8th Ed. End Times is now official. Updated rules. LM am cry Q.Q

[Ulodwor]

Ugh, bare minimum (if even that) of FAQs irks me, but it still makes me a tiny bit optimistic, that there will be new FAQs soon. If not... I can't help but hope the 9th edition comes quickly.

An entirely new edition made by a company who does not even care enough about the game to provide a few lines worth of FAQs? Yeah... like that'll end well...

Possibly, the reason there are no FAQs is because any GW employee familiar enough with the community to know what the frequently asked questions are, would be suspected of fraternizing with the enemy, considered disloyal and swiftly terminated.

 

[Morewar]

I think the point Sleboda is trying to get across is that as long as we have steadfast, overloading on characters won't be as strong as you think. Your blender/DP/chaos lord/tyrant/etc can kill all he wants, as long as 5 models remain in the unit, it's stubborn.
And good news Sleboda! Having, just like you started with TK and later given up, they might now be a little stronger due to the prevalence of KB in the army!

 

[Pinktaco]

Have people also somehow forgotten how ridiculous characters could be in 5th edition? It's not like gaining more of the same is comparable to having demi-gods on the board.

The only comparable situation is a couple of demon princes, but putting out more scar vets is not "hero hammer". Besides we can already now put out 3 SVs an olbdlood and a slann if we want.

 

[Gary_M]

As a returing player, (back from 1st edition about 30 years ago!!!!) I've not known anything but 8th.

However it strikes me that if warhammer is meant to be a game of massed fantasy battles (I think the rule book says something like this), surely allowing double the number of characters is destroying the mission statement of warhammer as a game? It potentially becomes more of a skirmish game. Worst(?) case 25% core minimum with the remaining 75% split between individual lords and heroes.

Do you max out on lords etc or build an army the traditional way and hope to get flanks, ranks etc. Either way I'm not sure it will make a good game. The former is two skirmish sized armies waiting to see which Heroes/Lords die first, while the second can potentially be countered by the Lords/Heroes heavy army deploying in a corner and moving so the fight becomes down the long length of the table (ie not much room to get flanks) rather than across it.

Not convinced this is an improvement

 

[LawGnome]

As a returing player, (back from 1st edition about 30 years ago!!!!) I've not known anything but 8th.

However it strikes me that if warhammer is meant to be a game of massed fantasy battles (I think the rule book says something like this), surely allowing double the number of characters is destroying the mission statement of warhammer as a game? It potentially becomes more of a skirmish game. Worst(?) case 25% core minimum with the remaining 75% split between individual lords and heroes.

Do you max out on lords etc or build an army the traditional way and hope to get flanks, ranks etc. Either way I'm not sure it will make a good game. The former is two skirmish sized armies waiting to see which Heroes/Lords die first, while the second can potentially be countered by the Lords/Heroes heavy army deploying in a corner and moving so the fight becomes down the long length of the table (ie not much room to get flanks) rather than across it.

Not convinced this is an improvement

I think you are thinking of this wrong: the new rules allow people to take the characters that they never would have been able to. Almost no one plays more than about 2500 points, meaning that there are few people who ever get to play with big lords like Mazdamundi. Those big lords, like Nagash, need to be expensive or else they would be broken. But without the new rules, no one would ever actually play with the new (and very expensive) models.

Now, if you want to play with 75% lords and heroes and 25% core, you go right ahead. I don't think it will be as good as you think it will be. You are going to be out-deployed, and probably out maneuvered.

Just think of the new rules as a way to allow more diversity in list building and to let people actually play with some of the fancy special characters. They spent all of this time making rules and fluff for those characters, so why not let people actually play with them?

 

[SilverFaith]

However it strikes me that if warhammer is meant to be a game of massed fantasy battles (I think the rule book says something like this), surely allowing double the number of characters is destroying the mission statement of warhammer as a game? It potentially becomes more of a skirmish game. Worst(?) case 25% core minimum with the remaining 75% split between individual lords and heroes.

