Hints Regarding 8th Edition in Skaven Book?

[Bigred]

Check out this post by Mad Doc Grotsnik on Dakka: (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/262468.page)


Just been reading a certain forthcoming Army Book for Fantasy, that may or may not be released in the next couple of squeaks.

And there are a few interesting things in it which I reckon might well be the shape of things to come.

For instance, Artillery. Both bits have a single combined Profile, ala a Chariot. Rather than randomise hits from shooting/ranged magic, you simply use the Artillery's toughness value. In HTH, you use the crews toughness. A single wound track is used, and once all wounds are gone (regardless of how they were inflicted) the whole shebang is removed.

Furthermore, it does indeed appear partial hits are going, which I for one am quite glad about, as they added a not entirely necessary extra roll when splatting stuff.

Am still digging my way through the book, and will report back should I spot any further possible inklings.

Interesting...

[Chumbalaya]

It's an interesting thought, but I hope it's just speculation. Didn't 7th come out like a year or two ago. I know Fantasy is in a sorry state currently but pushing another edition out of the door won't be helping anybody.

[Faultie]

It's an interesting thought, but I hope it's just speculation. Didn't 7th come out like a year or two ago. I know Fantasy is in a sorry state currently but pushing another edition out of the door won't be helping anybody.

In regards to time-between-editions, if the new edition of the game came out near the end of next year (or mid-year), it'd be ~4 years. That is not fast/er than the standard turnaround (3.85 years average, 4.4 w/o first edition).
Time spread - WHFB (in years): 1-3-5-4-4-6
It's just about that time, I guess.

It may be less that they're trying to fix huge parts of the game, and more that they're trying to bring in come common elements from 40k. Non-partials is one thing I can think of.

[TheBitzBarn]

Why do you say that Fantasy is in a sorry state I here this BUT have no idea why not that much changed?

[Lord Azaghul]

Why do you say that Fantasy is in a sorry state I here this BUT have no idea why not that much changed?

SHooting is pretty much worthless ATM, magic, in the new books, is very powerful. Immune to psych is everywhere, most of the never books have 2-4x the number of attacks that a unit in the older books can muster, the average strength in close combat has gone from 3 to 4.5...special rules making unit almost unkillable are also every where (see the dark elves book) there are even a few 'you lose' or 'that unit just leaves the table' buttons in the game...in short its a real mess right now, with a very large power gap. And its more in the army books then they 7th ed rules set.


When did 7th ed come out: 2006 I think.

[RocketRollRebel]

The new edition of WHFB was '06 I believe. I didn't know it was in bad shape tho. I will admit it never quite has had the appeal or addictiveness to me that 40k has. I even sold my FB army last week since I'm moving so I figured it would be one less thing to worry about. *sigh

[zanzibarthefirst]

'06 really. I cannot believe jsut how quikc the time has gone. i guess it woudlnt be that surprising if we did see a new edition in 2010-2012. Oh I wonder what armies they'll put in the boxset this time. Empire vs Skaven would be nice but i doubt that. I hope its not boring like goblns vs empire. Lizardmen again would be nice

[Dosadi]

The problem I see with WHFB right now will be hard to fix with just a new edition of the rules. The fact that the top 10 at the UK GT were all Dark Elves and Daemon spells out the problem right there. A new edition isn’t going to fix the problem without addressing those books. The problem is GW is not one to rectify a problem quickly, they let things languish for about five or six years and then there seems to be a pendulum swing in the opposite direction; so look for the next Daemon book to be absolute a**. ;)

Not to drop a bomb or anything, but yes, 8th edition will be out next summer with a new boxed set in the fall. I’ve heard Empire vs. Orks in the box with a new O&G book out in Q1 2010. Plastic Empire Knights and Orc Boar boys will be in the new set I’ve heard. They keep one-upping themselves with the box sets so I would expect a mountain of amazing plastics in the new starter set.

Am I telling the truth? Only time will tell…:p


Dosadi

[Grimstonefire]

Can you clarify Dosadi whether you mean an army book, or a source book like the empire had recently?

8th coming out next year I won't question ;). Contents... Half is what I already know, so I'm inclined to believe that as well.

The book though is extremely unlikely imo. A wave of releases in Q1 I would believe, a book no.

Is that where there could be some confusion, a wave release being linked automatically to a book?

[Dosadi]

Sorry, I meant Q1 2011. :o Getting so far ahead of myself I'm forgetting what year is what.

However, I've said it over and over again that anything outside of six months is pure speculation. But there is certainly a plan for 2010 and it's going to be a great year for WHFB. It stands to reason that if we are getting Empire and Orcs in the box (I can confirm this with 99% certainty) then we will get revised army books for those two around the same time.

I'm hearing that 8th edition is a significant "upgrade" to the rules and those pitched battles will become a thing of the past. GW has said in several places that the plan is for WHFB to get a level of support rivalling 40k's. So "Legendary Battles", perhaps a Siege book with accompanying Castle kit? We’ve already seen a taste of some of the rules changes with the Skaven book (war machines and blast/template weapons...check it out!).:cool:


Dosadi

[Lord Azaghul]

Sorry, I meant Q1 2011. :o Getting so far ahead of myself I'm forgetting what year is what.



I'm hearing that 8th edition is a significant "upgrade" to the rules and those pitched battles will become a thing of the past. GW has said in several places that the plan is for WHFB to get a level of support rivalling 40k's. So "Legendary Battles", perhaps a Siege book with accompanying Castle kit? We’ve already seen a taste of some of the rules changes with the Skaven book (war machines and blast/template weapons...check it out!).:cool:


Dosadi

I was skimming through the new skaven book, and I didn't notice the word 'terror' mentioned. Did I miss something or is that perhaps leaving us too?

[Dosadi]

I was skimming through the new skaven book, and I didn't notice the word 'terror' mentioned. Did I miss something or is that perhaps leaving us too?

Doesn't the Hell Pit Abomination cause Terror? It should...being an abomination and all. ;)


Dosadi

[Lord Azaghul]

I don't remember, I did notice its no longer on the bell though.

[S0ULDU5T]

I've been playing fantasy for years now and have played numerous armies and don't find any imbalance in the game to be honest. Shooting has never been more than support and not meant to just take things out unless your playing Dwarves, Orcs (yes, believe it or not Orc artillery ranks pretty highly) or certian Empire lists.

I think people crying about the Dark Elf book are just people that havn't learned how to deal with certian things or posess a certian lack of talent. I've played Dark Elves and against them and theres nothing broken about them. Why do they need hydra's? Maybe becuase the best armor save we have thats not on a character is 5+. Thats it. DE are an elite army where the best armor save in the entire army is 5+, and people just cry rivers becuase they have hydras or enchanted items for characters to make up for this. "OMG, you got uber save thats SOO broken", Pendant of Khealeth gets run off the board so easily, espeically since it doesn't make them immune to psychology. Ring of Hotek? Effects DE players too. By the way, on top of having a 5+ armor save, they use average strength and toughness of 3. "Oh theyz all have ternal hatred!!" Yeah, thats great when my cavalry gets to reroll misses on the first turn, but it truly sucks *** when I completly kill the unit and still have to run 3d6 right past where all the action is which costs me a whole other turn or two to bring them back...yeah, real advantage there.

Also, about the warmachine rumor...I won't say its not going to happen but also seems really far fetched. Most shooting attacks are strength 3 so can't hurt toughness 7 so Warmachine would become extremly powerful. The toughness of the war machine itself isn't in question but at least in this edtiion theres a chance that your shooting will hit the crew so it's still worth it. Furthermore, taking out randomization mean Casket of Souls and Couldron of Blood are literly invinceable unless engaged in melee.
Overall, I've found one one model in the entire game to truly be broken and that's Thorek, a named character for Dwarfs. Other than that, I've found it to be really fair and balanced game.

On another note, I really don't see partial hits going anywhere anytime soon as that would just be stupid. In 40k thats logical becuase things are already spread out that it doesn't make sense to thin your hits even more but when you have models clumped together in units it would be dumb for a stone thrower to wipe out almost the entire unit with one lucky roll of the dice.

Me thinks most of this speculation is rubbish and 7th edition isn't going anywhere soon.

[Vindur]

Maybe becuase the best armor save we have thats not on a character is 5+. Thats it. DE are an elite army where the best armor save in the entire army is 5+

"Oh theyz all have ternal hatred!!" Yeah, thats great when my cavalry gets to reroll misses on the first turn, but it truly sucks *** when I completly kill the unit and still have to run 3d6 right past where all the action is which costs me a whole other turn or two to bring them back...yeah, real advantage there.


I dunno about you but my warriors and archers get 4+ saves fighting from the front, my knights get 2+ and my corsairs get 4+ vs ranged stuff.

As for the knights what would you rather have them do, hit the unit fail to break them and get beaten down in subsequent rounds? Use them on the flanks, so that 3d6 takes them into a fresh unit if you have that many problems with it. Having a cav unit that can break infantry blocks from the front(with the right magic item) is incredibly powwerful and if the unit has a banner it only has to be worth 110 pts for the knights to make their points back in 1 charge.

