PDA

View Full Version : 8th Edition wishlist



Pages : [1] 2

Hakkapelli
15-02-2009, 19:19
According to some rumours the WHFB 8th edition is not that far away now. Some people, including the owner of my local gaming store, puts it as soon as this year (don't quote me on this though).

So here is the real purpose of this thread. What rules changes would you like to see. Please be realistic. GW aren't going to invalidiate all axisting army books and they are unlikely to change from D6:s to D10:s or some other dice type.
Some unbalancing of certain armies is compleatly ok however since it makes people buy the suddenly more effective units / replacements for those that got less effective and then buy the new armybooks when they come out.

I'll kick it off with some of my ideas:

-Bows: Fires in 2 ranks when stationary.

-Mounted: Gives +1 to your save IN CC only. This bonus does not depend what you are mounted on (horse, cold one, dragon, etc.)

-Barding: +1 save against SHOOTING only, may not march.

-Leader/Fighter split among characters: Leader General have a 18" Ld bubble, Leader non-general have a 6" Ld bubble. (Stolen from draxxynnic on Ulthuan.net)

So, enough of my ideas, lets hear what you would like to change.

isidril93
15-02-2009, 19:25
i dont think it is this year, maybe next.

core units have twice the add rank combat resolution
makes them better and horde better (im looking at you complaining O&G players)

Dooks Dizzo
15-02-2009, 19:29
Anything to make Daemons less powerful...(sorry, couldn't resist).

Honestly, nothing in particular. Just clarifications made official. I don't want the game system to change really, just make it cleaner.

Stuffburger
15-02-2009, 19:32
I'd like to see the S7 autokill chariot rule go away, march moves being allowed for infantry in difficult terrain and taking steps to ensure the current trends of hero-hammery lists and deathstars don't contunue.

Halberds need some help- +1S and AP is about right I think. Magic needs to have some kind of tweak so instead of either a single scroll caddy or all casters medium magic lists are viable.

As for the core rules though, I think 7th is fine and instead of a new edition a couple pages of errata would be fine. GW gotta make their money though...

zak
15-02-2009, 19:36
Some ideas off of the top of my head. Always amazed at what I find there!

1. Sort out the magic missile bolt thrower. If a bolt is fired in a straight line and it can only hit 3 models then it should hit 3 rather than curve around to strike the flank and instead hit more models.

2. GW need to sort out clipping once and for all. I do not have a fix for it, but it really does need to be defined when or if a unit will move to maximise the number of combatants.

3. I would like to see a change to magic. I really liked the card based system from 5th, but I don't expect to see a return to this.

4. In less general terms I would like to see a lessening in the amount of units immune to psychology, a change in the daemon ward save and the Hydra being raised well above the current 175 points (has to be the best model for it's points in the game).

5. For GW to have a clear and defined idea of what they want for all of the armies in 8th edition. They really messed up with 7th edition after initially raising the cost of cavalry (for Orcs) and then completely forgetting to carry this through for other armies.

Dooks Dizzo
15-02-2009, 19:40
change in the daemon ward save This would pretty much fix the army. If their ward save didn't work against magic attacks, they would be utterly managable and we might start seeing some different builds.

Oh and delete the entry for Flamers.

Rubicon
15-02-2009, 19:48
Some clarification for spells.

By this I mean each spell list should specifically say for each spell whether or not it needs line of sight, whether or not it can be cast in or out of combat and whether magic resistance works against it or not.

That'd make me a lot happier.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
15-02-2009, 19:51
SNIP

So, enough of my ideas, lets hear what you would like to change.

Max ranks bonus of +4 [help out that cheap core infantry that's around].

Move back to WS 3, Str 3, 1 attack as the standard profile and price things accordingly.

Make anything more than 1 attack on troops the exception rather than the rule.

Reduce the silly amounts of Always Strikes First which so cheapens the maneuvering aspect of the game.

Parthian shot [or fire and flee]- troops armed with missile weapons can shoot at chargers [-1 to hit for being charged] and then flee away using 1 less dice than normal [so Mv 6 or less troops flee 1d6 inches, Mv7+ troops fell 2d6"].

Standardize the army books [why can some BSBs take shields and others can't?] when rules apply to all armies.

Less special characters, more alternate army lists [like rules for the all goblin list in 6th edition].

Make the terrain rules less punishing so that moving through terrain doesn't effectively remove you from the game.

Aunshiva
15-02-2009, 20:03
My greatest wish for 8th ed? For there to not be an 8th ed. Good lord, really? 7th JUST came out! Here's a great idea: lets get a FULL BATCH of updated armybooks FIRST! THEN we can release a new edition. GOD. Why keep doing this? the 3-4-5th ed thing for 40k was bad enough, but this? Come on. This is just being greedy.

Coram_Boy
15-02-2009, 20:46
3 years ago isn't really just... I think that we should have a new edition by the end of 2010, or beginning of 2011, but no sooner.

R Man
15-02-2009, 20:47
I would like to see units properly catagorised as:
Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Light Cavalry, Heavy cavalry, Skirmishers, Artillery, monsters or chariots. This way each one can be given a proper set of attributes. I.e: All monsters are large targets, thus removing the need to write it in every army book.

I would like to see bows, shortbows and longbows get x2 multiple shot at short range to represent their faster firerates. And of course terrain rules need reviewing.

The magic system isn't too bad but it could be tightened up, fewer unit destroying spells and maybe more ways to miligate magic.

Generally though, the problems in the game come from individual lists rather than from the core rules.

O&G'sRule
15-02-2009, 20:52
That its a long way off. No need. 4-5 years minimum

Ri-xthoal Lord of Lustira
15-02-2009, 20:53
Here's a possiblty:

New lores (If they would take the time to listen.)


Able to fire back by passing your Ld test.

75hastings69
15-02-2009, 20:55
That its a long way off. No need. 4-5 years minimum

You have no idea how wrong you are with that statement ;)

O&G'sRule
15-02-2009, 20:55
Max ranks bonus of +4 [help out that cheap core infantry that's around].


Standardize the army books [why can some BSBs take shields and others can't?] when rules apply to all armies.

Less special characters, more alternate army lists [like rules for the all goblin list in 6th edition].

Make the terrain rules less punishing so that moving through terrain doesn't effectively remove you from the game.

Standardise armies? really? I cant think of a worse idea

O&G'sRule
15-02-2009, 20:57
You have no idea how wrong you are with that statement ;)

OK why? :wtf:

Mireadur
15-02-2009, 20:59
Any change which would mean a turn closer to strategy would be welcome.

-Fixing weaponry and overhauling the magic system are the most important things imo.

The parthian shot is a great idea indeed, but i dont believe every missile unit should have. I rather see it more as a special rule from a specific unit in the game (like glade riders, etc).

Along with the parthian shot i would like to see more special formations introduced into the WHF world suchs as phalanxes, shield walls, schiltron etc.. Would be nice features indeed.

Barding should give armor increase always not just against missile.

Every character giving a Ld bubble sounds good i guess..But would need less killy characters to compensate.

zak
15-02-2009, 21:01
I think 2012 is more likely. That would certainly fit with the current cycle for WHFB.

Condottiere
15-02-2009, 21:04
Besides clarifying rules clearly, they should adopt some of the rules in Ancient Battles.

And I don't see that they could bring out a new edition before end 2010.

sulla
15-02-2009, 21:14
A magic system that doesn't punish players for going magic-medium.

A boost to ranked infantry to help them withstand a charge. Blocks shouldn't be blown away in a single turn by a hero and his knights. Make all those massive attacks units have to actually cut through the unit before they break.

Fredmans
15-02-2009, 21:32
I agree with much that has been said already. Amongst other things:

Remove auto-break from fear. This affects a few armies enormously,while the ItP armies do not care.

Allow march moves in terrain, or make the Lustrian formation a rule for ranked infantry. Cavalry should be penalized in terrain.

A terrain generator. The new system guarantees almost no terrain or a lot of terrain depending on armies.

Oh, and to be really bold, I would hope for a rank discount system. Since models in the rear do not get to attack, they could be given a discount. This would be an alternative to added static combat res and make infantry blocks cheaper across the board without the need for changing army books.

/Fredmans

scolex
15-02-2009, 22:44
Make magic less all or nothing.

Return the viability of horde lists. (All Goblins FTW)

Put limits in place to stop cheeseball lists. (Way too many pd/monsters, deathstars, etc.)

Even up the weapon types (why does anyone want halberds?)

Return of Chaos Dwarfs.

Tae
15-02-2009, 22:55
Remove auto-break from fear. This affects a few armies enormously,while the ItP armies do not care

See, I don't mind the auto-break thing, I just think it should be triggered by something different.

Instead of losing combat and being outnumbered, perhaps it could be something more akin to Goblin's fear of Elves - i.e. you don't 'fear' them unless they outnumber you 2:1.

Sorry but 20 Chaos Warriors aren't going to crap themselves when faced with 21 Zombies. However 40 Zombies is a bit scarier.

There are perhaps other things that could trigger it - maybe taking more wounds than they do (basically to stop you auto-breaking from those crap fear-causing units that just happen to have stacked SCR) or if they cause more wounds than they win combat by?

Basically I think there should be times when you just look at the massed ranks of the enemy and squirt your pants, however it just shouldn't be as easy/common as it is now for certain armies.

As for other rules, personally I'd like to see a requirement for minimum POINTS being spent on core units, rather than actual number of units. No more armies with a token 3 units of 10 infantry please.

Gabacho Mk.II
15-02-2009, 22:58
Not in any order:



> Please re-work the aspects of FEAR. [no more Auto-Break for being outnumbered by 1 unit strength!!!]
[[[in effect, something to bring Vampire Counts into line with the various other armies out there. Fear is the biggest aspect in this equation. If Fear, as suggested above, only Auto-Breaks when 2:1, then we might certainly see less VC players on the circuit, and this (the ruling) would indeed go a long way to "balance out" WFB.]]]


> Please re-work the 8 lores. [yes, rework and redo them to make them be on par/equal with the other race-specific lores, dammit!]

> The rules and effectiveness of weapons [halbreds, spears, etc] needs to be looked and and redone.

> Charge bonuses (due to lances, spears etc) needs to be either toned down, or something equivalent to having the unit move at least half its regular move in order to get a charge bonus for its weapons. [ex: M8 cavalry needs to move at least 4" in order to recieve a +2S for its lances]

> The number of character slots in a 2K needs to change. [up to 3 heroes in 2K, 4 heroes/1 Lord in 2k - 3k, etc] Basically, bring down the usage of characters in <2k games so that tactics end up mattering more than mere killing machines on a base with 5+ Attacks,...

> Please redo the current Power Dice and Dispel Dice format for magic. While magic is good and workable, there has got to be a 'better' way to incorporate magic into the game... In addition, rework the spell choosing/selection of spells.

> Give foot regiments the ability to stand up to heavy cavalry charges... maybe an additional combat resolution for fighting in defence against charging cav????




I will stop here for now.







[I would aim for a more grounded, more tactical game, a game that relies more on movement and sound strategy, and less on powerful armybuilds and in your face silliness.]

Gabacho Mk.II
15-02-2009, 23:03
....
As for other rules, personally I'd like to see a requirement for minimum POINTS being spent on core units, rather than actual number of units. No more armies with a token 3 units of 10 infantry please.


Strongly agree.


Something along the lines of - "must spend at least 1/4 of your army's points on Core units... thus, in a 2K battle, at least 500pts must be spent on Core units...

Pavic
15-02-2009, 23:09
2. GW need to sort out clipping once and for all. I do not have a fix for it, but it really does need to be defined when or if a unit will move to maximise the number of combatants.

I think this is pretty clear in the current rules. Charging, overruns, and pursuit into fresh enemy all require maximization. Maybe clarify if units that have compulsary movement must maximize, but I can't really think I have other situations.


Less special characters, more alternate army lists [like rules for the all goblin list in 6th edition].

I agree with the first part, but there is no way I want more alternative lists. GW can't any balance the current lists. If you start throwing in stuff like the Dwarf Slayer list, Lothern list, etc., then you may as well toss the game out the window. Not to mention this is time that would be wasted instead of remaking the standard books.

I am pretty happy with 7th and I imagine that they will only tweak certain items.

It would be nice to see magic get a little more balance, but I do not think this will be an easy fix.

scolex
16-02-2009, 01:10
The "Goblin list" wasn't a full alternate list, but some rules for if you had no Orcs. It was balanced just fine.

Only part I remember is +1 Hero slot per 1k pts. (This really helped gobbos make up for having the worst Ld game-wide, and rather weedy characters/magic.) It wouldn't be too hard to give 2-3 special rules for all Goblin forces, and other nifty and (relatively) popular theme armies in their respective books. Personally it made no sense removing them in the first place.

Ward.
16-02-2009, 01:24
-Bows: Fires in 2 ranks when stationary.


This is the only thing I'd hate to see implemented.



Only part I remember is +1 Hero slot per 1k pts.

This.

Next up, fix the terrain rules.
As of now forests and lakes might as well be impassible because you're spending 3 turns getting past them.

Introduce more and vary the existing weapon types, not to the point of over complication but so that it at least feels like variety.

Bring back appendix and online special characters, sort of like the bone giant upgrades and lustrian lists, make a few available for every army.

StarFyreXXX
16-02-2009, 01:35
* 1 dice miscasts?
* harsher miscast table
* spells become more powerful to balance the higher risks (i'm talking risks like the D&D wild magic tables)
* more benefits for core units (maybe 4 ranks instead of 3?)
* a few realistic benefits like cavalry charging halberds, pikes, or spears, even if hte riders ASF, the spears, etc get their attacks first instead
* a few more detailed pshycology rules such as if models are more than 2x you in number, you suffer fear unless you can kill enough models in that first round of combat or something
* take into account unbeatable..example, 40 skeletons vs a Great Unlean One. i think with their str value, it is impossible for them to hurt the deamon...the daemon should thus not suffer losses for it. You can only lose combat IF the enemy models can mathematically hurt you, even remotely.

sanjay

Uukrul
16-02-2009, 01:36
I would like to see 8 round turns...6 just seems too short in most games for me, and it would help to have 2 more turns for moving though terrain.

And of course magic needs some work as about everyone has said.

R Man
16-02-2009, 02:26
Wait! I thought of something else! The HW+Shield bonus should only work against units of the same WS or lower. This would benefit elite troops (so they can rely less on special rules) and help to balance out with spears and halbards (which to be perfectly honest isn't as bad as all the moaning)


This is the only thing I'd hate to see implemented.

May I ask why? I thought that it would make archers too powerful until I realised that 10 archers in 2 ranks shoots as much as 10 archers in one rank and looks less stupid. It would also allow for more effective and larger units of archers than just the minimum 10.


* 1 dice miscasts?
* harsher miscast table
* spells become more powerful to balance the higher risks (i'm talking risks like the D&D wild magic tables)

I would have to go against this. By making magic more extreme you make it far more 'hit and miss' which can be very annoying. Idealy, magic must be constructed with diminishing returns built in.

The best thing to do here is to look at a single aspect of the game (or issue of the game), anyalise it and debate it and then move on to another part. Of course that may require this to be moved to the rules developement forum.

chaos0xomega
16-02-2009, 02:49
And this thread basically highlights EVERYTHING that is wrong with GW's methods as well as its fan base.

Seriously?

7th Edition has been out for all of 3 years now (actually not even IIRC, that won't happen for another 3 or 4 months...), the release cycle isn't even half way through updating all the current forces, and people are ALREADY clamoring for the next edition? I mean, hell, I was pissed enough when they did it with 5th edition 40k, though I understood the reasoning for that, but what POSSIBLE reason could you have for wanting to see 8th edition before 2010? Seriously? And why worry about it if its probabl ynot going to be until 2011/2012? Can't you just enjoy the hear and now, rather than looking towards the future and planning the next uber cheese armies?

Sheesh, sorry if thats ranty, but really now?

Ward.
16-02-2009, 03:32
May I ask why? I thought that it would make archers too powerful until I realised that 10 archers in 2 ranks shoots as much as 10 archers in one rank and looks less stupid. It would also allow for more effective and larger units of archers than just the minimum 10.


I was thinking from a smaller game and tomb kings perspective.

Small units of 10 archers are hard enough to get as it is.

dannyfave
16-02-2009, 03:59
An official, full Kislev army :D

scolex
16-02-2009, 04:05
And this thread basically highlights EVERYTHING that is wrong with GW's methods as well as its fan base.

Seriously?

7th Edition has been out for all of 3 years now (actually not even IIRC, that won't happen for another 3 or 4 months...), the release cycle isn't even half way through updating all the current forces, and people are ALREADY clamoring for the next edition? I mean, hell, I was pissed enough when they did it with 5th edition 40k, though I understood the reasoning for that, but what POSSIBLE reason could you have for wanting to see 8th edition before 2010? Seriously? And why worry about it if its probabl ynot going to be until 2011/2012? Can't you just enjoy the hear and now, rather than looking towards the future and planning the next uber cheese armies?

Sheesh, sorry if thats ranty, but really now?

Who was trying to plan cheese armies? Most people were suggesting bringing back the value of core troops, reigning in the cheese options, balancing weapon options, and fixing magic. While yes, I would love to see this stuff in an online errata, or via White Dwarf... I'd shell out for a new rulebook a tad early to get issues like these fixed.

RossS
16-02-2009, 04:31
-Reduction of the number of units/armies/weapons with access to ASF. GW needs to lay this out at the very beginning of the process, and stick with it.

-Revision of the outnumbering bonus: For every 5 points of unit strength more that a unit has than the unit which with it is engaged in combat, it recieves a 1 point outnumber bonus towards its combat resolution. A unit may recieve a maximum of 3 outnumbering points in outnumber bonuses, which may be added to its rank bonus. (10 White Lions vs 30 Goblins: Goblins have a unit strength of 30, White lions have a unit strength of 10. The Goblins recieve 3 points for outnumber bonuses. This is added to their 3 points in rank bonuses and, presumably the bonus for their standard.)

-Revision of the rules for terrain: Infantry can march in difficult terrain, while cavalry cannot. Cavalry may not enter very difficult terrain at all.

-Revision of weapon rules, in particular the halberd and spear. The former should be made into a truly effective offensive weapon (+1 strength and AP), and the latter should be made into a terror of cavalry (count as defended obstacle?).

-Units/characters can lose initiative based on their armor bonuses. A 4+ save recieves no penalty, a 2+ save = -1 initiative. Anything greater than 2+ = -2 initiave. (Hopefully, this will make players pause during the equipment selection process.)

-No more auto-breaking because of Fear. I'm a VC player, and I think this is a ridiculous rule. It should be tied to the amount of outnumbering bonuses a unit has, as described in the bullet above. Maybe, if a fear-causing unit has a full 3 point outnumber bonus, it autobreaks an opposing unit it has beaten in combat.

-At the start of the process, GW needs to establish that multiple attacks, S 4 and T 4 or above, and ITP are exceptional. No character should have more than 4 starting attacks.

Kerill
16-02-2009, 05:24
Only one major and one minor request.

1) (caps are needed here, sorry) RETURN CHAOS TO ONE ARMY INSTEAD OF THREE DULL ONES (stuff needs to be nerfed for this to happen then fine)


Minor request would be to bring back Tzeentch warrior mages.

Incidentally with the increased killiness of the latest edition stuff I would suggest the current outnumber rule becomes: +1 if your US is greater than your opponent but less than double and +2 if it is more than twice your opponents. Neither US bonus can be used by a unit which has been charged in the flank by a unit that can negate ranks.

W0lf
16-02-2009, 05:45
Magic dice to be pooled as in 6th (never got to play with those rules :()

-> Micasts made scary. Current table is too friendly.
-> Magic sorted - numerous solutions.
-> +2 CR for out number but no outnumber bonus in flank/rear
-> +4 max for ranks.
-> No frenzy/hatred for mounts. 2S4 horses and hatred Dragon is silly.

This should help alot.

I think removing fear-autobreak is a ridiculous idea. TK/VC rely on it. How else would skellies break anything?

Enigmatik1
16-02-2009, 05:50
Magic dice to be pooled as in 6th (never got to play with those rules :()

-> Micasts made scary. Current table is too friendly.
-> Magic sorted - numerous solutions.
-> +2 CR for out number but no outnumber bonus in flank/rear
-> +4 max for ranks.
-> No frenzy/hatred for mounts. 2S4 horses and hatred Dragon is silly.

This should help alot.

I think removing fear-autobreak is a ridiculous idea. TK/VC rely on it. How else would skellies break anything?

Pretty much agree (and was just about to post the same thing). So many people are up-in-arms about fear mainly due to VC, while forgetting that without that ability, TK would be royally screwed.

W0lf
16-02-2009, 05:55
Oh and a some more common item including;

Flaming attack ~10pts
Pick spells ~30 pts

Harry
16-02-2009, 05:58
One wish.

They don't say that ranks have to be six wide. :D

(If I had to try and find four more models for each of my OOP units I would top myself).

That aside. I would expect some big changes not a quick polish.
They have learned a valuable lesson with 4th edition 40K.

Gabacho Mk.II
16-02-2009, 06:02
-Reduction of the number of units/armies/weapons with access to ASF. GW needs to lay this out at the very beginning of the process, and stick with it.


Absolutely!

This is why, for example, we now have ASF carts for VC. (GW just simply did not think too far ahead when they gave ASF to the High Elves, and golly gee, what can Undead do to High Elves that have ASF spearmen??) :rolleyes:





-Revision of the outnumbering bonus: For every 5 points of unit strength more that a unit has than the unit which with it is engaged in combat, it recieves a 1 point outnumber bonus towards its combat resolution. A unit may recieve a maximum of 3 outnumbering points in outnumber bonuses, which may be added to its rank bonus. (10 White Lions vs 30 Goblins: Goblins have a unit strength of 30, White lions have a unit strength of 10. The Goblins recieve 3 points for outnumber bonuses. This is added to their 3 points in rank bonuses and, presumably the bonus for their standard.)


I dont know if I would care for this exact example. While I think that you are on the right track, it would be quite unbalanced to give HORDE armies additional bonuses to use against ELITE armies. IMO (unless I am reading your example incorrectly here, which might be the case)





-Revision of weapon rules, in particular the halberd and spear. The former should be made into a truly effective offensive weapon (+1 strength and AP), and the latter should be made into a terror of cavalry (count as defended obstacle?).


Again, I most readily agree to changes to the current (limited) weapon types. Lets bring in bardiches, coluimns, picks, etc. There are many weapon types that simply are not available to infantry units right now. Why not?






-At the start of the process, GW needs to establish that multiple attacks, S 4 and T 4 or above, and ITP are exceptional. No character should have more than 4 starting attacks.


And I thought I was the only one who would favor this sort of game-changing mechanic for the game.:)




Well done!

squeekenator
16-02-2009, 06:06
- Allow marching through terrain. 'Nuff said.
- Let troops adopt a special formation that makes all troops on the edges face outwards, giving 360 degree line of sight, in exchange for some sort of penalty. Skirmishers being able to run circles around ranked units who can never ever ever charge them back makes no sense. Perhaps there's a better solution than this, but it's the best I could think of in two seconds.
- Let the first rank of archers (or first and second on hills) fire normally and all others fire in an arc over them, letting them fire but with -1 BS. Might need some rebalancing to stop them from being overpowered, but the massive lines of archers are just silly.
- Remove guessing ranges and just scatter artillery and cannons. Solves cannon sniping and, really, why should artillery have to guess distances if archers don't?
- Make wounds more important for CR. Outnumbering the enemy is all well and good, but a Chaos Lord hacking his way through goblins while they poke at his armour with spears shouldn't run because they outnumber him. Maybe have each wound caused count for 2 or 3 CR instead of one.
- Make outnumbering more important than rank bonus. Having three times as many troops as the enemy is much more reassuring than having a few of your mates behind you.
- Hit elite infantry (particularly Black Guard and Swordmasters) with a nerfchucknorrisroundhousekick, they're fething ridiculous.
- Cut back on ASF. It's even worse than 40K rending.
- Make magic less all or nothing. I'm not entirely sure how, but taking one or two wizards needs to be a viable option in 2k. My 2-second fix is to reduce the effectiveness of magic and remove dispelling entirely (except for perhaps scrolls). Of course, it would need some serious rebalancing, but it's the only way I can think of to make a lone wizard anything other than a waste of points.

Gork or Possibly Mork
16-02-2009, 06:12
One wish.

They don't say that ranks have to be six wide. :D

Don't even joke like that. They may think it's a bright idea to sell more models and I would feel the need to quit. :cries:

Pleads to GW...find a way to make your $$$ but don't get too greedy or it'll bite you!!!

Lordsaradain
16-02-2009, 06:57
Allow winning units to lap-round again.

A magic system which is has less dispelling and magic defence. I loathe that you have to invest so many points in your magic defence, and I also dislike the fact that bringing a single level 1 wizard to a game is pointless, as your opponents starts of with enough DD to keep him from doing nothing. The magic system of 40k is better imo.

Remove challenges, or at least remove the rule that a character has to accept a challenge unless there is a second rabnk for him to hide in.
Imagine my chaos knights charging an enemy lord on dragon, I have a decent chance of doing some damage, but whoops!, the enemy challanges, my champion has to accept and the rest of my knights must sit by, doing nothing, as they watch their champion being torn to shreds. That makes no sense whatsoever.

TroyJPerez
16-02-2009, 07:12
I like the idea of no magic dispell dice. But I'd still like to see magic resistance used. Maybe increase the difficulty by 2x the magic resistance level. So level 1 MR is +2 to the casting cost, while 3 MR is +6. Also you would have do deal with getting rid of remains in play spells. Maybe force players to use casting dice to dispell them?

Sarevok
16-02-2009, 07:15
Frenzy is poor. Maybe a LD test to restrain yourself from charging.
Although the pre-measuring aspect to see if you are within charge range seems out of place considering you have to guess the rest of the ranges.

Maybe Combat resolution modifiers should actually do wounds instead to make combats more bloody.

The Red Scourge
16-02-2009, 07:17
Remove challenges, or at least remove the rule that a character has to accept a challenge unless there is a second rabnk for him to hide in.

The character just have to get out of base contact. Not go to a second rank.

Also you'll just have to think of the role of your champion. Its an option, not something you are forced to take – even less so for chaos knights.

Hrogoff the Destructor
16-02-2009, 07:23
-Make march blocking only happen when the total models within 8 inches has their added unit strength equal to 5 or greater. It's funny when my Chaos hounds get cut down to one model but they manage to make enemies move at half speed.
-Allow marching in difficult terrian.

That's all I can think of that I'd change at the moment.

stiltjet
16-02-2009, 08:16
Just fix the army books.. - balanced, play tested, thought through..

W0lf
16-02-2009, 08:19
Yeah the more youthink about it the more apparent it is that its the army books that are at fault.. not the core rules.