I think you are missing the point here. you aren't supposed to take 75% characers. But now you have the option of going full on lords, without any heroes, without having only half the points to do so. It actuually helps Lizardmen quite a lot, because at lower point values, a Slann is impossible to field because of his obscene cost. Now it is actually possible, if you want to.

 

[Pinktaco]

I'm more interested in actually fielding a fully kitted OB along with a fully kitted Slann.

A slann channel combo, WD, DD -> PD and reroll first failed dispil AND BSB is 445pts.
An OB with GW, AoD and Dawnstoen 251pts.
Combined 696.

One could remove the BSB and we'd only be 50pts shy of the old 25% rules.

My point is that this is now possible without going anywhere near "hero hammer". It's something I'd really like to try out because it's the best from both world. "Cheap" tough as nails combat character and a great mage.

We could do something similar previously, but we'd have to cut the dawnstone, a discipline and the BSB.

 

[GCPD]

Why does everyone seem to assume that all these new characters will br running around on their own and voluntarily charging into big disposable hordes, instead of being packed into uber death stars, combi charging one unit, or using their mobility to pick ideal targets. You can't be steadfast if you are dead.

 

[lordkingcrow]

I understand what many of you are saying who are pro 50% lords/heroes and it does make me feel a little better now that I hear it. I know it isn't Herohammer as it once was, but I feel they are walking a fine line. I know some chaos players are going to abuse this. I also hate the idea of a five man hero front. I think it will help armies with generally weak troops and cheep heroes, but doesn't the 5 man hero front take away from the game? Yeah, my troops suck and I don't know how to use them, so lets pump this unit full of inexpensive heroes. I don't know guys, I just don't always trust GW's ability to make sound decisions. IF they start making money with more heroes/lords, it really wouldn't surprise me to find the return of herohammer in the next edition. We all know they don't exactly listen to reason. Anyhow, I hope I'm wrong and this is just an irrational fear, but the little voice in my head that tells me, "this is only the beginning." I don't know, maybe I should get my head checked?

 

[Madrck]

I haven't read the book or seen the rules yet so I'm very curious as to the specific wording, but wouldn't allowing 50% of your army to be hero/lords mean after core tax(25%) you still need to spend the last 25% outside of lords/heroes. aka special/rare or more core?

If somebody can link the text from the book(or pm me if that breaches some bs GW legal rules) I'd appreciate it.

 

[Mr Phat]

If somebody can link the text from the book(or pm me if that breaches some bs GW legal rules) I'd appreciate it.

The whole point is it isnt in the book anymore, its in an FAQ/Errata that changes the main rules in the main BRB

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/WARHAMMER_RULEBOOKv1.9.pdf

Read the Magneta text



My main problem with this is that I will run out of ways to remember what scar-vet has what

I will have to number them from 1-6

 

[hardyworld]

I haven't read the book or seen the rules yet so I'm very curious as to the specific wording, but wouldn't allowing 50% of your army to be hero/lords mean after core tax(25%) you still need to spend the last 25% outside of lords/heroes. aka special/rare or more core?

Basically it's a 50% max for Lord and Heros, EACH. So I can have 25% core, 30% Heroes, 45% Lords to make up an army. I'm not saying that's a good build for all armies, but for some it will work well.

 

[Putzfrau]

It makes the game significantly more boring.

We can pretend that it will be used for fun stuff like having a slann and an old blood carnosaur, but in reality itll be used to add as many Cowboys as you can find decent kit for.

Boring. So boring.

 

[Sleboda]

Saying "no offense" and then being offensive is like saying "sorry" before you kick someone in the shin. Still not very friendly.

=> Yeah, I hear ya' and I understand. I was trying to be brief (for once) and chose my words pretty deliberately to get the point across with minimal output. Thus the 'no offense' short-hand.

