Musings on 9th edition

[McNathanson]

As far as army books I just hope they continue with the combined factions they started with End Times.  The more options the merrier, especially since we are doing the balancing ourselves anyway, why not?  And I'd happily shell out $50 (more if the art is more than just photos of models) for a combined "Forces of Mankind" book with a cleaned up rewrite of the Empire & Bret units and new-multiverse-appropriate backstory!

 

We'll see.  I'm so excited... new rules, new games, new fun!!

[McNathanson]

Oh also, as much as I dislike the notion of how much time it would take, I think round bases are aesthetically superior to square, and so if I have to rebase my whole army and remake all my movement trays, it will at least be an opportunity to put more love into that aspect of my armies, and also end up with a better looking set of models.  I do however hope they take the opportunity to just make everything multiples of 25mm, and get rid of the 20mm, 40mm, etc. stuff.  Or even making everything multiples of 30mm.  I don't care, just pick one.

 

Something else I've been thinking about: if I could fix one thing about 8th I think it would be frontage and b2b rules for Close Combat.  They're rife with counter-intuitive scenarios that can swing a combat one direction or another through ticky-tacky rules.  Gives such a huge and unsatisfying example to those of us who know how to leverage the rules minutiae.  Something like "All front rank models get to fight with full attacks.  All 2nd rank models get a single supporting attack.  Before rolling to hit, attacks are distributed as evenly as possible across the enemy's front rank, with the attacker allocating odd numbers of attacks."  Done, no more effing b2b, challenges, aligning to maximize, blah blah blah.

 

What rule would YOU fix, and how?

[King Mekhet]

Something else I've been thinking about: if I could fix one thing about 8th I think it would be frontage and b2b rules for Close Combat.  They're rife with counter-intuitive scenarios that can swing a combat one direction or another through ticky-tacky rules.  Gives such a huge and unsatisfying example to those of us who know how to leverage the rules minutiae.  Something like "All front rank models get to fight with full attacks.  All 2nd rank models get a single supporting attack.  Before rolling to hit, attacks are distributed as evenly as possible across the enemy's front rank, with the attacker allocating odd numbers of attacks."  Done, no more effing b2b, challenges, aligning to maximize, blah blah blah.

 

This is not quite correct. The controlling player must allocate the attacks of each individual model against other individual models in base-contact. Rank-and-file models (not including the champion) are indistinguishable, including the Musician and Standard Bearer as per the special rules of those models, and so simply "attacking the unit" is a valid allocation. If there is a champion or character also in base contact with a model, then any number of its attacks may be allocated against the champion/character. If there is ONLY a champion/character in base contact, then the attacks must be allocated only against those models.

 

 

There is no restriction on how those attacks are allocated, beyond that they do in fact need to be allocated. You can, of course, only deal as many wounds to such model as it has on its profile. Any further wounds are lost for combat resolution purposes (save in a challenge, where they are specifically counted for "overkill" purposes).

 

Example:

 

Unit A is a unit of chaos warriors, arranged 5-wide [champion][Rank-and-file][Lord][Rank-and-file][Rank-and-file]

 

Unit B is a Bretonnian lance, 3-wide, arranged [Champion][Rank and File][Lord]

 

 

Since both units are made of models with 25mm frontage, the lance is arranged in the middle of the unit, with a warrior file hanging off either side.

 

 

The file on the extreme left of the warrior unit (champion in front) is ONLY in base contact with the bret champion. Thus all those attacks, including the attacks from the WoC champ, must be allocated against the bret champion (since the supporting models attack "through" the model in the front rank, and he can only allocate attacks against the champion).

 

The models on the extreme right flank can also only allocate against one model: the lord.

 

The chaos lord is in base-contact with the entire lance, and thus has his pick of where he allocates attacks. The files on either side are slightly more limited, having a choice between the champion or rank and file on the left, or the lord or rank and file on the right.

 

 

Tactically speaking, the lord should allocate at least one of his attacks against the Champion. Why? Because the file on the left is likely to do more than 1 wound to the champion, but the rest will be wasted. As the Lord's attacks go before them in the initiative step, that model will be removed and replaced with a rank-and-file knight by the time the warriors get to strike, meaning that they can mulch additional knights than if they were only killing the champion 2 or 3 times.

