My next tournament, and the first 8th Edition event I'll attend, is being held in Sydney in two weeks time. Pilgrimage is run by the Sydney Battle Pilgrims and 2010 will be its third year.
This is a slightly different event. Firstly, it is at 2300 points which is rare for this neck of the woods - about 80% of Australasian events are pitched at 2250 points. Secondly, it is aimed at developing new tournament players.
To achieve this second aim, the tournament has a reduced entry price for new tournament goers and they try to match new players up with experienced gamers who take on a mentoring role.
I'll be traveling over with one of my Club members, Tim. Tim has been playing for just over six months and this will be his first Australian event. We've spent the last couple of months playing games, constructing lists and looking at various strategies - both in-game and tournament-wide. Both of us have found it very useful - Tim because he has someone to bounce ideas off and me because I've found it useful to have to gather my ideas into some form of useful strategy.
I applaud the Battle Pilgrims for following this path. In the long term it helps both the new player and the mentor and increases both of their enjoyment.
Check back in two weeks to see how we got on.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Lie of the Land
One of the most disappointing things for me about the advent of 8th Edition has been the speed with which people have wanted to introduce a composition system to remove heinous armies from tournaments.
I am a total believer in Comp systems as I do not believe GW have some savant skill that allows them to produce a ruleset that completely balances the 14+ Army Books they currently have in circulation. Also with the introduction of any new book the lie of the land changes again and a comp system for tournaments balances this.
However with regard to 8th Edition it is far far too early. Most people (including TOs and the internet warriors) have only had a handful of games at best. How can they hope to have the level of understanding with regard to the new system that they had at the end of 7th. How much better is it to play the game as GW have presented it and then with 3 (preferably 6) months experience look to counter any egregious builds.
Instead we now have largely 7th Ed prejudices been used to formulate composition rules. Check out warhammer.org.uk and you'll find a post from a guy looking to implement a Europe wide system. To be brutally honest it reads like a "Crimes Against Bill" where he has catalogued anything that caused him problems under 7th Ed. In most cases there is little or no demonstrated relevance to 8th. And how can there be? I'd wager he's had less than 10 games.
I have been involved in putting together two Players Packs for upcoming tournaments - Call to Arms @ 2250 points and Skitterleap III @ 2400 points. In both cases the single composition constraint is that the TO retains the right to veto any list that he believes would impinge on both players having a fun and relatively fair game. That coupled with a warning that if your intention is to somehow break the game with some heinous army then neither events are the tournament for you, is all you need.
In most cases this would be applied where somebody had a very high chance of dominating a phase to the point whereby it became stupid......the TO doesn't need to define it in a pack with anymore than "I'll know it when I see it".
Given such a backdrop the onus is on the players to not be a tool.
I am a total believer in Comp systems as I do not believe GW have some savant skill that allows them to produce a ruleset that completely balances the 14+ Army Books they currently have in circulation. Also with the introduction of any new book the lie of the land changes again and a comp system for tournaments balances this.
However with regard to 8th Edition it is far far too early. Most people (including TOs and the internet warriors) have only had a handful of games at best. How can they hope to have the level of understanding with regard to the new system that they had at the end of 7th. How much better is it to play the game as GW have presented it and then with 3 (preferably 6) months experience look to counter any egregious builds.
Instead we now have largely 7th Ed prejudices been used to formulate composition rules. Check out warhammer.org.uk and you'll find a post from a guy looking to implement a Europe wide system. To be brutally honest it reads like a "Crimes Against Bill" where he has catalogued anything that caused him problems under 7th Ed. In most cases there is little or no demonstrated relevance to 8th. And how can there be? I'd wager he's had less than 10 games.
I have been involved in putting together two Players Packs for upcoming tournaments - Call to Arms @ 2250 points and Skitterleap III @ 2400 points. In both cases the single composition constraint is that the TO retains the right to veto any list that he believes would impinge on both players having a fun and relatively fair game. That coupled with a warning that if your intention is to somehow break the game with some heinous army then neither events are the tournament for you, is all you need.
In most cases this would be applied where somebody had a very high chance of dominating a phase to the point whereby it became stupid......the TO doesn't need to define it in a pack with anymore than "I'll know it when I see it".
Given such a backdrop the onus is on the players to not be a tool.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The 8th Edition Warhammer Rulebook
Prior to the release of the 8th Ed Rulebook you could visit any internet forum and you didn't have to stay long to stumble over a thread that bemoaned the price of the new rules and commentary on how GW was gouging its customers.
