Kirb your enthusiasm!
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit

Thursday, August 18, 2011
Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition - Balance
Posted by
Unknown
The latest edition of Fantasy is a bit of an enigma. It comes across much better compared to previous editions and in most respects, plays a lot better. There are however a few things which stand out. One is the randomness of a lot of aspects within the rules, specifically terrain and charges. Whilst it's pretty easy to simply ignore the terrain rules we have to wonder what they were thinking in regards to having a random amount of terrain which have random effects. Terrain in 5th edition 40k, even though there are strict guidelines, are bad enough because so many people don't follow them. When you do follow them and specifically have line of sight blocking terrain, well 40k plays a lot better. With this in mind they had a good template on which to base things and threw all semblance of order out the window. Plain odd... Random charges also really hurts. Those double 1's or combination of low numbers do come up and whilst obviously getting as close as possible minimises this, having a unit which is in charge range of your opponent 95% of the time fail to charge, well that hurts. This is mildly comparable to difficult terrain tests in 40k but as many will point out, they don't like the randomness in that either.
And then we turn to magic - specifically the 'ultmiate' spells of many of the regular lores in the rulebook. The raw ability of these spells to simply devastate whole units in single turns is staggering and this is where a lot of 8th edition can come unstuck. Not that magic can decimate units but to the extent and ease that it can and if you cannot defend against this or do the same back to your opponent, you are very likely to lose. Consider what Nikephoros points out in this post - there is a semblance of balance in terms of army composition to 'address' the power of magic. This displays itself as follows:
Magic/Warmachines > Mass units/hordes
Mass units/hordes > multiple small units (MSU)
MSU > magic/warmachines
Magic and Warmachines decimate large bodied units. Their damage is often predicated on having a lot of models to damage. Warmachines use blasts or lines to determine damage and with the block formations of Fantasy, if these hit they will cause a lot of damage. The ultimate magic spells often force models to pass tests to survive and obviously the more models that need to test, the more models which are likely to fail. There are also blast magic spells as well, particularly RIP (remain in play) spells which can run around causing damage for multiple turns. All in all, being a large unit against magic and warmachines sucks.
On the flip side, smaller units care far less. It's harder to hit them with large blasts or lines or at least hit a lot of them at once and spells which force pass or fail tests have less impact on units with less bodies. The problem with MSU units is of course their damage output and their inability to shift large units thanks to steadfast. They are also far more vulnerable to damage from conventional means such as shooting and close combat to the point where they are in effective. MSU can survive a barrage of magic and warmachine firepower great but you are vulnerable to normal shooting and need multiple units to charge at once to have any chance of breaking large units.
What this ends up being is a world of rock-paper-scissors - what people commonly believe 40k is when it's not. There are clear advantages and disadvantages for each unit type and if armies of only those unit make-ups faced each other upon the table-top, one army would have a clear advantage. If one could incorporate all of these aspects into an army list though, they would have an apparently balanced army list. Unfortunately, whilst certainly possible, this is does not seem to be the case in terms of how the game unfolds and we look back to magic as the one factor that can unhinge this.
Let's take a couple of armies as an example. Both have excellent casters which can throw dice at ultimate spells with miscast protection. Large units which do a couple roles really well. Some Warmachines backing them up to further cause damage to large opposing units and provide early ranged firepower. Scouts to movement block in early phases of the game. Both have some MSU units to give more movement options, harass warmachines, avoid massive firepower, etc. Who wins can depend a lot upon player ability of course but let's assume both players are equal in every respect. The winner is then nearly always decided upon who kills the other's mage first. Not only does this take a lot of firepower away from your opponent but it hurts their defenses against magic for the rest of the game. This means in terms of list building one doesn't really have to focus on all three aspects of the rock-paper-scissors premise but rather ensure they can eliminate their opponent's rock (magic) whilst protecting their own. By then having a weakness to paper (MSU) they can cover this with their scissors (horde units) if they can ensure their survival by eliminating the rock (magic) as early as possible or vice versa.
