Warhammer-Empire.com
Between the Battles & the Art ... => The Count's Tavern => Topic started by: Finlay on May 20, 2014, 05:54:12 PM
-
So I'm not going to repeat my opinions on 8th ed, as I' sure you all know them and are bored of them, but jump into something Fandir mentioned which I hadn't previously given much thought to.
ASF for charging models.
Now, this was removed to stop people charging in, slaughtering 7 models, taking nothing in return, and running your infantry down in one go.
With steadfast and stepping up, was removing ASF for charging necesary? I think it was.
I think it would be good to bring it back, with the slight proviso that it doesn't allow you rerolls to hit, no matter your iniatiative.
Might make it more benefitial to play more tactically and try and get off charges, where as now it doesn't really matter unless you have a lance.
-
Maybe a bigger boost to combat res instead? +2 or +3?
Or as certain weapons/units are better at charging or being charged, increase their bonuses?
Like spears get armour piercing 2 when getting charged. Maybe halberds armour piercing 1.
Maybe both! Combat bonus for chargers, increased usefulness of defensive weapons for chargees...
-
I wouldn´t make rules overly complicated if you have to check up everytime you charge what bonus you get it will slow the game down.
I like step up....and I like fighting from two ranks. I would remove re rolling to hit for ASF all over. Just striking before the enemy...Overall get rid of re rolling for so many models. Yes that might mean removing hatred from the Empire again I think it is just too good and takes the fun out of it.
Also I am not sure I like the random charge ranges. I would prefer to have the double movement back also the movement cost for wheeling.
-
Double movement = 2 units standing roughly 8" away from each other trying to goad each other into a failed charge. I am so glad random charges came into being.
Not sure that say +2 combat res for charging will require looking up every time.
And weapon rules already have bonuses for different uses so I think they would get learnt pretty fast. But I'm mostly happy with how things are already so I guess it doesn's matter either way.
-
That's not bad...IF you have cavalry!
That would kill Dwarfs.
Brets... no brainer.
There would need to be some defensive counter-balance. Like a unit that is charging a unit that chooses to "hold" must take a dangerous terrain test. This could represent the "shieldwall" effect of the massed bodies. This would be taken before the charging unit gets to strike, BUT the charging unit does gain ASF, regardless of weapon choice.
Could you imagine our White Wolves?
-
I don't think +2 combat res would kill dwarfs really.
in fact it wouldnt have an impact at all on the "meaty" combats, but would make the chaff battles interesting. Gyro's charging non steadfast things would be pretty good, if they were out of the range of the bsb!
-
I think it would be good to bring it back, with the slight proviso that it doesn't allow you rerolls to hit, no matter your iniatiative.
They need to change this rule anyway. Elves are ridiculously overpowered with rerolls to hit.
-
Yes and it is annoying for the enemy....picking up all dices....oh and I re roll all those.
-
Hmmm. Maybe +2 CR would be the way to go. ASF on the charge would destroy elves.
-
Nope they strike simultanously and if you compare the point costs.....they aren´t much more expensive than our infantry.
-
I don't think dark elves are doing that much better than they were without ASF. I know it's handy, but I don't think it's game breaking.
-
Given that asf was introduced initially to balance the under performing he elite choices, what would you do for them without asf. Or do you think they are now lost cost and good enough to be fine without?
-
The random move idea is good... however... it's TOO much.
M + 2D6 is madness.
2xM + D3 would be more like it.
Ranked units flank charging should remove steadfast.
MR should (and going by some of the choices in Wood elves and Dwarfs: will) be able to work against spells like Dwellers below.
Spears and pikes should have an ASF rule of sorts in certain situations.
I agree that charging units should ASF (except when negated by spears or pikes).
Normal bows should do something more than what they do.
Ward saves should never be better than 4+.
-
ASF re-roll hits shoule be removed.. ASF on it self should be enough
Spears/Pikes and maybe Halberds should gain a Dangerous Terrain test when being charged, casualties count towards CR and goes at the same time as Impact Hits.
ASF to Charging units (minus the re-rolls, those should be for Hatred) including mounts
Moving sideways for chariots should not be possible
MR also works against bigger spells, and for characteristic test by spells they might add bonus to the dice rolls, no matter the MR height always a +1 to the dice roll?
-
Magic resistance should probably also diminish your own augment spells on said unit!
-
From the Brets thread.. 9th is rumored to be in october...
As what I can see.. no Skaven nor Beastmen update book for 8th... I'm dissapointed.. was hoping to have them all on par for once..
Though I would like to see the new starter set that is rumored.. Empire vs Greenskins and the new Empire book hoping to get some balance back for our ranged units..
-
Magic resistance should probably also diminish your own augment spells on said unit!
I like that.
-
I don't. MR is currently utterly useless. Why give it a buff and a nerf, when it clearly needs just the buff.
From the Brets thread.. 9th is rumored to be in october...
As what I can see.. no Skaven nor Beastmen update book for 8th... I'm dissapointed.. was hoping to have them all on par for once..
Though I would like to see the new starter set that is rumored.. Empire vs Greenskins and the new Empire book hoping to get some balance back for our ranged units..
isn't the skaven book basically an 8th anyway, and beastmen suck so meh.
I want a new skaven book so they're not so beardy.
-
What's the point of having initiative if everything's got ASF? Remove it from the game! In fact, remove special rules from most units, make them special again.
And more randomness = worse game
-
8th is the edition of rerolls. I don't like rerolls. Apart from anything else, I don't like how much extra time they take.
Rolling dice is the least interesting thing about Warhammer. It's a tool, nothing more.
-
Spears/Pikes and maybe Halberds should gain a Dangerous Terrain test when being charged, casualties count towards CR and goes at the same time as Impact Hits.
ASF to Charging units (minus the re-rolls, those should be for Hatred) including mounts
This is along the line of what I was thinking.
Magic resistance should probably also diminish your own augment spells on said unit!
I don't agree with this. I see Magic Resistance as something that the character or unit is actively doing to stop the spell. Why would they try to stop something that will help them? It should be a useful tool, not a nerf.
From the Brets thread.. 9th is rumored to be in october...
As what I can see.. no Skaven nor Beastmen update book for 8th... I'm dissapointed.. was hoping to have them all on par for once..
Though I would like to see the new starter set that is rumored.. Empire vs Greenskins and the new Empire book hoping to get some balance back for our ranged units..
I was afraid of this. I was hoping that all the armies would have a new book this edition and then 9th would tie all their rules together to make a good game. I don't have real problems with 8th, just a few things that could make it better. I guess 2 out of 15 isn't that bad. Skaven need nerfing IMO.
I hope they don't make fantasy more like 40K though. From what I've been hearing, more and more 40K players are getting fed up with 40K and looking to move over to Fantasy. Here's hoping!
-
New 40k edition this weekend, so I would put all 40k assumptions on hold for now! The initial rumours look to be making 40k slightly more fantasy-ish though.
I do think 6th ed 40k is a better system than 8th ed warhammer. 40k has just got silly with dataslates, escalation, etc.
-
I can't admit to knowing anything about 40K, but I hear so many guys at my LGS talking about how it has become reliant on big shiny machines to win a game. That sounds like marketing to me. At least in Fantasy, you can have that big centerpiece model, but you aren't reliant upon it.
-
Yes, and I haven’t played against any armies doing that!
I think the core rule set is much better, but it’s also more open to abuse and “big shiny” syndrome.
Back on topic, what are people’s thoughts on magic. Do we like the random winds generation? I think the current system is good, but I would make the spells less powerful. I would also make either miscasts more likely, or miscasts more damaging. The idea of the current, apparently super dangerous, miscast table is to provide a “risk/reward” to the big spells. But it is almost always better to go for the big spell than worry about miscasting.
Making the spells less powerful is a problem for army books which have their own lore. If you nerf the 8 lores, you are punishing armies which don’t have access to their own more powerful ones. But I am not greatly experienced in other lores, do people generally prefer the brb lores?
MR also needs to change. I’d say that mr1 lets you roll 1 more dice if targetting that unit, mr2 for 2 more dice, etc.
-
Back on topic, what are people’s thoughts on magic. Do we like the random winds generation? I think the current system is good, but I would make the spells less powerful. I would also make either miscasts more likely, or miscasts more damaging. The idea of the current, apparently super dangerous, miscast table is to provide a “risk/reward” to the big spells. But it is almost always better to go for the big spell than worry about miscasting.
