Topic: 9th edition warhammer- no news, just random thoughts/wishlists/ideas

[Sig]

Steadfast - break tests have your leadership modified by one point per 8cr difference, instead of a one for one conversion.

[Darknight]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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]
.....

[FR1DAY]

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

[Finlay]

agreed

[valmir]

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).

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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."

[Sig]

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.

[mottdon]

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. 

[BAWTRM]

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.

[Finlay]

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.

[Darknight]

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.

[valmir]

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...

[zifnab0]

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+.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

WS2 and WS3 versus WS 3 both hit on 4+; but WS 3 versus WS2 will hit on 3+.

[jaggedjimmyj]

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.

[Darknight]

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.

[Michael W]

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.

[Darknight]

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.

[S.O.F]

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 reasons. 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:



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.

[Finlay]

Good stuff sof

[BAWTRM]

What do those WAB rules say about a unit that is both in the front and side zone?

[shavixmir]

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.

[Darknight]

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.

[Finlay]

Don't like that 25% rule. Encourages people to take even bigger units!