saurus:
Hi all,
Although the rules posted on Warseer by Grim are not official, I have noticed that some rumours will affect the Indy GT book and will not obviously be covered by the errata in the new rulebook.
The one I have noticed is Master and Servant rule which states “Only Chaos Dwarf Warriors and Chaos Dwarf Annihilators count toward the minimum number of required Core Unit choices” The key word here is number and choices, for me implies a specific number which is indicted by 7th ed rules.
A simple wording chance by Kevin and Matt would solves this problem, but I hope that this would provide an opportunity to change the rule itself. The reason is I find it overly restrictive in creating different types of armies for differing strategies. This rule forces you to take a more defensive style of army because of dwarven slow movement.
I understand why it exists under 7th to stop people taking 2 units of wolfboyz or rabble and spending the points elsewhere. Under 8th Ed. you must spend 25% on core and if CDW and CDA only count that target it will severly restrict potential army strategy and make most CD armies look and play very similar, therefore less exciting to play. People will say well if you dont like M3 dont play CD. I disagree with this point. I like CD because of the variety of movement, it allows different playing styles ie: bull centaurs, flyers, daemon eaters, wolfboyz etc. But forcing people to take a minimum 25% core of M3 would be detrimental to the variety and funess of the CD army. This is why regular Dwarfs are criticised for being a very plain and boring army to play. As my friend Dave says "would you like your Dwarven gunline served with or without gyrocopters?"
My personal opinion is that the rule should stay but be changed to something similar to this:
Master and Servant: At least one unit of Chaos Dwarf Warriors must be fielded in a Dwarfs of Chaos army. Rabble do not count towards the minimum 25% core selection criteria.
This is a superior rule IMO as you must take a unit of regular warriors, but does not force you to make a quarter of your army M3, thereby giving you room to make a flexible list that does not have to be defensive. It also prevents rabble spam.
Anyway that is my opinion, but it would be a shame if the 25% minimum core choices had to be M3.
saurus
Thommy H:
I’m pretty sure that rule exists because the concept of Greenskin slaves not “counting” has been ingrained in the Chaos Dwarf army since 4th Edition. They used to have to take at least one unit of Chaos Dwarf Warriors and, in the Ravening Hordes list, Hobgoblins don’t count as compulsory Core units. That’s where the rule in the Indy GT book comes from - it has very little to do with balance. I wouldn’t expect it to change in a hypothetical 8th Edition update.
saurus:
I share your cinicism on this point Tom, but there is a fundamental difference here between Kevin and Matt’s book compared to the regular ones. That is they have the ability to change it if something is not right. GW does change things in erratas, but as a rule of thumb, if something is stupid ie: “steam tank does not give half points for half damage” or “treeman can stand and shoot from rear and flank charges” it does not get changed.
The real issue I think is that Annihilators will be broken in the new rules as larger unit sizes become mainstream, as they will always get their points back. 1 die per model in the unit under 8th will mean they will be an auto choice. Something needs to change there or they will be crazy overpowered. Ultimately nothing can be done about it, but considering Kevin and Matt do have the power to make adjustments I personally believe they should.
I believe for 8th Ed. an update is warranted.
saurus
Thommy H:
Annihilators are already horribly broken. And I’m not cynical - I actually think the limitation is fine and I was disagreeing with your suggestion. I fully support this rule not changing with 8th Edition, since there’s nothing about 8th Edition that specifically effects it. Yes, it would be an opportunity to make a bunch of sweeping changes, but I don’t think they’ll do that.
Not that it affects me in the slightest either way since I don’t use the book.
cornixt:
Can we wait for the actual rules to be published before we start deciding on changes
Baggronor:
Can we wait for the actual rules to be published before we start deciding on changes
Tell that to the entire Warhammer community lol :) Everywhere I look its, "Omg, we're nerfed in 8th because of this rule that we have taken totally out of context" and "These troops will be totally imba in 8th, even though I haven't seen the rules yet".
Kered:
Hear, hear!
We just have to wait and hope.
Grimstonefire:
Everywhere I look its, "Omg, we're nerfed in 8th because of this rumoured rule that we have taken totally out of context" and "These troops will be totally imba in 8th, even though I haven't seen the rules yet".
Baggronor
Corrected that for you. :) Lots of people seem to be panicking, putting their stuff on ebay, abandoning warhammer forever, buying hard hats as they wait for the sky to fall etc.
All over rumours that are not even confirmed yet...
