What do you guys think about some of the new rules

[warhamsterdave]

I will kick this off and maybe you could use this thread for info for a future show.

One rule that gives me cause to groan is the "allways strikes first"

now I see this as a good bonus when you are faced off against high In enemies. I can also see why you should still get some bonus against low In enemies and am happy with the re roll misses.

What does bug me though is the fact that you get a double bonus against equal In enemies.

I think this should just be the same as against higher In in that you will be striking first and should not be getting the re roll.

What do you guys think?

[heychadwick]

It's hard for me to think about it. I play OnG and our Init is so bad that all I know is EVERYTHING attacks before me. In fact, this rule change has pretty much made our fast cav and medium cav almost useless. Who wants to use boar boyz when they attack I2? The chances are that they won't be living long and get the chance to actually attack. It's even worse for fast cav. We have Core fast cav and used to take 2-4 units a game. I don't really take any now. I wonder if they can even take out a cannon crew, especially dwarfs.

[warhamsterdave]

Fast cav are still usable for covering flanks and for cheap deployments to force you enemy to show his hand before you place your main force.

I have had a unit of 5 chaos hounds (30pts) take out a helblaster in a single round so they can still be useful.

[squalie]

I've played against and with High Elves and ASF isn't game breaking. It's an annoyance -- but so are the HE's. ;D

It took a little getting used to the terrain rules. Not so much as I didn't like them as it just took that much longer to set up a game.

I haaaaaaaaaaate the "one inch rule". That single sentence has caused more grief debates than anything else in 8th around here.

Other than that really, I'm really enjoying 8th. I was a Beer and pretzels player anyways.

[Erik Lindley]

100% agree that the ASF rule should read "HIGHER Int" re-rolls instead of equal too. That change alone would make it an elegant rule.

The 1" rule comes down to "holding your opps feet to the fire" so to speak There are plenty of groups that don't really think about it much during friendly play. Those people are in for an unpleasant surprise when they hit their first tourney imo.

The "No half VP" rule is great! Without that one rule 8th would be soooo very different. It has bit me in the butt several times, but I still like what it makes happen.

I am usually a "pro comp'er" (for shur in 7th) but I have been thinking very little needs to be done in 8th. In fact, I find that there is a fun balance with the crazy magic swings large units and brutal combats combined with the scenarios. I am a fan :>

Hey Jim, did you hear my O&G fast cav "mini-review" in ep002? The vanguard move is a huge bonus to the greenies!

-Erik

-Erik

[spanky100]

I've got a poll going over at our gamer site right now and so far 9 votes and not a single person voting for "liking" 8th ed. I'm still hoping that I see the good in this edition, but personally believe that GW changed too much. Random change length, crazy wheels and the ability to reform after combat would be my biggest complaints as they take strategy out of the game IMHO.

[warlord]

I've been really enjoying the rule partly for the mechanics but also for the aesthetic, massive blocks of infantry charging over battlefields of dense terrain. That's why I play the game. It's also why I didn't play very many tournements in 7th ed 'cause the armies that were effective didn't look like armies. Bare minimum troops, a big monster and war machines. Yawn.

Oh, and I agree that ASF re-rolls should only work when you've got a higher Initiative.

[heychadwick]

Yep, I heard the talk about Vanguard and OnG. I think Vanguard is pretty good. I can also see chaos hounds take out a war machine crew. I am thinking in particular about Goblin fast cav. They have Init 2 and WS 2. They tend to not live too long to actually make many attacks. I think it's something particular to goblin fast cav as opposed to other types. I am not saying that there are no uses for them, but they have less of a use than other fast cav.

[jormiboced]

Overall, I am likeing the fresh new scene.

[Chris M.]

Responding to multiple posters here so bear with me,

Warhamsterdave, Asf is fine. Think of it like this. Two samurai square off on equal footing. Everything about their style is the same and they have trained together for their entire lives. An event causes them to become enemies. A Wujen blesses one with double speed. He will be able to either

A) attack twice in the same time, or
B) make sure that his strikes actually hit.

I like the hit part so this is where the "Fluff" for me syncs up with the rule.

I've always played against armies that are higher Initiative than me so this doesn't affect me. What really helped is the step up rule.


Heychadwick, Fast cav are still VERY useful. I had 8 harpies taking out warmachines all day in that tournament i played in. Fast cav are better as they get STR bonuses on the charge and more attacks with their mounts. They also get something I didn't a rank bonus.

Spanky100, for every person on the internet that doesn't like the new ruleset there are 4 that don't complain about it because they actually like it. I love the new edition. Its clean and fast. If you know the rules a 2500 point game usually lasts around 2 hours for us here. I can get in 3 games a day on a Sunday lately!


Overall I think the new edition is great. I has made my games more interesting with the different terrain, and brought a fire back to my passion that had been lacking during 7th. I love the way the new charges work. I was HORRIBLE at setting up charges in 7th, and was always steamrolled by my friends who play WOC. I started with Dwarfs and wanted to play a close combat army. I still have a bad taste in my mouth about the Dwarfs because of that...

Chris

[squalie]

I can get in 3 games a day on a Sunday lately!

Exactly. I drive to another city and get 3 games in from 10:30 to 6!

[manzier]

I like the new rules for the most part. I have always hated fear and terror rules and they are better in this edition so I am already liking the new rules for that reason alone.

As far as people not liking the new rules, it's a game. I never met anyone who liked every Monopoly rule, in fact it seemed like everyone played the game differently. WHFB is like every game; there is going to be something about it that people aren't going to like. I have not liked certain rules in 5th, 6th, and 7th but I continue to play. My WHFB mindset does not change based on rules. I design an army that I think will look good on the table, spend a lot of time painting it up nice, and enjoy watching it execute the way I planned. I have met a lot of cool people and had a lot of fun over the last decade because of WHFB.

[heychadwick]

Once again, I don't think all Fast Cav are bad in this edition. I think Greenskin fast cav has taken a big hit. They are low Init and a bit expensive to be done in large units. With the low Init, low WS, and low armor save, I don't think they last against many targets, including war machine crew.

[powerposey]

Nov 17, 2010 17:38:04 GMT -5 Erik Lindley said:

The "No half VP" rule is great! Without that one rule 8th would be soooo very different. It has bit me in the butt several times, but I still like what it makes happen.
-Erik

I love 8th overall and think it allows the game to run a lot smoother. I agree with most points above about ASF. The one thing I do not like is NO half VPs. I think this favors death star builds and dumbs down the game, granted some of the bigger spells and lack of hiding spaces help mitigate this.

I do miss holding table quarters as well. I did like trying to plan ahead to ensure I could swoop in and take them last game, but I can live without that.