Mlepkows wrote:This comparison doesn't work because in order to lose two pawns for no gain in chess you must make a mistake in the first place. So you are losing because you are worse player and what happens after that two pawn catastrophe isn't really relevant. On the other hand, in WFB, you can lose your wizard due to what dice decided to do. My point exactly:) We disagree that luck swings equally both ways*, and moreover you would have to have more luck to swing back, for each turn that passed.

Download Windows Vista Home Premium 32 Bit. Download Free Livre Champs De Bataille Games Workshop Specialist. Download Free Program For Voyage 200.

Maybe luck would be equal if you played a hundred games, but you don't. Ant wrote:You obviously wouldn't do this to football, so why should it be done to warhammer. You need a history lesson Ant, if you think football hasn't been continuously changed precisely to make the better team win. It still is tweaked btw. Though the long history means that it is comparably far in the process.

Olympus Master For Mac Free Download. Offside is but one example. Though lots of the original charming unpredictable factors are embraced as part of the game, not all of them are. And if you are suggesting that I'm suggesting to completely remove the chance, then it is simple hyperbole and hardly worth addressing. Asger *Especially if you need your now dead Lvl4 for that luck. Asger, if that's your point (chess letting the better player win, WFB being affected by luck) then why are we discussing it in '8th ed. Worst edition ever.' I doesn't really belong here.

I can even agree that luck indeed doesn't need to swing both ways, thus putting 'FUBAR' all over even the best player's plans so we can be in complete agreement. Make up your mind: 8th ed worst edition ever or not? Because I think it's the best one*, dwellers or not (been playing since 3rd if that counts). Maciek *among WFB editions, not WFB v8 vs chess v1 debate. Ant wrote:Put simply, if you changes the rules of football so you got a point every time you got the ball into your opponent's penalty area, and 10 points if you actually scored then you would probably have a game where the better team would be more likely to win. But it would make it a different game, involving different tactics.

You obviously wouldn't do this to football, so why should it be done to warhammer. Trying not to veer too widely off subject, but isn't that basically what happened with football once the Americans started playing the game? Hence why from one common origin you have football, rugby league, rugby union, american football, and variations on those as well with Rugby 7's, touch football, five a side and so on. And to bring it on-topic-ish. This is why you have Warhammer, Warhammer Ancients, and of course 40K, Hordes, Warmachine, Warmaster, Epic Armageddon, Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Mordheim and so on. All share a common ancestor (IIRC Little Wars by HG Wells), and some are directly derived or inspired by others in or outside of my quick little list.

Basically different games for different tasts, play styles and so on. None are 'inherently better' than any other, although of course some may be more tightly balanced, some with rule ambiguities that you can sail the titanic through, but it's all a matter of perspective, horses for courses so to speak. Which then leads back onto 'overcomp-romising', which IMHO is basically altering the game to such a degree that it is no longer the game that it was at the start of the process, which is certainly the path that the ETC comp pack is going down, and I fear many others are likely to jump off that very same cliff.

Why not just be honest about the whole thing and do a 'Net Epic'? Although knowing absolutely nothing about the actual background for the start of that, I will merely assume that it was done through a lack of support for the game as was rather than a wholesale rejection of the game as published, but I think there was an element of that, I know that I liked and still prefer the more in-depth approach to titans for example, it could seriously inabalnce the game though I will admit. Anyone who thinks that comp wont alter the game being played in some way, hasn't really understood the purpose of comp in the first place. Of course it isn't out of the box warhammer, and yes you can label it ETChammer if that takes your fancy. After all the best type of warhammer to play at the ETC would be. ETChammer When the environment is very competitive, and it is a tournament, and GW doesn't aim to produce for such a community, it should really be no surprise that such a community takes care of itself. And I am sure that when rugby started there were conservative naysayers hanging around explaining to anyone that cared to listen, how wrong it was to change the game.

Then the people that enjoyed rugby moved along playing their game and started ignoring those people that wanted to decide what they ought to think was fun Incidentally the above is what nets you an 'anti-rugby' title, where just stating that you prefer football but otherwise have a let live attitude would earn you a 'pro-football' title (without actually becoming a pro.). Stomm is clearly one of those conservative 'anti-comp' naysayers.