Mireadur
16-02-2009, 09:15
I thought that it would make archers too powerful until I realised that 10 archers in 2 ranks shoots as much as 10 archers in one rank and looks less stupid. It would also allow for more effective and larger units of archers than just the minimum 10.



That's exactly what i told my gaming group when we introduced back archers shooting in 2 ranks. However our modification is that they always are considered to be shooting at long range when shooting in 2 ranks.

Mireadur
16-02-2009, 09:23
One wish.

They don't say that ranks have to be six wide. :D

(If I had to try and find four more models for each of my OOP units I would top myself).

That aside. I would expect some big changes not a quick polish.
They have learned a valuable lesson with 4th edition 40K.

4th ed 40k really needed it though. I swear that had to be the suckest system ever made for a game.
Anyway i hope for big changes too (along the lines of all mentioned above in your posts guys), i have my confidence put on Alessio (who i consider particulary good for the BRB's work) that he will make a new top quality rulebook.

Is it known who's working on the new edition anyway?

scolex
16-02-2009, 09:56
- Make wounds more important for CR. Outnumbering the enemy is all well and good, but a Chaos Lord hacking his way through goblins while they poke at his armour with spears shouldn't run because they outnumber him. Maybe have each wound caused count for 2 or 3 CR instead of one.


I have to disagree with this, it would just ruin several armies like the Empire. Not to mention promoting the elite units/monsters/heroes focused lists everyone hates. The Lord may cut down 2 or 3, but there are 50 more coming. And while its rare for a hit to penetrate his armor he is still being mobbed and bashed around. Just not hurt significantly... do you think 6 random goblin sword stabs to a Dragon's ankles is actually all that killed it?

Oh, and I definitely second changing/updating the challenge and fear rules. Missed those in my post rofl.
-----

As far as the 40k mentions in this thread is 5th good/worth playing? I quit over how terrible 4th was, but I did keep one army just in case. (sorry for the topic hijack)

Gazak Blacktoof
16-02-2009, 10:03
I'd like to see heavy cavalry (2+ save or better, perhaps 3+) become slower - no marching - that should even up some of the disparity between heavy cavalry and heavy infantry / monstrous infantry. It would also create medium cavalry, who can march but who don't receive the free reforms of fast cavalry.

I'd also like to see cavalry models use the highest Ws for defensive purposes rather than using the rider's Ws value largely because it would make my wolf riders a bit better but also because it makes sense, highest values are already used for characteristic tests.

squeekenator
16-02-2009, 10:06
scolex: Yeah, it would hurt balance and require some reworking, but I really don't like the way outnumbering counts for more than actually killing stuff (and this is coming from a Skaven-only player). The way I see it, if wounds caused count for more, then elite units wouldn't need to be so uber. Swordmasters don't need 2 S5 ASF attacks to win combat, because a single S5 I1 attack each is enough to swing combat in their favour. I must admit, monsters and characters do get too good like that.

As for 5th ed 40K, it depends on what you want. If you want a game that has clearly defined bonuses for outmaneouvering, then it still doesn't have any. However, I'd say it is more fun, and fun is what 40K is about.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-02-2009, 10:21
Outnumbering doesn't count for "more than actually killing stuff", it counts for the same amount and is capped, so you could argue it counts for less. Yes, you could be in a situation where one model counts for both +1 rank and outnumbering, netting you +2 combat resolution but the game has to include arbitrary definitions.

I agree that perhaps the cap on rank bonus should be raised slightly to +4, but it works well enough at the moment and increasing the potency of RnF troops might simply result in elites having to be made better again. Moderately priced troops would really suffer under that system, not having the killing potential or numbers to beat core units

Braad
16-02-2009, 10:22
What I was thinking: Increase all leadership values by 1 point, and the caps that some improving items/spells/skills have (like the horn of urgok) to a max of 11 instead of 10.
That way: units flee less = more fighting = what this game is about.

Terrain movement: any type of difficult terrain effectively quarters your movement. One of my friends made a nice board with an embedded river, only to find out that if a unit of my orcs gets in, they take 4(!!) turns to get out on the other side. Since they reach it on turn 2, that means I might still do something on turn 6. And its not even a wide river, its just that the bigger blocks get a greater penalty then the single rank cav, as they take longer before all models are out.
For that reason, we already play we can march in terrain.
Personally, I think difficult terrain should only dissallow a march. Otherwise you can still get completely stuck due to a single enemy model close by.
So change to this: Difficult terrain -> no marching, very difficult terrain -> movement halved and no marching.

I think the +4 rank bonus instead of 3, is a really good one. There are people who field their elite infantry in 3 ranks, and my gobbo's just never even stand a chance against them.
Actually, if I manage to flank some of those, they generate more CR due to extra dead gobbo's, than I take away be removing their ranks.

Also, outnumbering bonus to 2, when outnumbering 2 to 1 or more. Maybe that makes the low-profile infantry usable again. I still like to field my common gobbo's, but they don't seem to be doing much.

R Man
16-02-2009, 10:22
Again, I most readily agree to changes to the current (limited) weapon types. Lets bring in bardiches, coluimns, picks, etc. There are many weapon types that simply are not available to infantry units right now. Why not?

But then how do you differentiate these weapons? Complexity does not equal depth. Adding more weapons will not in itself make the game better.


Remove guessing ranges and just scatter artillery and cannons. Solves cannon sniping and, really, why should artillery have to guess distances if archers don't?

Because these weapons can't really be aimed effectively and there is less control over the shots.


Make outnumbering more important than rank bonus. Having three times as many troops as the enemy is much more reassuring than having a few of your mates behind you.

I disagree. Rank Bonus represents depth, which was very important to give the formation strength, resiliance and impact. Large numbers don't work to well when they don't have proper formations. A thin like has no strength, regardless of how many people it has.


A magic system which is has less dispelling and magic defence. I loathe that you have to invest so many points in your magic defence, and I also dislike the fact that bringing a single level 1 wizard to a game is pointless, as your opponents starts of with enough DD to keep him from doing nothing. The magic system of 40k is better imo.

The problem with this though is that armies would now be left with no defense at all and armies with good magic basically get a free run. As I have already noted the key is diminishing returns.


I'd like to see heavy cavalry (2+ save or better, perhaps 3+) become slower - no marching - that should even up some of the disparity between heavy cavalry and heavy infantry / monstrous infantry. It would also create medium cavalry, who can march but who don't receive the free reforms of fast cavalry.

But that would make heavy cavalry much too slow. I'd say the bigger problem is that every Tom, Dick and Harry has barding, so making it rarer might solve the problem instead.

squeekenator
16-02-2009, 10:28
Outnumbering doesn't count for "more than actually killing stuff", it counts for the same amount and is capped, so you could argue it counts for less. Yes, you could be in a situation where one model counts for both +1 rank and outnumbering, netting you +2 combat resolution but the game has to include arbitrary definitions.

Oops, sorry. I meant that outnumbering and rank bonus combined nearly always exceed the CR a basic infantry unit gets from kills, not that the +1 for outnumbering would do it on its own.

maze ironheart
16-02-2009, 10:31
My wish list would Be don't change a thing it's perfect the way it is.

Bloodknight
16-02-2009, 10:32
I like the idea of 1 dice miscasts. Prevents 1 die spamming of spells with a low difficulty.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-02-2009, 10:32
But that would make heavy cavalry much too slow.

It would make them slower. Whether that's much too slow, I doubt it. Lots of people take chariots and they can't march.

One of the reasons heavy cavalry is so good right now is that they get to use their abilities for more of the game than a unit of elite infantry- reading "tactica" threads you often see people recommend heavy cavalry over similarly capable heavy infantry purely because they're so much faster, its not that heavy infantry is bad its simply that they're not as fast. I think making heavy cavalry slower would encourage more varied army lists.

EDIT:
Oops, sorry. I meant that outnumbering and rank bonus combined nearly always exceed the CR a basic infantry unit gets from kills, not that the +1 for outnumbering would do it on its own.

I like that, it ensure that block vs block combats wont be going anywhere quickly (with a BSB) and are unlikely to result in one side rapidly gaining an upper hand in static bonuses by wiping out ranks. This means that players need to put a unit into a flank or tip the combat with a character or some quality troops. It also means that the effect of concentrated shooting that might strip a rank and tip the numbers in favour of one player have a big impact on the combat results and are difficult to compensate for.

Odin
16-02-2009, 10:49
A magic system that doesn't punish players for going magic-medium.


Definitely!

My wishlist includes ditching the S7 autokill on chariots - it's not necessary. S7 war machines cause multiple wounds anyway, and S7 close combat characters will annihilate chariots without any additional assistance.

Frenzy needs to be amended - at the moment it's incredibly powerful against weak generals, but useless against good ones. I suggest that the +1 attack only applies in the first round of any combat (much like flails, they tire after the initial onslaught). But to balance this, frenzied units may take a Ld test to restrain themselves from charging.

Bows firing in 2 ranks sounds sensible, but might cause balance problems at first.

Necromancy Black
16-02-2009, 10:50
Ok, I've read what people ahve been saying.

Alot of what are saying will not change in 8th edition. Why? Cause it's all army book specific!!!

However, here is my list of ideas I think will be good an balanced from what people are saying:

- the possibility to miscast on 1 dice. Don't make it as dangerous as miscasting on 2 dice, but make it possible. This will help whipe the smirk of VC players raising models.

- change the 3d6 pursue and flee distances to M6 and above units.

- A change to heavy calvary. I suggest that barding invokes a -2 penalty to movement, and the maximun speed they can move is 7 inches. Let them march, they would be far to nerfed if they didn't, but they only pursue 2d6 inches. This would make most heavy calvary M6, something a bit better IMO.

- Hatred and Frenzy on mounts....I agree, get rid of it. It won't be hugely game changing but will be helpful.

- I agree with removing the S7 instant kills chariots. Maybe it S9 or 10, something really huge but keep it there. If a cannon ball hits a chariot it should still die, but this will make them alot better.

- March through terrain.

- Increase rank bonus to 4+.

- I have no idea what to do with the auto-break from fear. I needs to stay it's a great rule. The only difference is maybe:
outnumber 2:1 = auto-break
outnumber less then 2:1 = must reroll succesful break test, may not reroll the second result, even if there is a BSB in range.
In both cases, keep insane courage, and if it's rolled then the break-test is always past without having to re-roll it.
...maybe a bit more complecated, but I'd like this.

- change ASF. If you charge, you get ASF for that turn, so if you both have it, you go by initiative (if I is even, charger goes first). Great Weapons never strike first, ASF and Strike Last should at best ignore each other, making GW strike in initiative order.

- a small change in some weapons, like halberds and GW (some way of getting +2 on mounts would be nice...maybe on the charge?)

- general rules clean up...

- oh, the idea that only US5 units can march block... +1 to this idea!!!

All in all, I think what is needed is some small rule changes. Magic could go with an overhaul, but it's not going to do anything for the Army Book Lores, and those are the ones most people hate.

Odin
16-02-2009, 10:52
Again, I most readily agree to changes to the current (limited) weapon types. Lets bring in bardiches, coluimns, picks, etc. There are many weapon types that simply are not available to infantry units right now. Why not?


Bardiche is pretty much a halberd or great weapon surely? A pick is a hand weapon. I've never heard of the other one (and neither has Google).

Arnizipal
16-02-2009, 10:58
> Please re-work the aspects of FEAR. [no more Auto-Break for being outnumbered by 1 unit strength!!!]
[[[in effect, something to bring Vampire Counts into line with the various other armies out there. Fear is the biggest aspect in this equation. If Fear, as suggested above, only Auto-Breaks when 2:1, then we might certainly see less VC players on the circuit, and this (the ruling) would indeed go a long way to "balance out" WFB.]]]

Fear is all my poor skellies really have. Their WS of 2 and S of 3 really isn't going to save them in battle and lets not forget they cost 10 points a pop.

If they change that rule than I expect a hefty price cut for all undead.



> Charge bonuses (due to lances, spears etc) needs to be either toned down, or something equivalent to having the unit move at least half its regular move in order to get a charge bonus for its weapons. [ex: M8 cavalry needs to move at least 4" in order to recieve a +2S for its lances]
What's wrong with them? :confused:
Do you often get charged by have cav from 2" away?



> The number of character slots in a 2K needs to change. [up to 3 heroes in 2K, 4 heroes/1 Lord in 2k - 3k, etc] Basically, bring down the usage of characters in <2k games so that tactics end up mattering more than mere killing machines on a base with 5+ Attacks,...
...er, isn't this already how it works?
You can't field any lord level characters in battles of less than 2000 points.


* take into account unbeatable..example, 40 skeletons vs a Great Unlean One. i think with their str value, it is impossible for them to hurt the deamon...the daemon should thus not suffer losses for it. You can only lose combat IF the enemy models can mathematically hurt you, even remotely.

My three man ethereal wraith unit will now proceed to single-handedly eat your army. ;)


Wait! I thought of something else! The HW+Shield bonus should only work against units of the same WS or lower. This would benefit elite troops (so they can rely less on special rules) and help to balance out with spears and halbards (which to be perfectly honest isn't as bad as all the moaning)
But wasn't the point of the HW&S rule to give core troops a fighting chance in combat? Most units that benefit from this rule are WS3 (WS4 tops). They need that extra save against powerful (yet skilled) characters.



This is why, for example, we now have ASF carts for VC. (GW just simply did not think too far ahead when they gave ASF to the High Elves, and golly gee, what can Undead do to High Elves that have ASF spearmen??) :rolleyes:
The corpse cart doesn't help much. If both units have ASF, the one wiht the highest I still goes first.


- Allow marching through terrain. 'Nuff said.

Why do people want this? Is it so hard to believe you can't march through a forest? :eyebrows:



- Let troops adopt a special formation that makes all troops on the edges face outwards, giving 360 degree line of sight, in exchange for some sort of penalty. Skirmishers being able to run circles around ranked units who can never ever ever charge them back makes no sense. Perhaps there's a better solution than this, but it's the best I could think of in two seconds.
Historically, ranked units were lead by a commander, who was located in the front part of the unit. He and he alone decided where the unit was going and what to charge. If he couldn't see the skirmishers to the flank of his unit, he couldn't call a charge on them.
The men on the flanks could see the skirmishers, but they can't call a charge by themselves. however they may try to ready weapons or keep their eyes on the skirmishers, causing the unit coherency to break up (and restricting march moves).

Odin
16-02-2009, 11:00
- I have no idea what to do with the auto-break from fear. I needs to stay it's a great rule. The only difference is maybe:
outnumber 2:1 = auto-break
outnumber less then 2:1 = must reroll succesful break test, may not reroll the second result, even if there is a BSB in range.
In both cases, keep insane courage, and if it's rolled then the break-test is always past without having to re-roll it.
...maybe a bit more complecated, but I'd like this.


The current rule is just too all-or nothing. A unit of 25 goblins losing a combat against 25 zombies won't auto-break, but if there is 1 more zombie they will break? Or worst of all is when a musician in the fear-causing unit can make the difference between a draw and auto-breaking.

My suggestion for this is that when a fear-causing unit wins a combat against an enemy that it outnumbers, the enemy must double the Ld modifier for their break test.

So - if a unit of (for example) Skeletons wins a combat against Empire Spearmen by 2 points, the Empire unit has to take a break test at -4.

This would still be a powerful rule (as it should be), but makes for a more gradual transition.

Odin
16-02-2009, 11:04
Why do people want this? Is it so hard to believe you can't march through a forest? :eyebrows:


Actually, I think this should be the other way around. You're absolutely right that units shouldn't be able to march through forests. But I think that should be the only downside - don't halve their movement as well - it's overkill. At the moment, forests might as well be impassable terrain if you're not skirmishers or Wood Elves.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-02-2009, 11:05
- oh, the idea that only US5 units can march block... +1 to this idea!!!

I agree, it will make most fliers rather rubbish at march blocking though which will certainly irritate some people.

Necromancy Black
16-02-2009, 11:06
My suggestion for this is that when a fear-causing unit wins a combat against an enemy that it outnumbers, the enemy must double the Ld modifier for their break test.


I like this, it's nice and easy. And with ranks and outnumber, zombies and skeleton units can still break most units.

Bloodknight
16-02-2009, 11:25
- A change to heavy calvary. I suggest that barding invokes a -2 penalty to movement, and the maximun speed they can move is 7 inches. Let them march, they would be far to nerfed if they didn't

I'd rather see them not being able to march. That way they are just as fast as marching infantry, but twice as fast on the charge. Just like chariots. I think that is enough and would maybe make them a bit less of a nobrainer compared to infantry.

zak
16-02-2009, 11:25
I agree with Odin in relation to woods. I over ran and ended up in a wood and spent the next three turns getting out. Complete rubbish considring a Hydra seems to have no difficulty at all passing through the same woods. No marching, but allow normal movement of the unit so woods don't become like quicksand for units.

selone
16-02-2009, 11:41
I like this, it's nice and easy. And with ranks and outnumber, zombies and skeleton units can still break most units.

The big problem with it however is you couldn't shift stubborn troops with fear.

Necromancy Black
16-02-2009, 11:45
The big problem with it however is you couldn't shift stubborn troops with fear.

If your changing fear, change stubborn :p

Coram_Boy
16-02-2009, 12:05
I think that in woods, you should not be able to march, and cavalry should only move up to 4 inches, but you can reform once per turn without penalty at the start of your move. this should make it a bit fairer for slowmoving armies like dwarfs.

marv335
16-02-2009, 12:11
I'd like to see a few things.
Only units that can see something are march blocked by it
Archers being able to volley fire (ranked up unit can all fire at things out of sight with a modifier -1 perhaps)
Magic revamped. someone on the board acme up with a good idea about magic
It was something along the lines of this;
Mage generates a quantity of dice each game turn. he can either use them to cast in his turn, or dispel in his opponents turn.
throw too much magic, and you're rendered defenceless. save all your power dice to dispel, and you have no offensive magic.
It should be self balancing

theunwantedbeing
16-02-2009, 12:21
Strength being X(Y) where X is your actual strength and Y is what it is counted as for the purposes of wounding the enemy in combat.

This idea extending to more things than just strength of course.
Wounds for example being X(Y) where X is your total wounds and Y is the number needed to be dealt in a single phase to kill you, assuming your wounds total reaches 0.
So hero's could be 1(2) and lords could be 2(2) so more difficult to kill.

Challenges could then be made that much more complex where if you do manage to knock your opponent to 0 wounds you can then attempt to deal any additional damage you would need to actually kill them, drawing more focus on a challenge and making it more interesting.

On a similar vein, wizard duels could do with being actual duels.
Where upon casting a spell, the dispel attempts to stop the spell being cast, not nessecarily by nullifying it completely, merely by drawing out enough power to prevent the spell being cast.

So you cast by rolling dice as normal...say 2D6, then dispelling is merely rolling however many D6 to reduce the casting value by. Say 1D6.
So the spell is cast at a value of 2D6-1D6 in the above example.
If not cast, the caster can then throw more dice at the spell if they have dice available and built the spell upto 2D6-1D6+1D6..and their opponent can attempt to dispel some more...untill one/both sides run out of dice or the spell is miscast or cast irresistably, or dispelled irresisatbly or the dispel attempt fails by miscasting.

All these changes then set up a lot of scope for additional items/abilities that work in regards to those things.

eg.
An item that makes your wounds value go up by (1) rather than up by 1, meaning your that much more difficult to kill.
A magical sword that increases your counts as strength to say...10.

larabic
16-02-2009, 12:22
Randomized terrain chart instead of choosing, stop people from spamming unfair terrain.

Remove auto break from fear if you passed you fear test...obviously you got over it if you passed right?

Get rid of "extra" magic spells and just make them the number 1 on the chart, and if not get rid of them have them count as part of the lore!

Increase rank bonus to max of +4 to help basic troopers.

Remove ASF from most units, only HE Spearmen should have it built in. Or fix ASF vs ASF and have them both ignore the rule rather then go on straight I. So a charging unit with ASF should go before a receiving unit with ASF.

Only elite units should have magic banners, and never over 25 pts.

Make extra things like demonic gifts and VC powers count toward magic item limits.

That's about all i can think of for now for my wish list.

Lord Raneus
16-02-2009, 12:32
I'd like to see a couple of things:
Drastically reduce ASF and make it not work with great weapons, ever. If you want to strike first with great weapons, get the damn charge like you should have to instead of HURR STRIKE FIRST HURR. It just destroys tactical thinking.

I'd also like to see magic reworked a bit and the need for characters toned down.

Coram_Boy
16-02-2009, 12:49
no ASF with GW's. Just make it so, GW, it's ridiculous that a dwarf with a rune on his hammer to give him ASF strikes after the elf with the 8kilo weapon.

PARTYCHICORITA
16-02-2009, 13:03
My wish list would Be don't change a thing it's perfect the way it is.

I agree.

If something had to change i would make dispel scrolls enchanted items just because i hate paying for scroll caddies.

Arguleon-veq
16-02-2009, 13:14
Does anyone have any solid rumours about how long it will be?

I am really hoping they leave it a while. I like the game as it is and cant stand the constant changing of the main rules, I will just get all my armies completed as I did for 40K and then they will change the core rules and make me change EVERY army I have to make the lists decent again. Which is a serious pain in the backside when you have about 10 armies for each system.

Dexter099
16-02-2009, 13:49
This would pretty much fix the army. If their ward save didn't work against magic attacks, they would be utterly managable and we might start seeing some different builds.

Oh and delete the entry for Flamers.

That's what I've been saying the whole time. Except for flamers, they don't need to be deleted. Once Magic missiles can ignore the flamers' saves, then while they are really killy, they still can be taken down by a fireball.

The return of the old demonic instability rules would really, really help. Make all base demons Ld 9 to balance this out, of course.

The same problem occurs with vamp counts, as well. Only allow IoN to raise only zombies and skeletons, like last edition.

Come on GW, it's all in the army-wide special rules!

Odin
16-02-2009, 14:45
Increase rank bonus to max of +4 to help basic troopers.


Do basic troopers need help? As far as infantry are concerned, it's elites who needed help in 7th edition. The new batch of army books have brought most elite infantry up to a sensible level, but if you allow an extra rank to count for combat resolution elite infantry takes another knock.

Odin
16-02-2009, 14:48
Strength being X(Y) where X is your actual strength and Y is what it is counted as for the purposes of wounding the enemy in combat.

This idea extending to more things than just strength of course.
Wounds for example being X(Y) where X is your total wounds and Y is the number needed to be dealt in a single phase to kill you, assuming your wounds total reaches 0.
So hero's could be 1(2) and lords could be 2(2) so more difficult to kill.

Challenges could then be made that much more complex where if you do manage to knock your opponent to 0 wounds you can then attempt to deal any additional damage you would need to actually kill them, drawing more focus on a challenge and making it more interesting.

I really don't understand any of this I'm afraid. Sounds like unnecessary complication, but I'm not sure what the purpose is.

I do like the wizard duel idea, adds an extra tactical element to magic.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
16-02-2009, 16:06
I like the idea of 1 dice miscasts. Prevents 1 die spamming of spells with a low difficulty.

Make it the same as miscasting on 2 dice- roll your one dice, if you roll a 1, you must roll again to see if you miscast [this second roll does not use one of your power dice, nor can it cause a spell to be cast, it is only a miscast check]. If you roll a 1 on this dice as well, miscast.



SNIP


Why do people want this? Is it so hard to believe you can't march through a forest? :eyebrows:
SNIP

This is one of those places where game/fun might have to trump accuracy. Because, unlike in historical games where armies tended to face the same restrictions [or at least were more similar] and games tend to be longer, in fantasy you have armies which actually enjoy terrain [LM and water, WE and forests] and ones who are totally worked over by it [partly by the short game length].
This leads to most armies [and players] simply avoiding all terrain if they can help it [heck even the designers know it with the no terrain within 12" of the centre of the table rule]. Allowing units some more movement through terrain should make the game more fun for everyone and introduce more variety to battlefields.


If your changing fear, change stubborn :p

In instances where fear causers force the double CR modifiers on tests, {to use the suggested rule}, they force stubborn troops to take a break test with normal modifiers. So, in an instance when the fear causers win by 3, but meet the conditions to force a -6 penalty on the break test, stubborn troops test at the -3.

theunwantedbeing
16-02-2009, 16:33
I really don't understand any of this I'm afraid. Sounds like unnecessary complication, but I'm not sure what the purpose is.


The strength being 2 seperate stats is more to better differentiate between a st4 ogre who is twice as tall as a man and about 6x the weight, and a st4 elf or human.

The human gets st4(3) while the ogre get's st4(5) or something like that.
Seeing as the human is going to have the same ability to penetrate armour but less ability to actually hurt the target in the armour, while the ogre is more than capable of pulling limbs off he'll struggle with the precision needed to get through armour.

The wounds thing is more for large creatures to make them less easily killed.

Things like cannons then become less capable of killing large monsters.
eg.
2 cannonball hits on the above griffon with 4(3) wounds.
The first hit deals the griffon 3 wounds, taking it down to 1 wound. THe second hit deals the griffon 2 wounds. As its wounds value is 4(3) it needs to take 3 full wounds to actually die.

The griffon is stays on a single wound despite it having suffered more wounds than on it's profile as it didnt take 3 wounds in a single turn/phase to kill it.

Obviously there would be some rule for things that have been reduced to below 1 wound but are not dead(yet).
A model in combat taken to below 1 wound before it dies will obviously not be able to attack.

This is just an "idea" of what I would like to see.
Not the finished result.

Dokushin
16-02-2009, 16:44
So, armor piercing and making multi-wound models even harder to kill, got ya.

Why on earth would you want to make griffons harder to kill with cannonballs? Not only does that not make a lot of fluffwise sense, but it'd tip the game even farther towards herohammer and farther away from big battles.

Hakkapelli
16-02-2009, 16:46
Some really good ideas so far. Really liked the "fear doubles Ld modifiers for loosing combat" and a larger number of turns could also be useful.

Another idea I got today is to give cavalry a new charge reaktion.

Counter Charge: A cavalry unit/ chariot that is charged by enemy cavalry/ chariot that is in the units front arc and outside half its charge distance may counter-charge the enemy. The enemy moves its movement value. Then the unit moves to contact the enemy. Both sides gets their charge bonuses. The enemy unit strikes first since it was the actual charging unit.

The SkaerKrow
16-02-2009, 16:57
I'm torn between wanting to see them dump the whole game and start over (like they did between 5th and 6th Edition), and wanting to see them complete the 7th Edition army book cycle. Outside of a handful of questionable exploits, I think that the 7th Edition army books have all been very well balanced against one another, certainly better than the 6th Edition books were. Then again, this doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion, as most "wishlists" here are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to see opposing armies weakened. So, assuming that the changes in 8th Edition (which we already know will be out within 2-3 years at the latest) don't constitute a complete re-write, I'd like to see...