[Lord Azaghul]

I've been playing fantasy for years now and have played numerous armies and don't find any imbalance in the game to be honest.
I
Me thinks most of this speculation is rubbish and 7th edition isn't going anywhere soon.

What game are you playing. Fantasy is beyong broken. Shooting does nothing. Armour is now worthless. Eternal hatred is over the top, and daemons and VC are by no means 'fair' or 'balanced' armies. If gw doesn't fix the game soon they won't be selling models any time.

[S0ULDU5T]

I dunno about you but my warriors and archers get 4+ saves fighting from the front, my knights get 2+ and my corsairs get 4+ vs ranged stuff.

As for the knights what would you rather have them do, hit the unit fail to break them and get beaten down in subsequent rounds? Use them on the flanks, so that 3d6 takes them into a fresh unit if you have that many problems with it. Having a cav unit that can break infantry blocks from the front(with the right magic item) is incredibly powwerful and if the unit has a banner it only has to be worth 110 pts for the knights to make their points back in 1 charge.

fighting from the front....of CC? Thats a bonus to your armor save, and I didn't count it becuase it is a bonus and not indicitave of the actual save. Your archers getting a 'just awesome' 4+ save (in CC) still costs 11 points per model which is extremly pricey for the general stateline of an archer. Also, the save for corsiars is once again a bonus and your right about the knights, I had forgotten to include them but they are still the exception rather than the rule.

And I know how to use my knights, it doesn't change the inherited weaknesses of Eternal Hatred that people often forget.


What game are you playing. Fantasy is beyong broken. Shooting does nothing. Armour is now worthless. Eternal hatred is over the top, and daemons and VC are by no means 'fair' or 'balanced' armies. If gw doesn't fix the game soon they won't be selling models any time.

OMG! Your SOOO right becuase...becuase...you said so!! Yeah!

By the way, I personally though the VC book was very well balanced. In my LGS the only people that do not have a fair game against VC are those that don't know how to fight against them (also read ' not knowing what they're capable of), otherwise they even play pretty evenly.

[Lord Azaghul]

OMG! Your SOOO right becuase...becuase...you said so!! Yeah!

By the way, I personally though the VC book was very well balanced. In my LGS the only people that do not have a fair game against VC are those that don't know how to fight against them (also read ' not knowing what they're capable of), otherwise they even play pretty evenly.

By the way sir, this is the exact argument you are using to say the game is 'balanced'

Or course you thought it was balanced.
Your just wrong. Plan wrong. Point values, game rules, dice odds, and math favor the newer armies. And most heavily favor daemons, vampires and dark elves. They have the game strongly stacked in there favor.
No one said they were unbeated, but they are hardly far to play against.

No amount of you saying 'the game is balanced' is going to change my perception. I am a vet gamer, I started in fantasty, any now I don't even want to touch. Its not fun, unless you have a newer army.
You can choose to disbelieve me all you want. But your wrong. Simply, planning, apperently ignorantly wrong.

[S0ULDU5T]

By the way sir, this is the exact argument you are using to say the game is 'balanced'

Or course you thought it was balanced.
Your just wrong. Plan wrong. Point values, game rules, dice odds, and math favor the newer armies. And most heavily favor daemons, vampires and dark elves. They have the game strongly stacked in there favor.
No one said they were unbeated, but they are hardly far to play against.

No amount of you saying 'the game is balanced' is going to change my perception. I am a vet gamer, I started in fantasty, any now I don't even want to touch. Its not fun, unless you have a newer army.
You can choose to disbelieve me all you want. But your wrong. Simply, planning, apperently ignorantly wrong.

I was using the argument that being balanced was the intention of the game, thus assumed unless otherwise proven.

Your saying I'm wrong over and over is not changing anything. Even though you seem like you take one too many pills occasionally, I don't mind debating the balance of the game but you need actual POINTS for discussion, not just retarded ramblings.

The fact that your a 'vet' gamer proves alot becuase most vets I know can't see the forest for the trees, they can't see the army books for what they are any more becuase of the way things used to be. Makes it extremely hard to talk to such people.

[Lord Azaghul]

Nice attempts are personal insults!

If you want to your research before saying the game is balanced, go right ahead. It is already well documented and proven that the game isn't balanced I don't have the time, or the patience to explain what you have clearly decieded not to believe.

Clearly you are not interest in a legitimate debate or discussion; you are simply flaming and trolling (the sky is blue by the way, its cold in the winter, and price of gold is rising) I fully intend to follow my own advise and ignore you from here on out.

[S0ULDU5T]

Nice attempts are personal insults!

If you want to your research before saying the game is balanced, go right ahead. It is already well documented and proven that the game isn't balanced I don't have the time, or the patience to explain what you have clearly decieded not to believe.

Clearly you are not interest in a legitimate debate or discussion; you are simply flaming and trolling (the sky is blue by the way, its cold in the winter, and price of gold is rising) I fully intend to follow my own advise and ignore you from here on out.

You have already ignored me and my request for a decent debate, I don't see it as a loss if you choose to rid yourself from my presence.

[TheBitzBarn]

I have to say I do not see any army as broken you just have to learn how to work them they all have weaknesses. Shooting unless you are Dwarves is never ever suppose to be more then a softening of the Target. Even in last edition shooting never broke large units unless the dice goods smilled on you and spit on your opponent.

Magic is way better in this edition and yes too many immune units but that will not be fixed by a rulebook only new armybooks

[L192837465]

You have already ignored me and my request for a decent debate, I don't see it as a loss if you choose to rid yourself from my presence.

Souldust: PROTIP: when trying to have a calm discussion about something, it's best not to personally insult them.

It would be the equivalent of me walking up to you, punching you in the testicles, insulting your mother and heritage, then asking you for advice on where you get your gasoline.

[Old_Paladin]

For those that state that warhammer is balanced; there is one question that you never seem answer very well (or at all):
Why do the newest armies always have a much high mean/median win ratio at tournies?
And note that this is very different then "the top ten players are always VC, DE, and Chaos"; which could be because 70% of people play them, so odds are they'll appear in most ranks.

One issue of balance is the game size. The higher the points the more the new armies gain greater advantage.
At 1750 points, vampires and dark elves are good; but so are many other armies. Their advantages become limited.
At 2000+; it goes from warhammer to Lordhammer. Vampire Counts, multiple hydras, Bloodthirsters or Lords of Change, A high Sorceress with sacrafical knife in a unit of 40+ Warriors.


Also, I call BS on Dark Elves have poor armour because bonuses don't count. If it can be used, it counts. Many of their units do have a 4+ save against shooting or melee.

[S0ULDU5T]

For those that state that warhammer is balanced; there is one question that you never seem answer very well (or at all):
Why do the newest armies always have a much high mean/median win ratio at tournies?
And note that this is very different then "the top ten players are always VC, DE, and Chaos"; which could be because 70% of people play them, so odds are they'll appear in most ranks.

One issue of balance is the game size. The higher the points the more the new armies gain greater advantage.
At 1750 points, vampires and dark elves are good; but so are many other armies. Their advantages become limited.
At 2000+; it goes from warhammer to Lordhammer. Vampire Counts, multiple hydras, Bloodthirsters or Lords of Change, A high Sorceress with sacrafical knife in a unit of 40+ Warriors.


Also, I call BS on Dark Elves have poor armour because bonuses don't count. If it can be used, it counts. Many of their units do have a 4+ save against shooting or melee.

Fair enough. Newer armies are always more popular - I've known people to always trade in their old armies for the brand new ones simply because they're new so this brings an influx of people playing these armies. There's a certain level of excitement that new armies bring to the table and the atmosphere that draws people in. Why they might show up more at tournaments is because people want to run these new competitive lists with this same excitement and because some realize the potential of the element of surprise - the chance that their opponents have not prepared themselves for something that might be entirely new or otherwise utilized differently (as a note, this is usually followed by tons of posts about how the new book is broken). Typically you see people adapting to these armies after awhile, and newer armies replace the older ones. Just because newer books might have a higher average of wins at tournaments is not a valid point that armies are imbalanced, and the fact that newer books can be competitive with mainstay armies that dominate a circuit is only proof that they are balanced against each other.

Your next question might be "Why then are some armies more prevalent in tournaments even when they're no longer new?" and the answer would be not because they are more powerful, but perhaps stronger in the areas that tournaments capitalize in. For example, Dwarfs are a highly competitive army but due to their lack of speed, they would be at a disadvantage at any tournament scenarios that dictate taking objectives. Not impossible, but most certainly at a disadvantage. Armies that are versatile such as Daemons that can take on all comers or DE whom are popular mostly for their ability to actually counter daemons as well as VC's ability to bring back troops (thus denying VP in important tournament scenarios) and more forgiving play style are great for the tournament scene but not any more powerful than armies that might excel at other things that don't lend themselves to the tournament scene.

