8Th Edition Rumours

I actually find that some of the rumours are making me cautiously optimistic about the new edition. That said, plenty of the rumours are making me nervous too, so all in all I guess I'm suspending judgement. However, I have some comments on most of the specific changes you are mentioning.

With regards to percentages I think you might be envisioning the worst possible way percentages could work. We already are forces to include some regular troopers in our armies with the slot system (eg 2+ core units). The percentage system would not change this, at least if it takes the form of something like "Core troops 25+%", depending on the exact numbers I don't think it will cause a problem if the categories are kept that general. Of course, if it's something like "10+% warriors" "10-30% thunderers/quarrellers" then it will be ridiculous and force extremely identical armies. I don't think even GW would do that, though. That said, I don't see how reintroducing percentages will make anything better than the current system already is, it seems like an unnecessary complication in choosing one's army - especially if they are retaining the slot system too.

I also agree with your overall statement that the general system of the game isn't too broken, but merely that some (many?) army books need to be recalibrated and -balanced with each other.

Concerning one save only I agree completely. I can't see that making the game better in any way. I expect to ignore this change (if it's true), AT LEAST until new army books are out, when it might be balanced. I would still intensely dislike it though.

I disagree with you about fear/terror though! I don't see how a static bonus to combat resolution is of no use to a dragon. Even though it gets most of its points from kills, a static bonus would still be useful. Personally I find auto-breaking is ridiculous. Not because it's silly that some units are fearsome and more easily makes the enemy flee, but because just a single zombie in favor of the fear-causers will cause even the most hardened Ironbreaker, warrior og Longbeard to flee. I play regularly against VC, and I'm sick of having to spend 100+ points on runes just to feel safe from auto-breaking (I usually don't, but I feel like I always lack defense against the auto-breaking), just because he can field huge, dirt-cheap blocks of zombies. If auto-breaking should be kept it should either be differentiated more, or more units should be immune to fear. Or less units should cause fear (and more than simply outnumbering should be required, perhaps not outnumbering 2-1, but more than one single model). Skeletons and zombies just are not very scary. Sure, it's a rotting corpse etc. but is that really any more terrifying than all the other non-fear-causing horrors in the Warhammer world? Are they more fearsome than Chaos Warriors, who don't cause fear?
Terror does become a little boring if it's really reduced to merely a +2 static combat bonus. I probably would agree that a terror-causing dragon ought to gain a little something extra from it. I'm not sure what though.

Regarding two ranks fighting in close combat I'm really on the fence. Not because I find it's "unrealistic", but because I think it will make combat go ridiculously fast. Close combats are over very quickly already, I don't think they need to be sped up!
However, realism seems to be your main criticism, and I think it actually can be defended. Obviously, a person standing with a sword behind another guy will have a hard time hitting the enemy on the other side. Fair enough. But only if we are supposed to imagine combat as relatively orderly with opposing ranks beating on each other without loosening the formation or ranks. Perhaps the combats are supposed to be far more chaotic than the minis can represent, the minis are already an abstraction it's not a huge step to say that they might represent the two units crashing together, with friends and foes mixed together in a mass of death and violence. If that's what is supposed to be represented it would make perfect sense that more than the front rank gets to attack.
As for people stepping up and still getting to attack I still don't necessary see a problem of realism. I mean, how hard is it to both take a step or two forward AND swing your weapon at the same time?
I could see good reasons for not making the change, but primarily based on the idea that combat would be over too quickly, not because the changes would make close combat less realistic.


Darn, that comment ended up being a bit longer than planned. Oh well...
Am I completely off? If so I'd like to hear how

For percentages, I am not envisioning much bad stuff happening to Dwarfs, and it fact, it will probably be beneficial. I am more talking about other armies (of which I play 5!) that will take more of a hit than us. I like Dragons, Manticores, and Griffons, and really want them to stick around at 2250 and (1000 against high elves). I think many of us forget it is a fantasy game sometimes. I feel like the minimum core requirements along with everything else are enough to balance it out as is, and it seems that you agree with me there. I am against the restriction on character points.

Thank you, and I feel like the age-old expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" should apply to warhammer. The ruleset isn't what's broken right now.

As for one armour save, my main disagreement is it goes a long way towards the dumbing down of the system. The only thing worse would be an AP system like 40k, which I feel is totally out of place in fantasy. Spamming little attacks will become the norm if the opponent just rolls one dice instead of two for their armour, as it is a lot more likely to get through. Could you imagine the damage a repeater crossbow gunline would do if there was only one save? Quite a bit more, considering they'd be able to kill lone characters with relative ease.

As for auto-breaking, they have to A ) beat you in combat and B ) outnumber you. Dwarfs with enough SCR and high armour should be able to hold off zombies with ease. However, I could see a toning down of fear, or perhaps a third tier of fear for things like zombies and the like. Maybe just undead cause fear to certain Ld values? Either way, I like fear as it is (and not just because I also play TK) as they are still supernatural horrors in massive numbers, which would worry any soldier except the most elite or the ones who are fearsome on their own. If you're having trouble against VC though, try the Anvil. it's anti-fear can be quite nice. Maybe adjustments to fear could be okay (extra SCR) but terror becomes a bit boring as you said. A Dragon landing right next to you, even without it charging your unit, would be quite the ordeal.

As for the realism of two ranks fighting, I imagine my Dwarfs as a solid shield wall, so if there is chaos and intermingling as you said, I am quite disappointed in my bearded men! Lines are meant to be held, and that's how I imagine warriors with shields would like to hold them. Also, stepping up and attacking is not very realistic at all if you consider the fact there will be a corpse there as well. Bodies don't disappear, and you don't instantly step forward when your friend gets killed. Also, you never count on your friend dying so you'll never be ready for that instant reaction. You reposition yourself to try and keep your guard up. By stepping forward and hacking away all gung-ho you leave yourself open and your poor dying buddy has a chance of feeling his comrade's blade in his back as he's falling down. It is VERY hard to take a couple steps and swing, as you are trying to still maintain a line and not break out of it or stop supporting it, not to mention the fact you would leave yourself open and there would be a corpse falling towards you. I could see slayers doing it, but not many other dwarfs.

Oh, and I agree. The game really doesn't need speeding up in terms of combat, unless you're doing a zombie horde vs zombie horde battle, in which case you're doing it all wrong anyways.

So no, you were not too far off in any regard. Thank you for the comment.