I don't think that magic spells necessarily need to be nerfed, though it would be nice to have more of a balance over all 8 lores, but playing to their strenghts. For instance, making Fire all about destruction, Shadow all about concealment, confusion and hexing your opponent, and Life about renewing your forces. Not much of a stretch.
I would change the Irresistible Force rules though. People have become so reliant on 6-dicing spells through, that it takes some of the fun out of it for me. I think that Dispel Scrolls should be able to stop anything, even IF. There should also be some harsher penalties for a Miscast.
MR also needs to change. I’d say that mr1 lets you roll 1 more dice if targetting that unit, mr2 for 2 more dice, etc.
I like this. If a unit is targeted by a spell and has MR, you should be able to add a D3 to your dispel attempt for every level of MR (MR1 = DD+D3, MR2 = DD+2D3, MR3 = DD+ 3D3).
-
I'd like spells to be easier to cast but weaker. Dispels could be axed entirely. Anything to end this all-or-nothing approach to magic where you either take a level 4 wizard lord or a level 1 scroll caddy.
The miscast table needs to be more than just explosions, too. I remember one of the miscast results back in the day was that the enemy got to automatically cast a spell of their own. That sort of thing is fun.
-
I'd like spells to be easier to cast but weaker.
This would also tie into a more dangerous/more frequent miscasts. If you miscast say on any double, then the onus would be on more little spells, instead of 6dicing dwellers into my hammerers.
-
I think magic can be saved by fixing all of the spells that hit every model in a unit. Change it to a small template, possibly with a boost to large template. And no more "pass or die." Spells allow ward saves.
I like the idea of bonus dispel dice for magic resistance. Should also apply to buffs. It would make MR a lot more valuable.
-
I would like new Empire Knights in the boxed set, along with Orcs I can trade with Finlay.
-
I would like new Empire Knights in the boxed set, along with Orcs I can trade with Finlay.
If I like the new empire book, I’ll want both halves of the new fantasy starter set!
Oh btw, has it been standard for GW to release the rules, with a starter set later? I think it is but cant remember.
-
I would like to see some better balance between the lores.. As it is now Beasts is only good for a scroll caddy for most armies..
And the use of the Lore Attribute can be improved for some of the lores...
Fire isn't used much,
Metal is a joke where only 3 out of 7 spells make use of it..
Heavens is way to situational.
Shadow can be better.. drop the same troop type character thing it and make them go pop up within 18" and outside 12" of enemy units or something.
Death is to powerfull, it's called life leech but adds PD?
-
I would like new Empire Knights in the boxed set, along with Orcs I can trade with Finlay.
If I like the new empire book, I’ll want both halves of the new fantasy starter set!
I just want someone to off-load orcs on, dude. You are a victim here.
-
I would like new Empire Knights in the boxed set, along with Orcs I can trade with Finlay.
If I like the new empire book, I’ll want both halves of the new fantasy starter set!
I just want someone to off-load orcs on, dude. You are a victim here.
I'm yo' Huckelberry.
I likes me Orcses!
-
Tombstone :::cheers:::
-
I would like to see some better balance between the lores.. As it is now Beasts is only good for a scroll caddy for most armies..
And the use of the Lore Attribute can be improved for some of the lores...
Fire isn't used much,
Metal is a joke where only 3 out of 7 spells make use of it..
Heavens is way to situational.
Shadow can be better.. drop the same troop type character thing it and make them go pop up within 18" and outside 12" of enemy units or something.
Death is to powerfull, it's called life leech but adds PD?
I have to disagree with a bit of this. Beasts is really good, even on a L4, I have used it in Beastmen, Dark Elves and Empire and regularly face it (on L2s admitedly) in Lizzies. Only a couple of the spells are usually throwaway and even those can be useful at times.
The lore attributes could use a bit of work though yes. I love heavens as a lore even as is, but a better lore attribute would be super. I actually think the shadow one is fairly powerful as is though. Takes a bit of prethought, but you can pull some really nasty surprises with it!
-
Life, Light, Death and Shadow are so much better than beast though.
Muuuuuuuuch better.
-
They are better, but not much better. And if you are running a pretty beastly army, everything is that much cheaper to cast in beasts!
Savage Beast can wreck as much as those unit killer spells if you get it on the right thing and is less dependent on a certain stat to do its damage.
I think beasts and heavens are underrated.
Pit often seems to scatter off, purple sun can go back through your own troops, dwellers... well, there is no denying the horror of dwellers...
I think shadow has the best overall collection of spells though. If you can avoid pendulum and steed you have an amazing hand of spells.
I'm all for a bit of tweaking of spells in the new edition though. Especially the lack of ward saves and/or LoS...
-
I just think they need a little tweaking to come more in line with what you want to do.
For example: Life is all about regrowing your unit, healing and protecting them...and then Dwellers? That comes out of left field! And what about Fire? In my mind, that should be the damage lore, yet it is probably the weakest of them all. Whatever you want to do, there should be a lore that supplements that theme.
I do agree that there should be no uber-unit-killer spells, though. It is so disheartening when you have to pick up half of a large block that you so painstakingly put together, painted and was crucial to your strategy, just because your opponent chose to throw 6-dice at a unit-killer and there is nothing you can do about it. That's enough for someone to want to quit and is probably one more reason why so many have.
-
In general, I'd like to see standard "big block" numbers decrease. Not for any particular rules-related reasons (although there are those, too), but for hobby-related reasons. When you put the degree of time and care into the modelling and painting of each individual dude that many here do, the fact that an individual dude is close to irrelevant in game terms can be dispiriting.
30 should be big, not standard.
This could be fixed by reducing the number of attacks floating around. There's simply too many. I would say chargers strike first, but in only a single rank. If you haven't charged, you strike in two ranks. No step up. [disclaimer]this is coming out of my arse and I haven't really thought it through...[/disclaimer]
-
If they tweak the unit killers, perhaps a limit on number of characters in a unit would be sensible. As it stands,the unit deleters are one of the only viable ways to defeat a deathstar. Otherwise you have to just try and avoid it, or take a bigger one yourself which is not so great. Have it so that maybe only 2 characters can join a unit and units won't be so horrendous. Not sure if that would throw something else off though.
Also I hate congalining. But I understand that it should be possible for movement reasons. I would say that perhaps they should impose a harsh combat disadvantage to any unit congalining so that you can do it, but if you get caught in combat like that you are in huge trouble.
-
I've never congalined. I've never played against anyone who has congalined. And I think I would silently judge anyone that did it against me. I get that it's legal - I wouldn't pack up and walk away or anything, but to me this is not good sportsmanship. I don't think the rules need to be changed, on this one, though.
(that said, I haven't really been able to think of any scenarios other than "catapults" where a congaline is actually that much of an unavoidable advantage).
-
I think people sometimes put the champ at the front of a 5 man stubborn unit or such so that only he can be killed, buying a turn for something else.
I haven't seen it done either but I have heard of it plenty...
-
Yeah, but why would you charge a stubborn congaline with a champ at the front?
-
I guess no other way to get to what you want to charge? Like I said, I haven't encountered it either.
-
I just think they need a little tweaking to come more in line with what you want to do.
For example: Life is all about regrowing your unit, healing and protecting them...and then Dwellers? That comes out of left field! And what about Fire? In my mind, that should be the damage lore, yet it is probably the weakest of them all. Whatever you want to do, there should be a lore that supplements that theme.
I do agree that there should be no uber-unit-killer spells, though. It is so disheartening when you have to pick up half of a large block that you so painstakingly put together, painted and was crucial to your strategy, just because your opponent chose to throw 6-dice at a unit-killer and there is nothing you can do about it. That's enough for someone to want to quit and is probably one more reason why so many have.
I quite agree.
The lores should stick to their themes. The lore of life should not have spells which kill.
-
For example: Life is all about regrowing your unit, healing and protecting them...and then Dwellers? That comes out of left field!
In 4th edition, dwellers below was a Light spell!
-
It's rather disheartening that a spell that has a casting value of 20+ can be cast on a lucky roll of double 6's. They should either do away with irresistible force altogether or maybe make it occur if all dice used to cast come up as 6's and bring back miscasts on the role of a double one. Also wards against vortexes or at least a look out sir.