In regard to the imbalance that increased army sizes brings: Every army has equal potential to capitalize on increased points. So Dark Elves can bring another Hydra? High Elves can bring another Dragon Mage, Vampires can bring a Varghulf, Ogres can bring Man-eaters, etc etc. I don't see this as a valid point for saying that armies are imbalanced.

Believe it or not, aside from the heavy cavalry someone mentioned and our heroes, the best armor save we have is a 5+. Bonuses do count for a lot of things, the reason I don't mention them is because they are purely circumstantial and arguing circumstances with something like this is relatively unimportant. On the whole, the DE gets a 5+ armor save. Now, if you want to say that in some cases they would get 4+ (only corsairs to ranged or anything with a shield and a hand weapon (which if you take spears on your warriors that leaves only archers which giving them a shield makes them even more elite) then still consider that your paying an elite amount of points for that and are still a s3 t3 model. DE needed Hydras to be the anvil to their surgical hammer, the cheap cost making up some of the pain of having fragile expensive models.

Thank you for your excellent talking points.


Souldust: PROTIP: when trying to have a calm discussion about something, it's best not to personally insult them.

It would be the equivalent of me walking up to you, punching you in the testicles, insulting your mother and heritage, then asking you for advice on where you get your gasoline.
__________________

If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation about something, they need to speak intelligently. If someone acts like a blathering retard, I'm going to treat them like one.

[wittdooley]

Heh, this makes me giggle. The irony of a DE player saying WHFB is balanced is pretty funny. I do like how you tried to throw in a Maneater as an example....OK just aren't competetive, and you really cant compare a Maneater to a Hydra or a Dragon Mage...I mean come on.

The stronger armies are the ones that win tournaments, and they win because they're stronger all around, not simply when it comes to tournaments.

And dude...an armour save is an armour save, regardless of how they get it. If you get to roll a dice to make a save, it's a save.

[S0ULDU5T]

Heh, this makes me giggle. The irony of a DE player saying WHFB is balanced is pretty funny. I do like how you tried to throw in a Maneater as an example....OK just aren't competetive, and you really cant compare a Maneater to a Hydra or a Dragon Mage...I mean come on.

The stronger armies are the ones that win tournaments, and they win because they're stronger all around, not simply when it comes to tournaments.

And dude...an armour save is an armour save, regardless of how they get it. If you get to roll a dice to make a save, it's a save.

The amount of people that rebuke points by presenting no facts whatsoever seem to be staggering on this forum. I know you might not like me, and I understand you may disagree with me, but honestly you look stupid when trying to present the idea that your "giggling" is indicative of any point.

The example of the maneater was given in regard to the fact that if you increase the point cost of a battle that all armies would benifit equally from the oppertunity to bring more stuff wither it be a core choice or rare - it was not an example of something that was supposed to be a duplicate of a hydra. However, I do believe TWO (TWO of these Models) M6, WS4, BS4, S5, T4, W3, I3, A4, Ld8 models with heavy armor and a choice of great weapon, cathyan longsword or brace of handguns that is also immune to psychology with bull charge, stubborn and cuase fear for only 5 points more than a hydra as being a healthy alternative even if not exactly the same. Now just cast Trollguts on them (or any other delightful spell) just to give them Magic Resistance 2 and Regeneration to top off the tall glass of stfu.

And according to your logic an armor save is an armor save no matter how they get it...in that case I am right, becuase Corsairs get a 5+ armor save in close combat and any DE with a shield gets a 5+ against ranged attacks. There you have it, your logic proves that DE have a 5+ save at best.

You make the idea that armies win tournaments simply becuase they are the strongest seem so logical...it's a wonder anyone actually bothers to show up to play them! It's the players that win tournaments, and some armies are better suited for the tournament environment than others but it doesn't make them overall more powerful, just different.

[wittdooley]

And according to your logic an armor save is an armor save no matter how they get it...in that case I am right, becuase Corsairs get a 5+ armor save in close combat and any DE with a shield gets a 5+ against ranged attacks. There you have it, your logic proves that DE have a 5+ save at best.

No it doesn't. A base save with the hand weapon + shield in close combat increases it to 4+. I suppose if we're really being picky, then that's a 4+ equipment save, but we don't take equipment saves, we take armour saves. If you don't include the "equpiment" saves, then very few block troops get anything better than a 5+, so it a bit of a moot point.



You make the idea that armies win tournaments simply becuase they are the strongest seem so logical...it's a wonder anyone actually bothers to show up to play them! It's the players that win tournaments, and some armies are better suited for the tournament environment than others but it doesn't make them overall more powerful, just different.

We agree that it's the players that win tournaments, but a very skilled player with a new army will fare MUCH better than a very skilled player rocking dwarfs or ogres. It's a fact proven by the tournament results. I'd argue that the tournament environment is the best place to showcase the power of an army, as tournaments are representative of how a typical game of WHFB is played. Were there more situational rules like in 40k (Planetstrike, CoD) maybe your argument could hold up, but I don't see how you can say an army isn't more powerful when it consistantly wins the tournaments.

I'll concede that, I suppose, any army can be "competitive," but that is really dependent on your definiton of competition. Ogres could probably hold their own for a round or two with DE, but they're going to struggle to win. For balance to be actual balance, an OK vs. DE battle, in the hands of equally skilled players, should be a win ratio of 1:1, or close to it. From my experience it just isn't. Dark Elves are VERY successful in my area. They or VC have won all of the tournaments in the past 2 years. The resident WHFB power gamer switched from High Elves (another army that can be very competetive) to Dark Elves because they were more powerful.

Don't mistake my disagreement for dislike; that's not the case. I think that your verbal jabs at people are a bit uncalled for, but I realize that the anonymity of the internet allows that kind of behaviour. I just think, and many other agree, that WHFB suffers from the 'codex creep' far more than 40k. Unless you have a new army, it's much harder to win, particularly in tournaments.

[Old_Paladin]

The problem with larger games opening up more choice, is that not all those choices are equally balanced. I like how the list of new options are all from high tier lists anyway.
Tomb kings are not gaining the same bonuses for a extra rare slot, neither are beasts of chaos. Both have options that boost their own army; but not too the same scale as armies like High/Dark Elves, Vampires and the other Chaos armies.

Maneaters are a joke to the Vargulf and Hydra. I can't believe that is your comparison of balance. The Var is much faster, regens, hates, is tougher, fights better, causes terror and can be healed. For your 'Eaters to gain regen. you have to get two heros and spend the 400 points on those heroes.

There is another test of balance. Comp scores. Would the average tomb kings player be docked a score for the Skull Chucker and/or Bone Giant? Would Ogres be docked for two units of man eaters? Even Dwarves for having 2 gyrocopters?
Now, what about when dark elves take 2 hydras? High Elves with Two dragon Mages? ANY VC rare (seriously, people dislike them all: Vargulf, too good! Wraiths, ethreal is too good! Blood Knights, don't get me started! Black Coach, ethreal chariot with flying, so only magic weapons can hurt it). Are those fair, sometimes not; but it is still how people feel.

I personally think that 5 wraiths with ethreal and great weapons are more cost effective then the Vargulf; and Blood Knights are so expensive that they are fair. But the point is that there is a very real perception that certain combos or multiples are unfair.

[Randroid]

The example of the maneater was given in regard to the fact that if you increase the point cost of a battle that all armies would benifit equally from the oppertunity to bring more stuff wither it be a core choice or rare - it was not an example of something that was supposed to be a duplicate of a hydra. However, I do believe TWO (TWO of these Models) M6, WS4, BS4, S5, T4, W3, I3, A4, Ld8 models with heavy armor and a choice of great weapon, cathyan longsword or brace of handguns that is also immune to psychology with bull charge, stubborn and cuase fear for only 5 points more than a hydra as being a healthy alternative even if not exactly the same. Now just cast Trollguts on them (or any other delightful spell) just to give them Magic Resistance 2 and Regeneration to top off the tall glass of stfu.

No. Don't go there. Don't try and compare a fking Hydra to two Maneaters.

First of all - you don't get Bull Charge with 2 Ogres you need 3 at a minimum (and that is assuming your opponent gives you the min 6" you need to charge to get it).

Second - What the fk is regen going to do against a Hydra's breath weapon?

Third - You are conveniently forgetting the 180 points you had to spend on a Butcher to get that Trollguts off (more like 360 or more since we are talking about magic against a DE player).

How it that for a tall glass of stfu?

[Old_Paladin]

Randroid, don't forget that you cannot have a Butcher unless you have a Bruiser to lead the army.

[Randroid]

Sure. Well that was assumed in my post but yes ... might as well add on that additional 150-180 pts for a Bruiser or 250-300 for a Tyrant.

[S0ULDU5T]

No. Don't go there. Don't try and compare a fking Hydra to two Maneaters.

First of all - you don't get Bull Charge with 2 Ogres you need 3 at a minimum (and that is assuming your opponent gives you the min 6" you need to charge to get it).

Second - What the fk is regen going to do against a Hydra's breath weapon?