Presumably Kev or Matt will be doing an 8th ed updated version, picking up any errors or typos that need changing as well.
mattbird:
yeah, we’ll have to do something. Haven’t spoken with Kevin about it yet, but- do you guys think an errata pdf will be better, or should we do a 2.0 version of the book?
Nicodemus:
yeah, we'll have to do something. Haven't spoken with Kevin about it yet, but- do you guys think an errata pdf will be better, or should we do a 2.0 version of the book?
mattbird
Would version 2.0 be very difficult? I'm assuming once it's finalized a lot of the errata stuff could just be pasted into the Indy GT book, replacing old text anyway. As Grimstonefire also points out, it's a good opportunity to revise text and fix up typos, etc.
~N
Ronshank:
I love that everyone is so gung-ho about the new rulebook coming out but if there’s one thing being on this site has taught me it’s not to count my chickens before they have hatched. For that reason I am not putting much credance in all the rulebook rumours. I’ll check it out once I can buy it and have the actual 8th ed rules. I’m sure alot of this stuff can be put off 'til then. I mean wouldn’t you hate to have put hours into working out potiential bugs if they turn out to be red herrings?
Baggronor:
Seeing as the book is a download anyway, I think a 2.0 would be the ideal option. It would mainly just be pasting new wordings in here and there I think?
Thommy H:
And please change Annihilators, guys. Honestly, I might even use the thing if there wasn’t a unit which could essentially automatically kill a quarter of any enemy unit within range.
mattbird:
you are concerned with the supposed shift towards big infantry units making them too powerful?
Thommy H:
I’m not, but only because I think they have a much deeper issue anyway. There’s no denying that they’re very, very useful against large enemy units and if the metagame develops towards bigger units, they’re going to become that much more lethal. But I think the rules are already flawed and need to be completely redone. I don’t see why anyone would not just take a whole army of Annihilators. Against an average unit, they’ll pretty much always force a Panic test, because they’ll kill 25% on average. I don’t like mathhammer, but there’s no way that’s balanced.
mattbird:
Have you tried them out in any games? So far most people have seemed fine with them, and people have not been taking exclusively annihilators, as there are better things to take.
Causing a Panic test is not proof of being unbalanced, as many units and spells cause auto- psych tests.
Thommy H:
Yes, but none of those things are just random units - it’s a specific ability. The Panic test thing was just to put their killing power into context: they’ll probably hit 50% of a unit regardless of their size, they’ll probably kill 50% of the ones they hit, which is an average 25% kill rate, which will trigger a Panic test. A round of shooting causing a Panic test is by no means unusual, but it is if you can do it to an enemy unit of potentially infinite size. If someone came to a battle with a unit of 100 models, a unit of 10 Annihilators has a fair chance of killing 25 of them. They can potentially kill all of them. That’s insane. I’m giving an extreme example, but with rumoured abilities like “Horde” coming in and bonuses to large units, we could actually see huge units taking to the field.
Now, I haven’t used it in a battle, and I know that some of the best rules are ones that look broken but actually just change up the way games play (like ASF for High Elves), but it’s really easy to see how this incredible ability could be horribly abused. How can it possibly be fair to scythe through a unit of 40 Goblins or something with only 10 Chaos Dwarfs or, in fact, even less - as far as I can see, the basic firing method of Annihilators doesn’t get any worse as the number of models in the unit decreases. Can I still potentially hit every model in an enemy unit if I only have one guy left?
hashuts lil helper:
because against other units, such as the really dangerous ones, they are useless as teats on a boar. That is why you do not see whole armies of them, one hydra can ruin 899 points of annihlators. they are a paper to infantry’s rock, and monsters scissors.
Baggronor:
Y’know, I have to agree on the Annihilators - potentially hitting everyone in a unit is pretty crazy and one of the reasons why I don’t use the list (also why my gaming group isn’t keen on allowing it either).
Can I still potentially hit every model in an enemy unit if I only have one guy left?
You need 5 guys, all in range with LoS. But still, spamming 5-10 man units would be potentially horrendous vs some (most) armies. 15 Annihilators (S5 volley) will basically kill about 35-40% of most T3 infantry units they target, no matter the size. Thats mental; not even Space Marines do that. The way to abuse it would be to spam small to medium-sized units of them and concentrate fire. Take some melee stuff to mop up the stragglers and artillery for the big stuff and off you go.
shudder
Not that I’ve made such a list or seen such abuse (I could be totally wrong), but I’ll have a go at making one if you want to see.
mattbird:
they basically on par with the RH blunderbusses. Not sure I see the big difference in effectiveness. I have played both versions, and the blunderbuss in RH are just as, if not moreso brutal than the annihilators against infantry.