-The removal of the parry bonus
-Halberds fight with an additional rank (I admit, Black Guard, Chaos Warriors and Temple Guard would be disgusting with this rule, which is not my intention)
-Maximum Rank Bonus increased to 4
-Chariots no longer suffer from auto-destruction
-Units cannot march in difficult terrain, no other penalties apply
-Fleeing enemy units and enemy units in combat do not prevent marching
-No autobreaking from Fear. Instead, double the Leadership penalty to any unit taking a break test against an outnumbering, Fear causing unit

This wouldn't really factor into the main book, but changes towards making mid-grade magic more viable...

-Increase the base cost of Dispel Scrolls by 10 (35 for most armies)
-Double the cost to increase Wizards to Level 4

All of this pending testing, rewrites, YMMV, etc.

Dokushin
16-02-2009, 17:15
Hmm, I'll throw a couple in:

+4 rank bonus. I agree that this should go in, because not only do I feel like big block doesn't get rewarded enough (especially for elites), but because hey -- if you get a bonus for 5 wide, why not 5 deep?

Fear and Terror. Both are ridiculous right now. I would keep the charge tests, drop the AoE Terror test, and make Fear +1 CR and Terror +2 CR. I think that would suit the 'flavor' of Fear and Terror better and keep it from dominating the game like it is now.

March Blocking. Seriously -- I would drop this. Tactics center around it right now, but I don't think it makes too much sense, and it's balance purpose (buy more rounds of shooting) could be made up for elsewhere.

Flying. I would give units with ranged weapons a chance to fire at flying units if they flew directly over the unit.

Equipment. Oh, boy:
Hand weapon + Shield: Parry bonus only against same or lesser WS. It's called a 'parry bonus,' after all.
Great Weapons: +2 strength, +1 str armor piercing if mounted.
Spears: Fight in two ranks on foot, strike first against cavalry charge, +1 str on the charge if mounted.
Lances: As mounted spears but +2 str on the charge, mounted only.
Halberds: +1 str armor piercing. Fight in two ranks would be cool but not at all fluffy.
Shortbow: S3, S2 over half range, 20".
Bow: S3, 24", fire in two ranks.
Longbow: S4, S3 over half range, 36", fire in two ranks.
Handgun: S5, additional -1 over half range, can only fire every 3rd turn, or every other turn if 2 ranks, or every turn if 3 ranks. 24"
Crossbow: S4, can only fire every other turn, or every turn if 2 ranks. 36"
Additional HW: +1 attack and +1 to armor save against equal or lesser WS (parry bonus!)
Light armor: 6+ save.
Heavy armor: 5+ save, -1M and -1I if on foot.
Shield: +1 to armor save.

Oh, and cut way down on ASF, Stubborn, and ItP, although those are armybook issues. Stubborn in particular as with the proposed Fear and Terror change it would be much better.

Mozzamanx
16-02-2009, 17:24
Regarding single dice spam, would it work if every spell required a minimum of 2 dice thrown at it, excluding Gut Magic? Would deliver a swift kick in the nadges to Vampires, and also make every spell that much harder to stop.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
16-02-2009, 17:36
SNIP

March Blocking. Seriously -- I would drop this. Tactics center around it right now, but I don't think it makes too much sense, and it's balance purpose (buy more rounds of shooting) could be made up for elsewhere.

Flying. I would give units with ranged weapons a chance to fire at flying units if they flew directly over the unit.

Equipment. Oh, boy:
Hand weapon + Shield: Parry bonus only against same or lesser WS. It's called a 'parry bonus,' after all.
Great Weapons: +2 strength, +1 str armor piercing if mounted.
Spears: Fight in two ranks on foot, strike first against cavalry charge, +1 str on the charge if mounted.
Lances: As mounted spears but +2 str on the charge, mounted only.
Halberds: +1 str armor piercing. Fight in two ranks would be cool but not at all fluffy.
Shortbow: S3, S2 over half range, 20".
Bow: S3, 24", fire in two ranks.
Longbow: S4, S3 over half range, 36", fire in two ranks.
Handgun: S5, additional -1 over half range, can only fire every 3rd turn, or every other turn if 2 ranks, or every turn if 3 ranks. 24"
Crossbow: S4, can only fire every other turn, or every turn if 2 ranks. 36"
Additional HW: +1 attack and +1 to armor save against equal or lesser WS (parry bonus!)
Light armor: 6+ save.
Heavy armor: 5+ save, -1M and -1I if on foot.
Shield: +1 to armor save.
SNIP

How would you make up for march blocking? Your equipment in general makes shooting worse for those weapons that can actually hurt the monsters, heroes and heavy cav. which already have the advantages.

As for the equipment- why do people not like the save bonus from HW/shield? It is one of the few things keeping normal infantry at all viable. Your heavy armour, handgun and crossbow rules are very similar to ones which GW already used and discarded because they were awful. Would you pay 24 points for an empire handgunner [need to buy 3 to fire every turn, but since only 1/3 of the unit fires, you are greatly weakening the unit, which is already sketchy].
Almost all dwarfs suddenly movement 2 [heavy armour]- yeah! Sorry for the tone, but these equipment ideas are terrible especially given that there is no reason for them [gunlines are hardly dominating though they are boring, and the armies which bring gunlines tend to do so because they have no other ways of dealing with the heavy hitters- monsters, characters and elites of the opponents]. Basically, your changes help out only spearmen of the 'core' infantry and greatly benefit heavy hitters in all other cases. Even the improvements in the bow and longbow are more than overshadowed by the lack of march blocking.

Famder
16-02-2009, 17:44
Requiring 2 dice to be thrown at a spell is terrible, you should be allowed to minimize risks by throwing a single dice at a low cost spell. I think the Nehek spam should be addressed in the Vamps army book not the BRB, where the spell is changed to state that on a 1 to cast the spell cannot be cast again that turn.

ASF should be the same as the parry bonus, you must be engaged to the front to use it.

Challenges should be reworked so that a character cannot be attacked only if the challenge persists until the initiative step of the unit. For example a Character with I8 challenges a unit with I2 and the Champion accepts. The character slaughters the champion, the unit may now attack the character. Conversely if the Champion survived, the unit could not attack because the challenge is still going on when I2 rolls around to be resolved.

Being outnumbered by Fear Causers should autobreak if outnumbered by 1.5, and any other time it just adds an extra -2 to Break test. Don't change stubborn to accommodate. Stubborn units should be willing to fight against overwhelming odds in all situations even against fear causers.

Mireadur
16-02-2009, 17:46
I agree with Odin in relation to woods. I over ran and ended up in a wood and spent the next three turns getting out. Complete rubbish considring a Hydra seems to have no difficulty at all passing through the same woods. No marching, but allow normal movement of the unit so woods don't become like quicksand for units.

Rather allow marching inside woods but halve distance moved, with your proposal a unit would be able to charge its full movement without penalty for being inside the woods what obviously isnt right.

I wouldnt screw my head that much about weapon changes btw. Right now the only 2 issues are:

- Spears and halberds needing a buff agaisnt cavalry (and only agaisnt cavalry) so that they become interesting weapons again over the hw+shield combo. (Oh, and 2hand weapons shouldnt strike last, that way they would stop sucking unless used by multiple wounds monsters and ASF troops).

- bows really sucking while costing the same as a RXB,XB and musket. If they want bows to keep sucking thats right, but please point accordingly :p

Gazak Blacktoof
16-02-2009, 17:56
March Blocking. Seriously -- I would drop this. Tactics center around it right now,

That's a terrible idea.

I can see the sense in restricting it to powerful units (US 5 and above) but removing it reduces the tactics available and dumbs the game down (that's a bad thing), reducing the effectiveness of a refused flank strategy.

High Loremaster
16-02-2009, 18:07
Core rule changes? I don't think a lot needs to be fixed. Here are some ideas though:

Remove S7 auto-kills on chariots.

Tweak the magic phase to allow for medium level wizards. Maybe level 2s generate 2 dispel dice instead of 1? Another idea I had was to make the lores a bit more low-level friendly. They've gotten better since 6th edition, and Level 2s can roll from several different lores and not worry about getting too many spells they can't cast, but I think more can be done. Either A) Allow players to re-roll the spells they get, or B) change the entire system of choosing spells.

The +4 rank bonus idea isn't bad, but it would hurt elite armies a lot.

Overall, I think the current rules are pretty solid. It's the army books that are really changing the game. There's not much that can be done to tone them down if GW wants to keep making money.

Dokushin
16-02-2009, 18:09
That's a terrible idea.

I can see the sense in restricting it to powerful units (US 5 and above) but removing it reduces the tactics available and dumbs the game down (that's a bad thing), reducing the effectiveness of a refused flank strategy.

I could get behind that, actually. Probably a better idea limiting to US5 than just dropping, as it keeps the option there without letting any random whirlygig pull it off.


As for the equipment- why do people not like the save bonus from HW/shield? It is one of the few things keeping normal infantry at all viable. Your heavy armour, handgun and crossbow rules are very similar to ones which GW already used and discarded because they were awful. Would you pay 24 points for an empire handgunner [need to buy 3 to fire every turn, but since only 1/3 of the unit fires, you are greatly weakening the unit, which is already sketchy].
Almost all dwarfs suddenly movement 2 [heavy armour]- yeah! Sorry for the tone, but these equipment ideas are terrible especially given that there is no reason for them [gunlines are hardly dominating though they are boring, and the armies which bring gunlines tend to do so because they have no other ways of dealing with the heavy hitters- monsters, characters and elites of the opponents]. Basically, your changes help out only spearmen of the 'core' infantry and greatly benefit heavy hitters in all other cases. Even the improvements in the bow and longbow are more than overshadowed by the lack of march blocking.
Re: equipment, heck, I don't know, lol, but S5 shooting would be pretty good, I think -- 24 points for three deep handgunners that shoot every turn at S5 would be viable. I'm just trying to give the weapons a different flavor, as right now shooting weapons are too similar. (Shortbow = bow = longbow = S3?) And I'd love to see a reason for people to bring shooters in ranks. I'm just tired of seeing things that don't 'look' right, like that twenty-wide unit of gunners.

But point taken about the big heavy-hitters benefitting, and I think US5 march blocking like that other guy said could be good; do you think units should get +1 to hit against large targets in CC?

Oh, and I was kind of assuming Dwarves would get back that old rule that let them wear heavy armor without movement penalties...

TBH, I was kind of thinking of things from a fluff standpoint, and I'll admit readily I hadn't thought the balance through too much. I think it's important to differentiate weapons in a way that fits at least a little bit with their traditional use -- it's a fantasy world, but a sword's a sword.

Sarevok
16-02-2009, 18:35
Elite infantry is poor, so GW is giving them all sorts of ridiculous rules to try and make then viable. This is something that needs to be stopped, because the power creep is ridiculous.

Now, maybe if you stopped costing models on an individual basis, because so few models get to actually fight. It works for 40K where every model fights individually, but not WFB.

Instead you paid (say) full points for 10 guys then got a reduction on any more, e.g. Black Orcs start at 10 models for 130 and you add extra for +10 or so each.

I also think maybe weapon upgrades should be per unit instead of per model, so things like spears get taken more. A bit like the Marks of Chaos in the WoC book.
So lets say giving a unit of goblins spears might cost +10 points no matter the size of the unit.

The SkaerKrow
16-02-2009, 18:40
Elite infantry is poor, so GW is giving them all sorts of ridiculous rules to try and make then viable. This is something that needs to be stopped, because the power creep is ridiculous.It seems that you're talking about Elves, and Elves in Warhammer will always receive a lot of special rules. That's what makes them Elves. Meanwhile, Chaos Warriors and Saurus do not have a lot of special rules, but will quite happily carve through most other infantry in Warhammer. So I don't see how unit special rules are a particular problem right now.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
16-02-2009, 19:04
SNIP
Re: equipment, heck, I don't know, lol, but S5 shooting would be pretty good, I think -- 24 points for three deep handgunners that shoot every turn at S5 would be viable. I'm just trying to give the weapons a different flavor, as right now shooting weapons are too similar. (Shortbow = bow = longbow = S3?) And I'd love to see a reason for people to bring shooters in ranks. I'm just tired of seeing things that don't 'look' right, like that twenty-wide unit of gunners.
SNIP
TBH, I was kind of thinking of things from a fluff standpoint, and I'll admit readily I hadn't thought the balance through too much. I think it's important to differentiate weapons in a way that fits at least a little bit with their traditional use -- it's a fantasy world, but a sword's a sword.

I hear what you are saying. The problem is that to be worth their points, shooters must be shooting. Consider the handguns at the same price- 8 points per model for a Empire guy. 15 then cost 120 points. Place them 3 ranks deep so one can shoot every turn. You get only 5 shots a turn, so over three rounds of shooting [even MV 4 infantry can reach you because of the 24" range] you score maybe 5 or 6 hits which gives 4 or 5 wounds [spread over 3 turns] against other infantry. Just not worth it. Plus, with the fire every other round, bookkeeping was a pain, and when is the unit able to stand and shoot. If they stand and shoot, when can they shoot again? Etc.

How's this, [unless noted,keep current stats]
handguns- Str 5, may fire in two ranks. Cloud of Smoke - once a unit of handgunners has fired, they are surrounded by a thick cloud of smoke which makes any further shooting by or at the unit -1 to hit.

crossbows- may fire in two ranks.
{The two ranks represents the front row kneeling and the next row firing over them for xbows and guns}.

longbows [1 point more than crossbows- more training involved]- Str 4. May use volley fire. Volley fire- Up to 4 ranks of the unit may fire, but are at -1 to hit.

Bows- str 3. May volley fire.

These are initial thoughts and need to be refined and balanced.

Pulsks
16-02-2009, 19:22
Historically, ranked units were lead by a commander, who was located in the front part of the unit. He and he alone decided where the unit was going and what to charge. If he couldn't see the skirmishers to the flank of his unit, he couldn't call a charge on them.
The men on the flanks could see the skirmishers, but they can't call a charge by themselves. however they may try to ready weapons or keep their eyes on the skirmishers, causing the unit coherency to break up (and restricting march moves).

That makes sense to me, but maybe have each unit have a commanding unit. (Not a champion, just "Oh hey, this guy is in charge of the rest of these guys.") So it would matter where your champion was put. If he's on the corner of the unit, he still has the normal front sight, but can see part of the flank he's on. (Or would it make more sense for a commander to be in the middle next to the flag and musician?)

I also don't like the idea of +4 rank CR. Maybe if skirmishers can knock out some of the CR by being on the flank. (Make it like max +3 (So a +2 cr if they have full ranks) rank CR if they're they're on the flank, or max +2 (So a +1 if they make it to the rear) if they're on the rear so it generally stays the same if a skirmisher unit gets to the side of a unit. Of course they'd have to be at least US 5 or something)


I hope that made sense....

Chadjabdoul
16-02-2009, 19:37
The issue of using points instead of slots is a very valid one and should apply not only to core, but characters and special/rare as well.

Maybe then goblin big bosses will get to fight once again

(example: Points spent on characters no more than points spent on core.
Points spent on special/rare no more than points spent on core)

In addition free magic items (especially magic banners from certain units only) to something like 10% of total points can be spent on magic items (both banners and items for characters) which can then be given to any unit or character you want.

You wish to take scrolls? Maybe that means your general is not as well equiped.

That would make an army a bit like this: 30% core, 30% special/rare, 30% characters 10% magic (including regimental banners)


I obviously agree with the idea to make magic less of an all or nothing affair.

Also agree on more than 1 attack being th exception (how does a knight get the +2 str. lance bonus on 2 attacks anyway? Does he charge in, then back off a bit and charge in again? Ludicrous)

Finally make great weapons +1 str. and give halberds another kind of bonus. On units its not such a big problem but for characters they're like super cheap magic weapons. And allows many things to reach str 7 (stronger than a giant. I happen to believe that nothing should hit in hand to hand with a str greater than 6. Obviously a chaos lord with an appropriately priced magic weapon could do it, but not any str 5 character who comes across a great axe))

Lord Inquisitor
16-02-2009, 19:59
Heh, fine. I'll add my wishlist to the list of wishlists.

1) Terrain (cover). This needs an overhaul. Honestly, I'd like to see a "cover save" system adopted. Modifiers need to be thrown out the window (moving could provide your opponent +1 to save rather than -1 to hit), but it would solve the issue of things like magic missiles seeking out troops in cover ... magically, presumably. Ultimately, terrain has a very secondary part of the game, the massive disadvantages to movement (see 2, below), mean that actually taking cover against ranged fire is very rare except for skirmishers, who can make hitting them effectively impossible (and will therefore be roasted as a priority by magic missiles). Even if the cover save system is impossible (it probably is) then by making all attacks (including magic missles) need a to-hit roll (even if it is on a 1+) so cover provides some measure of protection against auto-hit attacks, that would encourage use of terrain.

2) Terrain (movement). The other factor that irks me about terrain is that all terrain can be treated in two ways. For most rank-and-file troops, it is effectively impassible - half move AND no marching? Even my M10 seekers don't go through terrain. The remainder of units simply ignore difficult terrain penalties altogether - skirmishers, etc. Ultimately, terrain needs to be freed up or it makes actually trying to move through terrain for the dubious benefits (see 1) absolultely impossible. Skirmishers in the meantime can dance around rather unrealistically.

3) Clipping. By edition 7 this really shouldn't still be an issue. It is. "Play nice and fudge it" is not an acceptable rule system. There are any number of ways of fixing clipping - either make "sliding" an actual rule, or just allow the front ranks to fight regardless of how many are in contact! After all, the battle lines aren't going to be that static. Ultimately, with lapping-round gone, it's rather absurd that the troops should not gang up on a numerically inferior foe. Obviously any solution would require some careful thought to prevent abuse, but just throwing arms up in the air and saying "clipping is bad, mkay" is not enough.

4) Challenges. These are a mess. The challenge rules seem to be intended to allow mighty heroes to clash in the field of combat - but that sure as hell doesn't happen. In particular the inability to decline challenges under certain circumstances leads to rediculous situations, such as when a monstrous character fighting another monstrous character can simply challenge to avoid being attacked by charging infantry, or the flipside where a cavalry unit can challenge a powerful lone character to avoid being slaughtered. The challenge rules are used to avoid fighting honest combat. They need to be changed - frankly, they could be removed and I wouldn't shed a tear. As they are noone ever actually uses the rules to match up mighty warriors in combat (excepting armies like Chaos which are forced to by the rules). Every mighty hero brings along a naive champion who'll be callously sacrificed at the merest hint of danger so the "hero" can get on with smacking down bozos without any risk of having to pick on somone their own size.

After that, there are little things (chariot destruction up to S8, for example) but these 4 things are the big underlying issues with the core rules.

chivalrous
16-02-2009, 20:01
Well, my main gripe is actually about the current cookie cutter magic lores and I brought it up a while back. Instead of ressurecting that thread, I'll just quote my main entry.
I agree with you, but only so far as when it suits the character of the lore. i.e. the Lore of Fire.

However, of the 48 spells that comprise the 8 basic Lores of Magic, 24, half, of those spells are damage dealers, 8 are augmentation (including healing) (or reduction), 5 are movement, 5 are Psychology, one is defensive and 4 are "other".

Now Fire, as you'd expect, is the most destructive, 4 direct damage spells, one that indirectly causes damage and one augmentation spell.

Death follows with 4 direct damage spells and two Psychology spells.
and you'd expect these lores to be destructive.
But where it really adheres to the background is that is destructive and scary and Necromantic when you look at Steal Soul.
I still think the loss of Death Dealer was sad. It wasn't hugely effective but it did have the nice impression of Necromancy lite and the wizard only being a couple of sleepless nights away from leading his own hordes of restless dead. Walking Death is just as relevant to the lore though.

But then you get to Metal, Shadow, Heavens and Life. All these spells have so much potential to describe some more original effects than just *flash**bang**splat*

Metal has 3 direct damage spells, 1 detrimentation spell and 2 "other" spells.
With control over metals you could do a whole host of things. They're already making an opponents armour heavier, why not make friendly weapons lighter so they can strike first; make their armour harder, without making it heavier for a higher save with an option to cast it on barded cavalry that doesn't improve same but negates the barding movement modifier. It was frankly a tragic loss to the character of the lore when the got rid of the spell that reduced all weapons to hand weapons.

Shadow is supposed to be sly and sneaky as well as shrouded a little bit spooky and some illusion so besides Shades of Death, where is the sneaky and spooky? I'll admit that it's difficult to represent sneaky on the battlefield and Unseen Lurker and Steed of Shadows aren't bad for the shrouded element.
But more could have been done with the illusion element, such as being able to summon a temporary piece of terrain that blocked line of sight but as soon as anyone touched it it vanished; or an illusion of a stonking great dragon within x inches of the caster that lasted until the beginning of the casters next phase. It wouldn't be able to fight, but it would cause terror, block lines of sight and force compulsory charges.; or a spell that gave the impression that a unit was closer to an opponent than it actually was so they'd have to deduct D3 inches from their charge move; or a spell that created hundreds of little illusions of sprites and small animals and flickering light and such that forced the victims to take a Stupidity test.

Heavens has so much scope for lovely effects, afterall, it is the magic of divination and seeing the future, as well as astronomy and meteorology (which it stole from the Grey college *grumble*).
Well, there are some boring effects you could have with this one, like giving a whole unit Always strikes first because they get see images of the future, I'd implement Ld test for the unit in question though to actually work out what they're seeing.
But how's this for a break from tradition, rather than having a spell that has to be cast in the magic phase, there is a spell on the Celestial list that can only be used once per game. At the beginning of the game, the wizard has seen how the enemy will deploy and has passed on this information to the army general, allowing the general to redeploy a single unit or swap two units around. It may seem like a drastic spell, but remember it limits the wizard to one less spell during the game.

Life Actually this isn't too heavy with damage dealing but you could have a lot of fun with movement effects with Master of the Wood and Master of Stone instead of extra damage for units occupying the terrain.
Master of the Wood: Replace the extra damage caused to units occupying the wood, with the unit, in the compulsory movement part of its next movement phase, having[B] to march their full march distance (taking into account movement modifiers) in a random direction indicated by the scatter dice. This would count as their movement for that turn and would affect wood elves and forest spirits as the trees are acting all funny and not at all normal.
Master of Stone, well, you could always replace the extra damage with the unit having to take an initiative test or not be able to do anything in the following turn as it picks itself up.

For character [B]Light is a little bit dodgy, I'm not sure I see where Healing Energy or Guardian Light comes into the background but I suppose you need a positive psychology Lore to balance with...*ponders*... with the Lore of Death I suppose (I'll gripe about that later). The benefit it does have however is that like Life, it isn't heavy on the damage dealing. Moreso it tries to be a very fluffy Lore even if the fluff is a little bit uncertain about what it's actually supposed to cover.

Beasts is near perfect for a fluffy lore. It attacks or augments animals. The only one I'll quibble about is The Hunter's Spear replacing The Eagles Cry just for the sake of another damage dealer.
One thing I'd like to suggest, to make the Beasts of Chaos a stronger list is that The Wolf Hunts be allowed to be cast on any friendly unit or Ungors, Gors, Bestigors and Miontaurs, since they are all types of Beastmen ;)

I think what Magic should really try to do with the lores is specify an area of the game for each lore to tie in with.

Fire should be destructive, basically fire should hit and wound. Simple.
Beasts already works very well affecting cavalry and monsters.
Shadow should be all about Psychological effects.
Life should concentrate on movement effects, being about the ground we walk on, the sky we fly in and the woods we walk through.
Metal should be about augmenting and negating Weapons and Armour

Of course it does fall down a bit with the last three that have specific purposes but don't relate to a specific section of the rule book.

Light should be about protection. Protection from psychology, protection from being wounded, protection from magic. It should be the defensive Lore.
Heavens should firstly be about the dice and the improving the probability of something happening for you and/or happening against your opponent. Secondly it should be about changing the order of things, like combat so you can get the jump on you opponent.

DeathIs probably the most difficult to categorise into one single category. It should be destructive, it's Death afterall. It should also be psychological everyone's afraid of dying.
Soul Stealer characterises something else that I just can't put my finger on but is wholly characterful for the lore.

40kdhs
16-02-2009, 20:05
The mage needs to have true ligh of sight and the range in order to cast the spell.

If a spell can't be casted in CC, it needs to be CLEARLY STATED because i have seen a lot of 'it doesn't say so YES' arguements.

Lordsaradain
16-02-2009, 20:27
The character just have to get out of base contact. Not go to a second rank.

Also you'll just have to think of the role of your champion. Its an option, not something you are forced to take – even less so for chaos knights.

The challange rule does not make sense. Why should it be a tactical advantage to not have a champion(besides saving the points)?

R Man
16-02-2009, 21:08
It would make them slower. Whether that's much too slow, I doubt it. Lots of people take chariots and they can't march.

One of the reasons heavy cavalry is so good right now is that they get to use their abilities for more of the game than a unit of elite infantry- reading "tactica" threads you often see people recommend heavy cavalry over similarly capable heavy infantry purely because they're so much faster, its not that heavy infantry is bad its simply that they're not as fast. I think making heavy cavalry slower would encourage more varied

I understand your logic, however I'm still against it, partly because I'm a Bret Player this basically halves the speed of my army.


But wasn't the point of the HW&S rule to give core troops a fighting chance in combat? Most units that benefit from this rule are WS3 (WS4 tops). They need that extra save against powerful (yet skilled) characters. army lists.

To be honest I have no idea where the parry bonus came from. However I thought that units were given strength from outnumbering and the weakening of heroes.


This wouldn't really factor into the main book, but changes towards making mid-grade magic more viable...

-Increase the base cost of Dispel Scrolls by 10 (35 for most armies)

This is a stupid idea. Some armies relly entirely on dispel scrolls for protection from magic, and handicaping that isn't going to make mid range magic any better. If you must limit Dispel scrolls just limit each mage to using one per turn. This way you don't handicap the total magic defense of an army, but restrict the ability of dispel scrolls to shut down a phase entierly.

And now the problem is that this thread is debating about 6 different aspects of the game at the same time.

Fellblade
16-02-2009, 21:09
My votes:

Single models can't cancel ranks.
- I'm bored with 7th ed. Monsterhammer.


Shields providing a "hard" armor save.
- Armor save granted by shields not modified by str modifiers. Perhaps adding other "hard" armors into the game.
OR...
Find a way to unlink str with armor save.
- Strength negates two stats, toughness and armor saves. This makes it a little unbalanced in some cases.

W0lf
16-02-2009, 21:22
One thing id like to see is to remove all attacks from the steed and then give cavalry impact hits on the charge.

Thus when chaos knights charge they get 1 S4 (steed) impact hit each. This makes more sense and makes cav more vunerable to being charged and in later rounds.

Plus it stops the sillyness of 2S4 or S4 w/ hatred (mathmatically the same) Mounts that are better then alot of units. Against WS 5 a chaos horse is as good as a phoneix guard at killing... right?

scolex
16-02-2009, 21:30
I like the idea of points rather than slots for force organisation, but it would need some refinement.

