rudra34 Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/WARHAMMER_RULEBOOKv1.9.pdf Looks like 50% lords and heroes is official rule book now, same with wizards taking lore of undeath. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 The end times is feeling like an increasingly appropriate title. =/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Thanks for pointing that out! I'm glad because I've found shuffling points around to fit in my General and an L4 to be tedious... you can do it but it's a hassle sometimes at certain points values. Since we're balancing our armies against each other anyway... well, I don't see the point in the 25% cap. It just reduces options which can be fun, without doing much to limit abuse IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 The end times is feeling like an increasingly appropriate title. =/ LOL So I take it you don't like the change? Just curious why, as I've typically agreed with your opinions/take on things in the past, but this one, I don't really mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratrek Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I'm not a giant fan Nathan. People keep talking about how you'll never take that many characters because you need an army to win. Rubbish. You need enough of an army to protect the characters until they do what they do and claim objectives and no more. Now granted, some armies don't need characters. Daemons for example are arguably better with the least spent on characters possible given their troops. However Dark Elves with spammed Masters are incredible already at 25% and will only get better with more. Those suckers do not have diminishing returns. I'm firmly convinced that whomever is making the decisions these days for rule changes (or multiple someone's) are people around our age or a bit older who loved 5th. Ever move made has been to bring 5th back to Warhammer. The difference being that it's more streamlined for Psyc, you have dice instead of cards for magic and random charges for a lark. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratrek Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 However, give GW credit. They actually did a FAQ/Errata update. Too bad they forgot about every army book between High Elves and whatever was just before Wood Elves. And amusingly, they also "made" the WE Errata which is one thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexicanNinja Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Interesting. I can ditch a few things to now get my level 4 in with my dreadlord on a dragon. Interesting indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I d LOLSo I take it you don't like the change? Just curious why, as I've typically agreed with your opinions/take on things in the past, but this one, I don't really mind! I don't like it for basically the reason of your first post. You should need to have a hard time fitting in all the toys in the lord and hero slot. I play warriors and DE and there are a lot of unbalanced options opened up by this in the lord slot for warriors and the hero slow for de. The thing I think makes this a really bad decision is that none of the other 8th ed books were internally balanced with this assumption in place. Double greater daemon anyone? (note that I agree currently the no lord build is better for daemons, because one is a risk, but how about if there are two? Can you deal with both before they get there?) Some lists just won't be able to deal with that. I predict it will damage meta variety and push the meta toward three build types. 1: over the top character build 2: gunline/light council builds specifically designed to deal with the over the top character builds 3: "bodies" builds which beat the counter builds because high value low number shots don't matter against them. In general when you allow more of the same in one area, especially an area with power level issues caused by redundancy, you're going to lose build variety, and I think, make balanced "a little bit of everything" builds worse. In my opinion, the game is most fun when most armies take a little bit of everything. In addition, to me, the Lore of Undeath is clearly a marketing tool to sell the models that can be raised, and not well tested or balanced. Of course, none of this is really an issue if you're in a soft meta where people willing take reasonable lists, then the change is fine and won't affect you much. Equally, you'll eventually be fine in swedish because they'll have to take the change into account in their point system (which will take awhile to do well). TLDR: It won't end the world, and it won't affect how much I play the game, but I think it will make armies more rock paper scissors and make the game less fun. I hope I'm wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexicanNinja Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I'm actualy excited to see some of the combinations people come up with. I don't own the models, but I could pack a ton of dark pegasus into an army and name it The Flying Circus of the Dancing Purple Pants Panzies You could have 9 masters on dark pegasus flying around on a table at 2,500 point games. This is the extreme situation which have been expressed above. Those 9 Masters all have a 1+ armour save, T4, W3, and S6 on the charge with the dark peg being S5 on the charge. 