

Want a proper game to play drinking? Try FUBAR. It's free.

That's why beer/vodka and warhammer work a treat

I tend to cut out the warhammer in that context. Makes for a better evening.

I see no point in the ward hate, I've plenty of interviews with ex designers online making vague comments about the people above. Sadly I think they have a much bigger influence than we like to admit.

I don't care what the excuse is, and I wont make excuses for them either. The rules are awful. Either they fix it, or I wont be around much longer. It's no more complicated than that. But as to Ward, well, the evidence of his fail is far too strong to offload all (or much) of the blame elsewhere. He's the latest in a line of hate figures, but nobody in GW's history has ever been as hated.

I do see point in it. Every time I try to kick back and forget about it, I remember GW's business statement on their website, and then think of Ward...

...like I said, Warhammer has always have issues with balance, they will be gone, 8th ed bar magic lores has seem more balanced than most previous editions.

Again, just because it's more or less always been that way is no reason to continue the trend. I know I'm preaching to the converted with everyone reading this thread with this comment, but it's so true it's worth stating outright.

As to the magic system, by and large, I prefer it. Magic is more interesting, if anything, and at least the power/dispel dice ratio has less potential to be ridiculously disproportionate. But, as has already been mentioned (by you if memory serves) my main issues are that Lv4s are too cheap and too obvious, and some spells are just too devastating. Overall I like the direction magic is going, but it needs considerable refinement.

For me, changing a rule from ASF to simply having the words striking at I10 makes zero difference to my life, just as in 40k when they changed powerfists from asl to striking at I1.

In spite of an example I've shown where it isn't just aesthetic. Something always going last goes after something with I1. Something going first always goes before everything else, except the same thing, but some races are better than others (i.e. Elves are gits, and yet another gimmick gets modified by army books). Considering how common these rules are, perhaps a better change would be to get rid of initiative, as it tends to revolve around units having one of those two utterly redundant rules.

 

[Count Vashra]

They should change abilities that say 'gains the Extra Attack special rule' to 'gains an additional Attack'. As if they need to use another special rule to describe a special rule!

 

[Sanai]

They should change abilities that say 'gains the Extra Attack special rule' to 'gains an additional Attack'. As if they need to use another special rule to describe a special rule!

Having a special rule for it makes it simpler to refer to.

For example, lets say in their next army book the empire gets a magic item call "Van Hokies De-attackifier".
With your proposed change, it would read like this-
"If an enemy within 12 inches of Van Hokies De-attackifier has gained an extra attack in excess of the attacks on its profile, Van Hokies De-attackifier cancels out this extra attack"

while with the extra attacks special rule, it simply reads like this-
"Any enemy models within 12 inches of Van Hokies De-attackifier do not benefit from the Extra Attacks special rule"

Having special rules for such things as extra attacks means cuts down on how many times you have to say "gives x an additional attack" and makes cross-referencing to that game state easier.

As to changes in 9th, I would like to see a proper system for using allies (like 6th ed 40k has), General traits (as per 40k warlord traits) and a reduction in the amount of magic items in the core rulebook.
(Items like Warrior Bane, the Spellthieving Sword, Pidgeon Plucker Pendant, Scarecrow Banner, Featherfoe Torc... and probably about a third of the Arcane items should go)
Do we really need the Feedback Scroll, Scroll of Leeching, Hex Scroll and the Trickster's Shard? They all are minor variations of the same theme. I would propose cutting it back to just the Hex Scroll and Trickster's shard, hence making room for more relevant arcane items.

Looking at the usual builds for most Lord choices these days, the majority of players would not notice if you removed 90% of the magic items.


On another note, some of the old school magic items should be re-introduced, and this would fit with the theme of bringing back somewhat retro ideas that games workshop has been going with.

I remember some old gems, that had really great names, like the Blade of Darting Steel, Blade of Leaping Bronze, Heart Seeker, Hydra Sword, Crown of Command, etc.

The Hydra blade in particular is a great magic item that I feel is sorely missing from 8th ed- a simple magic weapon with the multiple wounds special rule.

edit: (The Hydra Blade even turned up in a recent novel, showing that the weapon has not been forgotten by everyone)

 

[Vipoid]

and a reduction in the amount of magic items in the core rulebook.
(Items like Warrior Bane, the Spellthieving Sword, Pidgeon Plucker Pendant, Scarecrow Banner, Featherfoe Torc... and probably about a third of the Arcane items should go)
Do we really need the Feedback Scroll, Scroll of Leeching, Hex Scroll and the Trickster's Shard? They all are minor variations of the same theme. I would propose cutting it back to just the Hex Scroll and Trickster's shard, hence making room for more relevant arcane items.

Looking at the usual builds for most Lord choices these days, the majority of players would not notice if you removed 90% of the magic items.

Whilst I agree that the above items are crap, I'd rather they were replaced with other items. It seems like we've already lost enough variety with the army books going down to 8 items apiece, without then removing most of the rulebook items as well.

The problem is that, in many instances, GW seems to have naff-all idea of what a given item is worth (Spellthieving Sword alone is testament to that).

Furthermore, it would be nice to see some more interesting effects. For example, about half the weapons are taken up with +1/+2/+3 Strength and +1/+2/+3 attacks. How about some more interesting weapons? I mean, it's not even as if they have to beyond their core rules - what about a cheap flaming sword (or, god forbid, an expensive one that has additional effects)? Or, just a cheap poisoned weapon? Or, a multiple-wounds weapon?

The Hydra blade in particular is a great magic item that I feel is sorely missing from 8th ed- a simple magic weapon with the multiple wounds special rule.

Whilst I agree with your general sentiment, isn't the Hydra Blade already in the DE book? o.o

 

[Sanai]

Whilst I agree with your general sentiment, isn't the Hydra Blade already in the DE book?

I don't have the DE book

... and in the Headtaker novel, a skaven has one......

Either way, a simple magic weapon available to more armies that deals multiple wounds is sorely missed.


To me having less magic items is not a problem- the problem we have right now is too many irrelevant items, and too many re-iterations of the same theme. I think less magic items can be a vast improvement, if you come half way by making it so that the smaller number of magic items that remain are all useful/interesting/viable in competitive play. Sort of like having an elite unit of magic items as opposed to chaffy core magic items.

For example, in the weapons department, I would drop any weapon that is either way too situational (Sword of Anti Heroes, Spellthieving Sword) or that adds more things to keep track of (such as remember which dude has stupidity or has reduced attacks with the tormentor sword and warrior bane)

Then I would add a multiple wounds (d3) sword, a flaming sword... and maybe a magic hammer that gives you stomp attacks (or upgrades your stomps to thunderstomps) and maybe a poisoned dagger. Even if you just got the multiple wounds and flaming swords, your loss of 4 less useful weapons to gain those two is well worth it.

 

[Count Vashra]

Also, not a wishlist change for 9th, any ideas on when it will be coming out?