Now let's assume magic was less powerful. Let your imagination run wild on how this might be but let's say warmachines become the more reliable way to deal with hordes with magic acting as a supplementary force. Warmachines are a lot less reliable than high level mages with miscast protection with misfiring and artillery dice added in. Thus, whilst they are still powerful against hordes they aren't the be all and end all that magic currently is. This would still leave a rock-paper-scissors design in terms of units which is fine when they can all be incorporated into a singular army which isn't going to be rick-rolled by an army not following this principle. With the reduction in the power of the ultimate magic spells, supporting spells might see more regular use. They are certainly used currently but more often than not play a distant second fiddle to damage spells of massive power.
Regardless, if this were the case, I imagine Fantasy would be a lot more balanced. You would see the theory of taking magic/warmachines/MSU/hordes applied more readily, rather than focusing on a couple of those aspects. It would be harder to make uni-dimensional lists and do well against any list opposing you which you currently can do with massive magic ability. There would still be some issues in regards to rules (i.e. terrain, random charge distance, etc.) but there wouldn't be this one over-riding factor which can unhinge whole armies. With that in mind 8th edition Fantasy is massively better than previous incarnations - just with this massive elephant in the room. It's still fun to play but as Nike has been pointing out in his series, it really is the 'beer and pretzels' game by Games Workshop. You can play it competitively and there are a set of skills which are required to play the game well. You just have to understand there are going to be games that are lost and won simply due to magic and this can limit the competitive application of the game. It's still fun, don't get me wrong, just don't get butthurt when you lose or when someone points out the inherent imbalance within 8th edition.
Comments (35)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Loading comments...
Post a new comment
Comments by IntenseDebate
Reply as a Guest, or login:
Go back
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Connected as (Logout)
Not displayed publicly.
Posting anonymously.
Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition - Balance
2011-08-18T22:00:00+10:00
Unknown
Analysis|Philosophy|Warhammer Fantasy|
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Shadowmancer · 711 weeks ago
The only terrain I worry too much about with Randomness is woods and the occasional river.
With the paper scissors rock thing, an ideal list for non top-tier armies covers two of those three options. My Beastmen run Magic and big units. I feel I could take on most lists and have at least a fun game out of it.
I think that people think that Magic is too overpowered, I think it might be the other way the dispel phase is underpowered for most armies.
Ajax · 711 weeks ago
Badger · 711 weeks ago
Ajax · 711 weeks ago
I'd rather have the occassional unlucky roll, than the ever-present arguments of yesteryear.
Archnomad 70p · 711 weeks ago
Shadowmancer · 711 weeks ago
Badger · 711 weeks ago
Think about it twice. A Tactical squad can either:
-stand still and charge
-stand still and fire both its special and heavy weapons from the top hatch
-move 6' and fire its special weapon from the hatch
-move 12' and pop smoke
-move 12', disembark and shoot the enemy point blank
By comparison, an infantry block can only move forward and charge. And I did not even mention Combat Tactics, Combat Squads, tank shocking, or the run move. The only thing WFB has over 40k are charge reactions.
Sethis · 711 weeks ago
A good article, clearly explaining in a pretty straightforward way the current issues facing Fantasy players. Me likey.
Badger · 711 weeks ago
Moreover, I think it is actually wrong to consider that Fantasy's movement phase is somehow more tactical. Sure, it won't forgive poor positioning, but then, so does inadvertently getting in Melta or charge range. And individual model placing matters a lot in 40k's assault phase.
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
Having a rino is not tatical, it is hidding in a little box. In 40k play tyanids or tau if you want tactical.
The rules you list are for SM for the most part.
Combat tatics is a SM thing, over powered by the new FAQ and is not part of every army.
Combat sqauds once agian a SMish only rule. If you where only fighting SM this would be a deployment strat. In fantasy you play with what you have for units. Like every other Non SM army in 40k.
The run phaze = the march in fantasy.
Tank shocking..... thier are no tanks in fantasy. But thier are impact hits from diffrent units. Also monsters with after combat effects, thunderstop and the like. All add thought on tatics in how to deal with them.