4 of those slamming into a ranked up unit would win most combat grinds in 2 rounds of combat. Or for a cheaper cost you could get around 13 master on dark steeds rrunning around with dark riders and warlocks. You're looking at roughly 96 points for a 1+ save with a 9" move fast cav hero protected by a unit as his delivery system. Yeah, the spamming of ridiculous stuff is out there. I will also agree with Romes that if you do start to see these extremes being used then the entire Meta is about to take a swift change. Gunlines become more effective as do hordes. However, when it's all said and done, I welcome the change with open arms and am ready to embrace it no matter the outcome. I will say, I don't see myself going out and attempting to own 9 dark peg masters any time soon; however, I do want to test it out to see what the outcome is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Panic Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 dwarfs are happy... go ahead bring all your toys. ill bring mine... with gunpower. :) im not a fan of the change in game style this will bring... kind of kills real msu armies and will bring the opposite effect that GW wants. oh well. just have to adjust is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Ratrek, to the point about abuse, I can already make a stupid-hard list of DE Masters on Dark Steeds at 25% and I don't, nor would I play with anyone who is clearly just building to WAAC. So I don't see how it affects me. 'ard Boyz tournaments might get even stupider, but then again I think that's a good thing because I hate them already :P And I *totally* agree with you Romes, that the "little bit of everything" armies tend to be the most fun (if you look at my builds they rarely have duplicates (at least not for efficacy). In fact I have been evangelizing that basic approach for ages. And I think GW is getting better at writing rulebooks where more of the units have a purpose, which makes diverse armies better, which makes the game better. However again, I think we are ALREADY fully able to make one-dimensional, repeat-choice-filled armies with a single way of winning (R/P/S armies is what we used to call them). So I don't think that changing restrictions per-se makes that problem significantly worse. MexicanNinja I think your list is a good example of building a WAAC army and I would raise my eyebrows at you if you ever actually built that list for more than a lark! I don't think you would though, and again, I could build an effectively-just-as-stupid army with today's restrictions. What *will* I think matter is if people take this restriction change as a mandate from GW or something to go build even-more-character-heavy armies... or to spam some sort of something even more. That would be truly detrimental, but that's the stupid people's choice, not really a problem with the rule change. Anyway that's my take: I'm already NOT spamming DE Masters; I'm already taking "a little bit of everything" BY CHOICE (not by restriction) and so this only allows some options which might be fun (or might not, we'll have to see) such as putting my Lord on a Dragon and still having an Lord level caster to carry a Scroll AND a Ring of Hotek... in the context of the rest of my army (Shards, Corsairs, Black Guard, etc.) it's still a fun and balanced list, IMO. If I were trying to build something optimized for winning I could easily do it under the current restrictions and ruin the fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Of course, none of this is really an issue if you're in a soft meta where people willing take reasonable lists, then the change is fine and won't affect you much. Equally, you'll eventually be fine in swedish because they'll have to take the change into account in their point system (which will take awhile to do well). TLDR: It won't end the world, and it won't affect how much I play the game, but I think it will make armies more rock paper scissors and make the game less fun. I hope I'm wrong. I guess you're basically saying what I said with this paragraph. And I guess all I'm adding is that if you are NOT in a soft meta where people willingly take reasonable lists, then you should find one and quit playing with stupidheads :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexicanNinja Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 dwarfs are happy... go ahead bring all your toys. ill bring mine... with gunpower. :) im not a fan of the change in game style this will bring... kind of kills real msu armies and will bring the opposite effect that GW wants. oh well. just have to adjust is all. The problem is that you are still limited to your gun power whereas the spamming of certain heros/lords isn't. Also, if you are going to a tournament, are you going to spend all your points on cannons for that one possibility of fighting a ton of solo characters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexicanNinja Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 NtK, I have no desire to build a mindless list built around: 1) fly here 2) charge there 3) reform this way 4) repeat steps 1-3 for the rest of the game. That was just my extreme example. Every army has a way to exploit this, I was just using DE as an example. Here's another example for Dwarfs 40 slayers with 10 heroes in the front, followed by 10 unit champs behind the heroes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Yeah I got that MN, just clarifying that I think YES that's a pain in the ass list and YES we can both build pain in the ass lists under the current (old?) restrictions of 25% :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I guess you're basically saying what I said with this paragraph. And I guess all I'm adding is that if you are NOT in a soft meta where people willingly take reasonable lists, then you should find one and quit playing with stupidheads :) My current gaming group builds to the next event. That means sometimes we're etc, sometimes we're swedish, sometimes we're no comp. We tend to shy away from purposefully taking soft lists because self comping is subjective and we'd rather have an objective set of rules around making a balanced list