Fast forward two weeks after release andvisit the same forums and you struggle to find a complaint.
Yes, the book is more expensive than in the past - but look at what you get compared to previous editions. Five hundred plus full colour pages that are a celebration of the hobby we enjoy. Well I might be starting to sound like a fanboi, I do think that the full rulebook is integral to the 8th Ed experience.
There has been a seachange from 7th to 8th and the new rulebook is a demonstration of that. The new edition is as much about the spectacle of the game as it is about the rules. So in the new book you get not only a far tighter rules system that seems to introduce more fun and remove niggle from the game, you also get an introduction to what the game can be. 300+ pages of eye candy that gives you inspiration to get more out of your hobby.
Yes, I'm sure that most of us will read through it once and then put it on the shelves once we get hold of our mini rulebooks. Every now and then we'll get it out to look at something, reference a model and I'll bet spend an extra five minutes reading pages we stumble across.
But the important thing is that the seed has been planted. More terrain, bigger games etc.
Hopefully the demonstration of the spectacle by GW in the rulebook will inspire people to devote time and energy on the aesthetics of their armies.
The lack of complaints at the moment shows that a large proportion of their customer base is for now "drinking the Kool-Aid".
Fast forward two weeks after release andvisit the same forums and you struggle to find a complaint.
Yes, the book is more expensive than in the past - but look at what you get compared to previous editions. Five hundred plus full colour pages that are a celebration of the hobby we enjoy. Well I might be starting to sound like a fanboi, I do think that the full rulebook is integral to the 8th Ed experience.
There has been a seachange from 7th to 8th and the new rulebook is a demonstration of that. The new edition is as much about the spectacle of the game as it is about the rules. So in the new book you get not only a far tighter rules system that seems to introduce more fun and remove niggle from the game, you also get an introduction to what the game can be. 300+ pages of eye candy that gives you inspiration to get more out of your hobby.
Yes, I'm sure that most of us will read through it once and then put it on the shelves once we get hold of our mini rulebooks. Every now and then we'll get it out to look at something, reference a model and I'll bet spend an extra five minutes reading pages we stumble across.
But the important thing is that the seed has been planted. More terrain, bigger games etc.
Hopefully the demonstration of the spectacle by GW in the rulebook will inspire people to devote time and energy on the aesthetics of their armies.
The lack of complaints at the moment shows that a large proportion of their customer base is for now "drinking the Kool-Aid".
Death of the Uber-Skirmisher
With the advent of 8th, one thing that you would quickly realise if you were a Plague Censer Bearer is that "you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto".
Under 7th no self-respecting Skaven army went anywhere without at least one unit of PCBs. These uber troops could clean out charging Chaos Knights, deal with blocks of Dwarf Longbeards etc through a combination of their gas attacks and high number of re-rollable Str 5 attacks. A favourite ploy was to put them in front of a unit of Chaos Knights daring them to charge in a pact of mutually assured destruction (but for half the points investment and the removal of the Chaos key threat).
Not anymore! The introduction of Initiative steps for combat and stepping up for casualties has seen the effectiveness of PCBs reduced significantly. Now they are more support troops with a different (primarily flanking) role.
And this is one of the refreshing things about 8th. You need to learn new tricks and tactics. What has worked in the past may not necessarily work now. I'm sure Wardancers in a Wood Elf army are waking up to a similar realisation.
So strap yourself in Dorothy - it's gonna be one hell of a journey!
Under 7th no self-respecting Skaven army went anywhere without at least one unit of PCBs. These uber troops could clean out charging Chaos Knights, deal with blocks of Dwarf Longbeards etc through a combination of their gas attacks and high number of re-rollable Str 5 attacks. A favourite ploy was to put them in front of a unit of Chaos Knights daring them to charge in a pact of mutually assured destruction (but for half the points investment and the removal of the Chaos key threat).
Not anymore! The introduction of Initiative steps for combat and stepping up for casualties has seen the effectiveness of PCBs reduced significantly. Now they are more support troops with a different (primarily flanking) role.
And this is one of the refreshing things about 8th. You need to learn new tricks and tactics. What has worked in the past may not necessarily work now. I'm sure Wardancers in a Wood Elf army are waking up to a similar realisation.
So strap yourself in Dorothy - it's gonna be one hell of a journey!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Product Review - Battle Magic Cards (GW)
With the release of the new edition Games Workshop have released a set of cards covering each of the spells in the 8 main lores. I recently received my set and fully recommend them to all players.