* Asger * Apart from the comp that is needed and that he magically knows is needed, and also knows exactly what isn't needed It is quite humorous. Stomm wrote:Where problems arise is when different people have different views on what is being aimed for. Why is that a problem at all?

Why can't we all simply have different views? Do you have some special right to determine how others view the game, and why is it a problem to you that some view it differently? Because then it ceases to be Warhammer, it becomes (insert appropriate suffix)-hammer. It is this alteration of the 'essence' of the game that I really object to, especially when on the face of it the only actual motivation for it is an inability to accept the changes that the new edition have brought.

It is not a perfect game by any measure, it's just slightly less imperfect than previous versions. Asger wrote:This is the role of the martyr, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If you simply wanted to play your game as is then you would be 'pro-warhammer' but seeing that you are almost fanatically opposing comp initiatives and others views of the game, the term 'anti-comp' fits you much better. What can I say, I'm naturally conservative when it comes to rules changes, or at least changes to that which is printed in the rulebook. I would rather live with percieved problems until they really do become unbearable than to constantly tinker with things, therefore changing the game at a fundimental level. I tend to have this sort of approach to all games that I have played, most likely being known as the 'arch-conservative' when it came to Warmaster rules discussions for example.

I cannot really say why this is, but calls for change, well irritate me, and constantly shifting rules irritate me even more. When a system or list is undergoing testing then sure, every game you play will probably be different to the last, but once something is settled upon, leave it alone or publish a new book, that's my view anyway. Makes it a real pain in the backside to play something like Bloodbowl I have to say.

Asger wrote:I'm 'pro all of it' and thus you don't see me running around bashing tournaments that view the game differently to me. I often participate happily in those events. Well of course, I'm always right and I need to ensure that everyone is informed of this fact as much as possible don't I? Seriously though, I'm not 'bashing' anything, merely challenging the existing orthodoxy which is basically to run to the crutches of comp to fix percieved ills, with my own orthodoxy of 'it it ain't broke don't fix it', which effectively requires you to show tjat said percieved brokenness really does stand up to proper scrutiny.

And of course the fact that things are being changed IMHO simply for the sake of it, or to fix something that really isn't broken and cannot possibly be shown to be broken, well it just makes no sense to me, especially when in doing so it really does throw up a whole host of problems. Asger wrote:PS I like how you 'deftly' dodged the comment about you apparently knowing exactly what needs fixing, and exactly what doesn't It still amuses me though! I don't, but I find it interesting to note that many suggested changes that are included in many proposed comp packs merely suggest changes with no justification for those changes whatsoever. Ultimately it does all come down to preference. I prefer to play a game of Warhammer where magic can be devestating, but is not something that can be relied upon, hence my suggestions with regards to increasing the chances of multiple miscasts when using certain items or increased numbers of power dice, etc.

Therefore if you want to be certain of casting a spell, then you should also be certain of losing your wizard in the process, Slann or not of course. Indeed I would be quite happy for there to be no magic phase at all, but then in doing so you really would hobble many armies that rely on magic in one fashion or another to make up for weaknesses in other areas. Or of course just because that is the character of the army, a Lizardmen army with a Slann that didn't dominate the magic phase just wouldn't 'feel right' IMHO. Anyway, feel free to ignore any and all of my suggestions and just play the game 'out of the box'. I'm sure you'll have a much better time doing so that adding all sorts of restictions to it that add a whole host of new issues to the game. Ultimately I think you can say that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and now I'm just waffling on a bit too much. Asger wrote:Stomm is clearly 'anti-comp'.

No, I'm anti-change, or pro-orthidoxy, pro publisher, pro-book or whatever. I suppose that I am also anti-comp, as I actually think that it is the game's publishers, rule committee or whatever's job to balance the game out, iron out all those post-release creases that you are bound to get and ultimately release a new edition that includes that alterations. Download Free Foot Hill Stomp Richard Johnston Rar Software Download on this page.

I'm not a big fan of playing a game with a rulebook, an army book and 100 pages of text that I've had to print out or photocopy. Stomm wrote:Anyway, feel free to ignore any and all of my suggestions and just play the game 'out of the box'. Can I also decide not to play it out of the box, if I desire that?