The words I used are not bad ones. It's not like I said "You are stupid if you think this" or "What kind of fool thinks this" or whatever. (I did not say those things because I do not think them AND they would indeed be offensive...even with a 'no offense' ).

Here's the longer version and why I used the three key words I used (displays, stunning, ignorance) -

I could have written it out as

If you believe this is a return to herohammer, then I believe you likely do not recall what that term meant at the time it first was used("ignorance"). Since you have used the term, however, and done so in a public forum ("displays"), it gives me pause. I am somewhat confused that you would invoke the term, especially since you imply a personal experience with it when you said you never cared for it, and yet you call the single change of increased % allocation enough to be a return to those times despite there being so many other rules currently in place to keep us well away from the days of herohammer. Again, I am taken aback a bit by this odd combination of your apparent experience with actual herohammer and your willingness to ignore all the other rules that are still in play to prevent the problem from coming up again. I am at a loss as to how to reconcile this. I find it literally stunning ("stunning").

Whew!

I think the other version is much simpler. I'm sorry that it bothered you.



@Putzfrau -
I have no intention of going down that path. I don't max out my numbers right now, except when I want to add in more Carnosaurs than the points allow. So, for me, it really will mean more big monster guys, not more cowboys (who are nice and all, but I don't trust them to be a major part of my plans).

Now, if you want to play with 75% lords and heroes and 25% core, you go right ahead. I don't think it will be as good as you think it will be. You are going to be out-deployed, and probably out maneuvered.

=> And this. Tournaments that use only Battleline are the problem. If you play the game that GW sells you, with a chance at Blood and Glory and Watchtower, a lot of the crap is handled. I already feel like I am shorting my 'army' when I take too many characters. This new environment is a trap unless you play only Battleline.

I just don't always trust GW's ability to make sound decisions.

=> Well, that's just obvious, right? They don't deserve the trust from anyone.

My main problem with this is that I will run out of ways to remember what scar-vet has what

=> Simple solution - accurate modeling and painting!

 

[Putzfrau]

@Putzfrau -
I have no intention of going down that path. I don't max out my numbers right now, except when I want to add in more Carnosaurs than the points allow. So, for me, it really will mean more big monster guys, not more cowboys (who are nice and all, but I don't trust them to be a major part of my plans).

Tons of armies will go down this path, and blood and glory or watch tower won't change that.

I don't think theres 1 army where this option allows for realistic diversity.

granted i will enjoy bringing my old blood carno and my slann but /shrug. I dunno. i'm still not sold i guess.

 

[lordkingcrow]

I do recall the days when lords roamed the field wiping out entire armies. I was but a lad then, but the memories remain. I also understand, if you had read my other posts, that this is not the return of that. However, it IS a step toward it. My view on the term herohammer is where the game removes focus away from commanding an army and focuses more on what type of nasty hero/lord you can pitch out there to turn the tide. I guess my definition of "herohammer" differs from yours. Words, especially those that have been made up, can only have one meaning after all, right?

I mean, think about how unbalanced low point games can be. At 1000 points you can field a lvl 4 wizard, an oldblood on a carnosaur, creatures capable of destroying most of what others could field in 1000 points. Sure you could grind them down, knowing that you will have steadfast, but with what? 1000 points isn't going to buy you a whole lot of worth while rank and file troops. 9 Strength 7 attacks against most troops is going to win against 12 Strength 3-4 at a lower WS. A turn or two and that unit is gone. Knowing this, your opponent isn't going to be happy taking troops that can be spanked by such creatures. It can happen and it will happen because this is a competitive game and people want to win. In a way, this just empowers already overpowered armies like WoC. Thus, it turns into a monster/lord bash. As bad as it once was? No, of course not, but it's still not ideal.