Third - You are conveniently forgetting the 180 points you had to spend on a Butcher to get that Trollguts off (more like 360 or more since we are talking about magic against a DE player).

How it that for a tall glass of stfu?

I did compare the two because even without the Bull Charge they are, in fact, still very comparable in terms of state line, etc. except Man-eaters would get more attacks, have more wounds, and with Cathyan longsword would strike before the Hydra and hit it on 3's with strength 5 attacks that would turn it's scaly skin save into a 6+.

In regards to the breath weapon, are we going to debate close combat or ranged? I've never known Ogres to be afraid of breath weapons but assuming you are (and to just answer your question) first the template wouldn't fully cover all three bases so the hydra would get an average of one full and two partials so there's a 4+ "save" for two Ogres (if your using three for your Bull Charge, otherwise one full and one partial typically). Then at most it's a strength 5 against a t4 so there's still a 33% chance that it won't do any wounds. Lastly, if it does, your three wound model takes a wound and are in charge range for next turn.

I hadn't forgotten the point cost for the butcher, as much as I haven't forgotten the point cost for the three core choices and general that it would take the run the army. It was an 'in addition to' statement as most Ogre players I know bring Butchers anyway. The point here was that if you didn't bring a butcher that my point would still stand but if you did bring a butcher then you could take this very comparable example and then add a multitude of different offensive spells to make them even more effective than a Hydra.


Sure. Well that was assumed in my post but yes ... might as well add on that additional 150-180 pts for a Bruiser or 250-300 for a Tyrant.
I've already touched on this point a little, but this point is silly as you would also have to include the point costs for core choices and generals in the DE army as well. This kind of argument represents nothing but clutching at straws to make something sound worse than it is.

Now before anyone else gets carried away with this example, there are no models that are exactly like a hydra EXCEPT for a hydra, there will be no exact duplicates in any example but it doesn't mean that one is more powerful than the other, just different, and there are plenty of comparative examples. Lets also remember that even if the hydra is powerful, it's balanced within it's own book and the books are balanced against each other.

(just saw the other responses) Argh! Holy crap, didn't think there would be this much attention ^_^ Some of this might have to wait till later when I get off of work, so sorry if there are any delays or I don't see your point till later, I won't ignore anyone.

[Randroid]

Bottom line - comparing Maneaters to a Hydra is a bad idea and not a good example of how things are "balanced".

[S0ULDU5T]

No it doesn't. A base save with the hand weapon + shield in close combat increases it to 4+. I suppose if we're really being picky, then that's a 4+ equipment save, but we don't take equipment saves, we take armour saves. If you don't include the "equpiment" saves, then very few block troops get anything better than a 5+, so it a bit of a moot point.

Hey, your logic was that a save was a save no matter how you got it so my earlier point still stands. Now speaking realistically in a world where circumstances sometimes matter, yes, three of our army choices can get a better save under better circumstances. Corsairs get a 4+ against ranged, which means 50% of the time at best. Warriors can't get a 4+ save if you take spears as they aren't hand weapons so that eliminates that choice, and archers can take a shield but it does make the model cost more, is still as fragile and if is using the shield then isn't fulfilling it's primary purpose of shooting (engaged in CC) so eliminates that choice most of the time. Dark Elves are a fragile army that is typically expensive and unforgiving aside from the first turn of close combat which comes with it's own list of negative effects. Hydras are a great anvil to their surgical hammer and balance out the army book just fine.


but a very skilled player with a new army will fare MUCH better than a very skilled player rocking dwarfs or ogres.It's a fact proven by the tournament results. Were there more situational rules like in 40k (Planetstrike, CoD) maybe your argument could hold up, but I don't see how you can say an army isn't more powerful when it consistantly wins the tournaments.The resident WHFB power gamer switched from High Elves (another army that can be very competetive) to Dark Elves because they were more powerful.I think that your verbal jabs at people are a bit uncalled for, but I realize that the anonymity of the internet allows that kind of behaviour. Unless you have a new army, it's much harder to win, particularly in tournaments.

NOTE! I took the above quotes out of context for ease of replying, I have read the full post and encourage anyone else to do so before reading my rebuttal. Moving on...Using the list of results as of the 28th of October for the 'ard boys tourneys, of the newest armies there was 1 WoC player that finished in the top three of the 17 locations, three DE players and 2-3 lizardmen. That's only 6 players out of 51 from 17 locations that finished in the top 3, I daresay that this proves that the newest army books are not any more powerful than others. 'Ard boys does use situational rules so it is relevant and outside of this the tournament scene can change drastically but at my LGS we typically use scenarios so even if you LGS doesn't some people would naturally plan for them regardless. As for the comment about High Elves, the 'ard boyz results also indicate that there were 3 HE players of 51, same as DE - Imagine that. I think this sufficiently disproves any point that newer armies are just tearing up tournaments. As for my verbal jabs at people, I only give them when they're deserved but I do want to apologize to WittDooley because I came down on him a little too hard for just giggling like a schoolgirl.


Maneaters are a joke to the Vargulf and Hydra. I can't believe that is your comparison of balance. The Var is much faster, regens, hates, is tougher, fights better, causes terror and can be healed. For your 'Eaters to gain regen. you have to get two heros and spend the 400 points on those heroes.

It's movement 8 instead of 6, so defiantly faster but both are fast. It regenerates but you have an armor save, you have more wounds to make up for the point of toughness,are faster so will strike before it will, it hates but you get more attacks, there is no logical reasoning to how it 'fights better', you cause fear as opposed to it's terror then add in that you are immune to psychology and are stubborn. Sounds like a proven point to me. Now if you HAPPEN to have abutcher in your army, it gets even better for maneaters.


There is another test of balance. Comp scores.

I'm not even touching comp scores, they have no place in this debate as to wither the armies are balanced against each other. Most of my points have been that tournament results aren't always indicative of power value so very far away from even talking about comp scores.


But the point is that there is a very real perception that certain combos or multiples are unfair.

Well, when you spout nonsense like "Black Coach, ethereal chariot with flying, so only magic weapons can hurt it"without stipulating that you have to absorb 6 power dice before such a thing can even happen, yes it can alter peoples perceptions but just as with this example, it doesn't make it accurate.


Bottom line - comparing Maneaters to a Hydra is a bad idea and not a good example of how things are "balanced".

Bottom line - unfounded opinions without any facts whatsoever is not a good example of anything but wasting time and space.

I think that covers everything so far. By the way, all awesome talking points except for that last inane statement.

[Old_Paladin]

The Vargulf is toughness 5.
Also; weapon skill 5, 5 attacks and hatred. It causes about the same number of hits as the pair of maneaters (~4). And the Vargulf has an easier time wounding. So it does fight a little better.
Regen is superior to your heavy armour. I get a 4+ save and you get... nothing (I'm strength 5).

The hydra is similar (might be even better).
It has firebreath, armour plus regen. More attacks (with hate) plus 4 more weaker attacks from the handlers (with hate). And don't laugh off the breath. It might only cause 1 wound to the maneaters, but it'll take off a full rank of normal block infantry. What are your maneaters going to do to thin down ranks before combat? Maneaters have to cause 5 wounds to draw combat (full ranks, standard, outnumbered), the hyrda might only have to cause 4 (due to reduced ranks).

My "nonsense" about the Black Coach, is no different then your nonsense about maneaters having magic resistance and regenerations. And in todays magic heavy games (VC, Elves, Daemons) there's plenty of power dice to be sucked up, to power the coach.


Also, I wouldn't tell Randroid that his statements of ogres are empty opinion. Look at his blog first. There's a difference between opinion and experience.

[Randroid]

Bottom line - I am a blowhard idiot with nothing but my own unfounded opinions without any facts whatsoever and a great example of a forum troll and waste of space..

There. Fixed that for you.

I could care less what you think or "know" is right. If you feel so good about Manteaters maybe you should drop DE and take up an Ogre army.

You're trying to make a point about WHFB being balanced by comparing a Hydra to two Ogre Maneaters.

[Old_Paladin]

There. Fixed that for you.

At first is was like :(
But then I lol'd :D


... then I was like :rolleyes:

[S0ULDU5T]

The Vargulf is toughness 5.
Also; weapon skill 5, 5 attacks and hatred. It causes about the same number of hits as the pair of maneaters (~4). And the Vargulf has an easier time wounding. So it does fight a little better.
Regen is superior to your heavy armour. I get a 4+ save and you get... nothing (I'm strength 5).

The hydra is similar (might be even better).
It has firebreath, armour plus regen. More attacks (with hate) plus 4 more weaker attacks from the handlers (with hate). And don't laugh off the breath. It might only cause 1 wound to the maneaters, but it'll take off a full rank of normal block infantry. What are your maneaters going to do to thin down ranks before combat? Maneaters have to cause 5 wounds to draw combat (full ranks, standard, outnumbered), the hyrda might only have to cause 4 (due to reduced ranks).

My "nonsense" about the Black Coach, is no different then your nonsense about maneaters having magic resistance and regenerations. And in todays magic heavy games (VC, Elves, Daemons) there's plenty of power dice to be sucked up, to power the coach.