Without having you conservatively banging me on the head, for what you rightly describe simply as differing preferences? If you can answer yes to my question above, I'd advice you to reconsider how you've been posting lately, because I don't believe a 'yes' would be consistent with your actual behaviour. Personally I think things grow stale if they stay the same, and I much prefer having a continuously changing rules system. It doesn't in the slightest irritate me.

Stomm wrote:I'm not a big fan of playing a game with a rulebook, an army book and 100 pages of text that I've had to print out or photocopy. Is anyone forcing you to do that?

Is it acceptable to you that a community that disagrees with your point of view, decides to do something else? Or do you want everyone to conform to your stance? Should we forbid rugby because you prefer football? Asger PS The hyperbole aside, the ETC restrictions can probably fit on a couple of pages.

Certainly far less than the Q&As you have to print, photocopy, whatever. Silent25 wrote: It was about removing your opponents ability to affect the game. It was solitaire. Thinking about the rules changes, it really seems as though the designers went out of their way to eliminate the tenuous denial lists of prior editions. Limited March blocking,limited redirecting, steadfast, the elimination of US, the changes in the magic phase, dead or fled, psychology, everything has been changed.

I suppose that if I spent so much effort writing a bunch of spell descriptions, I'd like to see them cast as well. I think otherone's post gets to the heart of the problem here. So many of you are starting from the point of view that GW have got it 'wrong', that they've made mistakes and have broken the game. It's quite possible (and really everything that Jervis says suggests this) that Eight Edition is exactly what they intended (other than the usual and, given the large number of legacy Army Books, unavoidable issues that need FAQ'd). Okay, it's maybe less good as a tourney game, but then again they've made no bones that that is of less concern to them than writing a 'fun' game with mass appeal. And, in reality, it's very likely that those two options are somewhat (but not wholly) mutually exclusive.

Hordes is a great tourney game by all accounts, but I've never enjoyed playing it - it's a good system, but. 8th might be the worst tourney edition ever, but I'd say it's possibly the most enjoyable version yet.

Perhaps the title of the thread could have been a bit more accurate. Sleboda wrote:Sing it, brother.

I recently got Dwellered twice in one game (by a level 2, who used 4 and 5 dice to cast and had no power scroll). One casting killed two engineers and the champion in my storm vermin unit. I had a moment of 'oh, crap' but that was it. I pressed on, had a fun game, and felt like I could still pull off the win. I did lose, but never felt like 'oh well, I was Dwellered, so it's game over.' It's a game, not some kind of test of one's human worth.

If I get to push my models around and drink a few drinks, and spend some time with my mates, then it's mission accomplished. Axis Mundi wrote: (other than the usual and, given the large number of legacy Army Books, unavoidable issues that need FAQ'd). Are you really suggesting that everything not related to army books was exactly as GW intended? That they were smart enough, diligent enough and creative enough to design a perfect rulebook (that they've since faq'd, no doubt exactly as planned)? And in their infinite wisdom, they decided not to appeal to a broader audience, including those already heavily vested in the hobby - because it would mar their 'perfect' product?

I like fantasy, but this is stretching even my imagination. Squalie wrote: I love that this game is random.

I really actually enjoy teaching someone the game and then they beat me a week later with a list I thought was junk. I love tournies, but they're a farce. It's just an excuse to have an 'event' based around this game and I gladly attend these events. It's great to get a bunch of guys together to see who's tops that day, but to imply that the best guy will win everytime goes against all the laws of the Universe. It must just break the hearts of some of the fellows at GamesWorkshop to read some of these threads. I've liked your posts very much. Squalie wrote: We're both using extremes, but if I pay $60 to watch a pay per view Boxing event and the fellow I'm cheering for gets knocked out in the first round, I can't ask for my money back.

Gas to drive to the local Boston Pizza to watch UFC 121-- $1. Food, drinks, and tip-- $40.00. Watching Cain Velasquez shut that blowhard Lesnar's mouth in under five minutes-- priceless.

Just because it's short doesn't mean it's not sweet, Squalie. I'm enjoying the game for what it is.

It was never really suited for tournaments that were ruled entirely by skill when the rules were implemented straight out of the box. That said, I prefer the out of the box rules and I like tourneys.