For example:

20% of 2000 pts is 400pts , or

11 Goblin Spear Chukkas?
13 Night Goblin Big Bosses?
8 Empire Captains?

So, restrictions on specific units (perhaps x per 1k pts?), and/or caps on total units of a type may need to come into play with it.

As a bonus it definitely stops the whole 15pd thing already. I couldn't figure out how to get more than 9pd (at least from army books I have)

Famder
17-02-2009, 04:23
I like the idea of points rather than slots for force organisation, but it would need some refinement.

I really don't want to go back to the old system of 5th edition. It was nice in some respects, but it didn't really solve any of the problems people have stated for why they want this system put in place.

Lord Dan
17-02-2009, 04:27
As a bonus it definitely stops the whole 15pd thing already.

SO last edition. We've already moved on to the 22 PD thing. :p

Draconian77
17-02-2009, 05:40
Hmm... I never really considered what I would change to make Warhammer a better game but off the top of my head I'd go with:

~Make heavy cavalry much more expensive. I'm seriously talking about a 40-50% increase here.

~Make most shooting units and most artillery much more expensive. (35/45 point Bolt Throwers, 8pt Handgunners, such things should *not* (EDIT)be so cheap and will help balance out the fact that the cavalry is getting more expensive. I would go through the list of what needs to be increased and what doesn't but overall I'll just assume that the experienced players know what I'm talking about. )

~Make magic less off an all or nothing system as has been mentioned already, make magic less offensive and more supportive or tricky. Actually, the BRB spells are mostly ok, so what I'm really saying is "Nerf the army specific lores" but in this case "Nerf" = "Balance" as they are clearly superior in most cases.

~Cheapen and weaken characters, I feel that we have been getting closer and closer to herohammer recently. (Make special characters balanced or opponents permission only again.)

~Fix terrain/unit interraction.

~Flyers can't negate rank bonuses. (Maybe not, I don't fight too many Dragons but I hear a lot of people hate the oversized lizards...)

So what I'm proposing is to make the game much more about infantry, essentially.

Foegnasher
17-02-2009, 05:51
So what I'm proposing is to make the game much more about infantry, essentially.

as a horde skaven player i heartily endorse this post

neek neek.

TroyJPerez
17-02-2009, 06:07
I'd like to see magic be more supportive as well. And I'd really love to see all the ignore armour save spells go away. Armour is so easy to get around I've almost stopped taking heavy troops. Its just not worth it when I never get to use their armour save that makes them so expensive. I'd like to see magic be more supportive and used to boost troops rather then destroy them. Each lore should maybe get 1 offensive spell and they should all be considered magic missiles. Otherwise, spells should buff, debuff, or have some other game effect that does not do damage.

Draconian77
17-02-2009, 06:22
I don't think offensive magic is bad as long as its kept reasonable and supportive(Kill those Flyers/Skirmishers/Strip a rank off, etc) The Lore of Fire for example is balanced and highly offensive. But some spells that kill on x or have such a high S as to negate 2+ saves are just silly.

The main offenders are of course, the army specific Lores.

TroyJPerez
17-02-2009, 08:10
I'd add lore of metal, vs anyone who is cavalry heavy, plays chaos lizardmen or dwarves is pretty imbalanced. And lore of heavens is just silly. I hate all spells that ignore armour that are not just single model hit spells. As well as are affect spells that do 2d6 hits. Spells that can destroy a good chunk of your army in one casting should be gotten rid of. I'd just like to see the game go back to more about who is the better general and has better strategy. You can stick a magic or warmachine gunline list in front of any noob and have it be played successfully.

Vaktathi
17-02-2009, 08:19
one big thing for me is flank charges, why on earth would a unit not reform it's ranks if charged in the side, especially if it's one rank?

The image of a unit of knights getting charged on the side, sitting still in a line with no attempt to reform or move while one guy on the end of the line fights three guys until they decide to break is quite frankly retarded.

Another sticking point for me is magic. Magic seems to be very teeter-totterish. It's either amazing and wins the game single handedly, or gets canceled out. A magic heavy army seems to defeat a killy hand to hand army almost every time.

It seems as though unless someone brings a couple scroll caddies, they are pretty much toast when facing magic heavy lists, and even then it's not easy. On the opposite side, to moderately magic'd out lists will often simply cancel each other out and never cast anything.

Magic seems like it wins the game, or does nothing. I'm still fairly new to fantasy, but in my time playing for the last few months it definitely seems like magic is a bit weird.

Also, the ability to simply choose what lore you wish at the beginning of each game is a bit...silly. Oh look, I'm facing Warrior/Knight heavy Chaos! guess what lore I'm taking? Oh look, whenver my spells go off they wound on a 2+ with no armor saves! Granted there are counters to such magic, but it's still pretty naff.

Mireadur
17-02-2009, 09:24
The mage needs to have true ligh of sight and the range in order to cast the spell.

If a spell can't be casted in CC, it needs to be CLEARLY STATED because i have seen a lot of 'it doesn't say so YES' arguements.

No, it must speficy it can be cast in CC for the mage to be able to cast it in a melee situation. (although i should check the BRB to make sure im not peeing out of the basin here).

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 09:38
Wizards can cast anything except "magic missiles" whilst in a combat.

The only spells that can target a unit in a combat are those that target the mage himself and any spell which states that it can be cast into combat. Lots of spells can affect models in combat because they don't have a target- comet, black horror, etc.

The rule book probably takes several lengthy paragraphs to say that.

Arnizipal
17-02-2009, 11:17
1) Terrain (cover). This needs an overhaul. Honestly, I'd like to see a "cover save" system adopted. Modifiers need to be thrown out the window (moving could provide your opponent +1 to save rather than -1 to hit), but it would solve the issue of things like magic missiles seeking out troops in cover ... magically, presumably. Ultimately, terrain has a very secondary part of the game, the massive disadvantages to movement (see 2, below), mean that actually taking cover against ranged fire is very rare except for skirmishers, who can make hitting them effectively impossible (and will therefore be roasted as a priority by magic missiles). Even if the cover save system is impossible (it probably is) then by making all attacks (including magic missles) need a to-hit roll (even if it is on a 1+) so cover provides some measure of protection against auto-hit attacks, that would encourage use of terrain.



Shields providing a "hard" armor save.
- Armor save granted by shields not modified by str modifiers. Perhaps adding other "hard" armors into the game.
OR...
Find a way to unlink str with armor save.
- Strength negates two stats, toughness and armor saves. This makes it a little unbalanced in some cases.
Let's not make this 40K. WFB is way too simplistic as it is.


4) Challenges. These are a mess. The challenge rules seem to be intended to allow mighty heroes to clash in the field of combat - but that sure as hell doesn't happen. In particular the inability to decline challenges under certain circumstances leads to rediculous situations, such as when a monstrous character fighting another monstrous character can simply challenge to avoid being attacked by charging infantry, or the flipside where a cavalry unit can challenge a powerful lone character to avoid being slaughtered. The challenge rules are used to avoid fighting honest combat. They need to be changed - frankly, they could be removed and I wouldn't shed a tear. As they are noone ever actually uses the rules to match up mighty warriors in combat (excepting armies like Chaos which are forced to by the rules). Every mighty hero brings along a naive champion who'll be callously sacrificed at the merest hint of danger so the "hero" can get on with smacking down bozos without any risk of having to pick on somone their own size.

That is the point of challenges you know? Your noble champion sacrificing himself to take on the lord of über death so his unit stands a fighting chance.

It's a mini strategy game on its own. :)




one big thing for me is flank charges, why on earth would a unit not reform it's ranks if charged in the side, especially if it's one rank?

The image of a unit of knights getting charged on the side, sitting still in a line with no attempt to reform or move while one guy on the end of the line fights three guys until they decide to break is quite frankly retarded.
Combat is an abstraction. We don't know how long a turn takes in real life. Could be hours, but it could also be minutes.

I prefer to see it that a unit being charged like that is taken totally by surprise. It becomes disorganised (by the causalties caused or by the number of enemies pressing on a weak spot in their formation) so it can't respond porperly until it comes to its senses (eg winning a round of combat).

Draconian77
17-02-2009, 11:27
Not to mention that flanking a unit of Knights with a unit of infantry for example, should earn the player some reward. If a unit of Chaos Knights simply about faced and crushed you flanking them would be pointless.

Vaktathi
17-02-2009, 11:35
perhaps, but it simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If nothing else you'd think they would just move. regardless of what the unit is, it just seems really awkward that the guy on the end is just gonna sit there and twiddle his thumbs while the enemy works his way down the line. the cavalry example just illustrates it best, when you have a single line of dudes, the one on the end gets charged, and the rest of the unit will just sit there. They have the ability to outpace what is attacking them, they could certainly reform their line or move into contact with the enemy instead of standing in a straight line while they get hit one by one standing still instead of moving off or reforming.

It's one of the biggest things that's bothered me about fantasy, it seems excessively "gamey" and awkward. It's just one of those things that removes the immersion factor of watching two armies go at it.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 11:57
It might look gamey- but that's because the models don't move. As Arnizipal pointed out, the unit is disorganised and until they can push the enemy back and get some breathing space their enemy retain the advantage and they're unable to bring their mounts around to fight as an organised regiment.

Lord Inquisitor
17-02-2009, 15:45
Let's not make this 40K. WFB is way too simplistic as it is.
Don't confuse "simplistic" with "elegant". If a simpler method works well, then great!

There are many things I don't like about 40K, but there are some things that are vastly better and terrain is one of them. Firstly, troops can move through terrain - all troops can be expected to be slowed down (unlike Fantasy where skirmishers ignore terrain) without being crippled (everything else in Fantasy). Equally, being in terrain provides a real benefit, unlike in Fantasy where there are so many auto-hit effects that it makes terrain essentially worthless. Taking advantage of terrain is absolutely vital to succeed in 40K, whereas in Fantasy you could take the terrain off the table half the time and it wouldn't make a whit of difference.

However, pay attention to what I'm saying. Light cover, for example, gives a 1/6 chance you'll miss by affecting the "to hit roll". Now imagine that what it actually gave was a 6+ Cover Save. This is not affected by armour modifiers and would be taken IN ADDITION to armour or Ward saves (unlike in 40K).

Then, you apply the modifiers TO THE ARMOUR SAVE. So if you move, that's +1 to the cover save. If you fire multi-shots or over half range, that's +1 to the cover save.

So the modifiers are still there - and the rough chance to hit your opponent remains the same as it is now - but the cover helps against all ranged attacks, including magic missiles and war machines.

Of course, the problem with this is trying to get such a system to gel without invalidating the army books. The other solution would be to make all auto-hit attacks have to roll to hit, but I prefer the cover saves idea! :D



That is the point of challenges you know? Your noble champion sacrificing himself to take on the lord of über death so his unit stands a fighting chance.

It's a mini strategy game on its own. :)
I disagree that this is the point of challenges. The point of challenges is to allow heroes to clash in titanic combat and not get stuck half a base's width fighting nobodies.

It doesn't even make any sense, why would a champion even stand for a moment against a keeper of secrets? Why wouldn't the keeper just barge through and slaughter left right and center. Even worse, if the keeper is fighting (and losing) against a lord on a dragon and a unit of lesser daemons charges in, why are the lessers for some reason honour bound not to attack?

Lest you say "oh poor you with the greater daemon" it works the other way too. You charge my greater daemon with a unit of lets say blood knights - of course I'm going to challenge! There's no great tactical design there - that reduces the number of attacks I have to take down to just the champion, because he can't refuse. It's stupid. Why should I be allowed to reduce your attacks on the all-important charge? That's not what the challenge rules were designed for!

You might see it as a tactical strategy game, but it usually isn't. It is typically a no brainer. Of course your dragon lord is going to challenge, because that way he can avoid being attacked by the troops I've just charged in. The challenge system is used at least 90% of the time by one player or other to AVOID fighting against enemies. That's not what it's for, at least in my opinion, and if you read the challenge rules every example is of the rules allowing titantic combat between heroes in ranked-up units who would otherwise not be able to attack each other.

Fellblade
17-02-2009, 15:48
Oh, thought of another thing I'd like to see changed:
- When a fighting rank model is killed, instead of nobody swinging back for his position the model that replaces it may attack at -1 to hit.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
17-02-2009, 16:18
Don't confuse "simplistic" with "elegant". If a simpler method works well, then great!

There are many things I don't like about 40K, but there are some things that are vastly better and terrain is one of them. Firstly, troops can move through terrain - all troops can be expected to be slowed down (unlike Fantasy where skirmishers ignore terrain) without being crippled (everything else in Fantasy). Equally, being in terrain provides a real benefit, unlike in Fantasy where there are so many auto-hit effects that it makes terrain essentially worthless. Taking advantage of terrain is absolutely vital to succeed in 40K, whereas in Fantasy you could take the terrain off the table half the time and it wouldn't make a whit of difference.SNIP

In large part this has to do with the nature of 'warfare' at the 'time period'. Historical battles [fantasy] tended to avoid terrain features- forests, very steep hills, marshes, water etc. were used to cover the flanks and rear of armies precisely because they were so difficult to move large numbers of troops through. Hills [high ground] were considered very valuable and any sort rough terrain was loved by missile troops [ex. many speculate or theorize that at Agincourt, the muddy field was as responsible for the English victory as the longbow was]. This is represented fairly well in fantasy- the problem arises because there are armies and troops which break this consistency. Thus people either use almost no terrain, or try to cover the field in it depending on their army.

40K on the other hand represents the smaller squad based nature of 'modern' warfare. [Note- I know a lot less about modern warfare so a lot of this is speculation] This type of warfare is ruled by freedom of movement and space because of a larger range of effective support. No longer do I have to stand side by side with my ally to to cover him [like in a shield wall], and in fact, with the capabilities of the weapons, to do so makes it more dangerous for both of us [more tempting target]. Thus, the game has to be more spread out and while 40 people standing side by side will have trouble moving through a forest, 10 guys, spread over 3 times [or more] the area of the 40 will have an easier time.

That being said, I think the terrain rules should be adjusted somewhat so they are not so crippling.

Lord Inquisitor
17-02-2009, 16:35
I realise this and to some degree I agree that it reflects some elements of historical accuracy and I don't want to suggest that Fantasy should be like 40k.

Nevertheless, there have been battles won by clever maneuvering of troops through terrain, and cover is cover. Ultimately terrain is too much of an obstacle to troops (allowing troops to march through cover - most people seem to think this is the rule anyway! - would be a start), while skirmishers should suffer some kind of penalty (-1/4 move?).

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 16:44
As pointed out by others already, the better idea is that terrain prevents marching for non-skirmishers but imposes no other movement penallties. This prevents troops being march blocked inside a wood and having a penalty imposed on them by the terrain.

I think this is also more realistic (or at least makes snese) as troops moving through a wood are going to be moving cautiously (possibly with weapons drawn) anyway just incase they get ambushed. Primarily though its a better mechanic because it works more smoothly in the game.

Ixquic
17-02-2009, 16:51
In my opinion the entire magic system is totally borked. Having less than three wizards means you will probably not get any spells off short of either irresistible forces or your opponent rolling double ones on dispel due to scrolls. Conversely if you go against super magic heavy it means that if you don't spend a lot of effort to build up a magic defense you will get railroaded by the spells that are just a little too good. If you have two wizards and your opponent has several scrolls it won't be until your third turn before you can even get a spell off and by then many units will be in combat and unable to be targeted. One wizard will literally do nothing. I don't think 1 dice miscasts or generating more dispel dice per wizard band aids will solve this problem.

I think we need to return to some kind of winds of magic system where a finite amount of magic power is generated per magic phase. If you have more wizards you can draw a little more out but overall there both sides will have a similar amount of power and dispel dice. This will result in stronger magic armies still having more selections of spells and being able to throw more dice per attempt, but also you won't have out of control magic defenses stopping every spell or Vampire Counts and Demon armies with 11+ dice spamming tons of spells that can't be stopped. Armies with fewer wizards will only be able to cast the weaker spells but will have a better chance of getting them off and being able to influence the game other than just having two scrolls in his backpack.

Additionally leadership is becoming a serious problem. Either armies need to have leadership increased across the board or they need to half most reduction of leadership abilities. If you lose combat by one (OH NO A MUSICIAN!!!) with an "average" leadership of 7 your unit is going to statistically fail and will either be run down and destroyed or put tactically out of the game for at least a turn. People have figured out what a liability being susceptible to psychology tests is so they are flocking to armies like Undead and Demons and always have the Black Guard unit or the Banner of Balance of High Elf units. Armies like Orcs and Goblins get screwed since in addition to low leadership they have very little to mitigate this sort of thing. A huge unit of goblins is worth nothing if there's a little under a 50% chance of them even charging in. Not everything can be in that 12" bubble of decent general leadership.

Something needs to be done with terrain. Every game I play is two hills on either side and a forest 12" from the middle of the field. Maybe some sort of auto generating system. Take out the stupid 24" no terrain zone in the center and make it so units that go into difficult ground aren't out of the game for three to four turns would be a plus.

CaliforniaGamer
17-02-2009, 16:53
Balance suggestions:
DoC ward save removed with magical attack, obvious fix
Big time nerf of Khornedogs, removal of flamers completely
Limitation of demonic gifts to unique
Removal of a few of the obviously abusive daemon banners

Limitation of successful necromancy spells for VC to 1

Many changes in Dark Elves, including increasing hydra cost substantially, limiting many of the unit sizes such as shades, removing pendant of K.

Limiting stanks to 1

substantially boosting/rewriting BoC, Ogres and Greenskins books.

Ixquic
17-02-2009, 17:08
Balance suggestions:
DoC ward save removed with magical attack, obvious fix
Big time nerf of Khornedogs, removal of flamers completely
Limitation of demonic gifts to unique
Removal of a few of the obviously abusive daemon banners

Limitation of successful necromancy spells for VC to 1

Many changes in Dark Elves, including increasing hydra cost substantially, limiting many of the unit sizes such as shades, removing pendant of K.

Limiting stanks to 1

substantially boosting/rewriting BoC, Ogres and Greenskins books.

Raise dead and Vans Dance should be able to be cast repeatedly UNTIL you get it off successfully. Invocation should either be cast as much as you like or returned to the way it was in 6th where you had different levels with more raised the more difficult the casting value. Being only able to raise D6 models per caster would cripple the army.

What really made 7th edition Vampire ridiculous in my opinion is that their troops got too good. Back in 6th the best troops you could get were black knights and they were weapon skill 3. You had to rely on your Vampires to fight for you while raising crap troops to help get that outnumber to autobreak. Now you can have WS6 guys with strength 6 great weapons and a regen save or a unit of knights with 5 attacks per model, 3 of them at strength 7 or the two Vargulfs running around eating everything. There was no trade off and they are really just as good (some would say better) at raising things as before.

As someone that used to play Lahmian Vampires because they were cool, some of the current stuff is ridiculous to me. That's not limited to VC though since half the 7th edition books are out of control in one way or another.

Lord Inquisitor
17-02-2009, 17:08
As pointed out by others already, the better idea is that terrain prevents marching for non-skirmishers but imposes no other movement penallties. This prevents troops being march blocked inside a wood and having a penalty imposed on them by the terrain.
Yeah, I could go with this. I was thinking along the same lines, but I'd have to think some more to see if it could be abused. On first reflection it seems good to me though, after all not marching really is effectively half movement for all practical purposes.


Something needs to be done with terrain. Every game I play is two hills on either side and a forest 12" from the middle of the field. Maybe some sort of auto generating system. Take out the stupid 24" no terrain zone in the center and make it so units that go into difficult ground aren't out of the game for three to four turns would be a plus.
Yeah I agree. Every game I play seems to have one hill in each deployment zone and a wood on each flank. Yawn. But that's hardly the fault of the rules, need to just rant at the people who set up terrain more!

Although thinking about it, it's probably symptomatic of the fact that the terrain is so impassable. Making terrain provide better cover against magic or war machines + making it less crippling to move through might encourage people to vary up the battlefields.

Ixquic
17-02-2009, 17:23
[COLOR="magenta"]Yeah I agree. Every game I play seems to have one hill in each deployment zone and a wood on each flank. Yawn. But that's hardly the fault of the rules, need to just rant at the people who set up terrain more!

Although thinking about it, it's probably symptomatic of the fact that the terrain is so impassable. Making terrain provide better cover against magic or war machines + making it less crippling to move through might encourage people to vary up the battlefields.

Yeah trees mights as well be impassible for anyone that isn't a skirmisher or Wood Elf since if makes you move at a slothful 2" through it regardless of how much of your unit is touching. People just avoid them like the plague and thus they either get placed in corners or just not set up at all until you are playing Wood Elfs and you have a chunk of the board you can't even maneuver through. Additionally people only play with 3 hills and 3 forests so you never get to use the cool buildings GW produces or anything interesting.

If I'm just playing a fun game for ***** and giggles sometimes I'll just ask one of the many 12 year olds hanging around the store watching to just setup the terrain for us and give him a tower included since it will probably end up being more fun than the boring standard.

Faust
17-02-2009, 17:39
@Ixquic

Regarding your magic suggestions, I will have to politely disagree. Why is it that people are complianing about the magic system. I understand the entire spamming of dice and the 15PD VC, DoC, WoC, etc. Why go for a complete overhaul with the Winds of Magic only having limit use? This seems to me as being well I do not want to invest in Wizards so let's nerf them to make my choice stronger? Well isn't that just a odd?

My suggestion is to employ an upgrade to a Hero choice non wizard, call it heroic presence -40pts. Count it as a dispel scroll. On a Lord Level character give the Heroic presence option and a +60 pt option calling it Might of Aeons. Grants +1 dispel dice so long as the character is alive. Something along those lines. Just a thought.

Faust

dannyfave
17-02-2009, 17:39
Magic dice to be pooled as in 6th (never got to play with those rules :()

-> Micasts made scary. Current table is too friendly.
-> Magic sorted - numerous solutions.
-> +2 CR for out number but no outnumber bonus in flank/rear
-> +4 max for ranks.
-> No frenzy/hatred for mounts. 2S4 horses and hatred Dragon is silly.

This should help alot.

I think removing fear-autobreak is a ridiculous idea. TK/VC rely on it. How else would skellies break anything?

You obviously never played with the 6th ed. magic rules, this miscast table is way more scary than the 6th ed. one.

Are you saying +2 if you outnumber 2 to 1? if so than yeah, no problem, but if you are just talking about a general outnumbering, then that would not be good (I think that a +2 for out numbering 2 to 1 would help out with the horde armies)

+4 for CORE regiments rank bonus (and more if you are a horde army , but that woulod be specified in book)



Oh and a full Kislev army book :D

RossS
17-02-2009, 18:23
Raise dead and Vans Dance should be able to be cast repeatedly UNTIL you get it off successfully. Invocation should either be cast as much as you like or returned to the way it was in 6th where you had different levels with more raised the more difficult the casting value. Being only able to raise D6 models per caster would cripple the army.

What really made 7th edition Vampire ridiculous in my opinion is that their troops got too good. Back in 6th the best troops you could get were black knights and they were weapon skill 3. You had to rely on your Vampires to fight for you while raising crap troops to help get that outnumber to autobreak. Now you can have WS6 guys with strength 6 great weapons and a regen save or a unit of knights with 5 attacks per model, 3 of them at strength 7 or the two Vargulfs running around eating everything. There was no trade off and they are really just as good (some would say better) at raising things as before.

As someone that used to play Lahmian Vampires because they were cool, some of the current stuff is ridiculous to me. That's not limited to VC though since half the 7th edition books are out of control in one way or another.

I agree on the need to modify some of the VC units, in particular Ghouls and Blood Knights (I wouldn't be the least bit bothered if they did away with the latter unit). Ghouls should be remade into dedicated skirmishers and made T3. They should be allowed to maintain their general hittiness, though. I would also really like to see zombies made T4, if only because they seem rather difficult to re-kill/ put down (see "Return of the Living Dead.") But that's just me.

Since I am hoping for a nerf to the autobreak because of fear rule ( instead of being automatic, I would like to see it contingent on amount of outnumbering), the cost of Undead Core would be reduced accordingly.

But I think the ability to repeatedly cast Raise Dead and Van Hel's should be removed. There was no need for it (You should have to bring your army with you to a battle, in my view. I don't want to see any more VC armies made up of 10 Vamps and 40 skellies to shelter them. How many dead bodies does your vampire expect to find on some barren, uninhabited heath, anyway?) Similarly, the ability to recast Van Hel's has made, if I may, the VC too damn fast.

Also, Helm of Commandment and Corpse Cart's "Unholy Vigour"...gone. Sorry, ASF skeletons striking at WS 7 is a bit ridiculous.

There. That's one army book fixed.

Ixquic
17-02-2009, 18:25
@Ixquic

Regarding your magic suggestions, I will have to politely disagree. Why is it that people are complianing about the magic system. I understand the entire spamming of dice and the 15PD VC, DoC, WoC, etc. Why go for a complete overhaul with the Winds of Magic only having limit use? This seems to me as being well I do not want to invest in Wizards so let's nerf them to make my choice stronger? Well isn't that just a odd?

My suggestion is to employ an upgrade to a Hero choice non wizard, call it heroic presence -40pts. Count it as a dispel scroll. On a Lord Level character give the Heroic presence option and a +60 pt option calling it Might of Aeons. Grants +1 dispel dice so long as the character is alive. Something along those lines. Just a thought.

Faust

One of the problems with the current magic system is that armies that go magic light get wrecked by the current crop of over the top spells (Spirit of the Forge pretty much will wipe any unit of knights off the board in one go) so you have to take dispel scrolls to guarantee that you can burn through one phase of magic to at least get to where you want. I hate dispel scrolls in general since they end up being almost required just in case you go up against a super magic heavy list and need to buy yourself some time. Then when you play balanced magic lists of two wizards with your army of three dispel scrolls you will totally shut down their magic phase for the entire game or at least until their magic becomes largely irrelevant if you use your dice and scrolls wisely and they aren't lucky enough to irresistibly force cast a spell.

The system I'm proposing doesn't reduce magic that much, it just makes it more "balanced." The amount of power and dispel dice are determined by the game point level and small bonuses are applied for extra wizards (since they are more able to tap into the magic). This is opposed to the current way where it seems like it's the wizards themselves who are generating the magic. If you go magic heavy you will still have the edge since your casters will be have more spells to choose from, more dice (although not as much as they currently do) and be able to use more dice to successfully cast them. People with moderate amounts of magic will have almost as many dice, but will not have as many spells to use as well as lower casts due to less dice rolled making them easier to dispel. Dispel scrolls would also be removed entirely and it would be entirely up to dice rolling.

For that to work though, magic spells in general would have to be weaker so no more 2D6 strength 7 no armor saves, Slicing Shards or Phantasmagoria or whatever.

The way I'm envisioning a magic phase to go is that a side has a very good chance of getting at least one spell off regardless of how many casters are present. However the actual spells would not be as game changing as they currently are. A magic heavy army would be casting more spells than a medium class one, but it wouldn't be able to totally shut down their phase. I want to see magical effects and battles going throughout the game like shooting and combat, not one side getting everything dispelled while the other totally dominates.