Also, I wouldn't tell Randroid that his statements of ogres are empty opinion. Look at his blog first. There's a difference between opinion and experience.

People, get it through your heads that I'm not saying maneaters ARE the same as hydra's, just comparable and equal in different ways. I have edited my post above probably while you were replying to indicate the toughness of the varghulf. Lets not forget that a Varghulf also takes wounds for every point in which is lost the combat. strength 5 would leave Maneaters with a 6+ armor save, so still something and like it or not but some of their point cost derives from the potential of a butcher being in the army wither there is one or not. This is how the army books are balanced within each other and the books are balanced against each other. For instance, Hydras are the hammer for an otherwise fragile and expensive army whereas your entire army is at least t4 and has just as good armor saves where they exist so of course maneaters fill a slightly DIFFERENT role but are comparativly equal.

As for the Hydra, I'm not laughing off the fire breath but you shouldn't cry over it either, a flame template against a unit of large bases is the best case scenario for you and the worst case for the Hydra.

Yes, your comment about the black coach was nonsense because you didn't even try to say it had to do anything to reach that level, you just threw it out there as already being that powerful while I was very explicit in how maneaters would get regeneration, etc.

I don't care about blogs? people write blogs about farts, so what. I shouldn't have to read his blog to figure out what the hell he's talking about on a forum post, everyone's experiences are different as well.

[S0ULDU5T]

There. Fixed that for you.

I could care less what you think or "know" is right. If you feel so good about Manteaters maybe you should drop DE and take up an Ogre army.

You're trying to make a point about WHFB being balanced by comparing a Hydra to two Ogre Maneaters. Please ... carry on. I would love to read more of your wit and insight on the matter.

So...your point? I could almost see the spittle rolling down your chin as you passionatly vomited your opinion while carefully omitting any facts which might actually further a debate.

Besides proving your little more than a hypocrite, we have compared two manhunters to a hydra way too much. The entire point of this argument was comparing whole army books against whole other army books to prove theres a balance from one army to another as comparing specific models to other specific models makes no sense given the different directions and playstyle whole armies tend to lean towards. This was my fault, as I used the words maneaters and hydra in the same sentence to denote random examples of what armies can bring when they decide to increase their point threshold, then someone jumped the fence thinking I was literly trying to say that maneaters are exactly like a hydra. I corrected him but then made a point that, although not the same, they filled equal roles comparativly the same and that got people like the guy above that has the blog chronicling his inability to play his army with any talent all full of piss. We should try and refocus the debate to more armies vs armies and if it does lead to a model to model comparison at least remember that there are other facets in the army that contriubute to its strengths/weaknesses/point cost.

Look at it this way; Vampire Counts have one ranged attack stemming from a Banshee but other than that theres nothing. Now, GW decides to give them an ordinary bolt thrower but it proced 20 points higher than a standard bolt thrower from other armies. Why? Becuase VC were balanced and point costed around the idea/theme/practical applications of not having any ranged attacks so when introducing something which is supposed to be in limited supply it's going to be more expensive. This would lead to a debate of why your bolt thrower is twenty points cheaper and VC has the exact same stats, much like this one. On the contrary, say you had a rather fragile army with low strenght and toughness but was rather on the expensive side so you gave it a strong tough model to compensate for it's weaknesses? Well it would be cheaper in an effort for people to take it to balance their armies and people would complain that they're rare models aren't as awesome as these rare models while not understanding why the exist in the first place. The real crime of the hydra is not in being overpowered or cheaper than what it should be, it's that an army book was ever written where you had to take something in an effort to feel like your army was balanced and thats the real reason I don't play DE anymore. I mean, cmon, you look in your rare section and you can get a bolt thrower for 100 points or for 75 points more, a whole hydra - it's practicly begging you to take it and the reason for that is becuase Dark Elves really need something to fill that role.


At first is was like :(
But then I lol'd :D


... then I was like :rolleyes:

Then I bet you were like "Ohh man!" and then you were like "Whoa dude!" then you went back to huffing paint until you fell unconcious from lack of air flow to the brain.

[Randroid]

So...your point?

That is my point exactly. What is your point? I see lots of self-aggrandizing posts that amount to nothing.

You believe WHFB is balanced. Your example was Hydra vs Maneaters. I don't agree that match-up is balanced while you seem to think it is. As to your assertion that the OK book is balanced when matched up against the DE book... well I think it is clear my opinion (and most sane players would agree) that it is not.

[S0ULDU5T]

That is my point exactly. What is your point? I see lots of self-aggrandizing posts that amount to nothing.

You believe WHFB is balanced. Your example was Hydra vs Maneaters. I don't agree that match-up is balanced while you seem to think it is. As to your assertion that the OK book is balanced when matched up against the DE book... well I think it is clear my opinion (and most sane players would agree) that it is not.

That is all I have gotten out of this, not counting the fact that you seem like a real a$$-clown (but hey who doesn't on the internet?).

"Your example was Hydra vs Maneaters." ...no it wasn't? That was on a different point that maneaters could fill the same role as the hydra comparativly well, and really little to do with balance as (as I've stated several times now) comparing one single model to another single model even given the same roll is not indicative of the how balanced each book is. I will agree it was probably a poor tangent and I've already discussed it above.

I don't see how anyone would be able to say that fantasy is any more broken than 40k. Isn't OK a sixth edition book? So, you've been comparing a sixth edition book to seventh edition books and then complaining that WHFB isn't balanced becuase of the diffrent design philosophies between the editions? That seems really hypocritical when 40k has a miltitude of outdated arrmy books some of which are several editions old, some codecies are being redone ahead of others that need them more, etc; whereas in Fantasy you at least have army books coming out in an organized manner thats condusive to balanced play. 40k has three different rules for storm shields but Fantasy is the broken game becuase your 6th edition book doesn't match up (in your opinion) to seventh edition books?

[Randroid]

Ah. Well then. When you feel the need to make a point I will be sure to get back to you.

[S0ULDU5T]

Ah. Well then. When you feel the need to make a point I will be sure to get back to you. Fkwit.

......

[twistinthunder]

"Your example was Hydra vs Maneaters." ...no it wasn't? That was on a different point that maneaters could fill the same role as the hydra comparativly well, and really little to do with balance as (as I've stated several times now) comparing one single model to another single model even given the same roll is not indicative of the how balanced each book is. I will agree it was probably a poor tangent and I've already discussed it above.

I don't see how anyone would be able to say that fantasy is any more broken than 40k. Isn't OK a sixth edition book? So, you've been comparing a sixth edition book to seventh edition books and then complaining that WHFB isn't balanced becuase of the diffrent design philosophies between the editions? That seems really hypocritical when 40k has a miltitude of outdated arrmy books some of which are several editions old, some codecies are being redone ahead of others that need them more, etc; whereas in Fantasy you at least have army books coming out in an organized manner thats condusive to balanced play. 40k has three different rules for storm shields but Fantasy is the broken game becuase your 6th edition book doesn't match up (in your opinion) to seventh edition books?



1)your last comment was horrendously out-of-order, theres no need to start saying his mum (sister(s)?) are sluts(if i was a moderator i would perma-ban you).

2) at least dark eldar and necron (the 2 most outdated 40k armies) are still relativley competetive,new editions of 40k are built so that every army can still play to a relatively high standard, hell ive even seen dark eldar wipe the floor with space marines.

[twistinthunder]

What game are you playing. Fantasy is beyong broken. Shooting does nothing. Armour is now worthless. Eternal hatred is over the top, and daemons and VC are by no means 'fair' or 'balanced' armies. If gw doesn't fix the game soon they won't be selling models any time.


seriously the daemons argument, really?

yeah sure daemons are so unbalanced, thats why we lose more than 1/4 of a 2000pt list as soon as we take a good greater daemon.

bloodcrushers and flamers are the only good rare choices as far as i know, we dont get war machines, we dont have any good special units (unless your in favour of nurglings just to road block units) we haven't got that great a leadership especially when you take into account that every 1 point we go over that (modified) leadership when we lose combat we lose a model.

[twistinthunder]

equal in different ways.

cant say that because nothing can be equal in a different way to something else, an ant cant be equal to a lion in a different way, i cant be equal to president obama in a different way.

[S0ULDU5T]

Seriously, triple posting? You must have really felt the need to catch up.


cant say that because nothing can be equal in a different way to something else, an ant cant be equal to a lion in a different way, i cant be equal to president obama in a different way.

I understand what your saying but your examples are too far apart. For instance, given your examples, you seem to think I'm trying to say a common core choice warrior is the same as a hydra in a different way. What I'm really trying to say is that a man can be equal to a woman in a different way, examples that are closer together. In this example it is possible to be equal in different ways, as are plenty of other examples.


1)your last comment was horrendously out-of-order, theres no need to start saying his mum (sister(s)?) are sluts(if i was a moderator i would perma-ban you).

