PDA

View Full Version : 9 Edition. What will make it a better edition then current and older edition



Pages : [1] 2 3

Tholanan
13-12-2012, 02:10
I don't post this tread in rumours because is not a rumour but more i'm looking for what people tink.

I start this tread because from the last 3-4 month i'm looking on the rumours forum and a lot of time some people say that the 9 wditions will come into plays this year because the 8 is out for 4 years now and generally they put out a new edition every 4 years.

Personally i tink is really soon to get a new edition. 8 edition was a edition where GW change a lot of games mechanic. From charge, combat, shooting and magic. They also finnaly put all rules of every army in the main rules books. But GW never change in 8 edition book army get some specail rules and/or gears.(i.e etheral movement for black knight, iron fist for ogre or savage orcs with two hand weapons)

Personally i really like the combats change. In last edition it was a little frustating when someone charge you strike before you kill your front rank and so you don't get any blow and loose the combat. I like also roll 30 attacks dice or more :P

For me what i like less of 8 edition is magic phase. The strengh of 8 edition is you don't need 5 mages to get a strong magic phase. But in other way you can't control your magic phase is just to random. The ennemy can only have a lvl 2 mage and get 12 power dice in their phase and in you phase 3 dice for 2 mage lvl 4.

Bot caculating distance have their strengh and their flaw. You can no more waste shooting with a squad but war machine it more then never.

So do you tink 9 edition will come this year and what change you wish for 9 editions??:evilgrin:

We never now perhaps some gw crew spy this forum :P :shifty:

Caiphas Cain
13-12-2012, 02:14
Fixed charge distances. :mad:

DaemonReign
13-12-2012, 02:26
I'm in no hurry to get a 9th Edition because the game has never been better and it's probably downhill from here.
If I had my way 9th would be a pretty detailed 'patch' on the rule-set already established in 8th.
Like:
Steadfast - Count aggregate ranks per combat and give Large Targets an innate 'rank'.
Unstable - Make the BSB 'matter' a bit more.
Winds of Magic - Make it scale with game-size, make RiP spells better by letting them retain their boosted state into subsequent phases (i.e. as far as Dispelling goes).
Templates/Cannons - You hit the Monster on a 1-5 and the Rider on a 6 (in any case, always hitting both is bad).
Terrain - These rules are great, basically, but the table should be inversed so that magical terrain became the exception and not the norm.

Possibly make certain weapon-types more dynamic:
Spears, upon recieving a charge, could use the M-value of the enemy for Strength in the first round of combat.
Lances, aside from the Strength-boost, could get ASF on the charge.

Cavalry without barding could possibly be susceptible to Thunder Stomps.

I would also do a complete 360-turn on the reduction of Army Specific magic items. But that's not really pertinent here I suppose.

All in all, there are tons a very minute improvements that could be conducted on 8th Edition - but my fear about 9th Ed is simply that they'll be changing too much stuff.

I really hope they focus on updating all the Armies before releasing 9th Ed. Pretty sure that's a vain hope though..

decker_cky
13-12-2012, 03:11
I think there's room for big improvements on the interaction between template weapons and terrain, and on any mounted character with a separate profile. Chariots for sure should have their profiles rolled together with riding characters, and I'm starting to support the same idea for mounted monsters. The top end of the basic lores needs to be toned down, and the weaker lores boosted (something like the change from 6th to the revised lores, or even the revised lores to 7th edition. Challenge rules when there's multiple initiatives should be changed too. The random terrain charge is terrible - include some basic impassable terrain on it. Building rules need to be redone. Define unmodified leadership too. :P

I'd like for there to be an ability added to monsters which allows them to negate steadfast of a certain number of ranks (possibly an ability linked to terror or large target?). So let's suppose terror was the ability. A unit with only a single rank losing to a monster with terror 1 would not be steadfast. Give monsters terror 1, 2 or 3 depending on how powerful they are (eg, greater daemons and dragons get terror 3, most other monsters get terror 2, some smaller monsters have only terror 1).

Aside from that, I'm quite happy with the basic rules, with there still being significant issues in specific armybooks. Most of the basic rulebook issues could be dealt with in a heavy handed errata, so I'd probably want WFB 8.5 rather than WFB9.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2012, 03:11
Hopefully 9th edition will be a real attempt to improve on 8th rather than reinvent the wheel again.