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
The movement phaze in both games can win or lose it for you. In Fantasy you are forced to look ahead a couple of turns to see what can counter charge you if you get held up in combat. Dealing with a magic phaze adds to the tactic issues.
In 40k this is not the case most times. I have very rarly seen combat go more then one full game turn.
Badger · 711 weeks ago
I also fail to see how Tau are somehow more 'tactical'. Tyranids, yeah, I could see why. But Tau? Playing a Vanilla SM army is an exercise in assessing the right target priorities. There's a reason scrubs complain about Vanilla Marines being underpowered while praising Daemons, Orks, and CSM. You can't simply run your Tactical squads forward and club the opposing seal to death. Moreover, being weaker does not necessarily make an army more tactical. Less forgiving, perhaps.
Space Marines may have their own special rules (then, so do most armies), but the most competitive armies share the same basis: versatile units who synergize well with their transport. Again, this makes the game far less predictable, which is my main grip with Fantasy as it is.
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
This is my point. I see transport after transport in 40k. I can tell what going to happen and when most of the time. It dosen't matter which SM army it is. the patters are the same. If it is a objective game or kill points the pater differs only a little.
IG prefures to never get out of the box, for the most part.
Tau is a army that you have to think realy carfully in play. One mistake and it is over most of the time. it requires a hight level of skill to play Tau and win. The can be a brutal army to play with or vs. Tactic wise they have a even harder time as everyone want to be in combat with them. They suck at it, but they can attack when need be.
Tyranids tacticly are diffrent just because of the lack of transports. Kirby and ofher have talked about their str and weakness at legth.
Badger · 711 weeks ago
And while I do agree that at a high level of play, transport tactics tend to be predictable, the average player simply fail to grasp these at all. 40k is indeed more predictable in its army builds, but tend to be far more versatile in terms of gameplay, as missions and opponents can entirely change the way an army plays. The fact that static gunlines can exist and win consistently in Battle is a testimony to this flaw.
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
My main gripe in 40k is the lack of diffrent army play styles. SM play like SM no mater if the are gray knights, Wolves, BA or VA SM. Razor spam is razor spam no mater how you play it. IG tank lot is the same over and over agian. Of the 2 systems I say at tournament 40k is the most predicitable of the two systems.
1inchwarriors 39p · 711 weeks ago
Otterway · 711 weeks ago
In a game of 40k, if you roll consistantly below average for the entire game - something I do with appalling frequency - you will lose (unless the same thing is happening to your opponent). Good tactics, manouvering and army selection can minimise the damage, but will ultimately not save you.
In a game of fantasy, if you outmanouver your opponent, you can win a game even if the dice gods have personally leaned down and laid their blackest curse upon you. It is possible to defeat another unit in melee without rolling a single success - but only if you've already won the war of positioning.
I admit the this is less true of 8th than it was of 7th, but still very much applies.
Badger · 711 weeks ago
You can also technically win a 40k game while doing minimal damage, by delaying your enemy in an objective game - there's a reason gunlines are not viable in 40k - or taking the easy KP first. 5th Edition 40k is far more tactical than any Fanatasy Edition.
1inchwarriors 39p · 711 weeks ago
Badger · 711 weeks ago
Not that Battle cannot be played competitively or is an entirely shallow game, mind you. But claiming that it is more tactical than 40k due to its more complex ruleset remains a common Internet fallacy.
N.I.B. · 711 weeks ago
8th ed needs different comp/restrictions to be somewhat balanced for tournament play.
So?
FYI, the tournament I'm attending in a month use restrictions on the magic and shooting phase and different victory conditions from the standard missions.
Example related to this article: you can never cast any spell with more than 5 dice and the 6th spell of any magic lore cannot be cast with Irresistible Force.
PDF (rules in english pg 7-8): http://www.fantasiaweb.se/Gismo/Bildarkiv/org/17/...
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
Magic for some races is the stong point nerfing is unfair to them. It is that same a tournys that limit unit sizes to stop Horde armys. It is a unnessary messing of the rules.