Ixquic
17-02-2009, 18:40
I agree on the need to modify some of the VC units, in particular Ghouls and Blood Knights (I wouldn't be the least bit bothered if they did away with the latter unit). Ghouls should be remade into dedicated skirmishers and made T3. They should be allowed to maintain their general hittiness, though. I would also really like to see zombies made T4, if only because they seem rather difficult to re-kill/ put down (see "Return of the Living Dead.") But that's just me.

Since I am hoping for a nerf to the autobreak because of fear rule ( instead of being automatic, I would like to see it contingent on amount of outnumbering), the cost of Undead Core would be reduced accordingly.

But I think the ability to repeatedly cast Raise Dead and Van Hel's should be removed. There was no need for it (You should have to bring your army with you to a battle, in my view. I don't want to see any more VC armies made up of 10 Vamps and 40 skellies to shelter them. How many dead bodies does your vampire expect to find on some barren, uninhabited heath, anyway?) Similarly, the ability to recast Van Hel's has made, if I may, the VC too damn fast.

Also, Helm of Commandment and Corpse Cart's "Unholy Vigour"...gone. Sorry, ASF skeletons striking at WS 7 is a bit ridiculous.

There. That's one army book fixed.

The stupid ASF corpse carts are there because of the idiotic ASF creep started by the horrible High Elf book. If there wasn't some way for Vampire Counts to get ASF then they would get chopped up by Elves every time due to having no shooting and little offensive damaging magic. Of course I agree against other stuff it's silly.

Raise dead is actually not as good as before since it used to be able to create new skeleton units instead of just zombies and had a range of 18" (that's not counting the recast necromancy stuff). I think that with the many new magic defenses that have been popping up in 7th that the spells being able to be recast is fine (they used to be that way back in previous editions of warhammer) but they are too easy and I think it should be like Tomb Kings where you keep going until it works and then no more. Vans Dance should not be a 7+ to cast spell.

Ghouls have always been T4 so I don't think they should lose it. However they should not be a ranked unit I agree. That is silly (and I believe done just to sell more models of the new plastics frankly). If you read the Liber Necris book it explains why zombies are so crappy so I'm happy with their S2 and T2.

I really like the idea behind the Helm of Commandment but it really is too good. I think a big problem was taking out Blood Lines. In a Necrach list where the Vampires aren't that great at hand to hand it would fit, but when you can jam that on a unit that also has a combat moster capable of taking down ten models a turn it's silly. Likewise ASF was fine on Lahmians since if they didn't kill what they were fighting they would take it on the chin, but when you have that on an entire unit it's stupid (as it is in the case of High Elves and Black Guard).

yabbadabba
17-02-2009, 18:41
Some ideas for magic:

Low level spells = unit enhancers
Mid level spells = character enhancers and minor offensive spells
High level spells = Good offensive spells

Make wizards a supplement to an army and use them to enhance it's fighting characteristics. Imagine if your basic, 4/5+ spell was designed to enhance the fighting/Ld capability of a core unit only?

Get rid of the high damage spells. Include more spells to decrease the effectiveness of the enemy.

Finally, make wizards more suitable for the battlefield, or remove them from the character list and have them as an upgrade for a unit, or as a unit on their own (e.g. 1-5 wizards per slot), or just something extra to include per 1000pts or so.

The way I see it Wizards should make an army better, make an enemy worse, and have a minor effect on the game by being directly offensive.

Arnizipal
17-02-2009, 18:46
So the modifiers are still there - and the rough chance to hit your opponent remains the same as it is now - but the cover helps against all ranged attacks, including magic missiles and war machines.

Magic missiles are indeed magical and so auto hit. If magic missiles didhn't auto-hit what would be their benefir over regular missiles? Might as well arm your wizard with a crossbow then.

The current to hit modifiers protect better than a 6+/5+ cover save, so why change the rule?



I disagree that this is the point of challenges. The point of challenges is to allow heroes to clash in titanic combat and not get stuck half a base's width fighting nobodies.
And Warhammer Fantasy Battles is the game where mighty armies clash, except there's only about a hundred people per side (or even less if you're power player). Even 'horde' armies hardly get to 200 models.

It's all about perspective. Once in a while a challenge will be a clash between powerful characters, but most often it's a champion being sacrificed to make sure his unit can fight on for at least one more round, or a character saving himself from a powerful unit by challenging someone to single combat.

Sure, it's not always logical that challenges are accepted and honoured, but you got to have a standard ruleset foir them. I wouldn't oppose to items or abilities that allow you to ignore or force challenges (there have been items like that in past editions).

And like I said, there's strategy in there. For example, with Vampire Counts challenges are a great way to keep enemy characters off your vampire. You can challenge with your skeleton champion, forcing the opposing character to spend his attacks on him (and not on your vamp) and resurrect the champion later.

Von Wibble
17-02-2009, 18:59
My thoughts

I like the idea of the parry bonus only applying to enemies with equal or lower WS. I really dislike the parry rule as it allows goblins and skaven a 4+ save for bargain basement prices, making S3 troops unlikely to get any kills. Volker, my problem with it is also that troops at the moment pay to upgrade to spears/ halberds, yet despite "upgrading" they are worse. When's the last time you saw VC skeletons with spears? Or clanrats with spears?

I like the idea of max ranks +4. Imo Skaven should also be able to get +2 for outnumber, but that's AB specific not rulebook.

I also think that instead of ranks having to be 5 wide, they should have to have 5 US. This would make ogres able to get rank bonuses a lot more easily, and would make units of 7-8 heavy cav viable.

Spear/pike units are stubborn in the first round of combat and immune to impact hits as long as they didn't move in their previous turn. Halberds get +1S and KB against cavalry.

Daemon ward ignored by magic is a given.

Magic - either needs a big overhaul or something to limit it. I disagree with the poster saying to up cost of L4 - you will then just get level 3 wizards instead.

All units have a max size, and no unit may contain more than 2 characters (for these purposes that includes assassins) The idea being to prevent "death star" tactics

Couple of more out there thoughts - 1) Make (non core?) units cost more the second time they are taken as an option in an army. Eg 1st 2 goblin bolt throwers are 35 pts each, next 2 are 45 each etc. This would encourage people not to minmax, without preventing flavourful armies.

2) Units points costs are for 1st 10 models (5 for cav etc). The next models purchased thereafter are cheaper. eg 10 chaos warriors cost, say, 200pts including command. You may then get up to 10 more chaos warriors for +8 pts per model. Obviously the exact numbers need balancing but the idea is there.

Terrain doesn't half move rather than march through terrain. Skirmishers and fast cavalry can't be march blocked. March blocking only occurs if the unit is US 5 or more.

War machines do not guess range but simply place the template (suggested a few pages ago). Anyone with any competancy pretty much always gets teh ranges right anyway, and such a change would allow them to be priced fairly (eg dwarf S5 reroll scatter stone thrower, which kills 200pts of high elves in 1 shot and easily 400pts worth in battle gets priced at 250...;) )

Chariots auto destroyed at S8. Cannons and stone throwers should be able to beat them but not dragon ogres or chaos lords with gw. Though if in combat and not charged they are favourite anyway.

Wizards should be allowed to cast magic missiles in challenges. Given the choice, do you think they would try hitting the enemy with the scroll they are carrying, blast them with lightning frmo thier fingers, or turn them into a newt. According to the current rules its "hit them" every time.

Ixquic
17-02-2009, 19:19
Going along with wizards casting into combat I think they should totally ditch the random aspect of spells.

I'm thinking something like four spells per lore. Levels 1 and 2 know the first two and levels 3+ know all of them. 1 and 2 would be something like one close combat spell and one effect spell (like the -3 leadership death spell or Gork'll Fix it). The third would be something like a D6 strength 5 magic missile (so no more rolling 2D6 dice and one shotting a skirmished unit hitting in the trees 24 inches away). Forth would be something characteristic of the Lore and be somewhat powerful, so fire might get a more powerful attack spell, death would cause a unit to be fear, metal would be a D6 version of Spirit of the Forge, etc.

That would make building a strategy around casters more consistent but not make it so you KNOW you are getting some ultra powerful spell since they will be getting cast more often but the result is less powerful.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
17-02-2009, 19:22
My thoughts

I like the idea of the parry bonus only applying to enemies with equal or lower WS. I really dislike the parry rule as it allows goblins and skaven a 4+ save for bargain basement prices, making S3 troops unlikely to get any kills. Volker, my problem with it is also that troops at the moment pay to upgrade to spears/ halberds, yet despite "upgrading" they are worse. When's the last time you saw VC skeletons with spears? Or clanrats with spears?

Ah, finally a reason. Wouldn't this be better fixed by fixing the rules for spears and halberds though so they are actually worth taking? Or by the suggested treating weapon/armour upgrades like Chaos marks so they have a cost per unit rather than per model?



I like the idea of max ranks +4. Imo Skaven should also be able to get +2 for outnumber, but that's AB specific not rulebook.

I also think that instead of ranks having to be 5 wide, they should have to have 5 US. This would make ogres able to get rank bonuses a lot more easily, and would make units of 7-8 heavy cav viable.

SNIP

Wizards should be allowed to cast magic missiles in challenges. Given the choice, do you think they would try hitting the enemy with the scroll they are carrying, blast them with lightning frmo thier fingers, or turn them into a newt. According to the current rules its "hit them" every time.

I like the wizard idea, but it would require some timing changes or a magic system overhaul.

I also like the spirit of the US idea, but we would need to look at the actual numbers otherwise you have units of Ogres 2 wide and 3 deep which seems to be the reason [appearance] that they moved away from 4 wide [which led to the bus cav. and 4 wide 6/7 deep goblin units].

Lord Inquisitor
17-02-2009, 19:23
Yeah trees mights as well be impassible for anyone that isn't a skirmisher or Wood Elf since if makes you move at a slothful 2" through it regardless of how much of your unit is touching. People just avoid them like the plague and thus they either get placed in corners or just not set up at all until you are playing Wood Elfs and you have a chunk of the board you can't even maneuver through. Additionally people only play with 3 hills and 3 forests so you never get to use the cool buildings GW produces or anything interesting.
I see the odd building, but always at the edge of the board of course.

I'm trying to push for more interesting terrain set-ups. If I'm playing at home I have plenty of buildings and I try to make sure there's some terrain in the middle of the board.


Magic missiles are indeed magical and so auto hit. If magic missiles didhn't auto-hit what would be their benefir over regular missiles? Might as well arm your wizard with a crossbow then.
But why is it my skirmishers in hard cover are just as easy to hit with a fireball? "Because they're magic". Yeah, well, you can use that as an answer to anything about the magic system. Nevertheless, it means that cover is worthless against magic, and from a game-balance perspective makes cover just that much more worthless. Many war machines also ignore to-hit penalties.

Magic missiles are just that - missiles. Hiding behind a wall should help! There are plenty of more insidious spells (e.g. curse of years) that obviously aren't going to give you a cover save. But magic missiles should need to roll to hit in some fashion or otherwise have some chance of being stopped by cover. Plus crossbows don't fire 2D6 S4 flaming blots!


The current to hit modifiers protect better than a 6+/5+ cover save, so why change the rule?
Like I said before, modifiers could apply to the cover save. The point is simply that there are so many attacks that simply ignore cover - the protective benefit so pathetic against so few things coupled with the crippling effect of moving through cover means that cover is practically worthless.


It's all about perspective. Once in a while a challenge will be a clash between powerful characters, but most often it's a champion being sacrificed to make sure his unit can fight on for at least one more round, or a character saving himself from a powerful unit by challenging someone to single combat.

Sure, it's not always logical that challenges are accepted and honoured, but you got to have a standard ruleset foir them. I wouldn't oppose to items or abilities that allow you to ignore or force challenges (there have been items like that in past editions).
That doesn't make any sense - that's just saying "it is because it is!"

Exactly, it isn't always logical. Worse than that, it is rarely logical, because challenges rarely happen between powerful characters in fully-ranked-up units. Usually one side or other will only challenge in order to avoid being attacked by certain models, whether it be rank-and-file or characters.

Just because there has to be a standard ruleset doesn't mean there couldn't be a better ruleset. For starters, if your character is on his own, then no, I shouldn't have to meet his challenge! If you're on your own, then you should bloody fight whomever I charge into base contact!

Dokushin
17-02-2009, 19:37
Yeah, I think the challenge rules are pretty odd, right now. The flavor of two armies watching their champions clash, or one hero stepping up to challenge a foe to save his comrades, or so forth is there, but it makes too many odd situations.

Personally, I think challenges should have these rules:
-- A character by himself never has to accept a challenge, but if he refuses a challenge the opposing player can move his hero into b2b contact.
-- A character in a unit may attempt a Ld check to refuse a challenge without having to move to the back rank.

That'd go a ways towards fixing it without losing the fluff, IMO.

Re: Magic, I agree the spell selection is a bit too random, but was stuck for ways to fix it until I read that suggestion about basing power dice and dispel dice off of the points limit. I actually really like that, with wizards giving a bonus, so that it's not a rich-get-richer scenario. If dispel scrolls disappeared I couldn't be happier.

Ixquic
17-02-2009, 19:51
Re: Magic, I agree the spell selection is a bit too random, but was stuck for ways to fix it until I read that suggestion about basing power dice and dispel dice off of the points limit. I actually really like that, with wizards giving a bonus, so that it's not a rich-get-richer scenario. If dispel scrolls disappeared I couldn't be happier.

I had to hunt for it but I think something like this system would be cool with my system of mandatory but weaker spells and no scrolls (maybe less dice retention now that there are more crazy wizards; I dunno he tested it and I haven't so he has a better idea what works).

http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/rules/winds_of_magic.php

Draxas
17-02-2009, 20:28
I remember reading somewhere about a dev commenting on the lessons they had learned from 40k and how much they liked the way 5th edition affected it, how it might be applied to Fantasy in the future. Things like only Troops (Core) being able to capture objectives, having more objective based scenarios and such. It brought more focus to those types of units across the board in most army builds, and indeed it is now considered optimal and even necessary in 40k to bring more Troops than is strictly required.

Halberds do also need some buffing. I think that Halberds and Spears should get ASF against charging cavalry, since this was their traditional role on the battlefield. Halberds should also get AP as this was part of their role. I would like to see special formations such as the phalanx. In general things like this that reward a good solid base of troops that are played correctly.

It's also a bit silly that skirmishers can endlessly circle around a unit and never get charged. If a unit spends more than one turn within charge range of an enemy unit, it should be chargeable no matter the facing, this represents the block of troops turning to face the threat and getting a bead on them. Alternately, a reform move could be included in a charge at the cost of charge movement distance. In real life I'm fairly sure that a bunch of prancing ninnies didn't burst out of the woods chucking rocks at a phalanx of soldiers, just dancing around them in circles and never, ever coming to harm. Any group of soldiers worth their salt can about-face efficiently to face a new threat.

Remove the S7 autokill rule on chariots, only make it so that a direct artillery hit instakills them. Yeah if they get shot by a cannon or get a gigantic rock dropped on them they're done for, but a single hit from a (in some cases) man-sized hero wielding a greatsword wouldn't collapse the whole thing.

Dooks Dizzo
17-02-2009, 20:32
-Do NOT march through terrain but move your normal movement instead of half
-Minimum Core points requirements? This is just insane guys. People complain that GW is just trying to sell models and they want something like this?

My core spearmen are 6 points a piece. How many boxes do I have to buy to fill up 500 points?
Crossbows are 10, not better
Dark Riders are 17, and 12 dollars per model
Need we go on?

-Daemonic ward saves need to be negated by magical attacks. Period.
-Only units that can see something are march blocked by it (I second this one)
-Shooting needs a minor rework, maybe get rid of 7+ to hit and make max 6
-Agreed on ASF reworkings


Mage generates a quantity of dice each game turn. he can either use them to cast in his turn, or dispel in his opponents turn.
throw too much magic, and you're rendered defenceless. save all your power dice to dispel, and you have no offensive magic.Brilliant. Adds tactical deapth while keeping magic powerful.
-Rework the 8 Lores just a bit
-Give a blanket +1 to dispel any spell cast on a single dice (stackable with items)
-Ward saves should not be combinable with Regeneration (and I am a Druchii player)
-Halbreds and Spears having ASF against Cav is good, but Cav should cause S3 impact hits prior to the ASF (regardless of the strength of the mount)

I might be going off the deep end on that last one, no flames please just reasonable rebuttles.

One more:
Rework the to hit chart
Double +1 = 2+ to hit

kdh88
17-02-2009, 21:09
Magic - either needs a big overhaul or something to limit it. I disagree with the poster saying to up cost of L4 - you will then just get level 3 wizards instead.


Speaking of which, why do we even have four levels of mages? Level one mages are only useful as caddies (and therefore annoy people), and no one uses level threes at all. IMO, change it to 2, corresponding to the current level 2 and 4. Other than that

General stuff:
Double point values of everything. This allows for more granularity without going into ½ points.
Allow Special choices in Rare slots.
No +1 save for being mounted (Most cavalry units reduced in price).
Units can march in difficult terrain.
+1 CR for outnumbering by 2:1 or more
More visual consistency on which units get “light” and “heavy” armor.
Change the “to hit” chart to something more like the “to wound” chart.
No rolling for spells (requires overhaul of spell lists).

Weapons:
Missile weapons may fire in two ranks. Point increase for most missile units.
Longbows, bows and shortbows gain multiple shots (x2)
Mounted Great Weapons grant +2S in the first round of combat, +1S thereafter
Lances are +2S in first round, instead of just when charging. Bonus lost if attacked in the flank or rear. Simulates “counter charging” without wonky special rules
Pikes: Strike in 3 ranks, ASF, KB vs. US2 (and 3?). Figure out the points from there.
Either improve or reduce the cost of halberds and spears for most units.
Magic weapons keep parry bonus
No dispel scrolls. Power Stones can generate power or dispel dice.

Special Rules:
ASF negated by flank/rear charges
If two units have ASF, work out initiative as normal (in other words, chargers go first)
Fear doubles Ld penalty to CR instead of autobreaking, no fear test to charge or receive a charge from a unit you outnumber (requires major point changes, especially to)
Stubborn reduces penalty to Ld due to CR by ½ instead of negating it entirely.

Followed by various specific army book changes.

Dooks Dizzo
17-02-2009, 21:15
I have a rather silly but possibly fun idea for magic. If we're just tossing idea's around.

Why not make magic more about the Wizards ability to pull from the winds of magic? Make power and or dispel dice generation based on leadership checks.


Basically the mage rolls 2D6 MINUS his level and every point under that he rolls makes a powerdice, with maximums and such.

You could make a roll of a 2 an effect like a miscast, but make miscasting actual spells harder. You would also be able to retain these dice as dispel dice in later phases.

Gonig that way a leadership 9 level 4 mage would always generate at least 1 dice, with an arbitrary max of 6. But remember those are his dispel dice too.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-02-2009, 21:17
In my opinion its good that magic ignores cover, it provides an excellent counter to skirmishers who can be difficult to get to grips with.

Its difficult to cast spells at targets hiding in or behind cover in warhammer anyway, 2" or more of area terrain blocks line of sight and a model not pressed upto a fence or wall cannot be seen by a model on the other side.

Ethlorien
17-02-2009, 21:19
8th edition. Dang. I haven't even updated my Hordes of Chaos or Dark Elves to 7th yet...

My 8th ed wishlist is to hold off at least 3-4 more years to warrant needing an update of a rule system that seems fine to me. Update the army books, leave the rules alone.

Maybe I'm not enough of a hardcore gamer, but I found the changes from 6th the 7th weak enough to warrant a whole new rulebook. Oh well, that's just me.

Morthoron
17-02-2009, 21:53
My wishlist...

- That they don't release it until they've re-vamped all the armies. Its just silly to do it the other way round.
- That magic gets some how more interesting.
- That they whole game gets cheaper (in terms of £s or $s, but I don't use £s!)

Arnizipal
17-02-2009, 21:57
I see the odd building, but always at the edge of the board of course.

I'm trying to push for more interesting terrain set-ups. If I'm playing at home I have plenty of buildings and I try to make sure there's some terrain in the middle of the board.
I think putting the random terrain rules back in the rulebook would go a long way to fix this.

In my group we still use the terrain charts from 6th edition. We divide the board into 4 squares and roll two terrain pieces per square. Each player gets to set up two squares. Then each terrain feature is scattered 2D6 in a random direction (that's an idea we picked up from an old White Dwarf).
This way you can create all sorts of interesting (or annoying) battlefields.


But why is it my skirmishers in hard cover are just as easy to hit with a fireball? "Because they're magic". Yeah, well, you can use that as an answer to anything about the magic system. Nevertheless, it means that cover is worthless against magic, and from a game-balance perspective makes cover just that much more worthless. Many war machines also ignore to-hit penalties.

Magic missiles are just that - missiles. Hiding behind a wall should help! There are plenty of more insidious spells (e.g. curse of years) that obviously aren't going to give you a cover save. But magic missiles should need to roll to hit in some fashion or otherwise have some chance of being stopped by cover. Plus crossbows don't fire 2D6 S4 flaming blots!
Making the impossibe possible is what magic is all about. Mages can guide magic missiles in flight for maximum effect (which I guess is why they need Line of Sight).

Most warmachines that ignore to-hit penalties shoot in an arc (stone throwers, mortars,... ). I think this is logical as they shoot over the cover altogether.
I'm not entirely certain if it's the case in 7th edition, but in 6th edition a cannonball stopped if it bounced before and obstacle or hill.
GW seems to be moving away from auto-hit warmachines. For example the Empire Hellblaster now requires a to-hit roll just like any other missile fire.

And finally: crossbows don't have a chance of blowing up your 150+ points model when you roll a 1 to hit ;)


That doesn't make any sense - that's just saying "it is because it is!"

Exactly, it isn't always logical. Worse than that, it is rarely logical, because challenges rarely happen between powerful characters in fully-ranked-up units. Usually one side or other will only challenge in order to avoid being attacked by certain models, whether it be rank-and-file or characters.

Just because there has to be a standard ruleset doesn't mean there couldn't be a better ruleset. For starters, if your character is on his own, then no, I shouldn't have to meet his challenge! If you're on your own, then you should bloody fight whomever I charge into base contact!A few posts back you were suggesting to drop the challenge rules altogether whereas I'd like to keep them in the rulebook. I'm not opposed to expanding upon them.

Though I still see no wrong in the current incarnation of the rules.


It's also a bit silly that skirmishers can endlessly circle around a unit and never get charged. If a unit spends more than one turn within charge range of an enemy unit, it should be chargeable no matter the facing, this represents the block of troops turning to face the threat and getting a bead on them. Alternately, a reform move could be included in a charge at the cost of charge movement distance. In real life I'm fairly sure that a bunch of prancing ninnies didn't burst out of the woods chucking rocks at a phalanx of soldiers, just dancing around them in circles and never, ever coming to harm. Any group of soldiers worth their salt can about-face efficiently to face a new threat.

As I said here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3296176#post3296176) (last point of that post), you have to remember we're dealing with ranked units here, not flexible squads of troops like you see in 40K. These units were large and unwieldy and relied heavily on their commander in the front rank for orders. If he didn't call for a charge, then there would not be a charge. And since the front rank can't see see skirmishers on the flanks or rear the ranked unit won't be able to respond fast enough to keep up with them.

Lord Inquisitor
18-02-2009, 00:24
I think putting the random terrain rules back in the rulebook would go a long way to fix this.

In my group we still use the terrain charts from 6th edition. We divide the board into 4 squares and roll two terrain pieces per square. Each player gets to set up two squares. Then each terrain feature is scattered 2D6 in a random direction (that's an idea we picked up from an old White Dwarf).
This way you can create all sorts of interesting (or annoying) battlefields.
Which is fantastic if you have a terrific terrain collection. In reality, noone has everything and in practice most people didn't use the tables. And people still tended to put the terrain at the edges of the squares, leaving a big gap in the middle of the board.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I think terrain needs to be more part of the game and less "something that gets in the way".


Making the impossibe possible is what magic is all about. Mages can guide magic missiles in flight for maximum effect (which I guess is why they need Line of Sight).
This may simply be a matter of opinion. However, from a tactical and/or gameplay perspective, it sucks, however. Units that make use of cover are either suffering an almost insurmountable difficulty in getting there or are units like skirmishers that rely on taking advantage of terrain to stay alive. If ALL spells ignore cover, that's a huge part of the game that entirely ignores any tactical advantage of taking cover.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are many magic spells that shouldn't be affected by cover - curse of years for example. Such spells are insidious and hiding behind a wall isn't going to save you! However, brute force spells like magic missiles make up the majority of direct damage spells and against these cover REALLY should provide some benefit!

Personally, I don't like ANY auto-hit things in the game, for these reasons. Auto-hit weapons break a fundamental principle of the game (cover=protection) just as ASF or Unbreakable present issues as they mess up the fundamental groundwork of the game.


Most warmachines that ignore to-hit penalties shoot in an arc (stone throwers, mortars,... ). I think this is logical as they shoot over the cover altogether.
Cover can be easily measured from the center of the template. That's how it works for mortars in 40K without issues.

While I realise actually implementing a cover save system is probably impossible due to the existing army books. I'd be happy if magic missiles and any war machines like organ guns had to roll to hit. If it's a ranged attack it should roll to hit!


I'm not entirely certain if it's the case in 7th edition, but in 6th edition a cannonball stopped if it bounced before and obstacle or hill.
GW seems to be moving away from auto-hit warmachines. For example the Empire Hellblaster now requires a to-hit roll just like any other missile fire.
This is true, and I was very happy to see it when the Empire army book came out, for all the reasons I've already gone through. I hope this is the way of things to come.


A few posts back you were suggesting to drop the challenge rules altogether whereas I'd like to keep them in the rulebook. I'm not opposed to expanding upon them.
If done well the challenge rules could be good. Just as with the cover save, we're probably far too embroiled in army books to do away with challenges in any case, and they could potentially be quite fun.

Nevertheless, challenges are the single thing that most annoys me about this game. I'm so desperately fed up with these rules being used to screw up perfectly straightforward combats. Don't get me wrong, I know how to use them and when to use them but they always leave a bitter taste in my mouth. I would far rather have no challenge rules than have them in their current format. That doesn't mean necessarily that I don't want any challenge rules at all, but given that (in my opinion) they're the most broken thing in the game, they really need an overhaul. Which was my point! ;)


As I said here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3296176#post3296176) (last point of that post), you have to remember we're dealing with ranked units here, not flexible squads of troops like you see in 40K. These units were large and unwieldy and relied heavily on their commander in the front rank for orders. If he didn't call for a charge, then there would not be a charge. And since the front rank can't see see skirmishers on the flanks or rear the ranked unit won't be able to respond fast enough to keep up with them.
Still, if a unit moves from the front arc (so the commander of the unit is aware of them) and skips just outside that 45-degree arc, he can't tell them to stab the irritating little buggers?

