8th Ed. New rumours - pre-order 4th of July, picture inside

[The Sauric Ace]

I wouldn't say that close combat is the only thing in the game. Magic, although fickle, can have a HUGE impact on the game. Also warmachines can be extremely potent as well (Dwarfs, Empire), with cannons being a little too powerful. The only thing lagging behind a bit is standard ballistic skill shooting. Although an army like Wood Elves can have very potent shooting.

As soon as I posted I remembered something about magic phase
I suppose warmachines are also extremely potent. As a lizardmen only player I have rarely been on the good end of warmachines fires, beside miscast of course

Putting us into the skaven army is very lazy, so it's properly the ideal scenario according to GW

 

[Pinktaco]

Meh.. Personally I'd rather see the unit destroying spells go away. I find magi. Should be something that can support us and not singlehandedly win us the game. However I'd also love for it to be s bit more stable and for wizard levels to actually mean something more than now.

Obviosuly if they nerfed uber spells they should do something about hordes.

What is funny though is that I complain about uber spells, but I have a close friend that once said that there are other non-uber spells that are also very powerful, for instance searing doom against a unit of bretonnia knights may also come off as uber for them

 

[pendrake]

...or the game would simply play out like 40k.

How does 40K handle shooting?

12 Ork Boyz with ...shootaz?... standing in a raggedy clump: They pick a target, and then they all shoot at it..??

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

How does 40K handle shooting?

12 Ork Boyz with ...shootaz?... standing in a raggedy clump: They pick a target, and then they all shoot at it..??

Shooting plays a much larger role in 40k.

"I'll take all my guys and shoot at all your guys"
*throws dice
*removes models
"Great tactic! Now I'll take all my guys and shoot at all your guys"
*throws dice
*removes models
"Wow, I didn't see that coming! Let me think. I'll.... take all my guys and shoot at all your guys"
etc.
etc.
etc.

I'm oversimplifying it of course, but it requires much less skill than the many elements involved in movement + combat... maneuvering into position, winning the chaff war, covering flanks, exposing your opponent's flank, counter-charging, etc.

 

[pendrake]

So bottom line: in 40K a unit all gaggled together in a mob formation can look 360° and shoot 360° ? They don't block each other's LoF?

 

[KingCheops]

I'm oversimplifying it of course, but it requires much less skill than the many elements involved in movement + combat... maneuvering into position, winning the chaff war, covering flanks, exposing your opponent's flank, counter-charging, etc.

Huh? 40K requires just as many tactics as FB. I'd say more but it is likely that I am just more comfortable with it's style due to years of Flames of War before coming back to the GW shit heap. The fact that they aren't neat little rectangles of cardboard doesn't mean they don't behave the same way.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Huh? 40K requires just as many tactics as FB. I'd say more but it is likely that I am just more comfortable with it's style due to years of Flames of War before coming back to the GW shit heap. The fact that they aren't neat little rectangles of cardboard doesn't mean they don't behave the same way.

To each their own. I've played both systems and I personally find Fantasy far more tactical. The movement phase is far more skill orientated in fantasy, there is no comparison between the two. The 40k movement phase is simplistic and straight forward (at least when I last played it years ago). It is far less skill dependent because it is so forgiving in nature. I started off in 40k and then transitioned into fantasy because I wanted to play a more complex game. Of course things might have changed since I last played 40K, but from what I have heard/read, that is probably not the case... IMHO.

Of course both Fantasy or 40K are nowhere near as tactical as chess!

 

[Putzfrau]

They are tactical in different ways. This mostly comes down to the fact that 40k is an objective based game and fantasy is not.

Fantasy is more complex, but that doesn't mean its unarguably more tactical. There are certain aspects of 40k that are significantly more complex, like wound allocation and arranging your mixed saved units, etc.

In my personal opinion (also playing both) its slightly more tactical, but I think fantasy also has a much more severe rock paper scissor aspect.

40k often gets thrown around as the "checkers" to fantasy's chess. I think that is completely off base.

This can be a whole different topic so i'll stop before it totally derails the thread.

 

[KingCheops]

Not entirely sure that it is necessarily off topic on account of some of the rumors out there. But I'll leave the dead horse be.

Getting back to the topic with Pink Taco's post since it was the last one that didn't fly off into 40k. It was funny because we used to complain about how brutal and OP the 6th edition spells were. Then 7th nerfed them to the point that we didn't bother with mages much. 8th felt like a breath of fresh air when magic was suddenly good again. The horror dawned slowly but when the full realization came it pretty much broke my desire to play.

The last game of WFB I did play was around when Khaine came out and as funny as it sounds juxtaposed with my last paragraph I actually found Khaine worked better than vanilla 8th. The End Times spells are over the top but if you take those out and just use the rest of Khaine I find that magic gets back to a place where I'm happy with it. The rumours that magic is going to be somewhat close to that is something I'm excited about.