Also at least some effort put in to make ballistic skill based shooting at least viable; the move or shoot rule is far too restrictive ("Oh no I took a step I can't fire this loaded weapon!") at least allow them to move with the penalty but to be honest I'd remove the movement penalty and replace it with a bonus for not moving instead. The long rang penalty should only apply if the unit is beyond the weapons range allowing missile weapons to fire say 25% beyond their effective range aka a bow only suffers a penalty if it fires beyond its 24" range to a max of 30". I've kind of based this on the volley fire rules from the old LOTR game.
Finally cavalry should negate steadfast on the turn they charge or if that's too powerful maybe negate rank bonuses or have impact hits or stomp stracks to help add to combat resolution and actually make it seem that the cavalry are crashing into units and trampling people. Fast cavalry shouldn't have these rules though.
Just some thoughts.
-
I would be very wary of too much stuff negating steadfast etc, as it was put in the game to combat an old problem, of infantry being crappy, being blown away by a 5 man cavalry unit charging them. I don’t want that coming back! I think disrupting negating steadfast is enough, and stuill gives cavalry players a chance to negate steadfast, with skill not just “lol, I charged you”
I also don’t want to get rid of stepping up, valmir, for the same reasons. I would LOVE to see units get smaller again though (this is what drew me to dwarfs. Can basically ignore steadfast. My army has a unit of 18, 2 of 24 and one 30)
-
Ideally, there needs to be something between the "There are loads of us, so we will stay here and die to a man" and "Argh! They have killed nearly two of us! Run away! Run away!" I am not sure what mechanic would reflect this and also be streamlined enough.
-
A ranked unit can negate steadfast. It's simple.
It also means that if you want your cavalry to be effective, it's gonna cost you points wise.
-
Steadfast - break tests have your leadership modified by one point per 8cr difference, instead of a one for one conversion.
-
The problem comes when a large, well-ranked unit taking a breaktest takes the same test regardless of the actual result of the combat. So, a close-fought combat where one side wins by a hair is the identical situation to a combat where the loser does no damage and gets many men slaughtered. There needs to be a mechanic which not only (as is reasonable) reflects the greater courage of well-ranked units, but also which reflects the morale-sapping effects of having your mates get slaughtered.
-
Several possibilities:
1. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it can discount up to three wounds when applying the penalty from the combat result scores for its Break test. [perhaps also discount overkill]
2. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it can discount one wound for each rank it has more than its enemy, when applying the penalty from the combat result scores for its Break test. [perhaps also discount overkill]
3. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it can discount one wound for each rank it has more than the combined ranks of all the enemy units it is in combat with, when applying the penalty from the combat result scores for its Break test. [perhaps also discount overkill]
.....
-
Several possibilities:
1. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it can discount up to three wounds when applying the penalty from the combat result scores for its Break test. [perhaps also discount overkill]
2. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it can discount one wound for each rank it has more than its enemy, when applying the penalty from the combat result scores for its Break test. [perhaps also discount overkill]
3. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it can discount one wound for each rank it has more than the combined ranks of all the enemy units it is in combat with, when applying the penalty from the combat result scores for its Break test. [perhaps also discount overkill]
.....
All way to complicated. This is fantasy not historicals
-
agreed
-
If we take it as a given that steadfast is a valuable mechanic to keep, then it just needs to also be breakable. The moment players are able to break steadfast (e.g., through the oft-suggested flanky-ranks shenanigans) then players are able to adapt their tactics around it, and it's no longer problematic.
Every problem I have with the game (including über magic) stems from a feeling of its being uncounterable in-game (i.e., it has to be countered through list-tailoring).
-
All way to complicated. This is fantasy not historicals
The first is certainly not complicated - it is, in fact, less complicated than calculating the combat result. The second is not really too complicated either. That said, I was trying to come up with some possibilities for Darknight to devise "a mechanic which not only (as is reasonable) reflects the greater courage of well-ranked units, but also which reflects the morale-sapping effects of having your mates get slaughtered."
-
I thought my solution was pretty simple. Lose by 23 = -23 leadership if not steadfast, -2 if steadfast. Etc. You could adjust the number up or down, I don't know how much is considered being slaughtered these days.
-
If we take it as a given that steadfast is a valuable mechanic to keep, then it just needs to also be breakable. The moment players are able to break steadfast (e.g., through the oft-suggested flanky-ranks shenanigans) then players are able to adapt their tactics around it, and it's no longer problematic.
Every problem I have with the game (including über magic) stems from a feeling of its being uncounterable in-game (i.e., it has to be countered through list-tailoring).
^This. For every rule that is introduced, there should be a counter to that rule which can keep the game revolving in a continuous cycle of strategy and tactics. Once something becomes too difficult to deal with, then you have a broken mechanic.
-
There needs to be a mechanic which not only (as is reasonable) reflects the greater courage of well-ranked units, but also which reflects the morale-sapping effects of having your mates get slaughtered.
Maybe a unit that is charged needs to make a Ld test to see if they're steadfast for that combat round (after the impact of the charge is absorbed the unit automatically becomes steadfast again in subsequent combat rounds [if not charged by other units])? Combine this with Steadfast being negated by a flanking unit and I'd think you've got an interesting mechanic.
But hey'I haven't played a single game in 8th. I don't even own the rulebook. All my knowledge about it stems from this site and hasn't made me want to buy it these past few years.
-
Steadfast doesn't necsarily need to be maintained, but I do think its Important to have some infantry buffing mechanic.
I wonder if stepping up and fight in two ranks is enough on its own.
I guess not for skaven slaves or night gobbos.
-
I think one of the graver difficulties in 8th (with the very large number of attacks due to step up, fight in two ranks, and horde) is that there isn't enough effective difference between warriors. WS2 isn't really worse than WS3 - especially when we consider attacking. Average infantry has a WS of 3, good 4 and poor 2.
The problem is; the poor infantry hit the average and elite the same amount of times. And the elite hit the poor and good the same amount of times.
Add this to the fact the vast majority of models have one attack, and that one attack is the lowest that can be had, the variation is limited. This becomes an issue when one is dealing with so many attacks - it means things like Slaves and Gobbos are far more effective than their points might indicate.
-
The first game I played after coming back to hobby, I played by accident as if the to hit table worked like the to wound table. It's not a good idea...
-
WS2 isn't really worse than WS3
I sometimes break out my Goblin army. The difference between WS2 and WS3 is huge.
If you're facing mostly WS3 infantry (Skaven, Empire, Ogres), you get hit on 3+ instead of 4+.
If you're facing mostly WS5 infantry (Elves, Warriors of Chaos, almost all characters), you hit on 5+ instead of 4+.
Against WS4, it's the same. Aside from Orcs, there isn't an awful lot of WS4 infantry that you have to worry about.
Much more significant than the difference between WS3 and WS4. WS3 is very rarely hitting on 5+.
-
WS2 and WS3 versus WS 3 both hit on 4+; but WS 3 versus WS2 will hit on 3+.
-
Would allowing multiple units fighting the same foe add theirs no of ranks together for determining steadfast solve anything?
No auto break steadfast by flanking, but it'd be useful.
-
Would allowing multiple units fighting the same foe add theirs no of ranks together for determining steadfast solve anything?
No auto break steadfast by flanking, but it'd be useful.
It would be very helpful, I think.
But the core problem remains - "I have one more rank than you (and my ranks might be five wide while yours are ten) and so I have the same courage if I lose because you have a musician tootling his horn or if I lose because I lost 20 men in a bloody orgy of blenderlord destruction".
I might be tempted to say that steadfast should just go the heck away, but that rank bonus no longer caps at 3 (it can go to whatever you have), that ranks of 10 or more count double (and a partial rank of 5 or more counts as a rank), that all units in a fight contribute to the total rank bonus.
Empire detachments may use the higher of their or their parent unit's rank bonus.
That represents the fundamental nature of combat; killing people is important, but having a big block of dudes is also important.
I might also be inclined to say that Monstrous Infantry and Cavalry only need a rank of 3 to count +1 and a rank of 6 or more counts double, and that cavalry doubles its rank bonus on the charge, but halves its rank bonus if it itself is charged.