2) at least dark eldar and necron (the 2 most outdated 40k armies) are still relativley competetive,new editions of 40k are built so that every army can still play to a relatively high standard, hell ive even seen dark eldar wipe the floor with space marines.

1. Have you seen this thread? Most of us would have been banned a long time ago. The insult was definatly called for, if he can't stand pesonal insult he shouldn't be so willing to hand it out to others. And I'm sure people can understand my frustration as well, look at the people I'm dealing with! I've got people thats all "YOUR WRONG, JUST PLAIN WRONG! I don't have time to tell you how your wrong but your wrong!" and then I get people that chime in with comments like "You can never compare Ogres to blah blah, Ogres are weaker becuase I say they are" which is essentially the same arguement as the guy before but I'm supposed to respect the asshat more becuase he's got a blog. I've tried to be respectful to those that not only have refrained from personal insult (in one way or another) but also contributed something to the discussion (such as yourself). About that comment soecficly, well it's hardly a real insult becuase I've never met his family but it works becuase people blow it out of proportion; And even so I did think to myself it might be a bit harsh when I typed it but I conceded myself to keeping it becuase it was pretty damn funny.

2. I would agree with you that older editions of 40k are still competitive and I enjoy the 40k experience regardless of how they're producing the books. My point was though that it is hypocritical to think WHFB is imbalanced becuase your old edition books might not meet the standards of a current edition book but then turn a blind eye to 40k. And really, necrons still compettive? I don't want to argue becuase I'm not an expert on that subject, but seriously?


seriously the daemons argument, really?

yeah sure daemons are so unbalanced, thats why we lose more than 1/4 of a 2000pt list as soon as we take a good greater daemon.

bloodcrushers and flamers are the only good rare choices as far as i know, we dont get war machines, we dont have any good special units (unless your in favour of nurglings just to road block units) we haven't got that great a leadership especially when you take into account that every 1 point we go over that (modified) leadership when we lose combat we lose a model.

Where the hell were you three pages ago? Could have used a little more support way back then :)

[twistinthunder]

Seriously, triple posting? You must have really felt the need to catch up.



I understand what your saying but your examples are too far apart. For instance, given your examples, you seem to think I'm trying to say a common core choice warrior is the same as a hydra in a different way. What I'm really trying to say is that a man can be equal to a woman in a different way, examples that are closer together. In this example it is possible to be equal in different ways, as are plenty of other examples.



1. Have you seen this thread? Most of us would have been banned a long time ago. The insult was definatly called for, if he can't stand pesonal insult he shouldn't be so willing to hand it out to others. And I'm sure people can understand my frustration as well, look at the people I'm dealing with! I've got people thats all "YOUR WRONG, JUST PLAIN WRONG! I don't have time to tell you how your wrong but your wrong!" and then I get people that chime in with comments like "You can never compare Ogres to blah blah, Ogres are weaker becuase I say they are" which is essentially the same arguement as the guy before but I'm supposed to respect the asshat more becuase he's got a blog. I've tried to be respectful to those that not only have refrained from personal insult (in one way or another) but also contributed something to the discussion (such as yourself). About that comment soecficly, well it's hardly a real insult becuase I've never met his family but it works becuase people like you blow it out of proportion; And even so I did think to myself it might be a bit harsh when I typed it but I conceded myself to keeping it becuase it was pretty damn funny.

2. I would agree with you that older editions of 40k are still competitive and I enjoy the 40k experience regardless of how they're producing the books. My point was though that it is hypocritical to think WHFB is imbalanced becuase your old edition books might not meet the standards of a current edition book but then turn a blind eye to 40k. And really, necrons still compettive? I don't want to argue becuase I'm not an expert on that subject, but seriously?



Where the hell were you three pages ago? Could have used a little more support way back then :)

while i'll agree that it was pretty funny, you shouldn't start insulting people just because they're insulting you. and whilst you say you refrain from insulting people who don't insult you and contribute to dicussion you use the example of me and then (kind of) insult me by saying i blow it out propotion, i'm sorry if i offended you but it seems a bit hippocritical.


after reading all that i got to the bit about the daemons and was expecting something along the lines of "you stupid idiot rawr rawr rawr"

i do feel like all the daemons of chaos, dark elf and vampire counts players are picked on just because we have 'this uber unit/spell/ability that i can't handle because i dont know how to counter it because it's new and i cant be bothered to try and figure out how to beat it'

[Bigred]

Gentlemen, strong opinions and points of view are always welcome in the Lounge, but personal attacks are not.

Debate with reason, not insults please.

[S0ULDU5T]

while i'll agree that it was pretty funny, you shouldn't start insulting people just because they're insulting you. and whilst you say you refrain from insulting people who don't insult you and contribute to dicussion you use the example of me and then (kind of) insult me by saying i blow it out propotion, i'm sorry if i offended you but it seems a bit hippocritical.


after reading all that i got to the bit about the daemons and was expecting something along the lines of "you stupid idiot rawr rawr rawr"

i do feel like all the daemons of chaos, dark elf and vampire counts players are picked on just because we have 'this uber unit/spell/ability that i can't handle because i dont know how to counter it because it's new and i cant be bothered to try and figure out how to beat it'

And I do apologize if you feel like I was insulting you, that really wasnt my intent. I do believe of all the things said to find that one thing was kinda blowing it outta proportion but thats just point of view I guess. I went back and edited out the 'like you' that does admitedly sound negative out of respect just to avoid confusion.

I also just noticed that mods have come around and edited a few posts, apperently it ok's for others to call people fkwits and nothings wrong with post #37 but some things I've said cross the line. I can only imagine thats becuase the insults I gave were better crafted insults than those I recieved :)

[twistinthunder]

yeah i love the way post #37 has been 'edited' by big red but the horrendously out of order quote that isnt a quote becaue you never said that wasnt removed and apperently the offencive laguague was removed.

[Randroid]

I can't call people a$$hat!? Man ... and that was my attempt at joking with souldust too. :confused:

And not to split hairs but you started the insult train way back on page 2 of this thread souldust... I was enjoying reading the commentary overall I just don't think comparing Maneaters and the Hydra is a good way of championing balance. That's all.

As I said before - if you see that comparison as balanced I don't know what I can contribute to the conversation. There is a difference between balance on paper and balance on the table and I know from experience that that matchup is neither. Sure, random luck can prevail. I have had Ogre Bulls and Gnoblars take down Hydras but that doesn't mean I expect them to do so on a regular basis and I certainly wouldn't call them equal in strength/point cost/etc...

Anyway ... sorry for playing rough. Carry on.

[S0ULDU5T]

I can't call people a$$hat!? Man ... and that was my attempt at joking with souldust too. :confused:

And not to split hairs but you started the insult train way back on page 2 of this thread souldust... I was enjoying reading the commentary overall I just don't think comparing Maneaters and the Hydra is a good way of championing balance. That's all.

As I said before - if you see that comparison as balanced I don't know what I can contribute to the conversation. There is a difference between balance on paper and balance on the table and I know from experience that that matchup is neither. Sure, random luck can prevail. I have had Ogre Bulls and Gnoblars take down Hydras but that doesn't mean I expect them to do so on a regular basis and I certainly wouldn't call them equal in strength/point cost/etc...

Anyway ... sorry for playing rough. Carry on.

^_^* Don't go getting soft or this thread will start to get boring. Your absolutly right in that if we both sat in our individual corners and said nothing but how right our opinion was, we'd never get anywhere. The idea though was to back up that opinion with some type of fact or evidence as to why you believe what you do. Sure, the accuracy of these "facts" are matters of smaller opinion too as are all things when debased low enough but any argument to substantiate your overall opinon was all I asked for. I'm thinking however, that any debate on the subject has probably run it's course for a little while and thats fine too - until someone inevitably trips on the subject again.

[billytwix]

OPINONS ON THE DWARF RUINED SCEENERY ON SOME OF THE SHOTS IN THE NEW ARMY BOOk?

THE RUINS LOOK LIKE POSSIBLE SCEENERY PIECES, NOT TOO SURE ABOUT THE DWARVEN STATUES, THEY LOOK MORE LIKE ONE OFF'S.

[elrodogg]

seriously the daemons argument, really?

yeah sure daemons are so unbalanced, thats why we lose more than 1/4 of a 2000pt list as soon as we take a good greater daemon.

bloodcrushers and flamers are the only good rare choices as far as i know, we dont get war machines, we dont have any good special units (unless your in favour of nurglings just to road block units) we haven't got that great a leadership especially when you take into account that every 1 point we go over that (modified) leadership when we lose combat we lose a model.

ok... so you officially don't have a clue as to how fantasy works whatsoever.