that we all have to follow, whatever that restriction set it, we're all on the same page. So I'd say, I'm not in a meta where people willingly take soft lists, but I don't think we're stupidheads. =P (if we had our way every event would be heavily comped, so we'd never end up playing with of against no-comp lists) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Panic Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 lol it was a joke... i would never bring that list to a tournament cause its so not fun to play but either is playing a character stupid master list. my point was its rock/paper/scissors. my regular combat lists can deal with that anyways. go ahead charge a horde of slayers or longbeards with characters in it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 So I'd say, I'm not in a meta where people willingly take soft lists, but I don't think we're stupidheads. =P (if we had our way every event would be heavily comped, so we'd never end up playing with of against no-comp lists) Yeah but it sounds like you fit the "people willingly take reasonable lists" part, unless you're gearing for a no-comp tournament. I guess I just wouldn't bother building/painting a list for a no-comp event because I don't care to go to them, I think they foster the wrong attitude and bring out the worst in people that need help bringing out their better side instead ;) I don't think you or your group are in any danger of being stupidheads ;) Thanks for the explanation, I'm with ya. I hope that people don't take this restriction change as a mandate to go nuts with newly-allowed builds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I hope the same! I will also admit that I would be more excited about this is the new chaos stuff was Tzeentch instead of Nurgle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMGraham Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Rule #1 still applies: Don't be a dick. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 People keep talking about how you'll never take that many characters because you need an army to win. Rubbish. You need enough of an army to protect the characters until they do what they do and claim objectives and no more. In case I missed addressing this Adam, I totally agree with you that this argument is bunk. The only reason not to load up on DE Masters leading units of Dark Riders and Warlocks is to not be a douchebag. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Rule #1 still applies: Don't be a dick. I actually don't like this rule. Bear with me! Different people think different things make people a dick. The rules is fine with a "here are all the other rules which explains exactly what that means in a clearly defined way". To me, no one is being a dick while they build their list within the rules laid out by the tournament, they're making a legal choice in a strategy game and I'd better have a counter or a strategy to mitigate. Other people think taking a no-holds barred list to a tournament with no comp is being a dick. Who is right? Why should one person get to judge another when there was no objective standard laid out? Maybe this isn't an issue back in the Northwest (which i honestly half believe because I'm homesick and at this point the streets of Portland are paved with cheese and everyone is super nice) but where I am now too many people spend too much time judging other people's moves in what to me is inherently a strategy game on some self defined moral compass. =/ I find that very frustrating. I'm already signed up for two tournaments when I come back, and I'm really excited for both, but list building is much harder for one than the other. One is swedish, your tournament, and the list I'll be taking is about a 10, I'm still tweaking. There's no stress in the list building, it's swedish, so I can take what I want and the score differential deals with power level issues. The other is no comp, and I'm having a very hard time making a choice of what to bring. It sounds like a great event, and I'm really looking forward to it, but the list building is stressful because I want to A: bring a list that is not under-powered compared to whatever the most broken lists people bring are and B: bring a list that other people won't think makes me a dick. Where is that beautiful grey area? It depends on the subjective perceptions of my opponents as to what constitutes a dick. Which is why I don't like rule #1. TLDR: Different people define dick differently and that makes me sad. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 *note - obviously there are things that are objectively dickish: palming dice, knowingly playing a rule wrong, moving a unit farther than is allowed, but I think all of the objectively diskish stuff is just called "cheating." =P 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
complexfire Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Not sure how I feel about this change. I am super excited to have more monsters and awesome stuff in my army. I also kinda like the idea of using the lore of Undeath and raising me some undead! :) I'm not looking forward to people spanning all sorts of the crazy stuff and showing up with 4 models. hmmmmm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andozane Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 *note - obviously there are things that are objectively dickish: palming dice, knowingly playing a rule wrong, moving a unit farther than is allowed, but I think all of the objectively diskish stuff is just called "cheating." =P you forgot "playing wood elves" :) OK, I will scurry out of this thread now...but I believe your above comment is the "dick", taking what a tournament allows is playing the game :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.