Topic: 8th Edition Revisions. 3 Suggestions per man.

[Novogord]

1) No true line of sight;
2) Dimming the magic fase and uber-spells;
3a) Flank charges should do something more;
3b) Cavalery charges should be harder hitting.

[SorenJ]

Since I am only allowed three, they will be suggestions that affect the general game for all armies, not just Empire.

1) Dim down magic. Especially removing the 'cannot dispel irresistible force' rule.
2) Combined stat line for characters on ridden monsters.
3) Remove or at least reduce ASF. Elves have high enough Initiative to strike first anyways and they do not need to reroll their To Hit.

[Warlord]

It removes flavour and is very good for low-I armies (<3 or =3) and bad for high I armies. Why only have exceptions for pikes and lances ? How about other armies?

I disagree. I think everyone wanting elves removes flavour. And I propose removing I completely. Before 8th it was a mainly useless and redundant stat. 8th overpowered it.

Pikes and lances are an example, not the be all end all.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I disagree. I think everyone wanting elves removes flavour. And I propose removing elves completely. Before 8th it was mainly useless and redundant race. 8th overpowered it.

FTFY

[Rein]

It removes flavour and is very good for low-I armies (<3 or =3) and bad for high I armies. Why only have exceptions for pikes and lances ? How about other armies?

I disagree. I think everyone wanting elves removes flavour. And I propose removing I completely. Before 8th it was a mainly useless and redundant stat. 8th overpowered it.

Pikes and lances are an example, not the be all end all.

Why was it redundant? Because combat was won on static combat resolution and there was no step up and no steadfast. Changing/adding those rules changes the dynamics but does not validate removing I completely. Removing I really has a high impact on the game, making all the low I armies better while equivalent reducing the higher I armies. One should always keep in mind if this is something you want or not.

Elves strike first anyway, even with or without I. The problem is that ASF is overpowered at the moment. Actually to be more precise: Elf infantry all have gone down in point cost but went up in abilities (except the great weapon ASF hitting). So compared to other armies their units are really good! It is never a problem of stats of rules alone, but always compared to their point cost. Removing the weird re-roll to hit should be enough (Like SorenJ suggested).

I am confident that I can take on any elf army if they are denied re-rolls.

Also:

I disagree. I think everyone wanting elves removes flavour. And I propose removing elves completely. Before 8th it was mainly useless and redundant race. 8th overpowered it.

FTFY

Niceeee

[Warlord]

But with step up continuing to exist, how does it make a difference?
You might as well be hitting simultaneously, except for instances where the ones who hit first, kill enough to reduce attacks back. And how is that different to the charger striking first in 6th / 7th ed?

People complained that you didn't get to strike back in 6th and 7th, but ASF and high I do the same thing. The fact that units are bigger means it is less likely doesn't change the fact.

Hitting simultaneously (except for ASF and ASL weapons / rules) means its not a thing. How is it making the low I armies better when they still attack due to step up anyway? Unless, like I mentioned above, a bunch are killed instead.


I agree 100% about removing the stupid ASF reroll.

And I don't have a problem with Elf armies generally (though I haven't played 'new' wood elves).

What I have a problem with, is some of the additional rules that have outgrown their usefulness.

A guess a bunch of my suggestions aren't so much about improving 8th ed, but rather taking a few steps further to streamline the game, but retain flavour in areas where it counts. Of course everyone has opinions about what counts, but I hardly think strike order is a game breaker if one considers that step up in effect makes it useless most of the time anyway.

[mottdon]

I would suggest the following:

1.  MR applies to all magic.  Any offensive spell and any magical weapons.  It would work as a ward save but only against magic, not physical attacks.

2.  Steadfast is viable to disruption if charged in a flank or rear by a unit of 10 or more (or equivalent). 

3.  Shooters can fire in three ranks and remove the move or shoot rule completely.  Slow to Fire or Quick to Fire only apply when being charged.

Honorable Mention:  Spears should should retain current rules but also gain Impact Hits when charging or being charged.