-
Why not replace Steadfast with the outnumbering mechanic? Give models Unit Strength again, but this time give the +1 CR for having more Unit Strength, and another +1 for Double, Triple, and so on. Maybe up to +4 or +5. We already have numerous combat resolution modifiers, and the old "Outnumbering - +1, no matter how big the difference is" always seemed a little silly. With the Outnumbering and Ranks bonuses, a big unit can take a lot more damage before you start to beat it in combat - and on the other hand, when you're beating it, you're actually winning, and it's liable to run rather than, "Oh, I know we lost half the unit without killing a single man, but the rest of us can hold here no problem."
As for magic, I wouldn't mind both a refocusing of the lores and a general reduction in damage output. When Empire infantry are only effective "when properly buffed," I feel like I'm playing the wrong game. Or at least fielding the wrong units. For that matter, I wouldn't mind seeing some toned-down units, too.
As for a not-fixing-a-problem change, I would like to see some more leadership-based actions. For example, charging units gain Strike First - but only if they pass a Leadership test, representing the unit managing a coherent, coordinated attack. Archers shooting at not-the-closest-viable-enemy only if they pass Leadership, as the unit's sergeant grasps the major battle plan instead of merely the unit's self-preservation instinct. Some units could have a rule enabling them to negate the bonuses of cavalry and chariot charges - if they pass a Leadership test. And so on - you get the idea. We already have a little bit of this with the free-reform-with-a-musician-and-leadership-test and marching-near-enemies - I think it would be cool to expand upon it. Naturally, unit Leadership would have to be a bit more of a factor in costs - but it would reward high-leadership armies and, ideally, make them more viable even without particularly high weapon skills or physical stats.
-
Outnumbering is a good mechanic, but I think ranks are the way to go. Depth of formation is something of great importance in war - one pushes forward with the strength of the men behind one.
-
Outnumbering is a good mechanic, but I think ranks are the way to go. Depth of formation is something of great importance in war - one pushes forward with the strength of the men behind one.
The problem is, especially on the 28mm scale, that depth is often ridiculous especially to the look of the engagement. Ranks may have mattered but it was unlikely in historical type situations they actually just pushed each other for multiple (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8&list=PLCA860ECD7F894424)reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tf4ygCbWKk&index=75&list=PLCA860ECD7F894424). As such when WAB 2 came out they dropped their rank bonus down to only +2 ranks to try and get players to have more linear formations, not true lines mind you but more rectangle to square rather than long ugly columns which really wouldn't be practical other than the rules made them better.
I still think the obvious answer in terms of WHFB is to retain steadfast but of course make it broken along with ranks, if you can't count ranks you should not be able to claim them for steadfast. On the points about all the death perhaps we have gone to far on two ranks always fighting maybe back to a single (give spears a nice boost) but still retaining the always get attacks.
Another thought for those still paranoid about flanks I was thinking the WAB 2 change on flank charges might be interesting. None of the arci-slidiness of the current style but one where units actually have to be passed the front of an enemy unit to get to charge it in the flank. Here is the diagram from WAB 2 just as a better illustration of this point:
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l589/sofomh/wabcharges_zpsc02be8f8.jpg)
Generally I think the main issue with the core fighting rules is coming up with a better balance between deaths and static res.
My primary other huge issue is how magic was done this edition, not just the uber spells which are very annoying, but a myriad of other issues. No benefit for using dice in moderation over 6 dicing crap, a boring set of spells that only further the combat death nexus, crap lore things. Completely removing most movement spells (or anti-movement spells) was a huge error, yes there was a problem in the past when you allowed magic charges but if you had just made them magic moves they would have been fine. Similarly why add dangerous terrain rules and then remove spells like Mistress of Marsh which could have been a cool hex anti-movement spell, cast it on a unit and the opponent can try and move suffering dangerous terrain losses or keep it frozen in place until it goes away. Further random ramblings on that I have had here for sometime (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=46311.0).
-
Good stuff sof
-
What do those WAB rules say about a unit that is both in the front and side zone?
-
Steadfast doesn't necsarily need to be maintained, but I do think its Important to have some infantry buffing mechanic.
I wonder if stepping up and fight in two ranks is enough on its own.
I guess not for skaven slaves or night gobbos.
Steadfast is excellent, but it needs to be breakable.
Hence... Ranked units in the flank, break the steadfast rule (they already break the rank bonus, anyways).
As for fluff... It doesn't have to be rocket science either.
If you want to simulate the effect of seeing a lot of your buddies dying, losing >25% of the unit in one turn of combat negates steadfast as well (and this sits neatly with a panic test by shooting).
This will also keep players stimulated for building large blocks of cheap infantry.
-
Steadfast doesn't necsarily need to be maintained, but I do think its Important to have some infantry buffing mechanic.
I wonder if stepping up and fight in two ranks is enough on its own.
I guess not for skaven slaves or night gobbos.
Steadfast is excellent, but it needs to be breakable.
Hence... Ranked units in the flank, break the steadfast rule (they already break the rank bonus, anyways).
As for fluff... It doesn't have to be rocket science either.
If you want to simulate the effect of seeing a lot of your buddies dying, losing >25% of the unit in one turn of combat negates steadfast as well (and this sits neatly with a panic test by shooting).
This will also keep players stimulated for building large blocks of cheap infantry.
Good points and excellent ideas.
-
Don't like that 25% rule. Encourages people to take even bigger units!
-
GW will like it then. :closed-eyes:
-
This thread ain't about gw!
-
What do those WAB rules say about a unit that is both in the front and side zone?
As long as the parallel is crossed you can charge the flank, with of course the restrictions of the target needing to be in the 90 degree line of sight arc for the charging unit as well.
Another note WAB 2 forbids cross charging:
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l589/sofomh/crosscharging_zpscf1e8bb3.jpg)
A last note I hadn't brought up before the terrain rules really need to be redone as the current ones are rather excessively particular. I'd like to see a return of general categories of terrain Difficult and Very Difficult then a generic list of types of terrain they are and then just have the general rules that cav and such take a dangerous terrain test in difficult, fail on one. Very difficult cav and such take dangerous terrain test fail on 1-2, and all other infantry types fail on 1. Special terrain can stay as extra rule outliers but writing individual rules for 'every' terrain type is cumbersome and dumb. Terrain generation back on the old 6th edition type charts maybe with a special roll on terrain yielding the weird super terrain types.
-
Don't like that 25% rule. Encourages people to take even bigger units!
Only of cheap and rubbish troops.
Goblins, skaven, etc.
Chaos warriors and elves won't do it. Cheaper alternatives and their goal is winning combat.
-
We already see big units of non crap troops, so not sure why this would change that!
-
As has been pointed out before Skaven slaves are anything but crap troops, if you take the cost into account.
-
Shav, I agree the 25% rule and the ranks in flanks both break steadfast as a truly great idea. Promotes either massive units or super kill you units. Both of with are GW bread and butter.
I also think that AS should lose re roll unless double Initiative.
-
2 ranks of hammerers, in 6xwhatever formation, with champion. 19 attacks. presume they're attacking crappy troops, and have hatred.
hitting on 3s, killing on 2s.
13 hits, reroll, 17 hits.
14 kills. So you need a unit of 56 or more to avoid the "lose steadfast" trigger.
there's too much stuff that can blat out that many kills, I think it makes steadfast not good enough. and encourages units 60+ plus. I don't want to see 60+ units on the table, personally!
-
We should make re-rolls rare again.
Oh and pikes, I want pikes
-
Oh and pikes, I want pikes
We had pikes. They sucked. We need decent pikes this time. Ones that actually threaten cavalry. :icon_confused:
-
Also I'd like GW to fix cavalry but that is never going to happen. I think you should get -1 AS for being on a horse and then +1 for barding. I somehow think that is never going to happen though.
-
Also I'd like GW to fix cavalry but that is never going to happen. I think you should get -1 AS for being on a horse and then +1 for barding. I somehow think that is never going to happen though.
No just remove the +1 for mount not take an additional off. In my own esoteric sort of ramblings I've always thought more armor for crappy things would be a bit more interesting, at least a better way to have more dice then on the dumb number of re-rolls. Basically everything, save a few things have light armor then sort of:
Light Armor 6+
Heavy Armor 5+
Partial Plate 4+
Full Plate 3+
Gromril 2+
Shield adds plus one but no benefit if base armor is already at 3+ (perhaps unless mounted as there is no parry from horse back)
Mounted no longer counts unless on some sort of tough/scaly skinned mount or chariot (also in general I think bigger monsters should all just have some base saves for tough skin I mean since boars do why not griffons or other of poor monster types)
So in the Empires case all units have Light, some upgrades to heavy for say Halberdiers and Spearmen, Pistoliers and Greatswords move to partial plate (which is more realistic to the modeling) and the saves on the Knights stay the same essentially. But then this might be a bit too WABish for folks.
