|
Post by wilsonthenarc on May 10, 2017 12:21:34 GMT
Now if there were a suitably nasty signature spell out there that would be another story. Pumped version of FIREBALL!!!! Right?
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on May 10, 2017 12:24:02 GMT
That said, if that change were implemented, then someone else would have another grip, and another person would show up with another change. I think the whole thing falls apart very quickly, so I like the spirit of this forum just the way it is. 8th edition, unmodified! I do thoroughly agree with this. This is the problem with things like 9th age. You are never going to produce something which satisfies everyone's gripes, GW had 8 goes at it and got nowhere near! I do think it is a bit of an internet myth that monsters aren't viable. You need to take some precautions in the early turns if you do not want them shooting at, but that is just part of the game isn't it? It has always been that way I have seen people roll 1's to wound monsters when they needed a 2+. I have seen people roll a 3 for # of wounds when they needed 4 wounds to kill a monster. The monster survived and got into combat. In combat, the monster was safe from cannonballs. The monster then thunder-stomped some chumps. People rolls 1's and it's all part of an ecosystem.
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on May 10, 2017 12:40:33 GMT
My monsters get cannonballed a lot. The other way around, I can never hit his monsters because he hides them too well. Conclusion: I suck, not the rules Personal conclusion: I'm going to stay away from monsters for a while
|
|
|
Post by TheREALricksalamone on May 10, 2017 14:02:37 GMT
Now if there were a suitably nasty signature spell out there that would be another story. Pumped version of FIREBALL!!!! Right? Pumped Searing Doom against armored troops!
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on May 10, 2017 19:46:49 GMT
Touche
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on May 11, 2017 0:10:12 GMT
That said, if that change were implemented, then someone else would have another grip, and another person would show up with another change. I think the whole thing falls apart very quickly, so I like the spirit of this forum just the way it is. 8th edition, unmodified! This is my general feeling as well. If a 9th edition had been created and was a tweaking of 8th to create a better game I would have supported it and played it. But at this point I think the best thing to do is stick with the base 8th rules otherwise changes cascade and it becomes a slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on May 12, 2017 13:11:21 GMT
I agree generally but I wouldn't mind seeing a Coleman designed army book rewrite or some of the End Times special rules for armies like beastmen be part of 'standard 8th.'
I think there are three scenarios 1) playing with people you don't know well. Stay very basic 8th ed 2) Playing with long time friends allow tweaks/scenarios 3) Competitive play (in as much as that happens now a days) where you may want to better balance the army books and rules set. Any sort of composition rules you like. ETC FAQ/2014 rules are pretty good for that but are pretty drastic changes to the main rules.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on May 13, 2017 5:03:58 GMT
That said, if that change were implemented, then someone else would have another grip, and another person would show up with another change. I think the whole thing falls apart very quickly, so I like the spirit of this forum just the way it is. 8th edition, unmodified! This is my general feeling as well. If a 9th edition had been created and was a tweaking of 8th to create a better game I would have supported it and played it. But at this point I think the best thing to do is stick with the base 8th rules otherwise changes cascade and it becomes a slippery slope. Agreed! Ultimately people would further splinter into subgroups based on the types of changes they wanted to see. Our 8th edition community is already small enough as is. The best way to keep it intact is to stick with the official rules, IMHO.
|
|