[Shadow_Zero]

While I retain a fondness for d100s, I think retaining the d6 is a good idea for availability, as emcdunna says, and also for accessibility. D6s are familiar to anyone who's played board games, while other dice are weird and scary and just another thing that might put newcomers off. Admittedly without GW support whether newcomers are going to be plentiful is a good question, but if the system is good enough, who knows.

The other issue of course is whether in a mass battle tabletop wargame (which I think the majority of us are probably agreed WFB should be, if not necessarily on such a titanic scale as 8th was at times) the degree of granularity from a d>6 is actually desirable or whether it would clog up the system and slow everything down.

Perhaps also worth noting that 2nd edition 40K did use dice of a greater variety and that didn't seem to be a resounding success - although whether 3rd edition actually improved upon 2nd edition or whether it was 40K's Age of Sigmar moment is debatable and not worth getting into here 

4th edition Steam Tank used a D4!
(for the record)

I like the suggestions for boosting artillery and cavalry.

[Rein]

But with step up continuing to exist, how does it make a difference?
You might as well be hitting simultaneously, except for instances where the ones who hit first, kill enough to reduce attacks back. And how is that different to the charger striking first in 6th / 7th ed?

People complained that you didn't get to strike back in 6th and 7th, but ASF and high I do the same thing. The fact that units are bigger means it is less likely doesn't change the fact.

Hitting simultaneously (except for ASF and ASL weapons / rules) means its not a thing. How is it making the low I armies better when they still attack due to step up anyway? Unless, like I mentioned above, a bunch are killed instead.


I agree 100% about removing the stupid ASF reroll.

And I don't have a problem with Elf armies generally (though I haven't played 'new' wood elves).

What I have a problem with, is some of the additional rules that have outgrown their usefulness.

A guess a bunch of my suggestions aren't so much about improving 8th ed, but rather taking a few steps further to streamline the game, but retain flavour in areas where it counts. Of course everyone has opinions about what counts, but I hardly think strike order is a game breaker if one considers that step up in effect makes it useless most of the time anyway.

I feel Like I am repeating myself. Just as I tried to explain to emcdunna: not the whole of warhammer is one death star against another. You are right about big blocks with step up fighting each other, it does not matter. But lets look at it from the other point of view: What happens when you would change to hitting at the same time and removing I:
Big block vs Big block: Hitting at the same time. However we cant roll at the same time so we roll in turns. Which is exactly the same as you do now with I except that the 'rolling in turns' is predetermined.
Big block vs small block (msu, big block taking heavy losses or just medium sized units): Same as above when the size of the unit - casualties is greater than the number of attacking models. Striking at the same time helps units with low I because in the original version they have a big chance to lose attacks before they can strike (so helping low I armies). So originally the effect is going to be severe, because one of the units is going to lose attacks before the other one does.
small vs small: Effect is very great (see above). Striking first in general means your unit is going to win in a straight up combat.

So in conclusion: Removing I has little effect on game streamline (we roll in turns anyway) and has a significant impact on game outcome.

[indie]

For me it is:

1. Remove the re-rolls from ASF.

2. Allow MR and wards saves against all spells.

3. Change miscasts by rearranging the table and rolling 2D3 + the number of dice used to cast to find out the result.

[mottdon]

MR has been one of the biggest annoyances for me in 8th edition. 

You should have Armor Saves for physical attacks, MR saves for magical attacks and Ward saves as the ultimate save (good against both).  As a result, magical items that grant MR should cost less than an item that grants a ward save.  Also, I don't think that just because a character joins a unit, the unit automatically gets MR as well.  For example, if a character who has a ward save joins a unit, the entire unit doesn't suddenly gain the same ward save.  It should be the same with MR.  The only things that should be able to effect the entire unit should be spells and leadership qualities (aka. Stubborn, Inspiring Presence, Hold the Line, etc.).

But I do think that MR should also give resistance to magical weapons.  There are some devastating weapons out there.  It would be nice to have some sort of resistance for say a knight against a weapon the obsidian blade.  Sure, you cut through my 1+ armor like soft butter, but I also have a (5++) MR vs magical weapons so I still get a chance to save my knight. 