 

Note too that if the Chaos Lord issues a challenge, and the Bret Champion accepts, that entire file on the extreme left WILL NOT GET TO ATTACK. They are base contact only with a model in a challenge, and thus just sit around with their thumbs up their asses.

 

 

 

 

 

TL;DR - learn your base-contact shenanigans. 50% lords and heroes has really encouraged janky character buses, and Swedish especially makes it worse with their odd penalties for unit sizes and their very minimal penalty on hero-level characters. 

[Don't Panic]

 

What rule would YOU fix, and how?

oh gawd... here comes that can o worms lol.

-the no saves stuff for obvious reasons(and make it singular wounds or multi wounds none of the pass or die crap)

-building rules are just stupidly complicated and weird(i get it, theyre 'fluffy', but doesnt mean its easy to understand).  just a simpler format.

-cannon formats need a fix up.  i dont think anyone enjoys it really in 8th even those that use it.  i REALLY want to see them specify things with chariot cannons and smack them somehow to fit their stupidly low price tags.  ogres OK but getting out cannoned by FREAKING DAEMONS as a dwarf player is beyond stupid fluffwise.  let alone, khane would not be a pussy sitting back shooting cannons(small rant)

-random movement things and all the small things involving them.

-for the love of god get rid of dawn attack AND/OR more options of credible scenerios that do not have obvious favor to certain types of builds/armies.  i think im to the point where i wont attend tournaments that use that scenerio.  2 of my 3 losses with dwarfs at events have been mostly due to freaking dawn attack... how is it 'fun' to be handicapped due to your army race for a scenerio?  just stupid...

-i like square bases and it makes fantasy what it is so id prefer they keep them.  i understand circle base 'aesthetics' and that GW loathes unit fillers, but really i like the looks of rank and file. *shrugs* i also guess rebasing 300+ infantry guys and throwing out made movement trays is probably my line for 9th.  as long as i can use half of my armies and not have to redo everything ill be happy as a clam.

-challenges i dont really care about.  they can have it or not doesnt matter to me really.  it does provide some 'epicness' but it also frustrates the heck out of some people to win by combat res due to challenges.  so i understand that group.

-TLoS: great in theory, in practice annoying as crap.  tier system i think is fine.

 

alright, got that off my chest :P

[indytims]

-i like square bases and it makes fantasy what it is so id prefer they keep them.  i understand circle base 'aesthetics' and that GW loathes unit fillers, but really i like the looks of rank and file. *shrugs* i also guess rebasing 300+ infantry guys and throwing out made movement trays is probably my line for 9th.  as long as i can use half of my armies and not have to redo everything ill be happy as a clam.

 

 

I actually agree with this. Watching the discussion on other sites, it seems a large majority of people prefer round bases for 'aesthetic' reasons. But I think square look -just- as good, personally. Obviously I want to abide by the rules I am playing, so if AoS goes to round bases - I'll probably rebase JUST ENOUGH figures to play it, and keep hoping for a massbattles/rank and file game (or hang onto 8th, I suppose).

 

As for your hate towards elves... we need to work on that, DP. I'll make you nice collection of berries and holly leaves, maybe a crown of thorns and a few proper trees to hug, and we'll get you 'elfed up' in no time! :)

[MexicanNinja]

I'm not rebasing any of my armies.  That's just out of the question.  If people make round daemons work, we can make square bases work.  Heck, maybe after 9th drops, I won't even be playing my existing armies.  I know I am excited for the change and I will most likely embrace 9th with starting a new army.

[King Mekhet]

I actually agree with this. Watching the discussion on other sites, it seems a large majority of people prefer round bases for 'aesthetic' reasons. But I think square look -just- as good, personally. Obviously I want to abide by the rules I am playing, so if AoS goes to round bases - I'll probably rebase JUST ENOUGH figures to play it, and keep hoping for a massbattles/rank and file game (or hang onto 8th, I suppose).

 

As for your hate towards elves... we need to work on that, DP. I'll make you nice collection of berries and holly leaves, maybe a crown of thorns and a few proper trees to hug, and we'll get you 'elfed up' in no time! :)

 

I really don't think that it's going to matter much. So long as you're running models as ranked-up infantry, it shouldn't make a difference what base shape they're on. Rounds or squares...if they're in a movement tray it makes very little difference. Ask any demon player who uses round conversion trays.