Each card has a full description of the spell (effect, casting values etc) as well as the specific attribute of that lore. Given you can now only take one of each spell from a given lore (sans signature) they can be used in game to designate at a glance what each wizard has. If your opponent wants to know what a particular wizard has and how it works then you can just pass him the card and he can read it himself.
I have been using a set of home-produced cards for my Skaven and it stops a lot of confusion and reduces the chances of mistakes/misunderstandings.
GW intend doing a set for each of the race-specific lores - and indeed have produced a set for Beastmen. These sets are likely limited run and I understand that the Beastmen one is already sold out. The next in line are Daemons and I have pre-ordered to ensure I get a set.
While a lot of the aids GW release can be thought of as gimmicky and of limited value, this is certainly not one of them. Pick yourself up a set, you won't regret it.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Spectacle of 8th Edition
One of the points remarked on in numerous forums regarding 8th Edition is just how much better the games look. I would like to reiterate that point.
Yesterday I had two games down at my local club and it was interesting just how many people were attracted to the tables. The aesthetics are better on two fronts.
Firstly, there is more terrain. Because terrain is not the impediment to movement and shooting that it was in 7th Edition there is far more of it on the tables. This makes the battlefield look like a battlefield. I am hoping one of the upshots is that people will dedicate more time to their terrain and how it looks as it is no longer the negative it was.
Secondly, the units are bigger. Now this may change with time and as tactics develop but we are still in a honeymoon period. The rules confer advantages to big units and therefore people are embracing this part of the game. Yesterday we had an ongoing combat with a Plague Furnace with 25 Monks and 50 Lothern Sea Guard. A unit of 40 Skavenslaves barreled into the flank and they were in turn hit by 15 Swordmasters. In 7th ed you typically saw minimal sized Slave and swormaster units and never saw Sea Guard.
From a spectacle point of view the game looked great - and attracted onlookers.
Long may it continue!
Yesterday I had two games down at my local club and it was interesting just how many people were attracted to the tables. The aesthetics are better on two fronts.
Firstly, there is more terrain. Because terrain is not the impediment to movement and shooting that it was in 7th Edition there is far more of it on the tables. This makes the battlefield look like a battlefield. I am hoping one of the upshots is that people will dedicate more time to their terrain and how it looks as it is no longer the negative it was.
Secondly, the units are bigger. Now this may change with time and as tactics develop but we are still in a honeymoon period. The rules confer advantages to big units and therefore people are embracing this part of the game. Yesterday we had an ongoing combat with a Plague Furnace with 25 Monks and 50 Lothern Sea Guard. A unit of 40 Skavenslaves barreled into the flank and they were in turn hit by 15 Swordmasters. In 7th ed you typically saw minimal sized Slave and swormaster units and never saw Sea Guard.
From a spectacle point of view the game looked great - and attracted onlookers.
Long may it continue!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
8th Ed Combo #1
Ran into my first real 8th Ed combo today.
Lvl 4 High Elf Mage with Book of Hoeth and Shadow Magic. Banner of Sorcery in the army.
Deployed a 50 man unit of Lothern Sea Guard in front of me. The eyes of the Plague Priest on the Furnace lit up and it gets deployed in front of it. Up goes the Storm Banner.
44 shots at the Furnace do nothing (as per odds) but squeaky cheeks moment when the Miasma reduces the Plague Priest's Initiative by 3 and then he passes the follow-up Pit of Shades by rolling a "1".
The Furnace trundles off towards the LSG. My magic and shooting is ineffectual and then the trap is sprung.
The Seaguard charge the Furnace and the Priest thinks Xmas has come early. The High Elf springs Mindrazor and with the Book of Hoeth there is very little I can do to stop it....besides pray.
No such luck. ASF plus higher Init plus 15 Str 8 attacks ensures the Furnace is little more than matchwood.
Well done to my opponent.
Having seen the Book of Hoeth in action with Shadow and the backing of a lot of dice (3 channels plus Banner of Sorcery) I'll treat it with more respect next time. Far more than a one trick pony it is a very effective combo.
Lvl 4 High Elf Mage with Book of Hoeth and Shadow Magic. Banner of Sorcery in the army.
Deployed a 50 man unit of Lothern Sea Guard in front of me. The eyes of the Plague Priest on the Furnace lit up and it gets deployed in front of it. Up goes the Storm Banner.