And as with ward saves, you use the highest value if the character has more than one.  For example, if a character has a 4++ ward save and a MR2 (I'm looking at you, Caradryan), then you would use the 4++ ward save instead of using them both.  The only difference is that a ward save can work against physical attacks whereas MR cannot. 

[mr chumley warner]

Good stuff here, we need to eventually pick the revisions which will require the least re writing.

EG. We can't just add impact hits for cavalry, because it would degrade the points associated with paying for impact hits when you choose chariots etc, and may unbalance the game irrevocably.. However , allowing MR to defend against dwellers et al, would be do-able, as would something like removing the ASF re roll

[Ambrose]

Good stuff here, we need to eventually pick the revisions which will require the least re writing.

EG. We can't just add impact hits for cavalry, because it would degrade the points associated with paying for impact hits when you choose chariots etc, and may unbalance the game irrevocably.. However , allowing MR to defend against dwellers et al, would be do-able, as would something like removing the ASF re roll

What about a point system for a model's profile and any special abilities?  This would have an impact on all of the armies, but balancing would then be more about any special rules instead of each and every army book that is out there.

For example, once a point system has been determined for each attribute in a model's profile, you could use a 'man', the imperial soldier, as the 'standard' for points (movement = 1pt per inch, WS = 1 point per value, BS = 1 point per value, etc...).  Once the points for the 'standard' profile, anything above or below would have the points adjusted accordingly.  Once THAT was balanced, then you could introduce each special rule as it is written (minimizing re-writing) but give it a proper point value (eg. ASF is it +5 points?  +6? per model?  just +1?  play testing would be needed.  Same with ASL = -1?  -3?).

I think tinkering with a point system that applies to ALL models no matter what will save the amount of writing compared to introducing whole new rules and abilities.  Assigning points would only take a bunch of players playing a whole bunch of games with the new profile point values, no matter their army.

Ambrose

[Soapstar]

I like a lot of the suggestions here my three would be.

1.  Magic phase - allow ward/MR saves vs vortex, direct damage and vortex spells. MR and Ward wouldn't stack it would be best available. This would help nerf OP spells but not nerf magic or encourage Deathstars even more. Imagine a unit stacked with characters all with a 2++ save vs magic    This would also help keep the points value for MR about right.
2. Disruption causes loss of steadfast.
3. Cavalry units count 4 models wide as a full rank like before. Easier rank bonus and makes it easier to cause disruption but doesn't OP them.

I'd also like to change how characters have to form up in combat. I hate units hiding Battle standard bearers with the banner of awesome hiding in the 2nd rank safe from harm. But not sure exactly how I would do this

[Vietnow]

The problem with 7th/8th is choices made to win the game, made the game less fun.  Half of each army book went unused in competitive play.  Why the hell would I take a unit of 25 regular orcs in 8th?   S3 isn't average, it's bad.  Most take a horde of savage orc big 'uns, a NG horde, etc.

How much dust are on your handgunners right now? Mortar?  HSRB? Flagellants? Militia? Swordsmen?

Most army books have a large section of crap, which doesn't see the table.  This is a problem.

Flying circus WoC army.  Perfectly legit in 8th, and very effective.  Makes the game less fun.

One saber tusk misdirecting a 50 person horde.

Auto win spells, choir, 5/6 of your dwarves/trolls dead to purple sun, AOE soulblight, test or die with no look out sirs or saves.

Cheap heroes means certain armies can spam them.  This NG horde has 6 night goblin big bosses, please allocate hits, any extra wounds are wasted.  Not to mention, my L4 and BSB are hiding in the 2nd rank, you can't touch them for 2-4 rounds.  This is bad for the game.  This makes the game less fun.

Comp systems helped to make more units viable, and games more closely matched as a result.

I liked 8th a lot of the time, but many aspects of the game made it less fun.  There is much more reliance on dice rolls, less on tactics, this makes it less fun.

