Topic: Possible Update for the Rules of The Old World ...

[commandant]

The +1AS did mean that all other infantry tended to fall by the wayside

[Edwin von Dufflecoat]

That was defo a problem. But it created an...an arms race of rule and counter rule as they tried to make other troop types relevant in the face of the free extra armour save.

It doesn't even make sense. I'm a soldier. I get a hand weapon as standard.  I pay 1pt for a shield. I now magically have two shields. I pay another point for a spear,  and one of my shields vanishes, I mean wtf?

[Dazgrim]

But this is entirely hogwash.

+1AS was only in 6th. In 7th it became a 6+ ward in melee, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

[Damar]

They did include "Parry" rule with Talsyn's host in Wood Elf Arcane Journal. This was for supposedly elite-of-the-elite guys so giving it to everyone else as it stands (aside from fact Talsyns guys get bonus with spear too) would be pretty lame.

I don't know what would be a fix that is not entirely lopsided though.

[commandant]

But this is entirely hogwash.

+1AS was only in 6th. In 7th it became a 6+ ward in melee, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Yes but a 6+ ward is better than +1 AS

[Dazgrim]

That's what I said.

I was disagreeing that +1AS broke the game. But acknowledging that a 6+ ward was very different.

[commandant]

I misunderstood. Though AP used to be a lot more common than it is now.

[Tiberius]

But this is entirely hogwash.

+1AS was only in 6th. In 7th it became a 6+ ward in melee, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Yes but a 6+ ward is better than +1 AS

Is it better?  It doesn't seem like it is, but I am not a statistics person.

For instance, if someone has full plate, and a shield.  If it's +1 armor for sword and board the unit goes from 3+ to 2+. You are reducing by half the number of wounds.  To keep it simple, 6 attacks hit and wound, with +1 armor the saves go down from 2 to 1 unsaved wound.  But if you have a ward instead of a extra point of armor, then 2 wounds go through, but you only have a 1/3 chance that a wound will be saved. 

There is probably a way mathematically to say this more eloquently, but 6+ ward seems worse.  I hate 6+ ward saves.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

+1AS was only in 6th. In 7th it became a 6+ ward in melee, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

To cross some i's and dot some t's: both 6th and 7th edition had +1 AS in CC. The change to a 6+ ward in CC happened in 8th.

[lcmiracle]

At least a 6++ makes more sense than +1A

[commandant]

The reason the ward is better is because you can't remove the ward where as you used to lose AS due to high strength attacks.

[Edwin von Dufflecoat]

At least a 6++ makes more sense than +1A

I'd have to disagree with that too.  Just having a sword and shield shouldn't give you the kind of surety of protection magic gives you, and I can't fathom any reasoning that might suggest it should.
If you're holding a shield in one hand, the sword in the other now can't be brushed aside by a stronger opponent? A sword  can't break, and somehow can stop a manticore simply ripping your head off?  A parry is when you stop an incoming sword with your own sword. You can't parry a charging rhinoceros. Swords and boards don't create magical forcefields around their bearer.

Parry should already be represented adequately by the whole ws v ws .  If you rolled to hit and missed, it's cos your target dodged, ducked, parried whatever. It doesn't need an extra rule to represent it.

What on earth is this parry save actually supposed to represent?  Nothing ever experienced by an actual real life swordsman that's for sure.

[lcmiracle]

At least a 6++ makes more sense than +1A

I'd have to disagree with that too.  Just having a sword and shield shouldn't give you the kind of surety of protection magic gives you, and I can't fathom any reasoning that might suggest it should.
If you're holding a shield in one hand, the sword in the other now can't be brushed aside by a stronger opponent? A sword  can't break, and somehow can stop a manticore simply ripping your head off?  A parry is when you stop an incoming sword with your own sword. You can't parry a charging rhinoceros. Swords and boards don't create magical forcefields around their bearer.

Parry should already be represented adequately by the whole ws v ws .  If you rolled to hit and missed, it's cos your target dodged, ducked, parried whatever. It doesn't need an extra rule to represent it.

What on earth is this parry save actually supposed to represent?  Nothing ever experienced by an actual real life swordsman that's for sure.

That I tried to parry with my sword but failed yet still managed to catch the incoming attack with my shield. It accounts for a second to-hit roll represented by the defender's ability to parry with the shield.

[Tiberius]

I liked the 9 age rule, that if you had a sword and a shield you could not be hit at better than a 4+.  I would add that with the arcane engine with -1 to hit and suddenly my lowly soldiers could only be hit on a 5+.  That was fun times.

[commandant]

Surely that doesn't work because things that would hit them on a 3+ would apply the -1 first, bringing them to a 4+ and then check for sword and shield bonus?

[Edwin von Dufflecoat]

At least a 6++ makes more sense than +1A

I'd have to disagree with that too.  Just having a sword and shield shouldn't give you the kind of surety of protection magic gives you, and I can't fathom any reasoning that might suggest it should.
If you're holding a shield in one hand, the sword in the other now can't be brushed aside by a stronger opponent? A sword  can't break, and somehow can stop a manticore simply ripping your head off?  A parry is when you stop an incoming sword with your own sword. You can't parry a charging rhinoceros. Swords and boards don't create magical forcefields around their bearer.