I don't know how a rule could be implemented without breaking the game. But skirmishers eternally dancing around units is not historically accurate. Skirmishers could easily flank a ranked unit, yes, but not evade forever.

selone
18-02-2009, 00:32
Lapping round as I'm a bit sick of fighting 2 models left with a big unit and only being able to get a few A win and not being able to kill them.
Demon herald bsb + standard bearer actually managed to win combat after most of the unit had been choppa'd against me. 1 single model charging in and holding is again annoying.

More clearer rules.

Warmachines reworked.

For 8th not to come out for a few years.

Voodoo Boyz
18-02-2009, 02:32
I'm staggered by the amount of proposed "rules changes" for 8th Edition that have more to do with Army Books rather than Core Rules.

DeathStar
18-02-2009, 03:33
the rules are good as is..

R Man
18-02-2009, 03:44
Lances are +2S in first round, instead of just when charging. Bonus lost if attacked in the flank or rear. Simulates “counter charging” without wonky special rules

I disagree. This is a slly idea. If someone is clever, or just plain balsey so that they pull of a charge against cavalry they should be rewarded by not having to face lances. By doing this you increase cavalry to being decent on the defense and remove the need for players to be careful when charging.


I'm staggered by the amount of proposed "rules changes" for 8th Edition that have more to do with Army Books rather than Core Rules.

The irony behind this is that many people have attacked GW for doing the very same thing.


the rules are good as is..

Generally yes. The only really credible complaints are with magic and terrain, which affect a multiple armies. Admiteldy things like balances between missile weapons and melee weapons need to be looked into but it's no where near as bad as many think. The vast amount of special rules that some units have is a problem, but that can't be solved in the main rulebook.

Entropolus
18-02-2009, 04:48
My 2 cents on the weapon debate...

Spears on foot - Negate all charging bonuses when charged to the front (including chargers striking 1st, reverts to initiative order). Attacking force has to slow to avoid the bristle of spears. (keeps additional fighting rank)

Halberds - Plus +1 strength against infantry and monsters, +1 attack (or reroll misses - I can't decide which is more appropriate) against mounted models. Halberds can be used to directly cause a wound or to pull a soldier from its mount, all in one attack motion.

Move or fire weapons can move and fire it there are more than one rank (back rank reloads, front rank fires)

ChaosVC
18-02-2009, 05:03
My only hope, units are not ITP when engage in combat and bring back panic test for charged into flank and rear while in combat. And bring back lap arounds, it gives cheap larger units higher chance to win.

Tone down demons!

Other than those wishes, I think the other rules are fine.

kdh88
18-02-2009, 05:57
I disagree. This is a slly idea. If someone is clever, or just plain balsey so that they pull of a charge against cavalry they should be rewarded by not having to face lances. By doing this you increase cavalry to being decent on the defense and remove the need for players to be careful when charging.

I thought someone might object to this. A possible alternative would be to adopt the rules from WAB, which is where I got the idea from, although their rules are more complex; essentially, cavalry with a movement speed over a paricular threshold that are charged by opposing cavalry count as charging for the purposes of weapon bonuses and special rules but not striking order. Defensive cavalry could pose a problem, but would be somewhat mitigated by the loss of the increased AS for being mounted.



Generally yes. The only really credible complaints are with magic and terrain, which affect a multiple armies. Admiteldy things like balances between missile weapons and melee weapons need to be looked into but it's no where near as bad as many think. The vast amount of special rules that some units have is a problem, but that can't be solved in the main rulebook.

I agree in principle; the BRB should address the general ruleset instead of trying to balance specific armies directly. I disagree with you on special rules however; while the number of special rules per unit should be addressed on an army by army basis, sometimes it's the rules themselves that are the problem. The autobreak from fear is a prime example of this category; units usually have a good basis for having it and are appropriately costed, but the effect itself has wonky effects on the metagame.

Fraggzy
18-02-2009, 07:29
I would like for Longbow to get AP, as it really did punch trough armour easy, compared to the other bows, and giving it AP would still make it worse compared to the handgun.

Give spearmen +1S and strike first agains cavalary that charge them in their front.

Give the shortbow only range 12'', but no penalty for moving and shooting

TroyJPerez
18-02-2009, 07:34
I think they should eliminate Strikes First rule from the game and give Always Strikes First to units that Charge. And Always strikes first should not work when you get charged on the side or rear.

TroyJPerez
18-02-2009, 08:56
Oh I also disagree on having magic ignore demon ward saves. If your gonna do that then make magic ignore all ward saves. Cause I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that Pheonix Guard with their 4+ invulnerable save are just stuipid rediculous. A 4+ ward save magic item cost more then Pheonix guard. I always wish my chaos lord could just wear a skinned Pheonix Guard for armour, lol. I actually think the magic ignores ward save (with the acception of specific items that say then ignore magical attacks) would be a good rule. That way you always have a way t hrough someones defense. Fire/Killing blow for regeneration, High strength, Killing Blow, Armour ignore items and magic for Armor Saves, and Magical attacks against ward saves.

Pulsks
18-02-2009, 09:04
Oh I also disagree on having magic ignore demon ward saves. If your gonna do that then make magic ignore all ward saves. Cause I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that Pheonix Guard with their 4+ invulnerable save are just stuipid rediculous. A 4+ ward save magic item cost more then Pheonix guard. I always wish my chaos lord could just wear a skinned Pheonix Guard for armour, lol. I actually think the magic ignores ward save (with the acception of specific items that say then ignore magical attacks) would be a good rule. That way you always have a way t hrough someones defense. Fire/Killing blow for regeneration, High strength, Killing Blow, Armour ignore items and magic for Armor Saves, and Magical attacks against ward saves.

Yeah, it would be awesome if magical attacks negated, or at least weakened ward saves. Like, -2 to it or something. And maybe magic resistant units would be able to punch through ward saves as well. (Because aren't ward saves basically magic? Correct me if I'm wrong.) Like, -1 for (1) and so on.

TroyJPerez
18-02-2009, 09:08
Ooh I like the weakening idea. Maybe treat it like armour. So every point of strength over 3 is -1 to the ward save. Although that could get annoying to keep track of. I think the ignore ward save would be easier. Althogh it might be necissary to increase the cost of magical ignore armour save swords, lol.

Fraggzy
18-02-2009, 09:24
Ward saves are not allways represented by "magical protection", but also factors such as luck have been given ward saves such as 5+ and 6+... so would that mean by using magic that person suddenly aint lucky anymore and thereby losing his wardsave? PERHAPS giving a -1 to all ward saves, if it is magical attacks that are directed at the target. But to be able to completely negate the ward save is just ridiculous, as the main reason people buy a ward save is so that their caracter are safe, even against attacks that dont give armour save

Von Wibble
18-02-2009, 09:34
Oh I also disagree on having magic ignore demon ward saves. If your gonna do that then make magic ignore all ward saves. Cause I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that Pheonix Guard with their 4+ invulnerable save are just stuipid rediculous. A 4+ ward save magic item cost more then Pheonix guard. I always wish my chaos lord could just wear a skinned Pheonix Guard for armour, lol. I actually think the magic ignores ward save (with the acception of specific items that say then ignore magical attacks) would be a good rule. That way you always have a way t hrough someones defense. Fire/Killing blow for regeneration, High strength, Killing Blow, Armour ignore items and magic for Armor Saves, and Magical attacks against ward saves.

You definitely don't speak for everyone. Unless you want your chaos lord to also have T3 and not be mounted of course. With just a 5+ armour save to go. Yes, Phoenix guard are hard to kill - by high elf standards. But still pretty easy by many other armies - their save is comparable to 2+ ish, which chaos warriors have plenty of access to, and PG do cost 15pts a time. And magic attacks are pretty common - any unit with a character for example. I coud mayber understand making it specifically spells, but then you encourage an army already known for trying to overpower its magic to do so even more in order to protect itself.

Daemons always used tohave magic ignore their wards. Not to mention that lots of armies have items that grant their unit magic attacks - was the reason for this purely to be able to hurt banshees?

Pulsks - some ward saves are dodge or parry saves, eg Wardancers.

On Speed of Asuryan - I think it should exist on all high elf melee infantry (ie all infantry except archers and rbt crew) and mean that all fights are resolved on initiative and enemy chargers do not auto stirke first, as long assaid charge is to the front.

On magic - I agree with kdh88 - why not have just 2 levels of wizard? Hero choice is level 1, lord choice is level 3. You can then have some races equivalents have level 2 or 4 instead. I would then like to see options for wizards to purchase equipment, spending points on it seperate to magic item allowance. This could allow you rough equivalence to +1 level, or might allow you to specialise differently, eg better at dispelling, spells more effective, cheap one use only bound spells etc.

Fraggsy - High elf spearmen attack first with 19 S4 attacks according to you. Do you not think that's a bit brutal? The trouble with improving spears and halberds is precisely that some troops for whom this is the staple weapon have extra abilities to make up for its rubbishness. Strike in 3 ranks high elves. Black guard and Phoenix guard (imagine if either of these units had great weapons!) to name but a few. Hence my preference to weaken the parry bonus instead.

Entropolos - crossbows and handguns are already too good compared to bows- why buff them further? I like the idea but points costs would have to rise.

One thing I forgot in my previous post - I would want well balanced scenarios to play more of a role. The best way to prevent gunlines and herohammer is to put troops at the centre of the game - by having roles that only these can accomplish you go a long way towards this.

TroyJPerez
18-02-2009, 11:06
Yeah Pheonix Guard 4+ ward might be equal to a 2+ armor save that chaos gets a lot of, but when Pheonix Guard get hit by Thunderbolt, cannons, bold throwers, stone throwers, Strength 8 or higher, and armour ignore weapons, they don't flat out die.

Mireadur
18-02-2009, 11:20
PG dont have the killing power of a character and just 1 wound each. They are terribly good nonetheless.

Ixquic
18-02-2009, 11:46
The problem isn't ward saves in general just that the Phoenix Guard is stupid with the 4+ ward save they shouldn't have. That goes in the "stupid army book decisions" section along with half of demons and the inverse ward save.

A rules change I think they need is the monsters and handlers rule. "Treat this unit as a skirmisher for line of sight and movement purposes, but it still counts as US5 in regards to being encumbered by difficult terrain." If two guys are skilled enough to be able to lead a giant lizard through the woods with no problems, a guy on a smaller horse should be able to as well. It's really dumb.

While not a rules change they really need someone that is good at writing concrete rules to do 8th (a.k.a not Alessio or Matt Ward). A perfect example of what loose writing results in is the stupid issue with magic resistance where you aren't sure when it can be used and it takes them two years and three faqs to finally sorta iron it out when if he just didn't write "affect" in one sentence there would have been almost no problems. People are going to try and take advantage of wordings so they need to realize they have to be very specific with how they word things and "don't play jerks" isn't an acceptable excuse for their laziness.

yabbadabba
18-02-2009, 12:59
A rules change I think they need is the monsters and handlers rule. "Treat this unit as a skirmisher for line of sight and movement purposes, but it still counts as US5 in regards to being encumbered by difficult terrain." If two guys are skilled enough to be able to lead a giant lizard through the woods with no problems, a guy on a smaller horse should be able to as well. It's really dumb..

See, there you go confusing a game mechanic with reality. what has reality got to do with any GW game? They probably decided that for the points they should cost, monster/handler units needed a bit more to their game. And that's it. Reality :rolleyes:



People are going to try and take advantage of wordings so they need to realize they have to be very specific with how they word things and "don't play jerks" isn't an acceptable excuse for their laziness.

Laziness. And of course you have years of experience to back that up. You know if GW and it's froth-monster followers are going to get wound up about people not painting, then they need to get wound up about the fish-heads who play the game too. Or they just cut loose, enjoy and let people make their own minds up. Option 2 sounds kind of ideal to me.

2d6
18-02-2009, 14:12
The one thing i would like to see, (as would many others it seems) is a better balancing of magic.
I like the current dice system, but it's still too easy to win a game with magic alone, or for magic to have little to no effect.

It would be nice to be able to play Medium magic as opposed to all out magic or max scroll caddy.

I'd like to see dispel scrolls go, or be more limited (with an overall toning down/increased points of casters)

There are still too many spells that are too limited or situational.
I count at least 10 spells that have the potential to be compltely usesless against or with certain armies, and another 8 that can be of very limited use.
Spells that can only be cast on an enemy in combat would be much better as a one turn duration, as you usually work out your own charges to your own advantage, but being able to give an enamy that charges you WS1 or -1 to hit would make for a much more useful spell.

Reworking the lores in a way that you always know what spells you get, depending on your level would also be nice, or make each spell a points cost and you choose when creating your army list.
Low level casters getting stuck with high level spells also sucks.

I really liked the change to 5 for ranks, makes more tactical options, whereas before (nearly) every unit used to be 4x4, with extras added if you had the points, now 5x4, 7x2 6x3 are all options depending on the unit.
I do think upping the max rank allowance would be a good idea though (to +4, or +5) The points cost per rank is high enough to make it far from a no brainer, and it benefits cheap low quality troops, which are worse on a wider frontage due to more models fighting = worse "wounds caused" differential.

Ixquic
18-02-2009, 14:18
See, there you go confusing a game mechanic with reality. what has reality got to do with any GW game? They probably decided that for the points they should cost, monster/handler units needed a bit more to their game. And that's it. Reality :rolleyes:


This may sound crazy but the rules are supposed to be a representation of reality on some level so when you make a rule about how certain things have a hard time moving through difficult ground, but huge things that should don't because you forgot that skirmishers don't have that problem it comes off inconsistent. I don't really see anywhere in the hydra's description where it talks about how the handlers are able to make trees move out of the way of the gigantic monster they are leading. Regardless if you think that the hydras "move through the woods" is represented by its point cost (along with 7 hatred strength 5 attacks, strength 5 breath weapon, regeneration and not being able to target the handlers) I don't know what to say.



Laziness. And of course you have years of experience to back that up. You know if GW and it's froth-monster followers are going to get wound up about people not painting, then they need to get wound up about the fish-heads who play the game too. Or they just cut loose, enjoy and let people make their own minds up. Option 2 sounds kind of ideal to me.

I've been playing these games for quite some time so I can see poorly written rules when I see them thanks. The fact that you'll get a different answer depending on who you ask regarding Magic Resistance and there's always a huge argument when it comes up is pretty evident of fact that it was not done well. I'm not really sure what else you're trying to convey here but if I'm reading you right I don't want to have to go over how I interpret rules and have a stupid argument every time I play with a new person (house rules can be fun but they are stupid when they have to be used to cover up poor writing.)

yabbadabba
18-02-2009, 15:05
This may sound crazy but the rules are supposed to be a representation of reality on some level so when you make a rule about how certain things have a hard time moving through difficult ground, but huge things that should don't because you forgot that skirmishers don't have that problem it comes off inconsistent. I don't really see anywhere in the hydra's description where it talks about how the handlers are able to make trees move out of the way of the gigantic monster they are leading. Regardless if you think that the hydras "move through the woods" is represented by its point cost (along with 7 hatred strength 5 attacks, strength 5 breath weapon, regeneration and not being able to target the handlers) I don't know what to say.

This is a game, not a representation of real life. It has mor ein common with chess or backgammon than it does WWII. If GW think that is the way the game mechanics work for that particular unit, then it is fine to argue that point in terms of mechanics, not reality. Personally I feel it's there just to create a different dimension in the army.


I've been playing these games for quite some time so I can see poorly written rules when I see them thanks. The fact that you'll get a different answer depending on who you ask regarding Magic Resistance and there's always a huge argument when it comes up is pretty evident of fact that it was not done well.

You're not the only one who has played for a while, and I am probably not the only one who has more than GW in their toy cupboard. Not well done is entirely different to your original charge of lazy. Can't stand that, GW makes money by sitting on it's **** doing nought :rolleyes:. I have seen plenty of bad rules which, when it came down to it, I couldn't do any better with.
Finally, it might be that the written word has poorly conveyed the intent behind the rule. But Lazy?


I'm not really sure what else you're trying to convey here but if I'm reading you right I don't want to have to go over how I interpret rules and have a stupid argument every time I play with a new person (house rules can be fun but they are stupid when they have to be used to cover up poor writing.)

That's where house rules came from. I am obviously old fashioned when I say I don't mind making house rules, I like playing the same group of people over a long period, and that I don't have a stupid argument when resolving a rules enquiry. At worse I have a dice consigned to the bottom of a case somewhere for daring to let me down. I have seen far worse written rules played successfully and without argument.

Time to start a new thread I think

DeathlessDraich
18-02-2009, 16:22
Read a few posts so apologies if the points I mention have already been discussed.

1) The most pressing issue is the way the rules are written. It should be formalised and presented in the same way as other game rules or possibly sports rules.
Background information should be separated from actual rules and maybe should be seprarted altogether or at least identified e.g. italicised.

2) Important terms should be *clearly* defined - a unit, a model. the generic Movement and the accepted types of movement, combat, attacks, correct formation, cast or attempt to cast, LOS and measuring distances, magical attacks, Monsters etc etc - I have a long list.
There have been attempted definitions of Player turn and the Unit in 7th ed and missiles has been defined in the FAQ.

3) A detailed sequence needs to be outlined - especially in the Movement phase and the Close Combat phase.

4) There should be no FAQs - just Erratas and silly phrases like "as normal"; "This is our recommendation" or "Play nice please" should never be used - Is there any other game rules where this occurs?

5) Of course it is impossible to have a perfect rule set but once the basic ideas have been laid down, future refinements can be built on a solid foundation of a set of inviolable rules.
At present, even army FAQs challenge the validity of the details of some general rules.

6) Only when these basic issues have been resolved, can the direction of modifying gameplay be enforced e.g. whether casting magic should be easier/harder /changed etc

Ixquic
18-02-2009, 16:56
This is a game, not a representation of real life. It has mor ein common with chess or backgammon than it does WWII. If GW think that is the way the game mechanics work for that particular unit, then it is fine to argue that point in terms of mechanics, not reality. Personally I feel it's there just to create a different dimension in the army.


No, it is a representation of actual things. Spears fight in two ranks because they are long, bows fire arrows, guns have to be reloaded. Rules exist because they work as we would logically imagine them to within reason. When they make a rule that something happens a certain way because it is how it would makes sense to work (stuff having a hard time marking through difficult terrain because it is big) and then forget that that would affect huge monsters when they have two guys following behind them, it's stupid. It's not reflected anywhere in the points cost and is obviously an oversight especially when they went rules as written in the faq and the Hydra is affected by the terrain on the charge.



You're not the only one who has played for a while, and I am probably not the only one who has more than GW in their toy cupboard. Not well done is entirely different to your original charge of lazy. Can't stand that, GW makes money by sitting on it's **** doing nought :rolleyes:. I have seen plenty of bad rules which, when it came down to it, I couldn't do any better with.
Finally, it might be that the written word has poorly conveyed the intent behind the rule. But Lazy?

YOU'RE the one that brought "how many years have you been doing this" up for no reason other than to claim some sort of experience authority so don't act like I'm starting it.

In my opinion "lazy" is allowing slipshod rules writing to go on for a year before fixing it in a faq without thinking about the consequences. Remember the Moonstone of Hidden ways allowing people to warp from charges (which was retracted two weeks later after the players abused the hell out of it)? Yeah that was tested. Lazy is also not play testing well enough to realize some of the recent broken combos, leaving in stuff like how Pit of Shades affects movement (huh?), leaving out casting invocation into combat or that being able to spam invocation creates problems that many armies can't deal with. If you want to argue semantics between "lazy" and "not well done" I don't really care since I don't see that much of a difference in the end result.

If you think you can't do better than some of these problems fine, but most people I know understand that if you want MR to only work on stuff directly targeted you say so and don't write that you can use dice on "affected" models two sentences later to make it ambiguous. "You can't do better so don't complain" is a lame argument anyway.



That's where house rules came from. I am obviously old fashioned when I say I don't mind making house rules, I like playing the same group of people over a long period, and that I don't have a stupid argument when resolving a rules enquiry. At worse I have a dice consigned to the bottom of a case somewhere for daring to let me down. I have seen far worse written rules played successfully and without argument.

Time to start a new thread I think

I play with many different people. Some are ones I haven't played with before and some are friends. Either way I like to know how stuff is going to work before I use it. When two people (even if they are friends) have different ideas on how a nebulously written rule works than it's not fair for one to have to acquiesce since as far as both people are concerned they are right. Rolling off as the answer to a rule should almost NEVER be used unless something is so esoteric that it couldn't have been foreseen like some kind of bizarre clipped charge or very recent rules conflict. Rules should be well written, straightforward and clear enough that most things can be solved simply by opening the book and reading a line. Many things in 7th are this way which is good but there are still problems that would be solved by better wording and a more stringent process for ironing out issues that can be rules lawyered. I can't believe people would want things "loose" since it just opens up to arguments when the game should be about having fun and if you want wacky goofy times with crazy house rules you're free to do it yourself without GW's help.

This is a stupid argument anyway. I'm not sure why people have to defend how awesome their love of house rules are, how not lazy Matt Ward is and how it's acceptable for books to have huge loopholes in them whenever I complain about this sort of thing. Look up any thread on Magic Resistance on this forum and tell me that huge debate is what you want instead of just being able to play the damn game and know exactly how it should work.


Read a few posts so apologies if the points I mention have already been discussed.

1) The most pressing issue is the way the rules are written. It should be formalised and presented in the same way as other game rules or possibly sports rules.
Background information should be separated from actual rules and maybe should be seprarted altogether or at least identified e.g. italicised.

2) Important terms should be *clearly* defined - a unit, a model. the generic Movement and the accepted types of movement, combat, attacks, correct formation, cast or attempt to cast, LOS and measuring distances, magical attacks, Monsters etc etc - I have a long list.
There have been attempted definitions of Player turn and the Unit in 7th ed and missiles has been defined in the FAQ.

3) A detailed sequence needs to be outlined - especially in the Movement phase and the Close Combat phase.

4) There should be no FAQs - just Erratas and silly phrases like "as normal"; "This is our recommendation" or "Play nice please" should never be used - Is there any other game rules where this occurs?

5) Of course it is impossible to have a perfect rule set but once the basic ideas have been laid down, future refinements can be built on a solid foundation of a set of inviolable rules.
At present, even army FAQs challenge the validity of the details of some general rules.

6) Only when these basic issues have been resolved, can the direction of modifying gameplay be enforced e.g. whether casting magic should be easier/harder /changed etc

I agree 100%

Bloodknight
18-02-2009, 17:48
In addition to DDs post: I'd like to see base sizes defined clearly, with a base size chart that

a) is updated with every army book to stop stuff like warshrine shenanigans or confusion about Giant base sizes, and

b) that follows the size of the bases the minis are supplied with and the US according to the basic rules of the game (an example for this not being true in the old base size chart: Tomb Scorpion. Supplied on a 50mm base, was supposed to be on a 40mm according to the chart, could never fit on one of those. Was a 4 wound monster, should therefore have been US4, was US3 in the table).

Bac5665
18-02-2009, 17:55
Yes. A true glossary of real definitions would do wonders for the game, as would standardization of spell descriptions and special rules.

Right now the biggest problem with the rule set is that its impossible to get clear definitions of terms and what rules sets are to be applied. The biggest rules disputes are over what type of thing units are: can the Hellcannon move or fire is a question about what is a stonethrower. The Stank spiking debate is a debate about the definition of "crew." This lack of standard forms for saying what things are has lead some people to think that salimanders have breath weapons. The debate about killing blow was about the definition of "killed." There isn't even a rule saying that spells do magical hits!!!

The best thing GW can do is to define its terms and use them consistently throughout the rule. If 8th edition does anything, it should do this.

Nuada
18-02-2009, 17:58
I've never been a big fan of the 90 degree LoS. Not sure if it would upset the balance too much, but i'd like a 180 degree LoS.

Put me down for another WHFB player who wants to see the return of lapping around.

yabbadabba
18-02-2009, 18:48
I would like to see a simple rulebook which contained army lists for all the races which would be tournament standard. I would then like this to be left alone, apart from essential works at the end of every tournament season. But definitely no expansion.

I'd then like GW to walk away from army books and do campaign books where they could introduce units, different rules and focus on a few armies at a time. These would lie outside of tournaments and could be as entertaining as deemed necessary. It would also allow the opportunity to walk away from 2Kpoint meeting engagements every time you played.

Arnizipal
18-02-2009, 18:56
I've never been a big fan of the 90 degree LoS. Not sure if it would upset the balance too much, but i'd like a 180 degree LoS.
So a model can look in front and behind but not to the sides?

R Man
18-02-2009, 20:28
I thought someone might object to this. A possible alternative would be to adopt the rules from WAB, which is where I got the idea from, although their rules are more complex; essentially, cavalry with a movement speed over a paricular threshold that are charged by opposing cavalry count as charging for the purposes of weapon bonuses and special rules but not striking order. Defensive cavalry could pose a problem, but would be somewhat mitigated by the loss of the increased AS for being mounted.

However in Fantasy, its much easier to give powerful benefits to cavarly in the form of banners and caracters, which are less prevelent than in WAB. If some other changes were made then it may be possible.


I agree in principle; the BRB should address the general ruleset instead of trying to balance specific armies directly. I disagree with you on special rules however; while the number of special rules per unit should be addressed on an army by army basis, sometimes it's the rules themselves that are the problem. The autobreak from fear is a prime example of this category; units usually have a good basis for having it and are appropriately costed, but the effect itself has wonky effects on the metagame.

I was speaking generally.

IrishDelinquent
18-02-2009, 21:19
So a model can look in front and behind but not to the sides?

I believe that he meant the model can see everything in front, and models on the side as well. This would prevent skirmishers from running laps around infantry units, unable to be seen because they are one degree out of LoS.

As for me, there are a few things that I think should be improved for 8th Ed.

1). Allow for a unit to gain a 4+ rank bonus. It seems stupid to me that a unit of 30 night goblins (6 x 5) is no better than a unit of 24 night goblins (6 x 4) in terms of rank bonuses.

2). I agree that fear-causing units should only auto-break units if they outnumber them 2:1. A single extra zombie suddenly makes a unit pee in it's full plate?

3). Make it a requirement that all spells require you to use two dice to cast, or make it so that you can miscast on one die. Maybe if you roll a 1 on one die, the caster takes a S4 hit (no saves allowed), and cannot cast that spell until the end of the next magic phase?

4). Units cannot march through terrain, but are otherwise not hindered. This way they aren't stuck in terrain for an entire game. Also, if charging or fleeing while in difficult terrain, the unit moves as normal (if infantry can see enemies nearby, they should be able to run out full-tilt at it.)

5). No ASF with great weapons. I think that the rules for great weapons should be changed to Always Strike Last, and that Alway Strikes Last trumps Always Strike First.