Magic: rulebook lores in line with the 8th ed army book lores. Less potential for "6-dice it" strategies. Improved miscast table, possibly incorporating bonuses/penalties for number of dice used and level of caster.
War machines, particularly cannons, need a look at. Ideally a move towards a BS-based system so that they don't ignore cover.
Characters riding monsters/chariots need a rules revamp. I think they need to become a combined unit like monstrous cav. Also, we need a "ridden monster" unit type to cover all the new ridden monsters like thundertusks, etc.
Terrain needs some modification. TLOS and forests doesn't work that well and some form of movement penalty is a good idea. 7th was too restricting, 8th was not restricting enough. E.g. can't march in a forest. Building rules are highly unbalanced and need a look at.
Better balancing of common magic items. Very few are regularly used.
I think also the "horde" and the "steadfast" rules can be adapted to make them less arbitrary. For example, allowing the front rank (within some limit) to attack whether in base or not and then just allow both sides to fight in X ranks would give an advantage to a wider formation without the abitrary 10-wide formation. Similarly, steadfast could work by ignoring X amount of combat res where X is the differential in ranks or something like that makes steadfast less binary.
Challenge rules need a complete re-write. They're used by one side or the other to avoid honest combat. Almost never are they actually used to bring heroes together in epic combat!
Existing scenarios are good but some could do with a bit of improvement (watchtower).
Make 50mm models rank up 2-wide, 40mm models rank up 3-wide, 25mm models rank up 4-wide and 20mm models rank up 5-wide.
Some modification for victory points. At the very least units that are fleeing and below 25% (i.e. unable to rally except on snake eyes) should count as destroyed and possibly partial points for partially destroying units. Quite frustrating when one fleeing model that you can't catch - and can't rally anyway, only prevented from being counted destroyed for fleeing off the board because the game ended before they fled off the board - saves all the points for the whole unit.

decker_cky
13-12-2012, 03:17
Oh...definitely improved miscast table - I think they need to add in the miscast where your opponent gets a spell automatically cast somewhere too. If you miscast and roll it, your opponent can automatically cast any spell with a lower casting cost than you were trying to beat. You can then attempt to dispel it at the casting value of your dice roll (doesn't count as IF). If you try to 6 dice a 25+ spell and miscast, your opponent can automatically cast any spell, including boosted versions, up to 25+ and whatever you rolled on your miscast is what you need to roll to dispel that spell.

I also want the beast cowers back in lore of beasts. It did such wonders to keep OP monsters in check in 7th edition.

m1acca1551
13-12-2012, 03:31
9th will hopefully be along way off and as daemon reign said hopefully a patch.

8th is pretty much perfect as it is, there are some minor gripes that house ruling can change.

- insta kill spell need to be revised
- laser guided cannons need to go, and be replaced with using BS to hit, and a even a d3" scatter just allowing monster some survivability, i'd like flying monsters to have some for form of I test to dodge missiles, i personally love the idea of a dragon simply jinking to the left to avoid a cannon ball to the face. Make the roll of a six always fails, and then you can roll to hit either monster or character.
- Steadfast should have a counter... simple... no more slave busses etc.

- Is there a way to actually stop death stars being taken in the first place? i'm quite happy to face them, but they do really take that fun element out of the game and if super spells are to be revised then well death stars need to be revised, is this an army book thing?

- i'd like to see weapon dynamics, even down to the humble shield. A unit with shield can for a shield wall, if charged the attacker strikes at -1 I?? or S.

If i think of more, then i will post:)

IcedCrow
13-12-2012, 03:33
Magic resistance apply to everything.

A way to negate steadfast on the flank to curb death starring it up and slamming into each other.

Unit caps of some type or a new skaven book lol 200 slaves in a unit needs to stop.

Monsters getting rider ward.

Cannons not hitting both rider and mount.

Keep random charges. I like games where one has to react to failure as opposed to always succeeding which is boring.

Miscast on double 1. Have it override irresistable. Make it so that chucking six dice at a spell has some risk.

8th still has a few years of life in it though. Another good three years.

Zoolander
13-12-2012, 04:34
Magic resistance apply to everything.

A way to negate steadfast on the flank to curb death starring it up and slamming into each other.

Unit caps of some type or a new skaven book lol 200 slaves in a unit needs to stop.

Monsters getting rider ward.

Cannons not hitting both rider and mount.

Keep random charges. I like games where one has to react to failure as opposed to always succeeding which is boring.

Miscast on double 1. Have it override irresistable. Make it so that chucking six dice at a spell has some risk.

8th still has a few years of life in it though. Another good three years.

Other than the random charge comment, I have to agree with everything you posted. I really like your miscast rule. That would solve a lot of issues.