Since AoS I've thought a lot about what would be FUN to have in a war game.  I honestly don't think any answers have come to me.

In regards to the initiative topic;

There needs to be a system which takes into account every aspect of the game, not just large blocks, elves, or spears, etc.  Goblin wolf riders cannot charge 1/2 the armies in WHFB, without taking hits first or at the same time.   This is a problem.

Elves getting rerolls against everything but elves, problem.

A flanking unit of knights getting smacked before they can attack, problem.

3 tiers of attacking order complicate things, but I'm not sure what else works.

[emcdunna]

One, I'd love it if every unit was useful. I think there's plenty of ways to fix that.

For one thing, in 8th, you get way too many nice things in core. Savage orcs should not be core. Making a unit big Un's should not be core... but every army has that one unit that's way better at being core than anything else.

Also, if you give cavalry 1 impact hit at the strength of the mount (often S3 so not too game changing) but remove the +1 armor save from being mounted, that'd be a fair trade.

I hate the +1 AS for being mounted. It'd be better to have +1T honestly. But granting offensive power instead of a defensive one makes sooooo much sense.

People didn't take cavalry units to act as anvils that would hold the lines... but that's what they are in warhammer.

[Warlord]

I feel Like I am repeating myself.

I understand your point. And I understand what it does. I just think the importance is being overrated. Considering Elves got a points decrease AND a boost because of I becoming more important, and low I armies got nothing, so effectively some armies got double boosted while others that were not broken got nothing.

And I understand you roll in turns, rather than actually at the same time. But that's purely logistics. You know what was there one moment earlier, because you just took them off.

I certainly am not saying warhammer is one deathstar against another. Those are the situations where it doesn't matter at all.

Why is it important that a unit loses attacks immediately, other than that's because how it is currently?

small vs small: Effect is very great (see above). Striking first in general means your unit is going to win in a straight up combat.

I really don't see what's wrong with having my 10 model unit making an attack as they die, vs a unit who wipes them.
Having 10 Witch Elves vs 10 free company, usually 10 witch elves will just keep walking over their corpses. What's so broken about having the 10 free company making their attacks back? The witch elves will still win, but they will get hurt.

I guess the reason why EMC and I are asking some of these questions, is because in our minds, it is with a broader scope in mind regarding all rules and recosting all armies also.

So in conclusion: Removing I has little effect on game streamline (we roll in turns anyway) and has a significant impact on game outcome.

Impact, yes. Significant, No. The unit that would have striked last is still dead. The units with high I don't get to walk around with impunity and actually take wounds too.

For example, once a point system has been determined for each attribute in a model's profile, you could use a 'man', the imperial soldier, as the 'standard' for points (movement = 1pt per inch, WS = 1 point per value, BS = 1 point per value, etc...).  Once the points for the 'standard' profile, anything above or below would have the points adjusted accordingly.  Once THAT was balanced, then you could introduce each special rule as it is written (minimizing re-writing) but give it a proper point value (eg. ASF is it +5 points?  +6? per model?  just +1?  play testing would be needed.  Same with ASL = -1?  -3?).

My thoughts.
Trying to work out the formulas...

3 tiers of attacking order complicate things, but I'm not sure what else works.

It does. But less than 10 tiers Plus ASF and ASL tied in.

[Soapstar]

The other thing to work out is equipment costs for a universal systrm. A 2h weapon is much better when coupled with ASF for example. Do you pay the premium in the special rule or for the weapon. Or does the weapon cost more if a unit has x special rule or stat at x?

[emcdunna]

What all weapons end up doing is boost your basic stats.

Great weapons give you +2 S but don't allow you to benefit from a shield (which just means lower armor) and make you attack slower.

An elf with ASF, S3 and a GW ends up hitting at normal init with S5.

If all else were equal, he should cost the same as a model who has a base S4, a Halberd, and the same init (but no ASF).

All you need to do is compare the RESULT of a special rule, weapon, equipment, etc. Between units.

So if we both end up with S5, A1, WS4, I5, etc. Then we should cost the same points (barring any other special rules that would get tacked on too).