 

 

As for rules I would like changed:

 

1) Base contact attack allocation: as my above point illustrates, it's overcomplicated, unintuitive, and leads to jankiness. As much as I love the power and flexibility you can get with janky character buses, I hold no illusions that it's good for the game or will survive the edition change.

 

2) Cannons: specifically hitting both mount and rider. Mounted models need to use monster cav rules, or cannons should randomize. End of story.

 

Also character sniping with cannons is pretty bull[big bad swear word]. They should randomize like bolt throwers do. In fact...there's really no reason they don't just work like boltthrowers regardless. Place marker, bounce the distance, resolve for all units hit exactly like a boltthrower (combining all separate units and ranks thereof for the purposes the "piercing ranks" rule).

 

3) Double Movement: there needs to be a general rule that no model may ever, for any reason, move more than double its movement value in the movement phase, unless some spell or effect specifically allows otherwise. This is built into a lot of the rules already, but not into all of them (queue fanatic slingshots, and all other sorts of janky nonsense in the ETC worst plays manual).

 

4) Building Rules: building rules are completely whack. The fact that attackers get shunted out of the building is complete garbage, and makes it mathematically impossible to destroy certain units when they get holed up in the tower.

 

Suggestion: attacker only shunted out if the defender wins. If the attacker wins then they get to stay inside the building and fight another round of combat in the subsequent combat phase. Defender should gain "unstable" to offset the advantage of permanent stubborn.

 

[Swan-of-War]

Dat booty don't need explaining.

[McNathanson]

King Mehket I totally appreciate the time you put into explaining attack allocation, and I hope others will read and learn a lot from it!  

 

But I was describing how I thought it *should* work, not how it *does* work!  I am pretty comfortable with how the current rules work, and honestly, I find it pretty lame that I can gain such a huge advantage over people who don't understand the little rules (like for example combat reform minutiae).  So I try to generally avoid using such silliness.

What I was suggesting is simplifying it all by just allowing all front rank models to attack regardless of b2b status, for example (maybe up to 10 models or whatever).  This would eliminate the need to maximize combatants (fixing a lot of funny charge situations); would eliminate the advantage of conga lines; etc.  And the simple "as shooting in 40k" attack allocation would remove all that b.s. you can pull by making way, challenging, combat reforming, etc., where you can make it so that enemy models can't fight, or have to attack a model they can't hurt, etc.

 

Again though, great examples and I hope people who aren't as familiar take a minute to read it over and grok it!

:)

NtK

[McNathanson]

TL;DR - learn your base-contact shenanigans. 50% lords and heroes has really encouraged janky character buses, and Swedish especially makes it worse with their odd penalties for unit sizes and their very minimal penalty on hero-level characters. 

 

QFT, fo sho.  It's gets janky as heck.  I think the worst of it is challenges and combat reform shenanigans, but in general I think GW just has crap rules for determining who gets to fight, and how.  40k is guilty of similar (but different) abusability... ick.  They try and try to make it look "accurate to the table top" but its just too hard to get it right if you don't abstract the combat details away from actual model-to-model contact a little.

[Brother Glacius]

Kings of war is jank-free.....just sayin ????

[Don't Panic]

I actually agree with this. Watching the discussion on other sites, it seems a large majority of people prefer round bases for 'aesthetic' reasons. But I think square look -just- as good, personally. Obviously I want to abide by the rules I am playing, so if AoS goes to round bases - I'll probably rebase JUST ENOUGH figures to play it, and keep hoping for a massbattles/rank and file game (or hang onto 8th, I suppose).

 

As for your hate towards elves... we need to work on that, DP. I'll make you nice collection of berries and holly leaves, maybe a crown of thorns and a few proper trees to hug, and we'll get you 'elfed up' in no time! :)

haha funny note: im an environmental molecular biologist and im a pescatarian.  so i do thee above anyways :P  im with the goblin crew on this one.  they stink funny and im sticking to it ;)  plus elves get all the love in whfb(along with nurgle) and its annoying.  dwarfs get all the hate, so someone has to stand up for them amirite?  my elf hate is about 99% joke though.  just use to it cause from the MW all my friends there played elves, i was only dwarf player so we got into some whfb race smack talk alot.  people dont seem to be into that here... get too 'offended' lol.

[Kremmet]

Plus dwarfs waited a fair bit longer than Wood Elves to receive their update (13 years to almost 9 years).  Just sayin' that some solidarity about waiting so long for a new book only to watch the edition change pretty immediately is in order  .