Lord Solar Plexus
13-12-2012, 04:46
Rest assured that there is no way 9th edition will come out this year. As to changes, I'm rather happy that this is GW's purview. All those ideas to give HPA's several ranks, several terror levels and a wider range of stuff to thunderstomp while nerfing cannon sends shivers down my spine and makes me wonder why some people must always be so sadistic.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2012, 04:49
I think a better system is for double-one to be a "not enough power" rather than a miscast. That way if you get double-six you get IF and a miscast, but double-one and your spell fails and you're done casting. If you get snake eyes and box cars in the same roll, the spell simply fails. This way you can do away with the 6-dice maximum and it just gets more risky that the spell will fail the more dice you roll.

Sexiest_hero
13-12-2012, 05:30
I'd settle for a 8.5 reprinted book with the suggestions from the great guys above. Besides cain's as i think charges are fine.

Sexiest_hero
13-12-2012, 05:39
Rest assured that there is no way 9th edition will come out this year. As to changes, I'm rather happy that this is GW's purview. All those ideas to give HPA's several ranks, several terror levels and a wider range of stuff to thunderstomp while nerfing cannon sends shivers down my spine and makes me wonder why some people must always be so sadistic.

Although I agree with you, HPA and Hydras are just broken no matter what. I hope they do some monsters like magic items. A storm of magic general monster list you can chose from.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2012, 05:52
Tell you what I don't want. Rules for allies in normal games.

Gromdal
13-12-2012, 06:19
8th is a great edition.

Three major things needs to be fixed: Character sniping with artillery, magic and deathstars.

1. Sniping greatly lessened by giving all characters a look out sir roll (does not matte if in a unit or not). Up to ogre size its 2+, larger its 4+. Dont try to snipe a lone dragonslayer. Your cannon will probs miss, hit the 40 man unit.

2. Nerf the uber spells and the six dice madness. Remove the possibility to snipe characters with magic.

3. Give all units a max size so that people cant put all eggs in one basket and limit how many characters that can join a unit. Also removes the too large cheap endless ranks units.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2012, 07:00
3. Give all units a max size so that people cant put all eggs in one basket and limit how many characters that can join a unit. Also removes the too large cheap endless ranks units.
How would you do this in practice? GW used to have max sizes in the army books but there are very few now. Global limits can be rather restrictive depending on how it's implemented. And how would you limit the number of characters that can join a unit?

I don't disagree that it would be nice to limit deathstars but this seems a bit heavy handed. Remove the Crown of Command entirely and change the VP system might achieve the same effects.

m1acca1551
13-12-2012, 07:37
How would you do this in practice? GW used to have max sizes in the army books but there are very few now. Global limits can be rather restrictive depending on how it's implemented. And how would you limit the number of characters that can join a unit?

I don't disagree that it would be nice to limit deathstars but this seems a bit heavy handed. Remove the Crown of Command entirely and change the VP system might achieve the same effects.

Agreed with this, i think the only way is bringing back the old VP system for individual models killed. Will mean that if you play death stars you cant simply sit back and try for points denial but actually play the game as it's meant to be played. Very frustrating at turn 6 that you have managed to wipe out 50% of chosen star (a feat in itself) only to still lose by VP :(

White_13oy
13-12-2012, 07:57
I would like to have the 6th edition miscast result back. The one where you roll 6d6 and an arty dice and your wizard flies that way.

MR to work on everything and kill spells to only do one wound. Also get rid of dwellers, hitting everyone just blows.

Maybe a Max unit size of 50 or 60.

Charging goes first, spears on infantry on the receiving of a charge gain something.

Remove rerolls with asf, stupidity idea.

Calvary when charging the side or rear flank cancel steadfast.

Undead that are steadfast lose 2 less models for each rank bonus.

danny-d-b
13-12-2012, 07:58
1. change the magic lores to something else, magic should be more buffs/hexes and less blowing things up (apart from fire)
2. make the magic dice scalable (+D6 for every 1000 points)
3. find some way to make fighty lords and heroes worth while other than equipment caddys and BSBs (maybe all characters kills count towards all combat res all future combats done that 12 inches- obviously it only counts for its own combat once)
4.make flanking worth while, maybe -1 ld to the unit (-2 for a rear charge)
5. if your going to have magic items in the main book make them all usable, when did anyone ever take the spell theving sword or the one that makes people stupid

maze ironheart
13-12-2012, 08:03
Maybe have when you flank charge a unit it loses steadfast as it's ranks are gone as flank charging only brings +1 to combat and some extra attacks.

Griefbringer
13-12-2012, 08:27
I start this tread because from the last 3-4 month i'm looking on the rumours forum and a lot of time some people say that the 9 wditions will come into plays this year because the 8 is out for 4 years now and generally they put out a new edition every 4 years.