[SorenJ]

@emcdunna. It would be nice if you moved the discussion and promotion of your own system to a separate thread. That way this thread can keep its focus on naming three suggested changes.
Cheers

[Soapstar]

In your example emcdunna yes the 2 hw is just the same as adding 2 to strength. However you already pointed out how this is different to just adding to the stat with no shieldalso it wouldn't effect stat checks so would be costed to that effect. How about spears you could say the extra rank is just the same as +1 A but it isn't a unit with 1A and spears only loses one attack per model lost whilst a unit of 2As lose 2 per model lost.

I think the example you gave was over simplified just adding a cost per increase in stat. You would have to weigh it with the other stats for example +1 str would be less effective on a model with WS3 than WS4. I think by the time these costs had been worked out and playtested you would have been able to adjust the points of the units in existence to get the same balance much quicker. Especialy as most people already have a good feel of what units are over/under powered for their cost.

[Eyrenthaal]

This is our new set of houserules... A few more than three but hey, who's counting...

Movement

A charging unit gains the rule always strike first in their subsequent turn of close combat.

Magic

All spells which inflict wounds or kills will also allow ward saves.

Winds of magic is no longer static. From 3000p and every 1000p above one extra dice will be added. Ie. 3000-3999p = 2d6+1d6, 4000-4999p = 2d6+2d6 etc.. This will be done in the following manor; roll 2d6 as normal and then deduce any buffs or suchlike (HE, Deamons, etc) and then roll any additional die, this roll will be given to both players.

Shooting

Cannons shooting at a monster or a chariot ridden by a character will be using the following table;

1- only the character has been hit.
2-3 only the monster/chariot has been hit (if this hit kills the target the character will also be hit, falling from the back of a monster hurts)
4-6 the entire unit has been hit.

Crew is affected as normal.

Close combat

A charging unit gains the rule always strike first in their subsequent turn of close combat.

If two or more units fighting each other has either always strike first or always strike last rule fighting will be done in initiative order.

Cavalry other than fast cavalry that charges will have one of the beasts attacks changed into one impact hit in their subsequent turn of close combat.

A non fear causing unit that has to take a fear test from a terror causing unit in close combat do so at -2 ld.

Calculating close combat results

To disrupt a unit it will be sufficient to have a full rank in the flank or rear.

Outnumbering your foe gives +1 combat result. (Thus unit strength is back)

Infantry = 1
Cavalry = 2
Larger pieces = their current amount of wounds

Combat reform

A unit fighting another unit inside of a house that wins their combat will be allowed to do a combat reform.

If you are fighting in your front and only in your front you will be allowed to sidestep in order to maximise the number of models in combat. This is done instead of a combat reform and may change where the centre of your unit lies. This cannot be combined with a normal combat reform, one or the other.

 Victory points

Half wp for any fleeing enemy unit at the end of the game.
Half wp for any enemy unit below half their starting unit strength

These two combines.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

If you are fighting in your front and only in your front you will be allowed to sidestep in order to maximise the number of models in combat. This is done instead of a combat reform and may change where the centre of your unit lies. This cannot be combined with a normal combat reform, one or the other.

Are you aware of the Erratum that came out in the very first Update Version in 2010?

[emcdunna]

I think you can already side step to maximize base to base...

But I do like those set of rules, they seem to help a lot of the problem areas of 8th ed.

[Eyrenthaal]

If you are fighting in your front and only in your front you will be allowed to sidestep in order to maximise the number of models in combat. This is done instead of a combat reform and may change where the centre of your unit lies. This cannot be combined with a normal combat reform, one or the other.

Are you aware of the Erratum that came out in the very first Update Version in 2010?

Apparently not

I missed something?

The reason for including it is for example; two units charging one. The one unit wins the fight. One of the two units flees. Now they're standing

Xxxxx
     Vrtyh

Our idea was that this should be possible to fix by using this rule. Ie.

Xxxxx
Vvvvv

But now you're telling me we fixed something that was already fixed?