Coram_Boy
18-02-2009, 21:26
the strength 4 hit would be too dangerous. The Invocation of Nehek should be on 3 or 4different levels of casting value, and each of these should only be allowed to be cast once per phase IMO.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
18-02-2009, 21:35
While I agree with changing the autobreak from fear rule, the logic used by most people against it is flawed. People keep saying, "I don't see why one more zombie suddenly makes such a difference", but this will always occur when there is the possibility of autobreak. If we switch to 2:1 autobreak with double penalties to break tests before that, people will still say "why does my unit of 20 [fill in unit here] not run from 39 zombies, but add in that 1 and suddenly we are terrified. It's stupid."

I agree Fear needs to be changed [I like adding extra penalties- lose to fear causers that you outnumber, normal test; by units that outnumber you 1 -1.49X, -1 test; by units that outnumber you 1.5-1.99X, -2 test; etc.], and autobreaking should be removed [few other things in the game are so certain] and to have fear causing models changed in price accordingly. This repricing should go along with returning to WS 3, Str 3, 1 attack as the baseline troops [at which point, Undead core will not be so 'bad'] and a logical pricing system.

Nuada
18-02-2009, 22:12
Rather than bring in more complicated rules for ASF, why not just say that two units with ASF cancel each other out. That way it reverts to charging unit, GW last, initiative etc.

I'm not sure about the 4th rank idea, it would be easy to deny the bonus with 3 cavalry models flank charging a unit of 30 goblins. Instead, how about a bonus that cannot be lost. If a unit outnumbers his enemy by 2:1 it's +1 CR, 3:1 +2 CR. It would make horde armies stronger.

Bac5665
18-02-2009, 22:14
That rule would make horde armies weaker. Even 25 skaven won't outnumber nearly everything by 2:1, thus loosing what they would already have in 7th.

A better rule would be +1 for outnumber and +2 for 2:1.

40kdhs
18-02-2009, 22:15
If a running unit has higher US than a charging unit, you should have an option to ally this unit so that it can engage in CC.

It doesn't make any sense if a running Lord on Star dragon continues running when one goblin declares charge.

Nuada
18-02-2009, 22:16
@Bac5665 ... Yeah sorry i didn't explain, that's in addition to all the current CR rules. So outnumber still applies

Bac5665
18-02-2009, 22:21
So you want units to be able to get +3 for outnumbering if they outnumber more than 3:1?

I don't know if that's cool...

Interesting and maybe reasonable, but idk.

Nuada
18-02-2009, 22:24
Maybe a max of 2:1 would be better

woodenpickles
18-02-2009, 23:09
okay are we not still missing alot of armies. We have gotten O&G, Empire, High Elves, Vamps, Darek Elves, Daemons, Lizards, and Warriors of Chaos. We are still missing Beast of Chaos, Brets, Dwarves, Ogres, Skaven, Tomb Kings, Woode Elves, Chaos Dwarves, and Dogs of War. We should get at least 7 of those before 8th

Bac5665
18-02-2009, 23:30
Dwarves and wood elves are both 7th edition books in just about all ways. I would be shocked if either got another book this edition.

Skywave
19-02-2009, 01:08
There was a few good idea said in this thread. Here's a collection of thing I liked so far in the thread, and some other stuff that could be tweaked/added/changed/etc. :

-Fear outnumber: An enemy that is defeated and outnumbered by fear-causing unit get an extra -1 on it's break test. Outnumber 2:1 cause auto-run. Defeated by terror-causing means -1 to break test, and auto-run if outnumbered.

-Terrains: Unit in terrains can't march, but no other penaly for movement.

-Bow: Should fire in at least 2 ranks, if not all ranks at long range. Bow are fired in an arc for long distance shots, so models in other ranks shoot over the ranks in front of them. Short-range and stand-and-shoot would be the first rank only.

-Cavalry: Barding don't give -1 movement, but prevent marching. This will give 3 type of cavalry, Heavy, Medium and Light cavalry. I would probaly make Cold One count as Heavy too, but I'm not familiar enough with Dark Elves and Lizardmen to know if this would be a major change to them. This will make Heavy Cavalry move pretty much like Chariot (both got considerable weight on them).

-Horde troops: I know some people think there's a lot of special rules on unit as of late, but I could see a new one being introduced to horde units. Something like Weight of number could give unit +2 CR for outnumbering, and Skaven clanrat, Goblins, and maybe Zombies could all get this rule.

-Sword and shield parry bonus: This one is tricky to 'get right'. A solution could be to drop it altogether, but maybe it would make all weapons option better so it might still be seen as a problem.

-Spear on foot: Cancel cavalry charge bonus when charged in front arc (so strike in Initiative order, no lance str bonus).

-Halberd: Add armour piercing.

-Flail: I'd like to see +2 str on first turn, +1 after that. But hey, no one use that weapon so might not be worth it! That's a change I'd make only because I like flail on my Tomb Kings and Princes :p And they shouldn't get exhausted anyway :D

-Mount psychology: I think this one as to go, it make the model as a whole so much better. Mount shouldn't be affected by frenzy or hatred.

-Lapping around: I never played with this (even though I've been around since 4th edition), but what I could see working better is that the enemy winning the combat could get an additional rank worth of attacks to represent the unit pushing in. Make it so it's only 1 attack for the extra rank to prevent unit with 2 attacks getting too much dice to throw! Only one extra rank of course, not one each time you win.

-Magic: Maybe Dispel Dice could becoming D3 instead, but the number rolled on the dice are taken off the casting roll of the enemy. For exemple you cast a spell that is cast on 7+ with 2 dices, and you roll 8. The enemy wizard then roll a Dispel Dice and roll a 3 (wich count as a 2 for a D3) wich bring your casting roll down to 6 and is dispelled. This might need some adjustement on how many dices are generated though.

-Wizards: I would make hero spell casters roll a D3 for spell generation, so they get only one of the first 3 spell and none of the stronger one that he might never cast in the game anyway.

-Miscast: Not sure if I like the miscast on one dice, but got an idea anyway. When rolling a 1 on a single dice and two dice (like rolling a 1 and a 5), roll on Minor Miscast table :

Minor Miscast table
1-3: Nothing happen
4 : Spell isn't cast successfully (for two-dices spell with low casting value, like rolling a 1 and 5 on a 5+ spell for exemple)
5: Caster take a str4 hit.
6: Caster fail his spell and loose his remaining Power Dice. May still cast with pool dice or power stone.

Fellblade
19-02-2009, 01:59
-Sword and shield parry bonus: This one is tricky to 'get right'. A solution could be to drop it altogether, but maybe it would make all weapons option better so it might still be seen as a problem.
This isn't directed at you specifically Skywave... I agree with your point.
There's no such thing as a "Parry Bonus". I've read people here saying "its called a parry bonus, it should only work if you're better than your opponent!" As far as I know the word "parry" doesn't appear anywhere in the warhammer rulebook, definitely not under the hand weapon&shield section at any rate.

I agree, that +1 armor save bonus should be removed. It should have been removed in 7th edition. Personally I think shields should get a fixed 6+ save against any attack, regardless of the strength modifiers. So if your model with heavy armor and a shield is hit with a str3 attack, he gets the normal 4+ save. However, even if he's hit with a str8 (-5 sv) attack he'll still get his 6+ from the shield. Shields aren't always used to stop attacks, often its enough to simply deflect them. Stuff that ignores armor saves would still ignore it, of course.

Von Wibble
19-02-2009, 09:45
Yeah Pheonix Guard 4+ ward might be equal to a 2+ armor save that chaos gets a lot of, but when Pheonix Guard get hit by Thunderbolt, cannons, bold throwers, stone throwers, Strength 8 or higher, and armour ignore weapons, they don't flat out die.

Then hit them with S3/4 attacks like pretty much every army has access to! Give witch elves and dark elf crossbowmen the choice of who to target out of chaos warriors and phoenix guard and see which is better. All of the examples you cite are very good at killing pretty much the rest of thehigh elf army - so target the other units. There really is nothing wrong with one expensive unit with relatively meagre attack capability getting a 4+ ward.

Fellblade - I agree.

On skirmishers - why not allow units to charge enemies within I distance regardless of LOS? It would limit where skirmishers could stand whilst still giving them some freedom.

40kdhs - it doesn't make sense to have 10 goblins rally when charged by a lord on star dragon either:)

woodenpickles - I don't know if you can count DOW or CD in that list either. Skaven, Tomb Kings, Beasts and Brets would presumably arrive at some point mind (Skaven first I believe from reading other threads).

Arnizipal
19-02-2009, 10:56
There was a few good idea said in this thread. Here's a collection of thing I liked so far in the thread, and some other stuff that could be tweaked/added/changed/etc. :

-Fear outnumber: An enemy that is defeated and outnumbered by fear-causing unit get an extra -1 on it's break test. Outnumber 2:1 cause auto-run. Defeated by terror-causing means -1 to break test, and auto-run if outnumbered.

I don't think Terror needs any boosting, but I guess if you're gonna change the Fear rules you'd want them to be consistent with the Terror rules.



-Cavalry: Barding don't give -1 movement, but prevent marching. This will give 3 type of cavalry, Heavy, Medium and Light cavalry. I would probaly make Cold One count as Heavy too, but I'm not familiar enough with Dark Elves and Lizardmen to know if this would be a major change to them. This will make Heavy Cavalry move pretty much like Chariot (both got considerable weight on them).
This is a very big change. Bretonnians will be hit hard if the main part of their army suddenly can't march anymore.


-Sword and shield parry bonus: This one is tricky to 'get right'. A solution could be to drop it altogether, but maybe it would make all weapons option better so it might still be seen as a problem.
I like the HW&S rule. It's a lifesaver for mediocre infantry in armies like Empire, VC or O&G.

The problem is indeed that it has become a no-brainer option because spears and halberds are generally regarded as poor weapon choices. Changing the rules for the spears and halberds will go a long way to fix this.



-Spear on foot: Cancel cavalry charge bonus when charged in front arc (so strike in Initiative order, no lance str bonus).

-Halberd: Add armour piercing.

I like the change you propose on halberds, but the change for spears seems a bit too powerful to me. How about Fight In Two Ranks, Strike First and +1S against charging cavalry, chariots and monsters (front charges only) and in all other cases just Fight In Two Ranks?



-Mount psychology: I think this one as to go, it make the model as a whole so much better. Mount shouldn't be affected by frenzy or hatred.
Agreed, but apparently this was done to plug some holes in the rules (though I can't remember what they were - I'll have a look in the rules forum).

In that case we'll have to come up with an alternative.



-Lapping around: I never played with this (even though I've been around since 4th edition), but what I could see working better is that the enemy winning the combat could get an additional rank worth of attacks to represent the unit pushing in. Make it so it's only 1 attack for the extra rank to prevent unit with 2 attacks getting too much dice to throw! Only one extra rank of course, not one each time you win.
Just allowing winning units to slide to bring more models into combat would already be a large improvement.


I agree, that +1 armor save bonus should be removed. It should have been removed in 7th edition. Personally I think shields should get a fixed 6+ save against any attack, regardless of the strength modifiers. So if your model with heavy armor and a shield is hit with a str3 attack, he gets the normal 4+ save. However, even if he's hit with a str8 (-5 sv) attack he'll still get his 6+ from the shield. Shields aren't always used to stop attacks, often its enough to simply deflect them. Stuff that ignores armor saves would still ignore it, of course.
Dragons and some other monsters had an unmodifiable save it in the olden days (4th/5th edition), but I can't say I'm a fan of the concept.

If you try to deflect a hit that's powerful enough to crack armour, there's a good chance you might break (or even lose) your shield arm.

Fredmans
19-02-2009, 11:27
Just allowing winning units to slide to bring more models into combat would already be a large improvement.

Or allowing units to slide with excess movement in charge situations "in order to maximize the models involved". I am thinking of the rather common situation where two blocks are close but almost corner-to-corner.

AAAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA

____BBBBB
____BBBBB



Also, on the hw/shield bonus. Some people think that removing the +1AS bonus to the front would make the other options better, but do you not think they should be, considering that you pay for them. The hw/shield bonus is free and is better than the upgrades. This has always struck me as plain wrong. Spears are not inherently bad, only the fact that they almost always are handled by S3 troops. It is S3 that makes spears bad. If halberds fought in two ranks, I think people would take them, especially if the hw/shield bonus was removed.

/Fredmans

Arnizipal
20-02-2009, 10:39
Or allowing units to slide with excess movement in charge situations "in order to maximize the models involved". I am thinking of the rather common situation where two blocks are close but almost corner-to-corner.

AAAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA

____BBBBB
____BBBBB
Actually, this is already allowed under the current charge rules.

Fredmans
20-02-2009, 13:38
No, it is gentlemanly and a situation both players should "strive" to accomplish, but it is not by the rules. The free wheel is strictly playing by the rules, sliding is not.

In my example, I tried to draw the picture of two blocks being too close, but still within the front charge arc of each other. When wheeling, at some point, the blocks will touch and the free wheel will not suffice to include the full frontal ranks of both blocks.

In my wish, I referred to the possibility to use M to slide.

/Fredmans

Arnizipal
20-02-2009, 15:59
It's in the appendix. That's official enough for me :)

Fredmans
20-02-2009, 16:08
For me too, but for some it does not, leading to debates whenever I play new players. Those debates distract from the game, like all "we wish you would, but will not force you" rules tend to.

/Fredmans

Raizer
20-02-2009, 18:28
I would like to see melee combat use the first 2 ranks to fight but each rank past the first 2 count as +2 combat resolution.

I would also like to see mounts count as +1 toughness instead of +1 armor. Allowing barding to add to +1 armor only.

Necromancy Black
20-02-2009, 21:42
I would like to see melee combat use the first 2 ranks to fight but each rank past the first 2 count as +2 combat resolution.

I would also like to see mounts count as +1 toughness instead of +1 armor. Allowing barding to add to +1 armor only.

As a lizardmen player I fully endorse these ways of overpowering my Saurus.

Hobgoblyn
20-02-2009, 23:31
A standard army composition that would bring a lot of the current lists immediately into more feasable balance.

Something like
You may only have 1 Lord for every 2000 points of army
You may not spend more than 30% of your points on characters including mounts and equipment (Maximum 600 points in a 2000 point army)
You MUST spend at least 25% of your points on core units (minimum of 500 points in a 2000 point army)
You may spend up to 50% of your points on Special Units (maximum 1000 points of 2000 point army)
You may spend up to 25% of your points on Rare Units. (maximum 500 points of a 2000 point army)

This would work quite a lot better than limiting by numbers of units since the actual cost of units of the various types differs greatly from army to army. Particularly in the character department, this means that instead of someone being able to stack all their crazy, over-the-top characters into a single small army, they'd have to take one over-the-top character and maybe a second medium point one.
Conversely, any army that has cheap heroes who aren't even as good as other army's core unit champions could have a lot more characters than those whose single character can rip through an entire army solo.

Fellblade
21-02-2009, 02:32
A standard army composition that would bring a lot of the current lists immediately into more feasable balance.

Something like...
That's basically what they had prior to 6th edition.

RossS
21-02-2009, 03:47
A standard army composition that would bring a lot of the current lists immediately into more feasable balance.

Something like
You may only have 1 Lord for every 2000 points of army
You may not spend more than 30% of your points on characters including mounts and equipment (Maximum 600 points in a 2000 point army)
You MUST spend at least 25% of your points on core units (minimum of 500 points in a 2000 point army)
You may spend up to 50% of your points on Special Units (maximum 1000 points of 2000 point army)
You may spend up to 25% of your points on Rare Units. (maximum 500 points of a 2000 point army)

This would work quite a lot better than limiting by numbers of units since the actual cost of units of the various types differs greatly from army to army. Particularly in the character department, this means that instead of someone being able to stack all their crazy, over-the-top characters into a single small army, they'd have to take one over-the-top character and maybe a second medium point one.
Conversely, any army that has cheap heroes who aren't even as good as other army's core unit champions could have a lot more characters than those whose single character can rip through an entire army solo.

Yep. This is a revised, more draconian version of the 5th edition system.

The problem is that such a system penalizes some armies a great deal more than others (VC, Tomb Kings and Lizards would suffer horribly under the character limits imposed under this system.)

And to be honest I think it is a lazy (and overly high-handed) way of "bandaging" the problem, rather than correcting it. If GW wants people to take Core options over Specials and Rares, it needs to make Core units a more compelling alternative, and also do something to lessen the potency of elite units/heavy cavalry/monsters and artillery. Similarly, if GW wants to reduce the might/costs of characters, it should impose more restrictions on character options, design more balanced magical weapons/magical systems and, generally, make the character building proces less prone to abuse.

I like the present system, and think it worked reasonably well during the 6th edition.

Hobgoblyn
21-02-2009, 04:23
Yep. This is a revised, more draconian version of the 5th edition system.

The problem is that such a system penalizes some armies a great deal more than others (VC, Tomb Kings and Lizards would suffer horribly under the character limits imposed under this system.)

And to be honest I think it is a lazy (and overly high-handed) way of "bandaging" the problem, rather than correcting it. If GW wants people to take Core options over Specials and Rares, it needs to make Core units a more compelling alternative, and also do something to lessen the potency of elite units/heavy cavalry/monsters and artillery. Similarly, if GW wants to reduce the might/costs of characters, it should impose more restrictions on character options, design more balanced magical weapons/magical systems and, generally, make the character building proces less prone to abuse.

I like the present system, and think it worked reasonably well during the 6th edition.

Oh, poor widdle ridiculously over-the-top 800 point characters who can easily wipe 1200pts off the map EVERY SINGLE TURN that they weren't allowed to be taken in a 2000 point army. :rolleyes:

Seriously, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen and Daemons NEED an upperlimit on the amount of points you can spam on their super-charged Herohammer characters who single handedly blast apart multiple units in a single turn with opponents having little or no recourse save for blowing all their hero SLOTS on scroll caddies.

EVERY OTHER ARMY is not only suffering, but entirely crippled under this "hero sl*t" system.
Yet you can actually propose that having a point limit based on army size because it is offensive to propose that you should be able to field less Great Daemons or 400pt Vampire Lords with level 4 sorcerery and spells that literally just kill D6 models in every squad on the entire board than the opponent can field 90-point Goblin Warbosses (which can't even stand up to your unit champions)?

Damn, what kind of 'shrooms are you on?

Any non-over-the-top army at this point finds its hero and rare slots completely filled before its even spent 1/3rd of its points and then the Special units don't take much and so you are left with buying up hundreds of models Core choices who end up being nothing more than useless fodder for your opponent to have fun hacking or blasting to bits, who never win a combat except MAYBE by static CR (assuming they survive the magic to even get in combat) and typically are just there to get wiped out turn after turn and get in the way of your units that might actually be able to do some damage.

But it isn't even about Core units so much-- it is that there shouldn't be ANY single model in the game save for perhaps a dragon who ought to be worth 3+ entire units and certainly be better than 3 units could ever be when it comes to actual game terms.

Everything now is about single model wizards who wipe the board, over-the-top mounted heroes with 0+ armor, 4+ ward saves 5A S7 rerolling killing blow and well... Greater demons and dragons-- which wouldn't be so bad if there could only be one of these, but instead within a 2500pt army you get 4-5 of things like this or damn close... how exactly do you propose that Empire, O&G, Dwarf, Bretonians, Skaven, etc. be able to compete in such an enviroment without an overarching rule that says 'there is a limit to how much of your army you can **** away in single-model powerhouses', because slots certainly do NOT do that job when the books include special or elite charaters that just do not function fairly in games under 10,000 points.

Of course, I suppose one could always change the rule and allow shooters to target individual characters in a unit with bows, guns and war machines... that would greatly diminish the unstoppable wizards and combat gods, but not the giant daemons...

TheMav80
21-02-2009, 05:18
You did notice where he said that the power of characters should be reduced while the power of Core choices should be increased right?

Coram_Boy
21-02-2009, 09:58
the problem with limits like 25% core at least, and only 600 points on characters, is that it unbalances armies even further - armies like daemons, who have great core choices, become even better, or at least no worse. VC's spending 500 points on ghouls/zombies/skellies - I don't see why. in the same way, skaven would have a laugh with this kind of imposement - they, after all, can pretty much build an entirely core army. If every list had exactly the same balance of everything, then this would be ok. But they don't, and never will, which is probably a good thing.

R Man
21-02-2009, 10:40
The problem with the 5th edition points system was that it grouped units by type, not by quality. Therefore it was possible to buy an army consisting of very strange units.

And just a note to all the Spear Buffers out there: Its been said a million times by half a million people, but the 8 foot Warhammer Infantry Spear did sweet FA against heavy cavalry. You need pikes for that.

So rules so far that look reasonable to me:
Outnumbering Bonus of +2 if you outnumber more than 2 to 1.
When a unit looses to a fear causing enemy that outnumbers it it doubles the penalty to leadership.
Mounts no longer affected by Psycholoy like Frenzy or Hatred.
Terrain no longer halves movement, just prevents marching.


Can we at least all agree that these are good idea's?

Edit: Sorry, typed the wrong number for spear length. Thanks Condottiere.

Condottiere
21-02-2009, 10:45
Most militia spears are more 8', sufficient for two ranks.

Mireadur
21-02-2009, 11:14
The problem is that such a system penalizes some armies a great deal more than others (VC, Tomb Kings and Lizards would suffer horribly under the character limits imposed under this system.)



Excuse me but this is falacy.


I like the present system, and think it worked reasonably well during the 6th edition.

I also like the current system but it is obvious that increasing the required number of basic units in +1 is needed (although im hardcore as usual and would say +2).

Arnizipal
21-02-2009, 18:40
Oh, poor widdle ridiculously over-the-top 800 point characters who can easily wipe 1200pts off the map EVERY SINGLE TURN that they weren't allowed to be taken in a 2000 point army. :rolleyes:
Characters that can wipe out 1200 points per turn? :eyebrows:
Examples please.



Seriously, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen and Daemons NEED an upperlimit on the amount of points you can spam on their super-charged Herohammer characters who single handedly blast apart multiple units in a single turn with opponents having little or no recourse save for blowing all their hero SLOTS on scroll caddies.
I can't speak for deamon armies, but the only spells that vampires can recast are non damaging ones. Fort the rest they casts spells just like a regular wizard and can "blast apart" just as many units as any wizard of the same level and using the same lore.


EVERY OTHER ARMY is not only suffering, but entirely crippled under this "hero sl*t" system.
Yet you can actually propose that having a point limit based on army size because it is offensive to propose that you should be able to field less Great Daemons or 400pt Vampire Lords with level 4 sorcerery and spells that literally just kill D6 models in every squad on the entire board than the opponent can field 90-point Goblin Warbosses (which can't even stand up to your unit champions)?And what spell would that be? :eyebrows:
Neither VC or Daemons have something like that.



Damn, what kind of 'shrooms are you on?
Yeah, that's real constructive. :rolleyes:



Any non-over-the-top army at this point finds its hero and rare slots completely filled before its even spent 1/3rd of its points and then the Special units don't take much and so you are left with buying up hundreds of models Core choices who end up being nothing more than useless fodder for your opponent to have fun hacking or blasting to bits, who never win a combat except MAYBE by static CR (assuming they survive the magic to even get in combat) and typically are just there to get wiped out turn after turn and get in the way of your units that might actually be able to do some damage. The typical role for core units is to provide static combat result. Some armies have core units that can hold their own without support, but these are exception rather than rule.VC, for example, don't have any core units that can go toe to toe with the enemy without without support from flankers or characters.


Everything now is about single model wizards who wipe the board, over-the-top mounted heroes with 0+ armor, 4+ ward saves 5A S7 rerolling killing blow and well... Greater demons and dragons-- which wouldn't be so bad if there could only be one of these, but instead within a 2500pt army you get 4-5 of things like this or damn close...Of course, I suppose one could always change the rule and allow shooters to target individual characters in a unit with bows, guns and war machines... that would greatly diminish the unstoppable wizards and combat gods, but not the giant daemons...
You never played 5th edition did you? Those were times when Greater Daemons could wipe out armies on their own without any support whatsoever.
Great Unclean Ones in those days were S7, T8 and had 10 Wounds and 7 attacks.

Have a look here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171874) for hero set-ups and nasty spells.
Seriously, no way is 7th edition as bad a 4th/5th when it comes to heroes and monsters.

Also, I dare you to make a legal 2500 points army with 4-5 greater daemons, lord level characters and/or dragons.

Mireadur
21-02-2009, 19:16
You never played 5th edition did you? Those were times when Greater Daemons could wipe out armies on their own without any support whatsoever.
Great Unclean Ones in those days were S7, T8 and had 10 Wounds and 7 attacks.


This is true, WH was way ********** back then.

Most playable armies were orc and empire.

Arnizipal
21-02-2009, 19:32
Excuse me but this is falacy.
Not really. Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts rely on their characters to keep their army moving (either by magic or simply by their presence) as undead can't march. Limiting characters will make undead armies hard to wield and sluggish, as a single character can't be everywhere at once and some movement spells are bound to fail or get dispelled.

VC can compensate a little bit by fielding vampire troops (but all of these are expensive rare choices). Tomb Kings can't do anything without a decent amount of liche priests and kings/princes.

Crazy Harborc
21-02-2009, 19:50
The thread has many good suggestions and points to ponder. As to an 8th edition coming out anytime soon.....Didn't 7th Edition just come out 3 years ago?

Lord Dan
21-02-2009, 20:58
Not quite. It was released September 9th, 2006.

R Man
21-02-2009, 21:09
Since none has any objections to the list I'll do ranged weapons. The first step is to work out the relative effectiveness of Bows, Crossbows and Handguns. The theory is that if we give them to one person (Albert, the Standard Imperial) then we can guage their comparative effectiness.

Albert shooting against a human in Light armour with a shield at short range, and then at long range (in brackets)
Longbow: 1 shot. 0.5 hits, 0.25 wounds. 0.17 not saved. (0.11 not saved)
Crossbow: 1 shot. 0.5 hits. 0.33 wounds. 0.28 not saved. (0.19 not saved)
Handgun: 1 shot. 0.5 hits, 0.33 wounds. 0.33 not saved. (0.22 not saved)

So handguns are essentially double the strength of longbows and crossbows are 1.6 times the strength of handguns. The reletive strengths of bows and short bows will be the same, just at different ranges. Now I would suggest that crossbows and handguns are balanced due to the crossbows 6 inch extra range. But the longbow is behind. So, do we: 1; make the longbow more powerful or 2; just make it cheaper in comparison to the others.
The problem with making the weapon cheaper is that there is only so many you can have in a unit, thus no matter how cheap you make it only so much damage can be done, unless it is too cheap in which case it can be spammed and create other problems.

So how can we make the longbow more powerful? First we could give it armour piercing. However I don't like this because it steps on the handguns toes. Anyway, it wasn't what longbows were famous for. They were famous for their rate of fire. 2x multiple shot with the standard -1 penalty of course.
2 shots, 0.67 hits, 0.33 wounds, 0.22 not saved. (0.11 not saved).
So at close range it has slightly more power and is no different at long range.
Remembering of course that bows can move and fire (sometimes useful), that more shots means more potential casualties and that against troops with no armour the extra power of handguns and crossbows is wasted. I think this is a reasonable solution.