You might want to check the calendar. 8th edition was released around July 2010, meaning that it has been out for less than 2.5 years so far. With 4 year intervals, 9th edition would be coming out in summer 2014, earliest.

shelfunit.
13-12-2012, 08:33
You might want to check the calendar. 8th edition was released around July 2010, meaning that it has been out for less than 2.5 years so far. With 4 year intervals, 9th edition would be coming out in summer 2014, earliest.

Very true - also the final part of The Hobbit is out summer 2014, so 9th may be postponed until 2015 - they might even be able to fit in a couple more army books by that time as well...

GrandmasterWang
13-12-2012, 09:01
More Chaos Dwarfs in the main rulebook!!!!

L oving 8th edition

Nerf brb magic offenders. (mindrazor etc)

Agree on aggregate ranks for breaking steadfast.

Would not like disruption to break steadfast, but the leadership adjustment s listed above sound good.

Pikes make a return!

Templates hit mount or rider

Kayosiv
13-12-2012, 09:10
How would you do this in practice? GW used to have max sizes in the army books but there are very few now. Global limits can be rather restrictive depending on how it's implemented. And how would you limit the number of characters that can join a unit?

I don't disagree that it would be nice to limit deathstars but this seems a bit heavy handed. Remove the Crown of Command entirely and change the VP system might achieve the same effects.

Pretty easy. No unit can be more than 25% of the build total.

To limit characters, you can go the arbitrary route, ie, 2 characters per unit max, or go with a somewhat more flexable one, such as if characters cannot fit in the front rank because of other characters or command group, they cannot join a unit.



2. make the magic dice scalable (+D6 for every 1000 points)

4.make flanking worth while, maybe -1 ld to the unit (-2 for a rear charge)


These are both AWESOME ideas.

Gromdal
13-12-2012, 11:21
How would you do this in practice? GW used to have max sizes in the army books but there are very few now. Global limits can be rather restrictive depending on how it's implemented. And how would you limit the number of characters that can join a unit?

I don't disagree that it would be nice to limit deathstars but this seems a bit heavy handed. Remove the Crown of Command entirely and change the VP system might achieve the same effects.

Simple:

No unit on the board (including heroes) can have more than 30% of total starting points (or 25%). No unit may contain more than max 3 heroes. But i would also add max numbers on skaven slaves for example etc. Maybe 60 max etc.

I could balance it all perfectly in a few weeks.

m1acca1551
13-12-2012, 11:26
Simple:

No unit on the board (including heroes) can have more than 30% of total starting points (or 25%). No unit may contain more than max 3 heroes. But i would also add max numbers on skaven slaves for example etc. Maybe 60 max etc.

I could balance it all perfectly in a few weeks.

Have you tried this? would be intrested in seeing the results, i may run it by our group and see what they think. Well i know the skaven player will probably try assasinate me before i get to the meeting but hey :)

duffybear1988
13-12-2012, 11:42
Having been sorely disappointed by 40k 6th edition, I think a move towards more 'cinematic' gaming (read: half baked rules that need faq's immediately) is likely to be on the cards.

My problem with making it 'cinematic' is that it isn't cinematic in the slightest - when was the last time the goodies failed a 4" charge in a movie? Imagine the charge of the Rohan cavalry in Return of the King...

Theoden: "Sound the charge!"
Eomer: "But sir that's 6 inches away and math-hammer says that we might not make it..."
Theoden: "I said - SOUND THE CHARGE!" (Theoden rolls dice) "... a 2, and another 2, and a... damn a 1. Stop the charge!"
Eomer: "But sir we are 1 inch away!"
Theoden: "I said - STOP THE CHARGE! It's more cinematic this way... We don't want to tire the horses out."

Now I know that fantasy at the moment already has random charge lengths, but the way that GW are making everything 'cinematic' really sickens me. What else are they going to do to make it more 'cinematic'?

On a more sensible note - I can see them creating something else expensive to sell us. We have already had monster-hammer, and this edition is horde-hammer. Maybe next edition will be hero-hammer again so that they can charge £25 for a finecast empire captain on foot... or it could be terrain-hammer so that they can add skulls to even more scenery and sell it at a jacked up price...

GW don't fix anything - they just create an illusion, change the game style and whack up the prices.

IcedCrow
13-12-2012, 11:52
My campaign used units not over 400 pts max 60 models and it was nice as you couldnt deathstar up.

Senbei
13-12-2012, 13:05
Re-think 'templates', perhaps having them do a couple of D6 hits to any unit under them... rather than having small-template stone throwers wiping out entire units because the diagram in the rulebook shows it doing 25 hits.