-
Would anyone be interesting in rewriting the rules with me? or just some of them, play testing it, just for fun?
I am mostly interested in making in-game tactics matter more (positioning, flanking, charging etc) as well as perhaps change the way cavalry works.
Also BS based shooting is sort of a joke without super elite elves flinging magical arrows across the map.
If The Empire was real, economically, armies would consist largely of halberdiers and Crossbowmen because those are two tools that are easily produced and easy to use. All ranged weapons need a range boost by about 40%, or at least get another 6" of range. you already get inaccurate at long range...
Magic is just a crazy hot mess and I assume its the area that will get completely overhauled in 9th ed whereas other stuff will be tweaked.
Also I would like to see more emphasis on elite troops being hard to hit. Like its kind of retarded how much damage skaven slaves or night gobbos can dish out onto a unit of SWORDMASTERS. Seriously these guys should be like samurai, just cleaving things but even at 5+ to hit, its not impossible for a decent number of crap troops to bring them down.
I think units should be organized in horde formation but the extra rank of attacks is bad... It should buff you, somehow, but another ranks of attacks is way too much without it really seeming to mean much. Also martial prowess for HE is kind of too good, it should just be for their spearmen and thats IT. So elves should block tons of stuff but not get twice the attacks.
I like AP on spears/halberds when they get charged, that makes sense and its not rediculous.
Charge range should be as random, maybe M + 2d6 (pick the highest dice) instead so you cant charge 20".
thoughts? also i like the thing about doing a considerable amount of damage causing a break in steadfast for a turn, but maybe not based on % of unit but number of ranks of models killed? say if you kill 2 ranks of models (and they still have more than you) then they lose steadfast for a turn?
or maybe instead of steadfast, your rank bonus isnt limitted to +3. Then bus units 8 deep will reliably be able to take 5 more causalties a turn without losing LD (5=8-3). Static CR could become more important than just bringing one more rank of men than your opponent has.
Also I love the idea of wide thin units, its realistic and looks better on the field. Maybe being 10 wide means each rank counts as 2 instead of giving horde rule: extra rank of attacks?
-
2 ranks of hammerers, in 6xwhatever formation, with champion. 19 attacks. presume they're attacking crappy troops, and have hatred.
hitting on 3s, killing on 2s.
13 hits, reroll, 17 hits.
14 kills. So you need a unit of 56 or more to avoid the "lose steadfast" trigger.
there's too much stuff that can blat out that many kills, I think it makes steadfast not good enough. and encourages units 60+ plus. I don't want to see 60+ units on the table, personally!
If a couple of units are able to dish out that kind of punishment, then there's still no problem.
Players will just have to use other units / methods of stopping them.
I have no problem with goblin, skaven or great sword units of 50+.
-
units should never be more than 60 men though. 60 is enough.
cavalry should never be more than 30, monsterous anything shouldnt be more than 20-ish. Just because of how huge that is on the board.
-
Also I'd like GW to fix cavalry but that is never going to happen. I think you should get -1 AS for being on a horse and then +1 for barding. I somehow think that is never going to happen though.
No just remove the +1 for mount not take an additional off. In my own esoteric sort of ramblings I've always thought more armor for crappy things would be a bit more interesting, at least a better way to have more dice then on the dumb number of re-rolls. Basically everything, save a few things have light armor then sort of:
Light Armor 6+
Heavy Armor 5+
Partial Plate 4+
Full Plate 3+
Gromril 2+
Shield adds plus one but no benefit if base armor is already at 3+ (perhaps unless mounted as there is no parry from horse back)
Mounted no longer counts unless on some sort of tough/scaly skinned mount or chariot (also in general I think bigger monsters should all just have some base saves for tough skin I mean since boars do why not griffons or other of poor monster types)
So in the Empires case all units have Light, some upgrades to heavy for say Halberdiers and Spearmen, Pistoliers and Greatswords move to partial plate (which is more realistic to the modeling) and the saves on the Knights stay the same essentially. But then this might be a bit too WABish for folks.
I really like this idea, but as for the Shields, I think they shouldn't add to the armor save, but, rather give a 6++ ward save (Parry option). Any model in the game could have this option (if they are mounted or not). This should be totally separate from other (magical) ward saves, potentially allowing a character to have three separate save rolls (armor, magical and parry). I feel that this would indicate the preparation and martial prowess of the character. He could be wearing full plate, have a magical talisman and carry a shield for a 3+, 4++, and 6++. Each would be doing their own intended job and not combining their usefulness. This could potentially make for a very tanky character, but by being so encumbered, reduce their efficiency in combat.
This also leads me to the next point. The more equipment a character carries, the less effective they will be at combat. This would prevent certain builds from being too tanky and killy. Say the character gets a certain allotment for items that they can carry. Each additional upgrade, reduces their ability to move and react in combat. This could be enacted in a variety of ways.
But I would also like to see ways to get through ward saves. Say, magical weapons can, so some degree ignore or punch through ward saves. There could be a ranking system where a level 1 item allows it -1 to the ward save, level 2 = -2, and level 3 = -3. (By giving them levels, that would keep people from simply adding a 5pt sword on a character just so that he could ignore any ward saves.) This would also add to the danger of units like the Sisters of Avelorn so that they are more than just a threat to etherial units (VC).
-
Making the spells less powerful is a problem for army books which have their own lore. If you nerf the 8 lores, you are punishing armies which don’t have access to their own more powerful ones. But I am not greatly experienced in other lores, do people generally prefer the brb lores?
All magic lores should have been included in the rulebook.
-
Making the spells less powerful is a problem for army books which have their own lore. If you nerf the 8 lores, you are punishing armies which don’t have access to their own more powerful ones. But I am not greatly experienced in other lores, do people generally prefer the brb lores?
All magic lores should have been included in the rulebook.
I agree. All army lores, unique or not, should be included in the BRB so that everyone can understand them, and maybe, use that in their decision as to which army they want to collect.
-
your army has to be 50% core.
Thatd fix a lot of stuff. I know thats like insane outrage but just think about it...
-
As long as we're wishlisting...
I've been playing a lot of other games lately and it's been making me realize how many oddball rules from the 80's Warhammer is still clinging onto. I'd be tempted to take things in the direction of more abstraction. Giving weapons and armor all sorts of situational modifiers seems more appropriate for a grittily realistic skirmish game than a high fantasy mass combat system.
-Could toughness and armor be rolled together into one stat to speed up gameplay a bit?
-Should characters really be one-model units that hide inside rank and file troops? Many systems treat characters like upgrades that add a unit's fighting capacity and give it special abilities.
-If the vast majority of to-hit rolls in melee are +3 or +4, couldn't we replace weapon skill with something like Flames of War's Conscript/Trained/Veteran system?
I think 8E was right to stress monsters and huge infantry blocks grinding into each other instead of cavalry, who gets the charge, and psychology. It just went overboard with the unit sizes and magic. I have some nostalgia for 6E-7E but it wasn't fun losing dozens of infantry figures to five charging cavalry models. Don't get me started about 5E's panic chains, either. Not that I want the game to go full beer and pretzels by any means. I'd like appeal to tacticians by making flanking a big deal again, adding mechanics for reserves, adding a weather table, and giving army generals tactical abilities. EG, a Wood Elf general would be able to spend some points from tactical points pool to place a unit in reserve into a forest on the table.
-
its not horrible, but I dont think it will happen. "simplifying" stuff isnt gonna happen.
I think the thing that ruins the game is the army list making based on percentages instead of total units. everyone is running around with the super elite cav, super rare monsters, earth crumbling wizards and dragons and its cool but its not really 2 armies fighting as much as it is a huge ball of destruction slaying things left and right.
-
your army has to be 50% core.
I agree.
-
your army has to be 50% core.
I agree.
I think VC has an issue with this.
Limit rares to 1 (2 in grand armies), and moving some specials to rare would go a long way.
