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

This is what has me worried the most... it would be a slow death for the Lizardmen. I'd personally prefer that the army was completely squatted, that way the Lizardmen community would not be as divided between 8th and 9th edition.

 

The rumour regarding LM slaves for skaven is just stupid IMO. First of all i still think GW won't squat/merge LM since they are one of the most unique armies they have. Secondly in ET our lizards almost exterminate an entire skaven clan and then leave the planet leaving only burning jungle behind them: I really cannot see how skavens (who have lost the war aswell as lizard or even more) could enslave a decent number of lizards. And if this is a way to add reptilian warp-mutated guys to the skaven army, well, it honestly sucks: scales and fur do not pair good together

 

If this happens it's Lizardhammer all the way, we left for space, found our own clean, new, planet...and it has lots of jungles.

 

It's Oldhammer for me in such a case. 8th edition all the way.

 

Cavalry is too weak in 8th. Shooting gets short shrift and it takes too long if you try to build big archer / gunner units... 8th has flaws.

 

There are things that I don't like in 8th and the points you made above are all valid. I also think that cannons are too precise.

So I would agree with you that 8th has flaws... as did 7th, as will 9th, as will 10th (if warhammer is even still around). No edition will ever be perfect. But 8th is still pretty damn awesome in my books. If I see a few good ideas in 9th, I might poach those as if they were an Errata/FAQ update. But after the fiasco that was the End Times, my confidence in GW is a little bit rattled. I haven't given up on it just yet; I'll make my decision when we have solid concrete facts instead of just rumours.

 

Huh? Aztec lizards ain't exactly unique. It's about as original as Holy Roman Empire WITH MOAR SKULLZ!!!!!1! Or French Knights with REALLY big hats!

In regards to the LM as slaves to the Skaven it kind of makes sense. Slann all took off for 40k leaving behind pockets of LM around the monuments. We have no confirmation that all of Clan Pestilens is wiped out nor that the Underways were all collapsed by the impact of Morrslieb. Considering the Skaven wiped out Tilea, Estalia, the Border Princes, and Bretonnia off screen it is pretty trivial for them to overrun a few pockets of resistance.

I'm not saying I'm happy about it but it isn't non-sense.

 

That's some mighty risky talk around these parts.

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

 

Fix it list:

• Cannons
• Archers/Shooters
• Cavalry

What would be a good fix for cavalry? it always seems a little odd the way infantry charges almost as well...but back in 6/7 it was too powerful.

 

That's a tough one. It is important that GW doesn't go overboard and bring back the cavalryhammer of 7th edition. Charger striking first would be a good start. Perhaps breaking steadfast on a flank charge (assuming 5 or more cavalry models alive at the end of the combat phase)?

 

1 cavalry ranks need 4 models and/or cavalry needs only one rank to disrupt.
cavalry attacking flank or rear strikes first
Heavy cavalry (needs definition) should be able to ignore steadfast on the turn they charge a flank or rear.
2. no true line of sight (no canons shooting through forst)
3. dont understand what you mean with the shooting

Anyways in most historical periods infantry could easily deal with cavalry to their front, but cavalry in flank or rear was instant game over. And this need to cover your flanks better will make the game more tactical (i think)

 

Short answer is that shooting is so ineffective shooters are often not worth taking.

Do you ever see Orc armies using Orc Boyz with Bows?
Archers can't shoot on arched trajectories.
Real archers can shoot on arched trajectories, as many ranks firing as you can build ranks.
Real archers can fire at two or three times the rate of crossbowmen. But not warhammer archers.

 

ah that way! I see were you getting from, but i dont fully agree with you. (Bow) Shooting is indeed far from overpowered, but i would not call it useless. It is good vs chaff, but yeah often largely ineffective against big blocks of (elite) infantry or heavy cavalry. And for me that feels quite realistic. If you look at historical battles(yeah, i know it is a fantasy game) archers should not stop full armies. The reason why battles like Agincourt and Carrhae are so famous is that they are going against the odds, but here the archers were aided by the circumstances (mud and French arogance in the case of agincourt, and endless stepes and time in the case of Carrhae). You will find hundreds more historical exemples where archery prooved highly ineffective, or just not powerfull enough to stop a combat oriented army (

currently you indeed dont see many orc boyz with bows, but that is because you dont see orc boyz at all. Ocasionally people use a small unit of arrer boyz as an expendable flank unit or warmachine guard. However, you do see orc armies with many Night gob archers (100 strong with poison banner) or Savage orc big uns with Bows instead of add handweapon. And both type of lists have been winning big tournaments (backed up with artillery off course). In my old orc list i always felt i did not have enough light shooting to deal with those targets artillery is not efficient against and have started to use Gtilla the hunter with ca. 12 wolf riders on a regular basis, and they usually are my MVP and instrumental in winning many battles.

I also disagree with your comment about the arched trajectory. Ok, you cant really shoot over houses in warhammer, but although the rules dont specifically say it the volley fire implies an arched trajectory. Also you can shoot over/passed your own troops and the -2 to hit modifier sounds quite realistic to me as arched volleys lose quite a lot of power.

You are quite right though that the rate of fire is indeed not to well represented in whfb.

 

Very much on you on this one; it also just seems so odd that they wouldn't give a boost to cav an especially archers in new ed.

These "rules" suggested here would be a great increase from what we have now. For the archers every model in a unit should simply be capable of shooting simple as that. I don't see them being overpowered given this simple rule


On the "what happens to us" topic:
I guess they could compress us into various other armies, like skaven in slaving parts of the lizzies. I wouldn't put it beyond GW.
However we have such a great looking army, with so many interesting models. And that's even without horrible looking mutation, the scaly appearance seems so natural and is a perfect theme.

Please don't destroy that GW

 

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

• Glade Guard with their enchanted arrows
  
• Waywatchers
• etc

Archers could benefit from a small boost, but this has to be tweaked very carefully. Close combat units should be more destructive than ranged units because there is far more required of them before they can start earning victory points...

• they have to traverse the battlefield
• they have to move through the ranged threat of archers and survive
• they have to work around/through chaff
  
• they have to set up and successfully make charges
• they have to protect flanks
  
• they have to choose combats carefully or they are the ones to be wiped out

As a result, close combat is much more involved and skill orientated. It takes much less skill to choose a unit and shoot at it (I'm not claiming there are no tactics involved, merely that the tactics are more simplistic in comparison). If archers were boosted even a little too much we'd end up with many more avoidance lists or the game would simply play out like 40k.

So while I agree that archers need a boost, it should be a very carefully calculated small boost. That's just my opinion though.

 

You're completely right about this! We don't want archers being too effective, they should get a more useful role perhaps. Since has it stands now, close combat seems like the only real thing in the game. It should be most dominant, but not the only aspect.

 

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.