44 shots at the Furnace do nothing (as per odds) but squeaky cheeks moment when the Miasma reduces the Plague Priest's Initiative by 3 and then he passes the follow-up Pit of Shades by rolling a "1".
The Furnace trundles off towards the LSG. My magic and shooting is ineffectual and then the trap is sprung.
The Seaguard charge the Furnace and the Priest thinks Xmas has come early. The High Elf springs Mindrazor and with the Book of Hoeth there is very little I can do to stop it....besides pray.
No such luck. ASF plus higher Init plus 15 Str 8 attacks ensures the Furnace is little more than matchwood.
Well done to my opponent.
Having seen the Book of Hoeth in action with Shadow and the backing of a lot of dice (3 channels plus Banner of Sorcery) I'll treat it with more respect next time. Far more than a one trick pony it is a very effective combo.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Stone Thrower - Direct/Indirect
One thing that wasn't addressed in the FAQ concerned direct/indirect fire with a stone thrower.
The important rules are as follows:
(Pg 114)"To fire a stone thrower, take the small round (3") template and place it anywhere completely within the war machine's line of sight, outside the stone thrower's minimum range and within its maximum range."
(Pg 115) "An indirect shot does not require line of sight but is otherwise treated as a normal shot....."
Now I would contend that these two rules only cover two of potentially three possibilities.
The first rule is clearly a direct shot but the phrase "completely within the war maxchine's line of sight" is restrictive. The second rule is clearly an indirect shot and this does not require any line of sight.
So what about the third possibility? Where the target is within line of sight but the template can't be placed completely within the war machine's line of sight". I don't believe that the rules cover this possibility. The recent FAQ gives us nothing to go on either for this instance.
If asked to rule at a tournament one way or the other I would be inclined to go with a hybrid - if you can place the template so the centre hole is over the target model and completely in line of sight then it is a direct shot.
This ruling is clearly assumption because as I said I don't believe we have an answer in the rulebook.
Appreciate any thoughts? Comments?
The important rules are as follows:
(Pg 114)"To fire a stone thrower, take the small round (3") template and place it anywhere completely within the war machine's line of sight, outside the stone thrower's minimum range and within its maximum range."
(Pg 115) "An indirect shot does not require line of sight but is otherwise treated as a normal shot....."
Now I would contend that these two rules only cover two of potentially three possibilities.
The first rule is clearly a direct shot but the phrase "completely within the war maxchine's line of sight" is restrictive. The second rule is clearly an indirect shot and this does not require any line of sight.
So what about the third possibility? Where the target is within line of sight but the template can't be placed completely within the war machine's line of sight". I don't believe that the rules cover this possibility. The recent FAQ gives us nothing to go on either for this instance.
If asked to rule at a tournament one way or the other I would be inclined to go with a hybrid - if you can place the template so the centre hole is over the target model and completely in line of sight then it is a direct shot.
This ruling is clearly assumption because as I said I don't believe we have an answer in the rulebook.
Appreciate any thoughts? Comments?
The 1" Rule - Redux
The new FAQ has made no amendment/errata/FAQ concerning the exceptions to the 1" rule.
There is a general exception in the BRB regarding the 1" rule when charging but omits any consideration of overrun or pursuit.
Given no change was made in FAQ v1.0 I believe we have to conclude that was the intent.
That is certainly how I'll be playing it from here.
Sidenote: You now can't move within 1" of a building unless you are to garrisoning (moving into it). This stops the old 7th Ed trick of move up to the building thereby denying somebody the chance to move in (or effectively assault the unit). More evidence of the move from avoidance.
There is a general exception in the BRB regarding the 1" rule when charging but omits any consideration of overrun or pursuit.
Given no change was made in FAQ v1.0 I believe we have to conclude that was the intent.
That is certainly how I'll be playing it from here.
Sidenote: You now can't move within 1" of a building unless you are to garrisoning (moving into it). This stops the old 7th Ed trick of move up to the building thereby denying somebody the chance to move in (or effectively assault the unit). More evidence of the move from avoidance.
GW Recovers the Fumble
New rulebook FAQ pdf up:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1330084a_FAQ_WarhammerRulebook_2010_v1.pdf
Well done GW. And belated well done for amending the initial Army pdfs
A Brave New World indeed!
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1330084a_FAQ_WarhammerRulebook_2010_v1.pdf
Well done GW. And belated well done for amending the initial Army pdfs
A Brave New World indeed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)