-
your army has to be 50% core.
I agree.
Horribly nerfs armies with crap core. Although the books should address that, as they get re done.
OnG would be amazing! Night gobbos with nets and savage big uns.
-
your army has to be 50% core.
I agree.
Horribly nerfs armies with crap core. Although the books should address that, as they get re done.
OnG would be amazing! Night gobbos with nets and savage big uns.
It would, indeed, tone down some of the armies.
I don't see the problem.
Take dwarfs... our core are absolute rubbish compared to our specials.
However... fielding 2 cannons, hammerers, slayers and miners.... yeah... I reckon being forced to use more regular troops would be a good thing.
-
your army has to be 50% core.
I agree.
Horribly nerfs armies with crap core. Although the books should address that, as they get re done.
OnG would be amazing! Night gobbos with nets and savage big uns.
It would, indeed, tone down some of the armies.
I don't see the problem.
Take dwarfs... our core are absolute rubbish compared to our specials.
However... fielding 2 cannons, hammerers, slayers and miners.... yeah... I reckon being forced to use more regular troops would be a good thing.
I think that it's a terrible idea. How many of the models made are actually core? How many options are there in Special and Rare vs Core? By making such a huge requirement of core for your main army, you are pushing a ton of options off the table, and making the game much more predictable and one-dimentional. Tournaments will be played based on which army has the best core options. That becomes VERY boring. Besides, nobody says you can't take 50% of your army as core. Nobody else will, but you certainly can. After all the money I've spent on buying and painting large special and rare units, I want to be able to use them!
Also, this is Warhammer FANTASY! Not Warhammer Infantry. Give me the knights facing down a dragon! Give me the Archmage fending off a Hydra! Give me Elves shooting at heavily armored dwarfs! That is what this game is all about.
-
Knights, shooting elves and heavily armoured dwarfs are all core... :engel:
I agree though, I like the fantastical elements that are typically rare/special choices.
-
Knights, shooting elves and heavily armoured dwarfs are all core... :engel:
I was thinking the same thing. And the Archmage and Dragon are likely taken from the Hero or Lord allotment.
I do agree that 50% would overbalance towards armies that have great core (like WoC).
What we are trying to address though, is the full 25% core being taken up by one mega unit.
Why couldn't we just add a core rule of "at least 3 units"
Maximum unit sizes are annoyingly restrictive, I know I hated the old 5-30 on flagellants, especially at the beginning of 8th edition.
There are other changes that I think would also address some of this though - I have been collating some stuff from the discussion above, as well as some tweaks I was thinking also. Will post soon.
-
maximum unit sizes are annoying, but i hate too big units.
50 skaven or night gobbos is fine.
50 savage big uns, or 50 nurgle demons is not fine.
I'm not sure about a maximum point cost of a single unit though...
-
Well for that you need mass destruction spells that ignore saves....oh ...wait ::heretic::
and/or good template weapons.
-
you should never have an infantry unit of more than 60 men.
you should never have cavalry of more than 30.
you should never have Monsterous anything of more than 20.
and yeah 50% core would be good for WoC but wouldnt you rather fight more warriors and less manticores?? everything in their list is amazing.
how about 40% core and a restriction, any unit has to be less than 500 pts in total? That safely at least limits deathstars.
-
I don't think Skaven players would agree with you. It really depends on the army. Like you said, that would be heavily in favor of WoC and they don't need any more help.
I like the idea of a points cap for core though. That could limit these "deathstars" and force people to actually use tactics in their game.
As far as the match-ups I mentioned earlier, Demigryph Knights, Waywatchers, Irondrakes, etc. I can't believe I had to spell that out... :eusa_wall:
-
okay well then you can go on fighting hordes of 40 white lions or phoenix guard, have fun with that.
-
What we are trying to address though, is the full 25% core being taken up by one mega unit.
Why couldn't we just add a core rule of "at least 3 units"
It needs to be scaled to point size. It wouldn't make much sense to have at least 3 core units in a 500pt game.
Now that is a thing that needs to be addressed in 9th anyway. Having 2D6 for the winds of magic in a small game is just way too much.
Back in 6th / early 7th small games were tremendous fun. Now it's just silly.
Oh, and what is also silly is those enormous units of skaven with a small frontage of 5 and a gazillion ranks. It looks weird on the battlefield.
-
Oh, and what is also silly is those enormous units of skaven with a small frontage of 5 and a gazillion ranks. It looks weird on the battlefield.
True. I'd like to see a mechanic whereby ranks cannot exceed frontage by more than 2. That means 5x7 is still fine (which is important, I think, for more mediocre troop types), but 5x10 (or more) isn't.
-
okay well then you can go on fighting hordes of 40 white lions or phoenix guard, have fun with that.
That won't change just because you make players take more core that nobody cares about. The big deathstar will still be there, doing it's thing. You will only limit yourself on what you have to deal with it. It would boil the game down to (big deathstar vs big deathstar) + tons of chaff units. The game becomes one-dimentional. I prefer more options.
Oh, and what is also silly is those enormous units of skaven with a small frontage of 5 and a gazillion ranks. It looks weird on the battlefield.
True. I'd like to see a mechanic whereby ranks cannot exceed frontage by more than 2. That means 5x7 is still fine (which is important, I think, for more mediocre troop types), but 5x10 (or more) isn't.
This sounds good, but I think you'd just see players move it 6-wide and 11 ranks. For Skaven players, that doesn't cost much more.
-
I like his idea, and what he meant was you wouldnt be able to do 5x8, with 8 ranks, you would have to do 6xsomething, up to a maximum of 6x8 (so 6x9 would be illegal).
I think units that are 5 wide and 8 deep is kind of weird looking too.
What if rank bonuses turned into just a bonus based on how many men were left (+1 per 5 men for example, instead of +1 per rank of 5 or more).
-
Oh, I see. I was thinking that he was proposing that you couldn't double your width in ranks. Nevermind.
I'd kinda like to see adding an extra rank of attacks in horde formation go away. What if you added a rank of attacks as long as your unit is longer as it is wide? Ex: 5 wide x 5 deep = an extra rank of attacks. I think that this would encourage more players to run MSU style units, instead of one big unit. Ogres would have to count double, etc.
I think that would make more sense as far as representing the crush of bodies than 3 rows, 10 wide.
-
yeah magically getting an extra rank of attacks from being 10 wide (as opposed to say, 9 wide) seems kind of arbitrary.
I say sure, if you are wider than you are long, you get an extra rank of attacks. The thing is then units of like 21 would be running around with all their models attacking all the time.
I think if steadfast, rank bonuses, horde formation .. etc. are ALL removed and replaced with a simpler system then maybe wed see units that were wide and thin.
-
Well, I'd actually like to see them longer than wider. That would actually reduce the number of attacks in one round of combat. 5-wide, 3-deep = 15 attacks, as opposed to 10-wide, 2 ranks = 20 attacks, instead of 5-wide, 2 ranks = 10 attacks and 10-wide, 3 ranks = 30 attacks, the way it is now. I think that makes more sense and balances out the formations much more. You would also cut down on the big units (Witch Elves) that can come through and wipe out everything in one round of combat.
There would still be an incentive to horde formation because you'd actually still have more attacks, but it might not be worth it if those 5 additional attacks won't net you as much CR as having additional ranks would.
-
I'd get rid of horde rule all together. hate it. I think I am pro getting rid of steadfast, too.
-
I bet you do, being a Dwarf player, Finlay! Hordes aren't really a Dwarf kind of thing.
I agree with the Steadfast rule too. There's so much access to Stubborn right now, that it's not needed. They virtually do the same thing.
-
I also have an empire army, but not played since 8th ed book because CRUDFACE, and an ONG army. I've only just started my dwarf army, and only played 3 games with them.
I just hate hordes. they're messy, and encourage too big units, which I immensely dislike, and the "counter" to too big units, the shitty magic phase, which I immensely dislike.
-
I got a new idea to make units be wider.
If your unit is wider than it is long (more ranks than files) then you can target it with shooting attacks even if it is in close combat.
Its not that crazy, those units of 5 wide by 10 deep are ridiculous looking, and its not really all that crazy to think that a unit like that would be big enough to easily target with missile weapons without hitting your own men.