[Don't Panic]

Plus dwarfs waited a fair bit longer than Wood Elves to receive their update (13 years to almost 9 years).  Just sayin' that some solidarity about waiting so long for a new book only to watch the edition change pretty immediately is in order  .

gotta love wiki.   you forgot a book in between there bud but yes fair point regardless, i just like teasing elves.  whiny baby elves... "omg you have cannons they are so broken waaah, *while shooting with always hits on 3+ arrows, crazy +5/+6 to cast magic phases and M9 fastcav, ASF, poison, rerolling to wounds...* "  you should change your profile pic to something more of your standard.  like alarielle and malekith making out seems legit   im just going to continually talk smack until we play someday........  

6th Edition was released in October 2000. All army books were initially replaced by a get-by list in Ravening Hordes, distributed for free.

Army ISBN Release Date Replaced By

Dwarfs ISBN 978-1-84154-690-2 January 2006 8th Edition Dwarfs Army Book

Wood Elves ISBN 1-84154-680-1 September 2005 8th Edition Wood Elves Army Book

Ogre Kingdoms ISBN 1-84154-531-7 January 2005 8th Edition Ogre Kingdoms Army Book

Beasts of Chaos ISBN 1-84154-387-X August 2003 7th Edition Beastmen Army Book

Lizardmen ISBN 1-84154-356-X May 2003 7th Edition Lizardmen Army Book

Tomb Kings ISBN 978-1-84154-336-9 January 2003 8th Edition Tomb Kings Army Book

Hordes of Chaos ISBN 1-84154-222-9 June 2002 7th Edition Warriors of Chaos and Daemons of Chaos Army Books

Skaven ISBN 1-84154-185-0 March 2002 7th Edition Skaven Army Book

High Elves ISBN 1-84154-175-3 January 2002 7th Edition High Elves Army Book

Dark Elves ISBN 1-84154-083-8 June 2001 7th Edition Dark Elves Army Book

Vampire Counts ISBN 1-84154-080-3 April 2001 7th Edition Vampire Counts Army Book

Dwarfs ISBN 1-84154-066-8 January 2001 Second 6th Edition Dwarfs Army Book

[generalripphook]

gotta love wiki. you forgot a book in between there bud but yes fair point regardless, i just like teasing elves. whiny baby elves... "omg you have cannons they are so broken waaah, *while shooting with always hits on 3+ arrows, crazy +5/+6 to cast magic phases and M9 fastcav, ASF, poison, rerolling to wounds...* " you should change your profile pic to something more of your standard. like alarielle and malekith making out seems legit im just going to continually talk smack until we play someday........

6th Edition was released in October 2000. All army books were initially replaced by a get-by list in Ravening Hordes, distributed for free.

Army ISBN Release Date Replaced By

Dwarfs ISBN 978-1-84154-690-2 January 2006 8th Edition Dwarfs Army Book

Wood Elves ISBN 1-84154-680-1 September 2005 8th Edition Wood Elves Army Book

Ogre Kingdoms ISBN 1-84154-531-7 January 2005 8th Edition Ogre Kingdoms Army Book

Beasts of Chaos ISBN 1-84154-387-X August 2003 7th Edition Beastmen Army Book

Lizardmen ISBN 1-84154-356-X May 2003 7th Edition Lizardmen Army Book

Tomb Kings ISBN 978-1-84154-336-9 January 2003 8th Edition Tomb Kings Army Book

Hordes of Chaos ISBN 1-84154-222-9 June 2002 7th Edition Warriors of Chaos and Daemons of Chaos Army Books

Skaven ISBN 1-84154-185-0 March 2002 7th Edition Skaven Army Book

High Elves ISBN 1-84154-175-3 January 2002 7th Edition High Elves Army Book

Dark Elves ISBN 1-84154-083-8 June 2001 7th Edition Dark Elves Army Book

Vampire Counts ISBN 1-84154-080-3 April 2001 7th Edition Vampire Counts Army Book

Dwarfs ISBN 1-84154-066-8 January 2001 Second 6th Edition Dwarfs Army Book

I don't know what it is but your smack talk just keeps coming up short....

[Antanas the Great]

I love how everyone turns into financial analysts every time GW is mentioned.

[Antanas the Great]

I don't know what it is but your smack talk just keeps coming up short....

 

I see what you did there. Nice.