1- greater daemons? Yep they are awesome. well worth taking every time. uncontestable point. :D
2- special units? flesh hounds of khorne are absolutely brutal. no really, they are disgusting. when combined with a khorne hero on a juggernaut... well they charge anything win, repeat. :o
3- leadership? haha. yes, you lose models. but ask anyone who plays an army that uses an army that takes psychology tests how great it is to lose models as compared to losing whole units when you go over by 1. it's like crying about an army being only unbreakable and immune to psych. :confused:
4- rare units? well, actually bloodcrushers are the worst choice. beasts of nurgle are like uberspawn which destroy t3 infantry. solo fiends of slaanesh are incredible warmachine / fast cav hunters. You are correct in that flamers are good, but miscategorize them because they are awesome.
:eek:
for real... try out a thirster, 2 khorne heralds, 2 units of flesh hounds, 3 units of 10 horrors, and 2 units of 6 flamers and try your absolute hardest to lose games and you'll fail at doing so. that list can beat anything, if you play with even a modicum of skill.

it's ok to play the best army in the game, just admit it. disclaimer... VC are the 2nd best army, which is one that i use.

[Randroid]

I think VC are overrated. DE have a much stronger book overall.

[L192837465]

I think VC are overrated. DE have a much stronger book overall.


I actually feel that if you drop deamons out of the equation, every other book is spectacularly balanced. Really.

[quinn]

I think that one thing people forget about DE players is that those of us that have been playing them for years, actually had to learn tactics in order to win. We had arguably the worst Army book ever written before the current edition. I know you're going to argue the point, but what other AB had to be 'corrected' in White Dwarf? So, when we finally got a decent book, we were able to use it to it's fullest extent. Take awhile to read Druchii.net and you'll see what I mean.

I always find the Hydra argument to be totally ridiculous, it's not even the best unit in our book. As far as I'm concerned, the best unit we have is a 55pt unit of Harpies. Give me three or four of those and I'll beat most armies out there. I'll hunt your warmachines, block and redirect your charges, and position myself to march block your units or destroy them when they flee. There are a couple armies that they don't have much impact against, but overall they're amazing units for the cost and the fact they don't take up a slot.

As far as armor saves and bonuses go, when was the last time you saw big blocks of DE Warriors or Corsairs in a competitive list? Never, so that argument is ridiculous. I would say that our Cold One Knights and Chariots, along with the Hydras Regen Save and the possible use of a Cauldron of Blood's wardsave is more than enough as far as saves go. The Pendant of Khaleth is definitely under-priced and a bit of a crock. The Ring of Hotek is a double-edged sword and a bit nullified by the DE FAQ.

I did find the Demon players statement about not having any good special rules a bit of a laugh. When your whole army causes fear and is immune to psyche, that's a pretty good special rule. VC have the same thing going for them, along with a virtually unstoppable magic phase.

The one thing that GW needs to do (or keep doing) is write army books that allow players to build more than 1 competitive build. DEs and VC definitely have more than one good build. I know that Daemons can win with a number of builds and I think that the Lizardmen and WOC both have more than one competitive build and Skaven look like they'll be okay. So, I think they are on the right track and that the game isn't "broken" at all. If you're playing O&G, TK, OK or a couple other armies you probably think the game sucks! You're probably right from your viewpoint, but it'll eventually get better and we'll all be complaining about your army.

[Lord Azaghul]

I think that one thing people forget about DE players is that those of us that have been playing them for years, actually had to learn tactics in order to win. We had arguably the worst Army book ever written before the current edition. I know you're going to argue the point, but what other AB had to be 'corrected' in White Dwarf? So, when we finally got a decent book, we were able to use it to it's fullest extent. Take awhile to read Druchii.net and you'll see what I mean.

I always find the Hydra argument to be totally ridiculous, it's not even the best unit in our book. As far as I'm concerned, the best unit we have is a 55pt unit of Harpies. Give me three or four of those and I'll beat most armies out there. I'll hunt your warmachines, block and redirect your charges, and position myself to march block your units or destroy them when they flee. There are a couple armies that they don't have much impact against, but overall they're amazing units for the cost and the fact they don't take up a slot.

As far as armor saves and bonuses go, when was the last time you saw big blocks of DE Warriors or Corsairs in a competitive list? Never, so that argument is ridiculous. I would say that our Cold One Knights and Chariots, along with the Hydras Regen Save and the possible use of a Cauldron of Blood's wardsave is more than enough as far as saves go. The Pendant of Khaleth is definitely under-priced and a bit of a crock. The Ring of Hotek is a double-edged sword and a bit nullified by the DE FAQ.

I did find the Demon players statement about not having any good special rules a bit of a laugh. When your whole army causes fear and is immune to psyche, that's a pretty good special rule. VC have the same thing going for them, along with a virtually unstoppable magic phase.

The one thing that GW needs to do (or keep doing) is write army books that allow players to build more than 1 competitive build. DEs and VC definitely have more than one good build. I know that Daemons can win with a number of builds and I think that the Lizardmen and WOC both have more than one competitive build and Skaven look like they'll be okay. So, I think they are on the right track and that the game isn't "broken" at all. If you're playing O&G, TK, OK or a couple other armies you probably think the game sucks! You're probably right from your viewpoint, but it'll eventually get better and we'll all be complaining about your army.

Just a couple of things I couldn't resist commenting on.
Current DE Book: yes its good, damn good in fact I'd say its the best book to come out since '08. Part of the problem is that it is in a higher bracket then ANY book written prior to '08. I agree that they previous book was aweful, and they needed an upgrade, but they got way to cheap and effective of an upgrade. They have the best/fastest movement (harpies/dark riders), Best CC (CoKs, Executioners, Black Guard, hyrdra) Best Lore of magic (every spell is almost always useful and SHOULD cost 2 points more to cast), strongest magic ability (free dice) Best shooting (repeater bolt throwers, hand bows, repeater bows w AP). And the best Army agumentation device: That danged cauldron. The options are staggering and really play to a skilled DE players abilites.
The difference between the DE army and the VC/ DoC tear is that it isn't an 'I Win' army, but its pretty darn close. I believe that long tearm it does become the dominate army. How many new DE players have cropped in your area?

I know you disbelieve this but the hydra is sick. 175pts, please compare that to the O&G gaint. Gaint sits at 205, is Stubborn on a 10, but has far less duriblite and a its attack ability is random.
Harpies: 11pts Skirmishing 2A fliers! OMG. That cheaper and more effective then ALL fast cav out there, and it doesn't take up a single desired slot!!!
Couldron: This thing is unbelieavable. It can't be hurt. Its bearers have a 4+ ward vs every thing. Its befits are enormous Cost: 200pts including the character. AND its ability 'just happens' no negtives to it at all. Compare to say the Anvil of Doom. Stupid thing cost 400pts w/character, and has a better chance of exploding then a wizard does of dying to a miscast.
Then there is my personal favorate: Hatred. There is no way that this was pointed into the army. This should probably has resulted in a 10-15% increase on everything. And to top it off, gw changes the rules for hatred just for the DE "remember it effects the mount's as well...", but just in the DE book.

Now...if you're still reading after my rant. In and of it self there really isn't much wrong with the DE book, in fact I think that should be the level GW works towards with all books, its just that so many of the armies out there to not have equivalant abilities or counter abilites for a comparable price point - this is what makes it 'not fair'. Its mainly the fact that gw made such a drastic shift in direction after the '05-06 army books, and its GW issue of over compensating with rule build that I have a real issue with, and the looming fear that when my army book(s) roll out they will probably have shifted their directions again and deliver me a 'nominal' book.

BTW I play Dwarves and O&G!

[Kieranator K82]

It's nice to see that this thread is cooling down a bit...
4 or so pages of 'Orcy conversashun' is a bit much, don't you think?
I'm personally surprised this thread wasn't removed - maybe the Mods found it funny :rolleyes:

I only started playing a month ago, so you could say I don't know jack about this game's balance issues, especially since I've only played against Night Goblins thus far. Amidst the smoking barrels of the arguments in this thread, I've seen that there are indeed balance issues with the game that make you all :mad:!

[quinn]

Just a couple of things I couldn't resist commenting on.
Current DE Book: yes its good, damn good in fact I'd say its the best book to come out since '08. Part of the problem is that it is in a higher bracket then ANY book written prior to '08. I agree that they previous book was aweful, and they needed an upgrade, but they got way to cheap and effective of an upgrade. They have the best/fastest movement (harpies/dark riders), Best CC (CoKs, Executioners, Black Guard, hyrdra) Best Lore of magic (every spell is almost always useful and SHOULD cost 2 points more to cast), strongest magic ability (free dice) Best shooting (repeater bolt throwers, hand bows, repeater bows w AP). And the best Army agumentation device: That danged cauldron. The options are staggering and really play to a skilled DE players abilites.
The difference between the DE army and the VC/ DoC tear is that it isn't an 'I Win' army, but its pretty darn close. I believe that long tearm it does become the dominate army. How many new DE players have cropped in your area?