I like tourneys for playing new opponents, meeting fellow gamers, checking out great armies, and having some laughs after the game with new friends. I wouldn't say that this edition is less suitable for tournament experiences, for those with my goals. If one is looking at it as a test of skill, perhaps it is not well suited for that when the rules are used 'as is'. Of course, based on that premise, it never was, so this edition is one that organizers will have to tweak.

That being the case, I'd say that nothing is really lost for most players. Tweak it, if you want. Don't tweak it, if you don't want. Overall, more people seem to be loving the base rule set than hating it, based on the limited sample size that I know. Agreed Warhammer 8th edition (Non tournament) Most fun, but most random happening crazy events, big spells lots of chaos. Makes the game fun for the whole family.

Warhammer 8th edition (Tournaments) Worst tournament edition for the above, but why do you play in a tournament? I play to have fun, so win lose or draw I don't really care if I went and had a great time, then all is well in my book. So definitely not the worst edition ever, maybe the worst hardcore tournament goers worst edition ever, but it is a lot more fun then all the older editions. Stomm wrote:Anyway, feel free to ignore any and all of my suggestions and just play the game 'out of the box'. Can I also decide not to play it out of the box, if I desire that? Without having you conservatively banging me on the head, for what you rightly describe simply as differing preferences? Of course, in the comfort of your own home or gaming group you can do whatever the heck you like.

Start playing with a robot-ninja hampster army if you like for all that it matter. Actually, that army exists already doesn't it? Asger wrote:If you can answer yes to my question above, I'd advice you to reconsider how you've been posting lately, because I don't believe a 'yes' would be consistent with your actual behaviour. Ah well, there is a line where 'your' hobby starts to interfere with everyone else's hobby, and that line is when your perspective alters and changes the game at an event that supposedly bills itself as 'The World Cup of Warhammer', or at least is referred as such in certain places. If an event that is supposedly the pinacle of the game isn't even actually playing said game, then how can it even pretend to do so?

Likewise it is plain to see that whereas the vast majority of other events have tried to adapt to 8th ed. The ETC is doing the reverse, and altering 8th to fit the ETC. It really is putting the cart before the horse and a gross case of mass hypocracy. Plus of course certain attitudes are akin to a red rag to a bull, and a failure to see perspectives other than their own merely entrenches the difference in said perspectives. Asger wrote:Personally I think things grow stale if they stay the same, and I much prefer having a continuously changing rules system. It doesn't in the slightest irritate me.

True to an extent, 8th ed. Is certainly the breath of fresh air that Warhammer needed. My brief experiences in 7th ed. Were unsatisfactory in the extreme, it had lost all pretence at being an actual wargame and devolved down into something more akin to rock-paper-scissors but with dice and toy soldiers. Quite how people could honestly say that the system itself was near perfect, yet it was just some army books that broke it really does make the mind boggle, certainly with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight of course. Asger wrote:Is it acceptable to you that a community that disagrees with your point of view, decides to do something else? Or do you want everyone to conform to your stance?

Should we forbid rugby because you prefer football? That's the point really isn't it? If the ETC was designed to be solely a closed-member-invite-only event, then fair enough, do whatever the heck you like.

But it isn't, at least it says that it isn't supposed to be. The community extends far beyond the, what is it 100, 200? Players and captains that have attended last year's and possibly previous events to that.

And therefore the wider community's views should be taken into account, and they are rather bombastically being ignored out of hand. Asger wrote: PS The hyperbole aside, the ETC restrictions can probably fit on a couple of pages. Certainly far less than the Q&As you have to print, photocopy, whatever Like I said, I don't like having to print out pages of FAQ's, etc. Write a system, fix it with FAQ's, Erratas, etc. Then fix it with a new edition a year or two later once the dust has settled.

If GW ever followed this model then I'd be a very happy camper indeed. They have to an extent with some of the Specialist Games, but then they've never made it into print with revised editions, just had them available as downloads, which is a real shame I'd say. Axis Mundi wrote:8th might be the worst tourney edition ever, but I'd say it's possibly the most enjoyable version yet. Perhaps the title of the thread could have been a bit more accurate. I really don't know about that, a O's & X's tournie would be pretty awful, each game would IIRC always end up with the O's winning.