[King Mekhet]

King Mehket I totally appreciate the time you put into explaining attack allocation, and I hope others will read and learn a lot from it!

 

But I was describing how I thought it *should* work, not how it *does* work! I am pretty comfortable with how the current rules work, and honestly, I find it pretty lame that I can gain such a huge advantage over people who don't understand the little rules (like for example combat reform minutiae). So I try to generally avoid using such silliness.

 

What I was suggesting is simplifying it all by just allowing all front rank models to attack regardless of b2b status, for example (maybe up to 10 models or whatever). This would eliminate the need to maximize combatants (fixing a lot of funny charge situations); would eliminate the advantage of conga lines; etc. And the simple "as shooting in 40k" attack allocation would remove all that b.s. you can pull by making way, challenging, combat reforming, etc., where you can make it so that enemy models can't fight, or have to attack a model they can't hurt, etc.

 

Again though, great examples and I hope people who aren't as familiar take a minute to read it over and grok it!

 

:)

 

NtK

 

Apologies, I misread. Still thought it was important to elaborate on how those work though, as two armies in my team (my VC and the Bret's) have character buses where attack allocation becomes an issue. Want to make sure nobody is seeing this [big bad swear word] for the first time.

 

Its been dominating the meta up here for a while now and I just kind of assume everyone knows what's up.

 

(Didn't mean to infer that you don't)

 

Also fun story: only the acceptor can ever move in a challenge. If the issuer is not in a position where the models can touch, then neither will move. Its an odd rule

[Prophecy]

Actually I learned something and appreciate your explanation. I fell into a peg knight heavy army and I think I want to make a royal air force list.

[McNathanson]

The challenger not moving is a great example of little weirdness that is hidden in there.

 

To me it seems like the easiest way to get a really gross advantage is combat reform. The outcome of a combat hinging on the combat reform roll-off always bugs me :-)

 

There have been exploits in every edition, and it's interesting to see them go from "cheesy" to "tactics" to commonplace almost every time.

 

Anyway, 9th ed. hurry up please :-)

[Kremmet]

gotta love wiki.   you forgot a book in between there bud but yes fair point regardless, i just like teasing elves.  whiny baby elves... "omg you have cannons they are so broken waaah, *while shooting with always hits on 3+ arrows, crazy +5/+6 to cast magic phases and M9 fastcav, ASF, poison, rerolling to wounds...* "  you should change your profile pic to something more of your standard.  like alarielle and malekith making out seems legit   im just going to continually talk smack until we play someday........  

 

That's right!  I totally forgot about the "eventful" 2006 release.  

 

I actually just sold my Alarielle so I can't even do that anymore and we will never play!  Not no way not no how!

[Don't Panic]

That's right!  I totally forgot about the "eventful" 2006 release.  

 

I actually just sold my Alarielle so I can't even do that anymore and we will never play!  Not no way not no how!

if you show up to ofcc we can find a way to play(especially if you're doing the team event).  if not, 4th game on saturday will be kremmet vs dp,  drink-hammer!  ive always wanted to make a drinking game out of warhammer...

sorry bro G for the hijack, Ill stop now :)  im honestly pretty excited now for 9th, i just dont think they will do something drastic like rebasing so ill be happy for a change of some sort.  i also can combine my dwarfs/empire if they make them into one book which i think will be fun.  and no, im not going to make the most obnoxious gunline imaginable :P

[Brother Glacius]

no worries. I think GW is smart enough to let people keep using what they have. I am just having a hard time seeing them keep the game in that format, and having it be successful and still continuing their business practices.

 

If they went back to the days of 6th ed in terms of how they made the game accessible, then I think that would be great. I just don't see them doing that.

[McNathanson]

If they went back to the days of 6th ed in terms of how they made the game accessible, then I think that would be great. I just don't see them doing that.

 

I don't get it, what made 6th ed. more accessible, do you think?  

 

I think 8th ed is the most forgiving edition yet in terms of newer/less-skilled players being able to have a shot at competing with experienced/skilled players.  

 

Or were you referring to something else?

[Brother Glacius]

I was referring to the business side of things. 6th is where they started out (IIRC) with the plastic regiment boxes. 20 goblins for $20, with a movement tray included. Other infantry was 16 in size. Also, the game supported frontages of 4 instead of 5, which let you have smaller units. 6th edition is where I exploded in terms of collecting armies.