 

[protector]

The last game of WFB I did play was around when Khaine came out and as funny as it sounds juxtaposed with my last paragraph I actually found Khaine worked better than vanilla 8th. The End Times spells are over the top but if you take those out and just use the rest of Khaine I find that magic gets back to a place where I'm happy with it. The rumours that magic is going to be somewhat close to that is something I'm excited about.

Thanks for putting that out there, Khaine magic actually turned me back on to magic, for a very long time I have refused to make competitive lists with magic because I just got so fed up with the unreliability of it and then the only competitive way to play was 6 dice the really powerful stuff. Khaine magic makes it really hard to get those uber spells off which protects the "fun" of a battle, while removing the penalty for failing to cast which was really frustrating. It turned buffing/hexing spells into game changers and now I find that end times magic has a small but very effective role in every phase, not game breaking but I find that I want to be able to cast now instead of just defend.

It is actually a little frustrating that so many people hate it, I don't think it is perfect but man has it been a lot better than the previous system.

 

[Pinktaco]

"Age of Sigmar" will be the skirmish rule set. "Age of Steel" will be the classic mass battles rule set.

from warseer

 

[Sleboda]

EVERYTHING from the "End Times" is non-sense. (IMHO)

=> Hey now. I happen to think End TImes made the game waaaay better. I know you said "IMHO" but, you know, your opinion is wrong.

 

[Sleboda]

Speaking of archers... how do you guys feel about the power level of Wood Elf archers?

• Glade Guard with their enchanted arrows
  

When played by the rules(no duplicating) I think they are pretty cool.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

=> Hey now. I happen to think End TImes made the game waaaay better. I know you said "IMHO" but, you know, your opinion is wrong.

Hahaha... fair enough. I could set up a poll... but I don't think it will swing in your favour. It's all down to personal taste anyways.

When played by the rules(no duplicating) I think they are pretty cool.

I've never seen that interpretation of the rules. I think every battle report I've seen has duplicates. Where might I find that reference?

 

[Sleboda]

Hahaha... fair enough. I could set up a poll... but I don't think it will swing in your favour. It's all down to personal taste anyways.


I've never seen that interpretation of the rules. I think every battle report I've seen has duplicates. Where might I find that reference?

They are enchanted items, specifically called out as such when all that was needed was to say they are magical attacks. Making them Enchanted Items has precisely one game effect: it disallows duplication.

 

[borkbork]

They are enchanted items, specifically called out as such when all that was needed was to say they are magical attacks. Making them Enchanted Items has precisely one game effect: it disallows duplication.

Bloody h.... !!!!! You are probably right. Not many players realized that (me inclusive). But yeah, they are indeed classed as enchanted items, so unless there is a specific rule stating otherwise you should indeed not duplicate.

Has anyone dropped that bomb on the wood elf forum yet ??

however, is is such a big deal. You want hagbanes and truefilghts anyway. So instead of 3 glade guards units of 10, you will see two units of 15? It may be a pain for the players who use lots of deep wood scouts though.

 

[Putzfrau]

Bloody h.... !!!!! You are probably right. Not many players realized that (me inclusive). But yeah, they are indeed classed as enchanted items, so unless there is a specific rule stating otherwise you should indeed not duplicate.

Has anyone dropped that bomb on the wood elf forum yet ??

however, is is such a big deal. You want hagbanes and truefilghts anyway. So instead of 3 glade guards units of 10, you will see two units of 15? It may be a pain for the players who use lots of deep wood scouts though.

There has been extensive discussion about it since before the book came out. After it cooled down a bit everyone stopped caring because theres no tournament that disallows repeats so for most of the serious players out there, it functionally doesnt matter.

 

[borkbork]

@Putzfrau yeah, totally missed that discussion! I saw it now cause i googled a bit after reading Slebodas post.

The discussion is actually a bit weird though.....as equiping a full unit with those magic arrows is also a kind of duplicating. So, it is again one of GW's fantastic rule writing examples.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

They are enchanted items, specifically called out as such when all that was needed was to say they are magical attacks. Making them Enchanted Items has precisely one game effect: it disallows duplication.

I've heard whispers that argument, but I've yet to see that enforced. From what I have seen pretty much everyone interprets it in such a way that allows for duplicates.

The discussion is actually a bit weird though.....as equiping a full unit with those magic arrows is also a kind of duplicating

Exactly.

I would never tell a Wood Elf opponent that they can't take duplicates. Based on the context of the rule I feel that duplicates are allowed.

 

[Pinktaco]

Disallowing duplicates wouldn't make sense. It's what make the new WE special and mostly taking that away from them would be weird and dumb. It's s minor mistake from GW and nothing more.