I know you disbelieve this but the hydra is sick. 175pts, please compare that to the O&G gaint. Gaint sits at 205, is Stubborn on a 10, but has far less duriblite and a its attack ability is random.
Harpies: 11pts Skirmishing 2A fliers! OMG. That cheaper and more effective then ALL fast cav out there, and it doesn't take up a single desired slot!!!
Couldron: This thing is unbelieavable. It can't be hurt. Its bearers have a 4+ ward vs every thing. Its befits are enormous Cost: 200pts including the character. AND its ability 'just happens' no negtives to it at all. Compare to say the Anvil of Doom. Stupid thing cost 400pts w/character, and has a better chance of exploding then a wizard does of dying to a miscast.
Then there is my personal favorate: Hatred. There is no way that this was pointed into the army. This should probably has resulted in a 10-15% increase on everything. And to top it off, gw changes the rules for hatred just for the DE "remember it effects the mount's as well...", but just in the DE book.

Now...if you're still reading after my rant. In and of it self there really isn't much wrong with the DE book, in fact I think that should be the level GW works towards with all books, its just that so many of the armies out there to not have equivalant abilities or counter abilites for a comparable price point - this is what makes it 'not fair'. Its mainly the fact that gw made such a drastic shift in direction after the '05-06 army books, and its GW issue of over compensating with rule build that I have a real issue with, and the looming fear that when my army book(s) roll out they will probably have shifted their directions again and deliver me a 'nominal' book.

BTW I play Dwarves and O&G!

I'm actually in agreement with a lot of what you've said. BTW - You forgot the Assassins! I will take issue with comparing a Hydra with a Giant. I really think that Giants are one of the worst units in the game, no AS and large targets equals 1 dead Giant (usually to shooting).
I also take issue with Dark Magic being the best lore in the game. Above Average casting levels and below average range does not make for the best lore. Power of Darkness is however, an extremely powerful spell. Personally, I don't do a lot of offensive magic but I do realize that DEs can dominate the phase if they choose to. I also think that the best CC army is WoC, not DEs. The combination of High WS; Strength, Armor Saves and number of Attacks greatly favors WoC over DEs. I'm also a little amazed that a Dwarf player would say we have the best shooting, Dwarven Gun Lines are probably the hardest army for me to crack! I really hate playing them.
Overrall, I do agree that we probably have the best AB out there right now (not sure about Skaven yet, we'll see), especially as far as flexibility goes. I don't think that DEs are the best at anything, just really good at everything. I also hope that GW continues to write books that are similiar to the DE book.
The bottom line is: Gav Thorpe owed us DE players big time, and he delivered!

[S0ULDU5T]

I still think the DE book is overrated. So you have Hatred but if your dead because you got charged and your armor save is, except for two units commonly, a 5+ or worse then you don't get to re-roll anything. And so you get to re-roll hits...I'm not at all scared, considering your still a s3 model for the most part. People that complain about Dark Elves are people that are naturally whiners and haven't learned how to use their own pieces effectively.

It's odd how many people are crying about Dark Elves but I'd take any block unit twenty strong from Spearmen (180 points with shields I believe?) to Black Guard (260 points) against my twenty strong Suarus Warriors. At 240 points with spears, I get 20 s4 attacks with t4, 4+ armor save and cold blooded to deal with combat res (and they're a core choice!). But you guys just keep focusing on complaining about nothing.

[quinn]

I'm curious what DE player is hitting you at S3? As I've said before, no one who knows what they're doing is going to use 'Vanilla' DE Warriors, Corsairs or Witch Elves. Now, when I hit you with 19 Attacks from a 6x2 Frenzied Corsair unit with Killing Blow (thank you Cauldron) or a unit of ASF Black Guard w KB, or a unit of ASF Executioners (St 6 - often with AP banner and built in KB) or my St 5 GW armed Shades, or my St 5 Hydra, or my St5 Chariots, or my St6 COKs..... I think you get my point. The only things I run in my army that are straight up St3 is my Repeater Xbows, Dark Riders (unless they charge) and Harpies, none of which are designed to be in close combat.

Personally, I think that a tournament-balanced DE army can beat any tournament-balanced army out there if both players are at roughly the same skill level and you don't have some horrendous luck. You won't win them all, but you can definitely compete and win your fair share. I'm personally not worried at playing DoC or VC in a tournament, it's the armies that I don't see that often that make me a bit nervous. That's probably because I play against one of the best DoC players in the country all the time and some pretty damn good VC players, I know what their armies do, thus no tactical surprises. I still think the system (WHFB) isn't 'broken', although it needs some tweaks.

[S0ULDU5T]

I'm curious what DE player is hitting you at S3? As I've said before, no one who knows what they're doing is going to use 'Vanilla' DE Warriors, Corsairs or Witch Elves. Now, when I hit you with 19 Attacks from a 6x2 Frenzied Corsair unit with Killing Blow (thank you Cauldron) or a unit of ASF Black Guard w KB, or a unit of ASF Executioners (St 6 - often with AP banner and built in KB) or my St 5 GW armed Shades, or my St 5 Hydra, or my St5 Chariots, or my St6 COKs..... I think you get my point. The only things I run in my army that are straight up St3 is my Repeater Xbows, Dark Riders (unless they charge) and Harpies, none of which are designed to be in close combat.

Personally, I think that a tournament-balanced DE army can beat any tournament-balanced army out there if both players are at roughly the same skill level and you don't have some horrendous luck. You won't win them all, but you can definitely compete and win your fair share. I'm personally not worried at playing DoC or VC in a tournament, it's the armies that I don't see that often that make me a bit nervous. That's probably because I play against one of the best DoC players in the country all the time and some pretty damn good VC players, I know what their armies do, thus no tactical surprises. I still think the system (WHFB) isn't 'broken', although it needs some tweaks.

It was an example Mr. Quinn becuase argueing all the possible combinations of vanilla units with supporting equipment, spells or models is folly. Take your Cualdron and your Banner of Hag Graef, I'll take Transmutation of Lead with my Slann so you'll be minus one to hit, wound and to your armor saves. Or hell, might just kill you with the engine of the gods that you can't dispel. See how this argument gets foolish rather quickly? It's always best when making a point to break things down as simple as possible so as to be clear. Thus my earlier point still stands.

You say that a balanced Dark Elf army could win against any other balanced army forbiding bad die rolls but then say you won't win them all, just your fair share. You need to make up your mind. As a point, a balanced dark elf list SHOULD win it's fair share against other balanced lists, thats the definition of BALANCE and quite contrary to the popular (and on this topic, vocal) belief that they are anything but.

Everyone claims they play with the best players. I have several guys at my LGS that moved from different areas of the country that all played with the best blah blah players. The point is quite crap and beyond proof so I don't see why people try and use it to justify any point. I play with the best Dark Elf player in the universe and he says I'm right and your wrong.

[Lord Azaghul]

I'm actually in agreement with a lot of what you've said. BTW - You forgot the Assassins! . I'm also a little amazed that a Dwarf player would say we have the best shooting, Dwarven Gun Lines are probably the hardest army for me to crack! I really hate playing them.

The bottom line is: Gav Thorpe owed us DE players big time, and he delivered!

Assassins...yes you guys really got a boon out of them - but they are squishy... no rev ward for them!

Gun lines: maybe that's my problem. I've never really favored gun lines. Even lately though shooting is less effective (5+ ward seems to be everywhere). Just last night a played a skaven army - that danged Stormbanner refused to expire. Seriouly handicapped my abilites.
DE shooting, you know have volumn AND AP values and a good BS; a nasty combo. I also consider the repeating bolt thrower the best WM in the game.

Hey Gav my have owed you DE players , but now he owes everyone else! (DoC and VC excluded!!!):D

[quinn]

It was an example Mr. Quinn becuase argueing all the possible combinations of vanilla units with supporting equipment, spells or models is folly. Take your Cualdron and your Banner of Hag Graef, I'll take Transmutation of Lead with my Slann so you'll be minus one to hit, wound and to your armor saves. Or hell, might just kill you with the engine of the gods that you can't dispel. See how this argument gets foolish rather quickly? It's always best when making a point to break things down as simple as possible so as to be clear. Thus my earlier point still stands.

You say that a balanced Dark Elf army could win against any other balanced army forbiding bad die rolls but then say you won't win them all, just your fair share. You need to make up your mind. As a point, a balanced dark elf list SHOULD win it's fair share against other balanced lists, thats the definition of BALANCE and quite contrary to the popular (and on this topic, vocal) belief that they are anything but.

Everyone claims they play with the best players. I have several guys at my LGS that moved from different areas of the country that all played with the best blah blah players. The point is quite crap and beyond proof so I don't see why people try and use it to justify any point. I play with the best Dark Elf player in the universe and he says I'm right and your wrong.

I guess I'll have to keep this simple for you and give you some facts. The player I was referring to is Elliot Vigil and if you don't know who that is, then you don't know much about U.S. nationally ranked players. I should have said "more than my fair share" and as far as Lizards go, I'm 4-0-1 against them in tournaments the last year, so I'll take my chances against you or any other LM player. Perhaps I'll run into you at a tournament this year and I can make my point in person.
Have a nice day.

[S0ULDU5T]

Jwolf edit: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

[Jwolf]

Okay, if you want to have a measuring contest or poke each other with sticks, feel free to do so in PMs or meet for coffee and discuss moving in together. But enough of the Nyah Nyah.