In my opinion, those big point models are meant to be used in big point games. Lord Kroak, or any slann for that matter, wouldn't get off his mummified butt just to quell a little skirmish now would he? Of course not. Those big and powerful guys/gals become somewhat less in my eyes when they can be brought out for every little confrontation. I've always felt that if I wanted to pitch out some heavy hitters, it would need to be in a large scale game. I mean, it is fantasy and I love that we can create battles in which heroes shine on the battlefield, but when big heroes/lord become commonplace, I don't know, the game just loses something for me.

I REALLY hope you guys are right and this doesn't turn out like I fear. I can't really support my concerns otherwise until I try it out I guess, this is just a prediction.

 

[havik110]

We dont have anything yet but I am hopeful for a Mazdamundi or sotek model...

hell if they took Mazdamundi or Kroq-Gar and gave them combined profiles like the mortarchs and made them worth their points I would be very happy...

 

[hardyworld]

I do recall the days when lords roamed the field wiping out entire armies. I was but a lad then, but the memories remain. I also understand, if you had read my other posts, that this is not the return of that. However, it IS a step toward it. My view on the term herohammer is where the game removes focus away from commanding an army and focuses more on what type of nasty hero/lord you can pitch out there to turn the tide. I guess my definition of "herohammer" differs from yours. Words, especially those that have been made up, can only have one meaning after all, right?

I mean, think about how unbalanced low point games can be. At 1000 points you can field a lvl 4 wizard, an oldblood on a carnosaur, creatures capable of destroying most of what others could field in 1000 points. Sure you could grind them down, knowing that you will have steadfast, but with what? 1000 points isn't going to buy you a whole lot of worth while rank and file troops. 9 Strength 7 attacks against most troops is going to win against 12 Strength 3-4 at a lower WS. A turn or two and that unit is gone. Knowing this, your opponent isn't going to be happy taking troops that can be spanked by such creatures. It can happen and it will happen because this is a competitive game and people want to win. In a way, this just empowers already overpowered armies like WoC. Thus, it turns into a monster/lord bash. As bad as it once was? No, of course not, but it's still not ideal.

In my opinion, those big point models are meant to be used in big point games. Lord Kroak, or any slann for that matter, wouldn't get off his mummified butt just to quell a little skirmish now would he? Of course not. Those big and powerful guys/gals become somewhat less in my eyes when they can be brought out for every little confrontation. I've always felt that if I wanted to pitch out some heavy hitters, it would need to be in a large scale game. I mean, it is fantasy and I love that we can create battles in which heroes shine on the battlefield, but when big heroes/lord become commonplace, I don't know, the game just loses something for me.

I REALLY hope you guys are right and this doesn't turn out like I fear. I can't really support my concerns otherwise until I try it out I guess, this is just a prediction.

+1

I feel the same way. Is the sky falling, probably not. The hobby/game will continue for the foreseeable future (to be fair, that is not a long time).

Is the direction taken good for the game of Warhammer, I do not believe so. Multiple powerful character builds dominating the army makeup greatly distracts from the game. An army of point-and-click models, roll a few dice and see who wins does not sound like fun to me. Winning/Losing a game in the armybuild phase of the game is no fun at all. Winning/Losing a game using multiple units of various strengths and positioning them on the battlefield does sound like fun.

Is the direction taken good for the business of Warhammer, I do not believe so. Requiring fewer (but expensive) models to play large battles is not the right direction. To build the hobby, increase marketing on skirmish games (like the old Warband rules, which were great). After new players learn the basics, they're hooked to buy more models so their army is expanded to play 1000 pt. games, and then they continue to expand so it is large enough to field powerful Lords they read about.

 

[Pepticsalve]

Our gaming group is having a huge discussion about this FAQ on FB at the moment. General concensus is its a money making scheme by GW (no surprise there) but none of us like the rule at all - even those who play armies that would benefit massively from it, such as WoC... Its going to wreck game balance being able to field 75% characters... Next they'll be dropping 25% core and 3 unit minimum requirement and people will turn up with an army of three dragons with characters....

 

[n810]

LOL make the core requirement 50%