-
On the matter of hordes I've always wondered myself if it was better at a formula to produce them over a set width. So something say has to be at least three files wider than the opposing unit to gain the extra rank of attacks (though here I again don't wonder if back down to a single rank would be nicer). So a unit with 8 frontage counts as a horde to a unit with 5 simulating that the spare guy or guys at the edge are not kindly sitting by behind imaginary line but enveloping the sides of the formation. Might mix things up a bit being that now folks are almost always, baring a few units, aiming for only 5 or 10 width units.
-
On the matter of hordes I've always wondered myself if it was better at a formula to produce them over a set width. So something say has to be at least three files wider than the opposing unit to gain the extra rank of attacks (though here I again don't wonder if back down to a single rank would be nicer). So a unit with 8 frontage counts as a horde to a unit with 5 simulating that the spare guy or guys at the edge are not kindly sitting by behind imaginary line but enveloping the sides of the formation.
I like this idea, at least in concept. Reward units for outmatching the enemy instead of merely adhering to some arbitrary standard.
-
On the matter of hordes I've always wondered myself if it was better at a formula to produce them over a set width. So something say has to be at least three files wider than the opposing unit to gain the extra rank of attacks (though here I again don't wonder if back down to a single rank would be nicer). So a unit with 8 frontage counts as a horde to a unit with 5 simulating that the spare guy or guys at the edge are not kindly sitting by behind imaginary line but enveloping the sides of the formation. Might mix things up a bit being that now folks are almost always, baring a few units, aiming for only 5 or 10 width units.
20mm troops are getting either 5 or 10 wide indeed (bare a few like flaggelants if played I see them 7 wide) but I'm not so sure about 25mm, those get really unwielding 10 wide.. As I started a Lizardmen army and frequent Lustria-onlin.com I see those 25mm usually in 5-6-7 wide
-
On the matter of hordes I've always wondered myself if it was better at a formula to produce them over a set width. So something say has to be at least three files wider than the opposing unit to gain the extra rank of attacks (though here I again don't wonder if back down to a single rank would be nicer). So a unit with 8 frontage counts as a horde to a unit with 5 simulating that the spare guy or guys at the edge are not kindly sitting by behind imaginary line but enveloping the sides of the formation. Might mix things up a bit being that now folks are almost always, baring a few units, aiming for only 5 or 10 width units.
20mm troops are getting either 5 or 10 wide indeed (bare a few like flaggelants if played I see them 7 wide) but I'm not so sure about 25mm, those get really unwielding 10 wide.. As I started a Lizardmen army and frequent Lustria-onlin.com I see those 25mm usually in 5-6-7 wide
True, it could make the match up look rather odd even if the numbers were correct.
I'm just afraid that it could get too complicated too quickly. The rules are already confusing as is. :icon_confused:
-
I think you just shouldnt get another rank of attacks for horde and there should be some other benefit. It doesnt really make sense anyways, if youre a horde.... what, you like lap around and attack the flanks? then why wouldnt the enemy get more attacks too?
I like units of 60 men and whatever, and i hate the idea that we should just take units 5 wide, 10 deep... but just magically increasing your attacks by 50% because you deployed wide is stupid.
and deploying deep is lame because you should totally be able to shoot them with cannons, bows or whatever because theyd be so easily distinguishable from the enemy, even in close combat.
-
Just another random thought would anyone be opposed to the idea, for the sake of balance at lower levels, that certain units are moved to a special 'Grand' unit type entry where you need say a 3000 point army to field them (like the Grand spells I've done in the Alternate magic). So say in the case of Empire the Steam Tank would need a certain level (Just start at say 3000 pts) of game for it to be fielded rather than the rather low bar of a 1000 pt game?
-
I think if you have to have 50% core and a maximum of 1 rare unit and 2 special units... then it will sort itself out.
Especially if you create scenarios.
-
I don't think that would ever happen. GW wouldn't sell nearly as many of their big boxes.
-
Just another random thought would anyone be opposed to the idea, for the sake of balance at lower levels, that certain units are moved to a special 'Grand' unit type entry where you need say a 3000 point army to field them (like the Grand spells I've done in the Alternate magic). So say in the case of Empire the Steam Tank would need a certain level (Just start at say 3000 pts) of game for it to be fielded rather than the rather low bar of a 1000 pt game?
This is clearly excellent.
-
why dont you just have a friendly tourny game where you say you have to have 40% core, max 1 rare unit, etc? then that would be interesting, as a playtest?
I play mostly core troops, but i try to adhere to the standard of minimizing core, to stay competitive.
-
I think if you have to have 50% core and a maximum of 1 rare unit and 2 special units... then it will sort itself out.
Especially if you create scenarios.
I don't think that works though since one could still take a Steam Tank at a paltry 1000 pts. In addition to the 50% core you still need some characters which at smaller points just to have a basic general and a wizard type would eat in quite significantly, limiting special and rare allotments more would only make taking the most cost effective types even more of a no brainer, certainly more book re-writing could fix this but I think still you need to make certain units unlock at a higher point rather then causing a detriment to lower level games. If anything one of the biggest problems with the current edition of Fantasy is how poorly it scales over different point values.
GW wouldn't sell nearly as many of their big boxes.
I've long stopped house ruling and such by think what would be marketable to GW, since largely it gets in the way of writing better rules.
-
I don't see why you can't have the old maximum rare/special choices per 1000 points and min/max percentage core/special/rare at the same time.
-
army requirements
40% pts minimum spent on core
40% maximum spent on lords or heroes
1 rare unit at armies under 3000 pts
50% maximum spent on special
remove all references to steadfast/ hordes
stubborn remains the same
infantry needs 5 wide for rank bonus, cavalry/war beasts need 4 wide
new combat resolution system
1 pt for flank attack
2 pts for rear attack
maximum 3 pts for doing more wounds of damage than the opponent
1 pt for standard bearer
1 pt for BSB
maximum 3 pts for rank bonus (still removed by flank attack)
1 pts if won challenge
1 pt for more files than opponent
new magic system
channel dice on a 3+ instead of 6
dwarves +2 dispel dice, +2 to dispel
max # of dice per spell is wiz lvl + 2
rolling double 1’s means the spell doesn’t cast (instead of just needing to be 3 or more) even if IF and miscast, miscast effect still occurs.
spells that cause instant death to models allow ward saves from magic resistance
shooting:
shortbows, slings, bows, longbows, crossbows, handguns, etc.: +6” range
fast cav can shoot 360 degrees
fast cav can fire move-or-fire weapons while moving (but not while marching)
pistols: no long range -1
any throwing weapon gets quick to fire
arrow shower: any bow weapon can fire instead with the following profile
S2, range -6” , multiple shots x2, quick to fire
artillery:
can fire at the ground
can aim at friendly models
can fire into combat
cause panic if does any wounds of damage
all misfire results: 1-5 cannot shoot this turn, 6 explodes
bolt throwers:
reroll misses to hit
d2 wounds
cannons:
S10
range 60”
d3 wounds
Heroic Killing Blow
These are some thoughts I came up with to perhaps make the game a little different, changing the competitive gameplay to still be in the spirit of more laid back games.
what do you think?
-
While some of these are interesting I think it suffers to much from the 'imploding' the current system rather than honing with previous edition experience as well as current game experience.
BS shooting is probably not solved by more range, less modifiers and less cost are probably better options. Bolt Throwers also I think would be better given no modifiers for shooting at formed units. Other artillery stuff a bit much.
-
okay well at the very least i think the CR system is weird, its like with a lot of units, if you dont have steadfast you are going to lose combat by 10, 12, 15, 20 pts!! minus 20 to LD? yeah whatttt.
now that theres regularly units of 50 men with 30 attacks killing a dozen slaves, gobbos or whatever a turn, 1 pt per wound makes getting a flank charge off seem worthless in CR.
-
I think if you have to have 50% core and a maximum of 1 rare unit and 2 special units... then it will sort itself out.
Especially if you create scenarios.
I don't think that works though since one could still take a Steam Tank at a paltry 1000
How?
500 points (at least) would have to be core.
You have to have a general.
And as I pointed out, you use scenario based games in which you need banners to achieve things.
If, after all that, someone still wants to use a steam tank at 1000 points... fine by me.
If it's broken, then it's the steam tank that's the problem, not the rest.