It doesn't in of itself make for a bad tournie game, just one with very predictable results. I think perhaps that the 'percieved problem' with 8th ed. Is that it is actually the exact opposite of this, in that sometimes results can be rather random in nature, but this is part and parcel of the game, changing that changes the game to such an extent that it no longer is the game that you started off with. Likewise the systems being used to do so are the same old unimaginative blunt instuments that were seen under 7th ed.

Hard comp, ban, ban, restrict, compulsory. No evidence of lateral thinking in the slightest, which is a real shame I think. I f I saw an elegant comp pack, then I'd probably love it for its elegance alone, regardless of what it may or may not do to the game itself.

So far I have yet to see anything that jumps out at me as actually being well designed in the slightest, and poor design makes poor rules. Bugman wrote:People don't seem to betting that dwellers is there as one of the counter for the horde formation which otherwise would be rampant. Everything now has a counter if not more, having a unit which is a combined 500+ points and you expect it not to be targetted? Bugman That much is obvious, the problem is where said dweller's effectively 4+ kills most spellcasters, therefore making it far too effective as a character assasination spell, in many and my own opinion. Hopefully this will get rectified by an errata in the next update though. Squalie wrote:We're both using extremes, but if I pay $60 to watch a pay per view Boxing event and the fellow I'm cheering for gets knocked out in the first round, I can't ask for my money back.

Gas to drive to the local Boston Pizza to watch UFC 121-- $1. Food, drinks, and tip-- $40.00. Watching Cain Velasquez shut that blowhard Lesnar's mouth in under five minutes-- priceless.

Just because it's short doesn't mean it's not sweet, Squalie. @Stomm: My perception tells me that your view has gotten no support on the ETC forum. May that be the point you're missing? As the original poster, I'd like to clarify a few things. I've been playing since the end of 3rd edition, so I've pretty much played all the editions that matter. I didn't state that I thought 8th 'was' the worst, it was more of a question.

I guess what what really got under my skin was that 8th, IMO, had the chance of being a near perfect version of Warhammer and due to a few glaring mistakes on GW's part, it's not. I think most of the changes made in this edition were moves in the right direction, but some other added elements ruined it. For instance: Steadfast along with the new rules of stepping up and attacking in two ranks fixed the problems with infantry. Being able to use the Generals LD for steadfast and it not being negated when the unit is disrupted ruined those changes. Two steps forward, one step back.

As far as magic goes, the changes they made for the most part were positive. Where I think GW screwed up was in allowing all Wizards to be able to throw 6 dice at a spell. I believe they should have kept die limites based on the level of the wizard so that only level 4 casters could throw 6 dice at a spell (lv 4-6 die limit, lv 3-5, lv 2-4, lv1-3).

What I think most people hate isn't having a 300 point wizard take the miscast risk and throw 6 dice at a spell, it's when a 60 point lv 1 wizard does it and kills off 1200 points worth of models with one spell (I've seen this happen twice with purple sun, although both times it was against Ogres). Most of these nasty spells require a 25+ to get off, which isn't easy even with 6 dice.

What's easy is rolling two 6's and it's much easier with a power scroll. It doesn't matter if the spell requires 50+ to get off if you roll two 6's. Again, most of the problems that everyone is complaining about are fixed if that lv 1 can only throw 3 dice at the spell. Two steps forward, one step back. There's been a few responses in this long thread that just because people like myself are complaining about these issues that we're somehow killjoys. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to point out serious problems with the game in the hope that they're either addressed through comp or better yet, fixed with 9th edition. I know there's some of you who think things don't need to be fixed at all, but I have a pretty good feeling based on conversations with other players and just from the comments in this thread that with a bit of tweaking 8th could have been much better.

I love the game of Warhammer, if I didn't I wouldn't have been playing it all these years and investing all the time and money that's required to play this game. I just get the impression that GW doesn't ever fully playtest either the core rules or any of the army books and it gets frustrating.

Dafruk wrote:Bof, or possibly even Meh. So basically 'the better prepared you are the luckier you are.' Followed by 'witty remarks prove nothing.' A [mis*]quotation of Pasteur met by a quotation from Voltaire. * Entirely deliberate on Jedy's part. Pasteur (understandably) was talking about the field of observation rather than the field of battle. I'm afraid they both passed over my head as to whom they were from but obviously had a degree of familiarity in terms of meaning.

(jedy's frequently being used by sports managers).