N.I.B. · 711 weeks ago
´Hurrh durr, I got the double six on Dwellers and you rolled a 1 for your lvl 4, I won'
The other major problem (that Kirby miss or at least doesn't bring up in this article) is the deathstars. The tournament above addresses them with the 'max 450 points in a unit' restriction, which is a welcome change. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
Wyrmnax · 711 weeks ago
The big problem is that magic is too powerful. To the point that no army is ever better served taking a combat lord instead of a mage. To the point that it wins games by itself.
Then we have quite a few smaller problems - Random charge ranges , magic not scaling at all with different point sizes in games, lolrandom terrain, cavalry that is overpriced throughout all of the armybooks, dragons that are literally unfieldable within the current rules... but those are all lesser problems to the big elephant that is magic.
Sethis · 711 weeks ago
This. As a previous Warriors of Chaos player, I really liked having Lords that could bitch slap entire units in combat. Now I hamstring myself without a level 4 Tzeentch caster with trimmings. Any system that allows someone to roll 6 dice on turn 1 and win the game there and then is a broken system, regardless of point size, army composition or anything else.
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
You don't need magic to win in the game. I play Woodelves and Brits. The Brits need one or two lvl 2 caster and a Combat lord.
They have to take cavalry :D . it is very powerful when played right. as for the rest of the armys cavalry hears a thought. How many armys are prepaired to fight it? Chaos knights have a 1+ armor a unit of 10 to 12 with a lord is down right nasty. Most army can't deal with the armor saves well. When used right as a flaning unit they will own most combats. Most large block can't deal with them alon as the have other block and units to wory about. Most armys don't field a answer to them.
Dragons have issues but i find most people run them in to a unit bythem selvess and wonder why the lose. Not playing them right is the biggest issue. Also the point level is to low to play them. right. you need at lest 3000 to make them work in an army.
The use of radom forest i like. Most people don't use the other stuff. I think they should have just made all terrian random, with the random roll for how many. The rivers and wood have been great fun.
Sethis · 711 weeks ago
You don't need to fight it. Cavalry runs smack into a unit of 30+ infantry, kills many, loses some in return, and then find out that the infantry are stubborn due to having more ranks, and generally Ld 7-9 with a reroll from their BSB. Consequently the infantry unit will never break, and will tie up or drive off the cavalry in a few turns. Steadfast and the new step-up rules means Heavy cav either lose to static combat res and run, or spend three turns killing an infantry block, by which point the game is over. Not a good use of the 600+ pts you sank into it.
Any army that doesn't have magic or war machines that ignore saves is a badly built army. Most armies have a Level 4 with at least one spell that doesn't allow saves of any kind, and plenty of others have level 2s with things like Lore of Metal which is designed specifically to take Chaos Knights and insert their weapons where the sun shineth not. Armies without a Level 4 (yeah, right) generally have lots of Cannon/Stone Throwers/Bolt Throwers (Hi Dwarves!) which ignore your 1+ all day long. At the very least they put lots of blackpowder wounds on you giving your 40pt models a 3+ save.
Talonwinter · 711 weeks ago
I can't recall the lasttime i saw a Metal mage at a tournament. It is easy to say oh this counters that. it is another thing to have it in your army.
Well wood elves based around a Beast mage is very nasty. It has no War machines or mage that can hurt a lot of units. But is very good at supporting the rest of the army in killing thing. Even with life magic you still have to roll dwealers.
Dwellers cost 24 to cast at 24" that is hard even on 6 dice. It is not a easy spell to get off.
Dwarven WM are nice but agian how often do you see them. That they have one turn of shooting before they are in combat..... can we say, over run over and over.
Guestivus · 711 weeks ago
Wyrmnax · 711 weeks ago
1) Milimeter haggling. Would have been better off by allowing premeasuring
2) Not permiting slower armies to ever get the charge on faster armies when charging was way too powerful.
Guestivus · 711 weeks ago
Nikephoros · 711 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 711 weeks ago
Design Company Logo · 684 weeks ago