-
okay well at the very least i think the CR system is weird, its like with a lot of units, if you dont have steadfast you are going to lose combat by 10, 12, 15, 20 pts!! minus 20 to LD? yeah whatttt.
now that theres regularly units of 50 men with 30 attacks killing a dozen slaves, gobbos or whatever a turn, 1 pt per wound makes getting a flank charge off seem worthless in CR.
I stand by the potential idea of scaling back attacks to a single rank, as previous editions, as well as retaining that troops still get attacks back. Certainly cut down on the huge 'death' level combats tend to have and making static CR a bit more important.
I think if you have to have 50% core and a maximum of 1 rare unit and 2 special units... then it will sort itself out.
Especially if you create scenarios.
I don't think that works though since one could still take a Steam Tank at a paltry 1000
How?
500 points (at least) would have to be core.
You have to have a general.
And as I pointed out, you use scenario based games in which you need banners to achieve things.
If, after all that, someone still wants to use a steam tank at 1000 points... fine by me.
If it's broken, then it's the steam tank that's the problem, not the rest.
You omitted that I did say that "certainly more book re-writing could fix this" but I still stand by my feelings on this moving mega units to higher points games just feels better and is more aesthetically pleasing to see on the the table.
-
I like the fighting in 2 ranks because people actually go out and kill eachother, but hording up for 3 rank of attacks? then counting the death totals as a dozen state troops go down... i dont know i just want static cr to matter more and not to lose combats by 12 every time and be depending on steadfast not to flee.
-
I like the fighting in 2 ranks because people actually go out and kill eachother, but hording up for 3 rank of attacks? then counting the death totals as a dozen state troops go down... i dont know i just want static cr to matter more and not to lose combats by 12 every time and be depending on steadfast not to flee.
But that is the conundrum, if you like all those ranks fighting there will be lots of death, things which Static CR can't compensate with. If you scaled back the number of attacks again but kept the far larger number of ways of buffing and de-buffing you get a better mix between the static and kills without being all that complex. Steadfast could remain and if it can be negated and that combats are not as readily ending up in a complete shredding of ones unit each round it might actually feel like a more 'realistic' dynamic.
Further if death levels are drawn back a bit it probably works to bring units down into a more healthy size again instead of losing perhaps 7 guys a round you lose 3-4. You wouldn't need to start off at 40 or 50 with almost every infantry block.
-
You wouldn't need to start off at 40 or 50 with almost every infantry block.
And that is why GW is unlikely to change those rules.
-
maybe ALL infantry should be a little cheaper in pts? idk
what i want isnt less killing but just maybe every 3 wounds counts as 1 pt per CR or something, just so that getting a dozen kills is balanced to getting a glank charge/rear charge off instead of basically any super killy unit just becoming basically unbreakable.
-
I like the idea of moving some units/models to higher point levels.. Special Characters (lords) would come to mind with Stanks aswell.. I would say 2500+ points so you are able to pick up 1 choice for every 500 points from there? That way in a non-Grand army you can have 1 choice at least.
Fluffwise it would also be reasonable. Big generals would not accompany a small fighting host but big armies and expensive equipment would not be sent out without some decent host accompanying it
-
You wouldn't need to start off at 40 or 50 with almost every infantry block.
And that is why GW is unlikely to change those rules.
But if we are wishlisting and what not, why let GW ideas get in the way of potentially better game design?
-
I like the idea of moving some units/models to higher point levels.. Special Characters (lords) would come to mind with Stanks aswell.. I would say 2500+ points so you are able to pick up 1 choice for every 500 points from there? That way in a non-Grand army you can have 1 choice at least.
Fluffwise it would also be reasonable. Big generals would not accompany a small fighting host but big armies and expensive equipment would not be sent out without some decent host accompanying it
I agree. It doesn't really make much sense that Karl Franz would be out with a small troop defending a fishing village. I think that as far as characters go, their inclusion should be totally points based. Whatever their cost must be under some percentage of the total army build before they can be taken.
I think that as far as Core, Special, and Rare go, the option to take them opens up at a certain point value. For example, 1 Special choice at 25% in games 750 points and under. 2 at 25% for 1000 and so forth. Rares wouldn't be able to be taken until you reach 2000, etc.
That may complicate putting a list together a bit, but it would balance things out a bit. :closed-eyes:
-
I say just fix list building for "friendly" games or make a competition based on limited list building.
I just think friendly games could be made better if there were some interesting rules about list building to limit the demigryph horde, steam tank filled karl franz led uber forces running around.
maybe fantasy should become more like 40k's apocalypse mode? where you play rediculously big battles?
-
You wouldn't need to start off at 40 or 50 with almost every infantry block.
And that is why GW is unlikely to change those rules.
Is it? Models still have the same point cost, so for a 2.5k game you need about the same amount of models. It would just be more units.
It would certainly up my random buy habits again. Hey, a box of 10 slayers, those are cool looking dudes. Let's get em!
Whereas now I'm just buying stuff on ebay, to get my units up to the levels I need em to be.
-
I think that as far as Core, Special, and Rare go, the option to take them opens up at a certain point value. For example, 1 Special choice at 25% in games 750 points and under. 2 at 25% for 1000 and so forth. Rares wouldn't be able to be taken until you reach 2000, etc.
That may complicate putting a list together a bit, but it would balance things out a bit. :closed-eyes:
Agreed! Though it wouldn't be that complicated. It's just the system we have now with a capped number of units of that type.
-
I think it would actually be a little too restrictive. It may lead to more fluff-accurate army composition, but it also limits things in a way that is unconstructive for a fantasy tabletop game. I think the max number of specials/rares based on points value of armies can work if that's the only restriction (as in 6th edition), but that plus the percentages is too much.
-
You say limit, I say it's a way of making the player use something else than the most effective units, only taking a minimum of min-maxed core units. Although, part of that problem is that special and rare choices are usually way better for the points than most core choices, but what's the point of having special or rare choices if they aren't special or rare? 50% and 25% is way too much.
-
The problem I see if you don't include a certain % on special choices, is players pouring all of their available points into one giant unit that you will never be able to whittle down in 6 rounds of combat. Imagine a huge horde (50-60) of White Lions with the BotWD, and a few core choices sitting behind them. That would be terrible to face.
-
I don't see why you can't have the old maximum rare/special choices per 1000 points and min/max percentage core/special/rare at the same time.
This.
-
The problem with that is that it removes the option to have - for example - many small units of elite troops. And it might penalize armies which have relatively inexpensive elites.
Perhaps each army simply needs specific restrictions in each army book - not a global breakdown and rules, but specifics. So, Bretonnia and Vampire Counts could have more points in characters than average, but would only be allowed the same number of characters (because they are elite heroes). Empire could have more characters allowed, but the average number of points allowed to be spent (they are basic leaders, not super heroes). Empire could have a higher minimum points on core required, but also be allowed a larger number of elite units (with specific restrictions on things like Stanks and DGKs). Skaven could have the A-bomb limited to 1 per 1500pts, or whatever.
I really think specific restrictions, tailored to the army composition and theme, would be the way to go. It might go a long way to making armies characterful without causing great problems.
-
thats really interesting, but you could totally limit the army composition individually by yourself with a house rule set (or a tournament rule set).
you can make individual restrictions to keep armies from running the netlist
-
The problem with individual restrictions is that they don't work in pick-up games, or even across different groups (if I play at the GW store, and with my mates in my garage, and in the local club, and they have three different restrictions it makes things complex).
I think the global restrictions are a source of some of the problems we see in Warhammer armies.
Another interesting thought which just occurred to me; Core troops. Currently, they are just "basic stuffs" and include things like Goblins and Orcs, and Skaven Slaves and regular Skaven, in the same lists.
I think there might be a case to be made for some kind of requirement that one must have at least half (? maybe, I dunno) of the Core units in the army chosen from units marked "Basic Core" which would be very regular stuff. Or, perhaps one is restricted to no more than a certain number of non Basic Core units, varying depending on the General chosen? Something like that. It might prevent certain abuses or encourage flufflier builds.
-
you can make individual restrictions to keep armies from running the netlist
My friends and I do this quite a bit actually, but it usually doesn't work. There is almost one rule that turns out to work in favor of one side, resulting in a lop-sided combat.
I see that being the problem when you start to change each army book based on what they need or don't need instead of making them conform to the main BRB rule set. Fix the BRB first, then the AB should simply be auguments of those rules.