Does anyone else agree with this.

I would also like to change handguns. Armour piercing now only works at close range, but handguns take no to hit penalty in stand and shoot. This represents the loss of power over range that guns faced, but shows how easy they were to use especially against an oncomming enemy.
Does that seem fair?

P.s: its been a while since I've done maths, so I've probably made a mistake somewhere. If I have please tell me so I can correct it.

kdh88
21-02-2009, 22:00
Since none has any objections to the list I'll do ranged weapons. The first step is to work out the relative effectiveness of Bows, Crossbows and Handguns. The theory is that if we give them to one person (Albert, the Standard Imperial) then we can guage their comparative effectiness.

Albert shooting against a human in Light armour with a shield at short range, and then at long range (in brackets)
Longbow: 1 shot. 0.5 hits, 0.25 wounds. 0.17 not saved. (0.11 not saved)
Crossbow: 1 shot. 0.5 hits. 0.33 wounds. 0.28 not saved. (0.19 not saved)
Handgun: 1 shot. 0.5 hits, 0.33 wounds. 0.33 not saved. (0.22 not saved)

So handguns are essentially double the strength of longbows and crossbows are 1.6 times the strength of handguns. The reletive strengths of bows and short bows will be the same, just at different ranges. Now I would suggest that crossbows and handguns are balanced due to the crossbows 6 inch extra range. But the longbow is behind. So, do we: 1; make the longbow more powerful or 2; just make it cheaper in comparison to the others.
The problem with making the weapon cheaper is that there is only so many you can have in a unit, thus no matter how cheap you make it only so much damage can be done, unless it is too cheap in which case it can be spammed and create other problems.

So how can we make the longbow more powerful? First we could give it armour piercing. However I don't like this because it steps on the handguns toes. Anyway, it wasn't what longbows were famous for. They were famous for their rate of fire. 2x multiple shot with the standard -1 penalty of course.
2 shots, 0.67 hits, 0.33 wounds, 0.22 not saved. (0.11 not saved).
So at close range it has slightly more power and is no different at long range.
Remembering of course that bows can move and fire (sometimes useful), that more shots means more potential casualties and that against troops with no armour the extra power of handguns and crossbows is wasted. I think this is a reasonable solution.

Does anyone else agree with this.

I agree that mutiple shots (x2) is the best option for improving bows. The only two lists where it could pose problems are Wood Elves (Killing blow or S4 with mutiple shots might be a bit much) and TK (no real downside for mutiple shots).


I would also like to change handguns. Armour piercing now only works at close range, but handguns take no to hit penalty in stand and shoot. This represents the loss of power over range that guns faced, but shows how easy they were to use especially against an oncomming enemy.
Does that seem fair?

P.s: its been a while since I've done maths, so I've probably made a mistake somewhere. If I have please tell me so I can correct it.

I'm less sure about this. Pretty much any ranged weapon is less powerful at long range; I'm not sure why the handgun should be singled out here.

Mireadur
21-02-2009, 22:06
I find a good idea the multiple shots on bows. The extra range would make up for the armour piercing of rxbs, etc

EDIT:


The only two lists where it could pose problems are Wood Elves (Killing blow or S4 with mutiple shots might be a bit much) and TK (no real downside for mutiple shots).

Actually this is true, it would need a complete revamp of the wood elf army, curious i didnt think on how it would affect that army considering i have to suffer often such boring WE bow spam. :(

R Man
22-02-2009, 00:53
I agree that mutiple shots (x2) is the best option for improving bows. The only two lists where it could pose problems are Wood Elves (Killing blow or S4 with mutiple shots might be a bit much) and TK (no real downside for mutiple shots).

I'm not sure Tomb Kings would be a problem, but then again I don't know much about them. However Wood Elves would be a problem. With the army books yet to be done they could be changed with this in mind though. However I'm begining to think that any dynamic rules change will screw someone over, so it would have to be done with a re-vamp mentality.


I'm less sure about this. Pretty much any ranged weapon is less powerful at long range; I'm not sure why the handgun should be singled out here.

Well Handguns had a vastly shorter range than any other weapon, but limiting there range would reduce their utility too much. I was hoping my idea would mark them out as close Infantry support, similar to the early uses. But I'm not devoted to the idea though.

One thing is the two ranks for shooting thing. It would stop archer units from looking stupid, but if we did this then the hill rules might have to be revised.

Draconian77
22-02-2009, 01:44
If you make Bows 2x shot you step on the RxB's toes.

I think that Bows(All types) should have not be at -1 to hit skirmishers. This means some races wouldn't require magic missiles to deal with Skirmishers and it gives the less powerful Bow a use in armies like the Empire.

kdh88
22-02-2009, 04:22
I'm not sure Tomb Kings would be a problem, but then again I don't know much about them.

They don't take penalties to shooting (so no -1 for mutiple shots). Combined with Khallida (special character), a unit of 20 skellies would put out a guarenteed 80 poisoned shots per turn. That might be...excessive.


However Wood Elves would be a problem. With the army books yet to be done they could be changed with this in mind though. However I'm begining to think that any dynamic rules change will screw someone over, so it would have to be done with a re-vamp mentality.

Agree 100%. Since this is all hypothetical anyway, that isn't really a problem; I just like to point out where changes would have other effects that would have to be considered to cover all the bases.



Well Handguns had a vastly shorter range than any other weapon, but limiting there range would reduce their utility too much. I was hoping my idea would mark them out as close Infantry support, similar to the early uses. But I'm not devoted to the idea though.

One thing is the two ranks for shooting thing. It would stop archer units from looking stupid, but if we did this then the hill rules might have to be revised.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks single ranked ranged units look a bit silly. It would also make multi-use units like Seaguard potentially useful.



If you make Bows 2x shot you step on the RxB's toes.

I think that Bows(All types) should have not be at -1 to hit skirmishers. This means some races wouldn't require magic missiles to deal with Skirmishers and it gives the less powerful Bow a use in armies like the Empire.

RXBs have AP, so it would be shorter range for better anti-armor when compared to longbows, a bit like handguns vs. crossbows (and it would still be flat out better than regular bows and short bows). Having bows ignore the -1 to hit doesn't seem to make sense to me from a realism (yeah, I know, dragons and magic etc.) perspective. I'm also not sure if its widely applicable enough to matter, espescially considering a lot of archers are skirmishers.

Lord Dan
22-02-2009, 04:37
If you make Bows 2x shot you step on the RxB's toes.

I think that Bows(All types) should have not be at -1 to hit skirmishers. This means some races wouldn't require magic missiles to deal with Skirmishers and it gives the less powerful Bow a use in armies like the Empire.

I agree with your first point.

I'd be all for your second point with some hearty fluff justification. :) Why do you see skirmishers being more susceptible to bowfire vs, say, a handgun?

Personally I would like some kind of "volley" rule incorporated, perhaps with different effects for different weapons. A volley can only be performed if the unit successfully passes a leadership check. Maybe extending the range of the weapon or giving them +1 to hit? My only fear with +1 to hit is how powerful that can be in combination with weapons like handguns. We also need some kind of balance. The Ld check is a step in this direction, but it's still missing something.

...the nonexistent rule I'm rambling about, that is.

Any thoughts?

Draconian77
22-02-2009, 05:50
RXBs have AP, so it would be shorter range for better anti-armor when compared to longbows, a bit like handguns vs. crossbows (and it would still be flat out better than regular bows and short bows). Having bows ignore the -1 to hit doesn't seem to make sense to me from a realism (yeah, I know, dragons and magic etc.) perspective. I'm also not sure if its widely applicable enough to matter, espescially considering a lot of archers are skirmishers.


Ok, I know fluff is never a great rock to argue from, but if a bow fires 2x shots and a repeater crossbow fires a hail of shots then surely it would be 3x shots? It doesn't make sense for to weapon with an increases rate of fire to...not have any increased rate of fire... I suppose you could always drop the -1 to hit for 2x shot on RxB's.

For the bow's not requiring -1's to hit, just go with something like "Weight and Stability" Skirmishers are moving targets so having a missile weapon which is lighter and requires less stability should make hitting them easier. This is already incorporated into the "Move and Fire" rules but doesn't seem to have made Bows a popular choice for most players. From a historical standpoint mounted bowmen where common but I haven't heard of mounted Crossbowmen...


I'd be all for your second point with some hearty fluff justification. Why do you see skirmishers being more susceptible to bowfire vs, say, a handgun?

Personally I would like some kind of "volley" rule incorporated, perhaps with different effects for different weapons. A volley can only be performed if the unit successfully passes a leadership check. Maybe extending the range of the weapon or giving them +1 to hit? My only fear with +1 to hit is how powerful that can be in combination with weapons like handguns. We also need some kind of balance. The Ld check is a step in this direction, but it's still missing something.

...the nonexistent rule I'm rambling about, that is.

Any thoughts?

Just weight and stability versus a moving target, I know I'd rather have a handgun than a mortar against something free to duck, weave and dive at their leisure!

Bear in mind with rules such as "Volley" or "Fire in two ranks" that you leave yourself open to some abuses. As of now pure gunlines are often hindered by how lack of deployment space(Well, lack of "ideal" deployment space) Multiple ranks firing could pose some balance problems, especially for armies like Dwarfs where they could take a charge and win, imagine seeing 4x20 thunderers with shields each led by a Thane/Runesmith in front of your army. Scary.

However, I'm not completely against the idea. I would probably go with something like "All models in the unit can fire at any unit that is visible to them or to another unit in their army(Isn't this how Stone Throwers work? It must be at least a year since I've seen a Stone Thrower on the table...) and will roll to hit on half of the BS(rounded down-I'm not having Goblins being as accurate as Elves nor I'm I creating "Goblin Archer spam") but ignoring the usual penalties and bonuses. (So its still better to fire directly at a Dragon, which I think is more realistic)

Against skirmishers these shots require a roll of 6 to hit. (Not a penalty, just a hard and fast rule)

Units may not move in the movement phase and Volley Fire.

Only Shortbows, Bows, Longbows may Volley Fire.

May not be used as a Stand and Shoot reaction.

Or something, I'll think about it and get back to this thread with some more solid ideas.

RossS
22-02-2009, 06:16
Oh, poor widdle ridiculously over-the-top 800 point characters who can easily wipe 1200pts off the map EVERY SINGLE TURN that they weren't allowed to be taken in a 2000 point army. :rolleyes:

Seriously, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen and Daemons NEED an upperlimit on the amount of points you can spam on their super-charged Herohammer characters who single handedly blast apart multiple units in a single turn with opponents having little or no recourse save for blowing all their hero SLOTS on scroll caddies.

EVERY OTHER ARMY is not only suffering, but entirely crippled under this "hero sl*t" system.
Yet you can actually propose that having a point limit based on army size because it is offensive to propose that you should be able to field less Great Daemons or 400pt Vampire Lords with level 4 sorcerery and spells that literally just kill D6 models in every squad on the entire board than the opponent can field 90-point Goblin Warbosses (which can't even stand up to your unit champions)?

Damn, what kind of 'shrooms are you on?

Any non-over-the-top army at this point finds its hero and rare slots completely filled before its even spent 1/3rd of its points and then the Special units don't take much and so you are left with buying up hundreds of models Core choices who end up being nothing more than useless fodder for your opponent to have fun hacking or blasting to bits, who never win a combat except MAYBE by static CR (assuming they survive the magic to even get in combat) and typically are just there to get wiped out turn after turn and get in the way of your units that might actually be able to do some damage.

But it isn't even about Core units so much-- it is that there shouldn't be ANY single model in the game save for perhaps a dragon who ought to be worth 3+ entire units and certainly be better than 3 units could ever be when it comes to actual game terms.

Everything now is about single model wizards who wipe the board, over-the-top mounted heroes with 0+ armor, 4+ ward saves 5A S7 rerolling killing blow and well... Greater demons and dragons-- which wouldn't be so bad if there could only be one of these, but instead within a 2500pt army you get 4-5 of things like this or damn close... how exactly do you propose that Empire, O&G, Dwarf, Bretonians, Skaven, etc. be able to compete in such an enviroment without an overarching rule that says 'there is a limit to how much of your army you can **** away in single-model powerhouses', because slots certainly do NOT do that job when the books include special or elite charaters that just do not function fairly in games under 10,000 points.

Of course, I suppose one could always change the rule and allow shooters to target individual characters in a unit with bows, guns and war machines... that would greatly diminish the unstoppable wizards and combat gods, but not the giant daemons...


I believe you missed the part in my original message where I argued that "...if GW wants to reduce the might/costs of characters, it should impose more restrictions on character options, design more balanced magical weapons/magical systems and, generally, make the character building proces less prone to abuse."

"So rules so far that look reasonable to me:
Outnumbering Bonus of +2 if you outnumber more than 2 to 1.
When a unit looses to a fear causing enemy that outnumbers it it doubles the penalty to leadership.
Mounts no longer affected by Psycholoy like Frenzy or Hatred.
Terrain no longer halves movement, just prevents marching." -R Man

These all look acceptable to me. If the second suggestion results in a substantial reduction in the points of Vampire Counts core units (as well it should) I will be a very content young man.

R Man
22-02-2009, 06:33
They don't take penalties to shooting (so no -1 for mutiple shots). Combined with Khallida (special character), a unit of 20 skellies would put out a guarenteed 80 poisoned shots per turn. That might be...excessive.

Hmm... I can see how that would be a problem, but it could be solved in the army book.


Ok, I know fluff is never a great rock to argue from, but if a bow fires 2x shots and a repeater crossbow fires a hail of shots then surely it would be 3x shots? It doesn't make sense for to weapon with an increases rate of fire to...not have any increased rate of fire... I suppose you could always drop the -1 to hit for 2x shot on RxB's.

Repeater crossbows fired quickly relative to other crossbows, not so much in comparison to longbows.


For the bow's not requiring -1's to hit, just go with something like "Weight and Stability" Skirmishers are moving targets so having a missile weapon which is lighter and requires less stability should make hitting them easier. This is already incorporated into the "Move and Fire" rules but doesn't seem to have made Bows a popular choice for most players. From a historical standpoint mounted bowmen where common but I haven't heard of mounted Crossbowmen...

Bow are no more accurate or easily aimed than a crossbow. And there were mounted crossbowmen used in Europe as a counter to Sarecen Horse archers.


Bear in mind with rules such as "Volley" or "Fire in two ranks" that you leave yourself open to some abuses. As of now pure gunlines are often hindered by how lack of deployment space(Well, lack of "ideal" deployment space) Multiple ranks firing could pose some balance problems, especially for armies like Dwarfs where they could take a charge and win, imagine seeing 4x20 thunderers with shields each led by a Thane/Runesmith in front of your army. Scary.

This is one of the reasons I want to limit AP to close range, to bind guns more closely to the infantry and to make it possible to wither them with ranged weapons without making them useless. However, if other weapons are a problem then just state that: Only the first rank may fire when standing and shooting.

Draconian77
22-02-2009, 06:55
Repeater crossbows fired quickly relative to other crossbows, not so much in comparison to longbows.

Well then give them S4 instead of S3, like Crossbows.
(I joke, of course, but ->)A change from bows being single shot to multiple shot will make RxB's expensive novelties, especially when you consider that those archers pay for stats completely unused by a missile unit. Ap does little to migitate the fact that your weapon is now compartively worse than before whilst being priced the same.

Bow are no more accurate or easily aimed than a crossbow. And there were mounted crossbowmen used in Europe as a counter to Sarecen Horse archers.

They say you don't learn anything from the internet! Who cares what fluff justification GW give for Bows not receiving the usual penalty for firing at skirmishers? Even if they printed something about "Weight and Stability", you either A) Don't know about this particular subject and swallow it whole(Me!) or B)Laugh it off and casually point out how silly other people are(You!) but by the end of the day we're both shooting Skirmishers with our bowmen! :D


This is one of the reasons I want to limit AP to close range, to bind guns more closely to the infantry and to make it possible to wither them with ranged weapons without making them useless. However, if other weapons are a problem then just state that: Only the first rank may fire when standing and shooting.

Ap is mainly useful against Knights(The most heavily armoured of foes bar characters) Some Knights could avoid the Ap aspect of a gun until the Stand and Shoot reaction where the -1 to hit would kick in. In some cases(DE Rxbs vs Chaos Knights or Empire Knights) the Ap rule isn't even a factor.

I never intended for Volley Fire to be a Stand and Shoot reaction, I'll add that to the relevent post.

Sigh, I wish I didn't have to type this...

Lord Dan
22-02-2009, 06:58
Bear in mind with rules such as "Volley" or "Fire in two ranks" that you leave yourself open to some abuses. As of now pure gunlines are often hindered by how lack of deployment space(Well, lack of "ideal" deployment space) Multiple ranks firing could pose some balance problems, especially for armies like Dwarfs where they could take a charge and win, imagine seeing 4x20 thunderers with shields each led by a Thane/Runesmith in front of your army. Scary.

However, I'm not completely against the idea. I would probably go with something like "All models in the unit can fire at any unit that is visible to them or to another unit in their army(Isn't this how Stone Throwers work? It must be at least a year since I've seen a Stone Thrower on the table...) and will roll to hit on half of the BS(rounded down-I'm not having Goblins being as accurate as Elves nor I'm I creating "Goblin Archer spam") but ignoring the usual penalties and bonuses. (So its still better to fire directly at a Dragon, which I think is more realistic)

Against skirmishers these shots require a roll of 6 to hit. (Not a penalty, just a hard and fast rule)

Units may not move in the movement phase and Volley Fire.

Only Shortbows, Bows, Longbows may Volley Fire.

Or something, I'll think about it and get back to this thread with some more solid ideas.

I like your ideas for the bowmen volley, though the modifiers would have to be something we toy around with. Say you volley at a unit of skirmishers in woods with a unit of goblin bowmen? Already you're way above a 6 to hit.
I never meant to imply "fire in two ranks" for handguns. The thought makes me shudder.

I was thinking something like "controlled fire" for any ranged unit that could pass an Ld test for it. They sacrifice something (movement in the next round? Shooting in the next round? CC attacks if charged? Perhaps they need to wait a turn to use this ability?) but the basic concept would be:

Any unit that passes a Ld test may use the "Controlled Fire" ability. The soldiers take their time and aim, and fire in precision volleys. The unit is at +1 to hit.

Are we planning on compiling something at the end of this? Perhaps a Warhammer "Warseer Edition"? :p That would make for a nice set of house rules.

Draconian77
22-02-2009, 07:09
We may as well, however if this is in the interest of balancing WHFB then eventually we would have to get around to each indivual army book - not something any us would enjoy given the amount of debates that would break out!

@Lord Dan: How about adding the clause "You may not Volley Fire at units in terrain features." The main two pieces of terrain in Fantasy are buildings, forests and hills. This would mean you wouldn't be able to volley at units inside a forest(quite realistic) or inside a building(very realistic...)

Lord Dan
22-02-2009, 07:16
Oooh, good thinking. Now we have to make it worth it for units to volley even if units are within range. Could we make the enemy unit at -1 to save to represent the arrows coming down from directly overhead? Too much?

R Man
22-02-2009, 07:37
Well then give them S4 instead of S3, like Crossbows.
(I joke, of course, but ->)A change from bows being single shot to multiple shot will make RxB's expensive novelties, especially when you consider that those archers pay for stats completely unused by a missile unit. Ap does little to migitate the fact that your weapon is now compartively worse than before whilst being priced the same.

The repeater crossbow hasn't lost any power. While bows got more powerful, its not as though it will invalidate Repeaters. Repeaters lack 6 range, but have: Better BS and LD, AP and Light armour, worth the difference alone. Better stats and hatered are not especially good but can surprise. Lets remember that HE archers are even more expensive, and vastly worse as it is.


They say you don't learn anything from the internet! Who cares what fluff justification GW give for Bows not receiving the usual penalty for firing at skirmishers? Even if they printed something about "Weight and Stability", you either A) Don't know about this particular subject and swallow it whole(Me!) or B)Laugh it off and casually point out how silly other people are(You!) but by the end of the day we're both shooting Skirmishers with our bowmen!

But then thousands of whiners will flock here and bitch about it.


Ap is mainly useful against Knights(The most heavily armoured of foes bar characters) Some Knights could avoid the Ap aspect of a gun until the Stand and Shoot reaction where the -1 to hit would kick in. In some cases(DE Rxbs vs Chaos Knights or Empire Knights) the Ap rule isn't even a factor.

I never intended for Volley Fire to be a Stand and Shoot reaction, I'll add that to the relevent post.

I did note that guns would not suffer a penalty when standing and shooting.


I never meant to imply "fire in two ranks" for handguns. The thought makes me shudder.

What is different about 20 Handgunners in one unit compared to 2 units of 10? It can only pick one target, is more vulnerable to terror and flanking, and slighly weaker against artillery. The only problem is in standing and shooting where alot of firepower is placed in a single moment.

And to be honest, I don't like this Volley Fire idea. It seems clunky and unnessesary. It seems like an overly complicated solution to a non-existant problem. Ask yourselves what your aim is with this rule and what affect do you think it would have on the game and how it would benefit from the introduction.

yabbadabba
22-02-2009, 07:49
So what about the points cost of archers, or their equipment? It's a nice few rules to add, but you are making missile fire more effective, and therefore unbalancing the game because of the points charged per model.

Draconian77
22-02-2009, 07:51
Sigh... I destroyed this post.

In general:

Volley Fire is a rule that quite a few people want to see.

I don't like the idea of Ap at close range, I'm failing to see the good intententions.

Of course this entire thread is all just "What if's?" Lets not get serious about anything.

I am not the creator of this rule, I'm just sharing my thoughts to others about how they could implement it.

@Lord Dan: I would say leave it at that, you don't want Volley Fire to be superior in most circumstances, you just want the option to use it really.

R Man
22-02-2009, 08:18
So what about the points cost of archers, or their equipment? It's a nice few rules to add, but you are making missile fire more effective, and therefore unbalancing the game because of the points charged per model.

They haven't recieved that much of a buff. Only a slight increase in damage at close range. Most units that use bows aren't especially well regarded anyway. HE archers and orc archers are slandered often, and I've never read any complaits against huntsmen, nor has any light cavalry with bows had their shooting praised. Bretonnian archers might get a better deal because they are so cheap but there otherwise so frail I doubt it would be a major problem. There has been some comment on the potential of Tomb Kings and Wood Elves, but the problem isn't insurmountable.


I don't like the idea of Ap at close range, I'm failing to see the good intententions.

Then forget about it! Its not that important. Just something I though of once.

Gazak Blacktoof
22-02-2009, 09:01
I'm not sure how much of a problem tomb kings firing 4 shots each wold be. However should it be a problem you could alter the rule for volley fire to indicate that the unit fires twice in the shooting phase rather than using the multi-shot rule.

I prefer the alternative solution of allowing the unit to fire in two ranks, that way all armies with bow armed trops get what they pay for and it allows them a rank bonus. I would make this a move or fire to prevent them from about facing and destroying fast cavalry. I believe this has been tested before and was balanced without a to hit modifier, including one removed the advantages given by the rule.

static grass
22-02-2009, 09:08
I would like to moral modifiers for panic tests caused by shooting. It is fustrating to watch units virtually wiped out hold on whilst others barely scratched leg it immediately.

CC has moral modifers based off the combat resolution why not shooting? Might take care of death star units too.

Draconian77
22-02-2009, 09:13
As a rule of thumb, deathstar units don't flee.

yabbadabba
22-02-2009, 09:19
When WFB went mathhammer and stopped being a game-for-a-laugh in a fantasy setting, a friend and tournament player told me that all you need missile fire for was to take a rank bonus off. The chances of taking more than that off are slim, but a potential -1CR was a big bonus, especially if it was on the unit you had picked to be the start of your opponents downfall.
Add to that a missile unt, while fairly pants in a straight 1-2-1 fight, is more than adequate to then remove all of the rank bonus and get a +1CR for flanking, and then your missile unit can potentially contribute +4(+5?)CR - sorry can't remember if it is +3 or +4 for rank bonus (bad, bad bunny).
Think of how many points you would have to invest in a combat unit to get that CR on it's own?

Gazak Blacktoof
22-02-2009, 09:41
I agree in part with what you're saying, that's how I use my ranged troops, however troops with longbows don't accomplish this task as well as unit of handgunners even though the cost the same amount.

My only doubts conerning improvements to bows are what it will do to high elves. Currently the abusive builds take minimum core in the form of archers or sea guard, with these changes you're making those "do I have to!" units into something that's actually competent. Too good? I'm not sure, but certainly a lot better.

waiyuren
22-02-2009, 09:58
I had a couple of thoughts about the charge reaction rules that tie in a bit with what other people have been suggesting:

"Stand and Shoot".... Why have an option exclusively for troops with ranged weapons?

Why not just have additional hold reactions for ALL troops depending on their equiped weapons? IE; "Stand and Shoot!" for missle troops, "Brace Yourselves!" for spearmen (ASF in the first round, fight in two ranks in subsequent rounds?) and "hold the Line!" for Hand Weapon/Shield troops (giving the normal "parry" bonus)

Then you could have a third option for all troops, like "counter charge" ie; The unit being charged may make a movement of d6 inches toward their attacker, each hitting in order of initiative.

Maybe in order to get these options, a unit should have a Champion present "barking orders" at them?



Here's another thought.... Do Skirmishers get march blocked? Because they really shouldn't if you think about it.... They don't march, they run! :p

Gazak Blacktoof
22-02-2009, 10:08
Yes, skirmishers get march blocked. This was introduced in the current edition to prevent them running rings around block troops. I think that's reasonable given that its going to be difficult to run around a unit faster than they can turn on the spot and charge you.

R Man
22-02-2009, 10:37
When WFB went mathhammer and stopped being a game-for-a-laugh in a fantasy setting, a friend and tournament player told me that all you need missile fire for was to take a rank bonus off. The chances of taking more than that off are slim, but a potential -1CR was a big bonus, especially if it was on the unit you had picked to be the start of your opponents downfall.
Add to that a missile unt, while fairly pants in a straight 1-2-1 fight, is more than adequate to then remove all of the rank bonus and get a +1CR for flanking, and then your missile unit can potentially contribute +4(+5?)CR - sorry can't remember if it is +3 or +4 for rank bonus (bad, bad bunny).
Think of how many points you would have to invest in a combat unit to get that CR on it's own?

Your point? Missile units have all those features and capabilities now. And with the exception of taking off a rank at range, this is nothing a small unit of infantry cannot achive. In which case the -1 rank from the missiles is irrelavent anyway.

waiyuren
22-02-2009, 10:38
@ Gazak

I understand the neccessity for the rule, (it would be even harder for me to effectively use my "30 Dwarf Warriors of irritation" unit, were it not there....) but i still think it's kind of odd.

I geuss thats why Skaven skirmishers tend to be on the heavy side point wise?