Parry should already be represented adequately by the whole ws v ws .  If you rolled to hit and missed, it's cos your target dodged, ducked, parried whatever. It doesn't need an extra rule to represent it.

What on earth is this parry save actually supposed to represent?  Nothing ever experienced by an actual real life swordsman that's for sure.

That I tried to parry with my sword but failed yet still managed to catch the incoming attack with my shield. It accounts for a second to-hit roll represented by the defender's ability to parry with the shield.

  you misunderstand me: the action that is represented by the parry protects you equally as well whether the attack is a goblin poking you with a knife, or Thanos dropping a moon on you. What possible action taken with a sword and shield has the same chance of stopping both?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Fluff has no bearing on the rules.

[Grudgie]

Just give close order infantry +1 to their armor and be done with it. One of the reasons to stand in tight ranks is that the person on your left and right protect your sides so you can't be singled out.

[commandant]

Fluff has no bearing on the rules.

The rules are trying to represent the fluff though.

Just give close order infantry +1 to their armor and be done with it. One of the reasons to stand in tight ranks is that the person on your left and right protect your sides so you can't be singled out.

That would be an interesting change. Would give foot knights a 2+ save.

It would also make things like black powder seem strong due to their AP

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Fluff has no bearing on the rules.

The rules are trying to represent the fluff though.

True to some extent.  And equally true to some extent, fluff is invented to represent the rules.

[commandant]

True.

[lcmiracle]

At least a 6++ makes more sense than +1A

I'd have to disagree with that too.  Just having a sword and shield shouldn't give you the kind of surety of protection magic gives you, and I can't fathom any reasoning that might suggest it should.
If you're holding a shield in one hand, the sword in the other now can't be brushed aside by a stronger opponent? A sword  can't break, and somehow can stop a manticore simply ripping your head off?  A parry is when you stop an incoming sword with your own sword. You can't parry a charging rhinoceros. Swords and boards don't create magical forcefields around their bearer.

Parry should already be represented adequately by the whole ws v ws .  If you rolled to hit and missed, it's cos your target dodged, ducked, parried whatever. It doesn't need an extra rule to represent it.

What on earth is this parry save actually supposed to represent?  Nothing ever experienced by an actual real life swordsman that's for sure.

That I tried to parry with my sword but failed yet still managed to catch the incoming attack with my shield. It accounts for a second to-hit roll represented by the defender's ability to parry with the shield.

  you misunderstand me: the action that is represented by the parry protects you equally as well whether the attack is a goblin poking you with a knife, or Thanos dropping a moon on you. What possible action taken with a sword and shield has the same chance of stopping both?

Wrong. I misunderstood nothing, it is you who continously refuse to see basic reason. The act of parrying with the sword is represented by the WS stat, as is with a great weapon, a halberd, or a spear. The second hand with the shield, however, allows for a second attempt to deflect the blow -- in which case, the shield is not used to block but to redirect an incoming attack. This action being the exact same as parrying with a sword or any other melee weapon wielded in two hands thus cannot be represented with an armor save roll. Hence the 6++.

Meanwhile, even when the shield failed to parry, it is still big enough to cover the body, still represented by the +1 armor save. It's all very simple. It beats having a shield gain +1A while also having a second HW also gain +1A as a rule, which is complete hogwash.

[commandant]

Surely this would work with spears as well as handweapons

[Damar]

FAQ leaked changes to old world (From Discord). Note that this might not be true of course since some rules issues are not touched upon while nerfing stuff which was just recently published (Beastmen Dark Coven for example).

(I underlined some of the Empire relevant bits)

-------------

Close Order bonus for unit strength 10+ only
Only infantry and cavalry can get a 2+ armour save
Supporting attacks can only be made within your base movement
Impetuous is now based on leadership
Chaos Dragon is now Impetuous
Empire State Troops get Warband

Cast/Dispel bonuses are capped at wizard level +1 (so no stacking Mortis engines)
Poison now +1 to wound not auto wound
Pillar of fire now random move
TMP wholly within
Ogre Blade now 75pts
Chaos regen items now Cav+Infantry only

Royal Pegasus +10pts
Pegasus Knights +4pts
Skirmishers can only charge if over half the unit can draw line of sight to the target
Arcane urgency now one less to cast at 9+
Stupidity prevents casting and shooting
Skin wolf buffs don't affect characters

Vortexes are now dispelled from the vortex not the wizard
Impact hits happen before challenges are declared
Trollhammer Torpedo is now Cumbersome and S5
Trolls get motley crew
Flails get armour bane (1) on the charge

Halberds are AP +2 on the charge
infantry get +1 combat res if they outnumber their opponent
Infantry/Heavy infantry only, +1 armour in melee if using hand weapon + shield up to max 3+
-------------

So somewhat heavy handed shield buff for light infantry (Chaos Warriors sulk in the corner now), Knights Errant/Errantry crusade does not suck anymore because everyone packs Veteran in Bretonnian AoI lists. If the list is true, which it might not be.

[Edwin von Dufflecoat]

Much needed change to impetuous there. And the close order unit strength thingy ( tho it does somewhat nerf my own strategy for state infantry).  I'm unimpressed by warband for state troopers. That's a rule for rabble, not disciplined troops!  Should be drilled all round as standard.

What's tmp?