The return of Fear... because it's completely useless right now.

Fixed charge ranges.

Orders: Back in 3rd ed you could take Ld tests for units to use certain formations. Shield walls, testudo formation, etc, etc. That would be nice... and give elite units a boost Vs cheap hordes.

IcedCrow
13-12-2012, 13:20
My problem with making it 'cinematic' is that it isn't cinematic in the slightest - when was the last time the goodies failed a 4" charge in a movie? Imagine the charge of the Rohan cavalry in Return of the King...

On cinematic... what you described is looking at the game objectively with numbers. Also we don't play a game where one side gets an advantage for being the "good guys" or "protagonists". If I'm playing an evil army, then my evil army is the protagonist to me, whereas your Order army is the protagonist for you. A movie only has one protagonistic side typically.

Given the scenario:

Cavalry unit is 6" away from goblin infantry unit. Cavalry unit rolls a 2, 2, 1 to charge. Here is how it can be viewed cinematically:

OFFICER: SOUND THE CHARGE!

{there is no one questioning that they are only 6" away since that type of objective information / data is not considered by soldiers / knights on the battlefield. They may question it if they are 300 yards away facing a line of cannons but not essentially 35 feet away facing a wall of spears}

The horses thunder towards the goblins. The uneven ground is marked with holes and sucking mud, and a few of the knights' horses stumble in it, losing their ineptness. The officer looks about wildly, realizing his misfortune. The goblins give a whoop and countercharge, slamming into the knights, their black blades sparking off of the shining armor of the knights as the horses rear up in terror as the greenskins press home...

Implausible? I give to you the Battle of Agincourt. Where the English army was outnumbered by many, but in which the heavy french infantry and nobility died to sucking mud and unfavorable terrain as they attempted to charge over and over at the english army turtled up and unleashing S3 hell with their bows.

We really don't have in depth rules other than a bog here and there but those don't really hurt our movements in warhammer. However, the random charge can easily be seen as incorporating unknown and unseen things. Perhaps there were traps strewn on the ground? Perhaps the earth was soft and the cavalry charge dampened?

In real battle, unforseen variables are something one MUST account for. While in the military myself part of our leadership courses always centered on that very thing. A good officer is one that can react well to the unforseen and unknown. Your cavalry always charging 14" takes that away and quite honestly makes the game very dry (opinion yes but that's why I quit 7th edition for two years)

So really it comes down to how you want to view it. If you want to view random charges as stupid, not tactical, and buffoon-like, you will. If you want to see it as "cinematic" that is easily done as well.

I play the game to tell a story with my friends. It serves that purpose quite nicely *and* adds in a layer of reacting play which is a game design philosophy not suited for everyone. Reactive play is having to mitigate potential failure that is out of your control, much like real war lends us, and as such any system that puts itself more towards how a real battle would take place is IMO much more desired for me than a battle that plays like a chessboard, where every piece always does the same thing.

There are not less or more tactics, just different tactics and strategy used.

Kula
13-12-2012, 13:20
Fix line of sight. As it is now, some units can be seen through intervening units, others can't. The -2 to hit is still not good enough if you have uncomped warhammer and 60 wood elf archers are making mincemeat of your more vunerable units.

Love the monster-rider idea like monstrous beasts, sharing wounds. It would make all the monsters few take more viable again, especially with shared armor/ward save. They would maybe have to go up in price though.

As said earlier, disruption from a flank/rear charge removes steadfast.

Lap-around! Loved that rule from 6th edition, maybe not viable anymore though.

As mentioned earlier, make it so that the general can't be a magic-user, except for armies that need it like VC of course. I want to field more combat heroes but I feel it reduces my army's effectiveness.

IcedCrow
13-12-2012, 13:23
You don't see as many combat-heroes due to magic being an "I WIN" button. Tone magic down and you will see more combat heroes. People gunning for the "I WIN" button must always be accounted for, and when they made magic what it was they essentially made a good chunk of the players only field magic heroes.

Thuggrim
13-12-2012, 13:50
Primarily I would like them to complete the book cycle before a new edition:

However I would suggest the following changes - revise the magic system - not sure how to be honest but the current model encourages abusive spam - I actually think some spell effects aside the winds of magic deck was a really good way system. But that is my personal preference. If the mechanics from warhammer online could be transfered that would be fantastic - a system that made getting powerful effects from your spells a real balancing act between drawing enough to make them worthwhile and not to much to avoid the inevitable backlash (I killed myself so many times as a sorceress in that game). Maybe something like the steam point system for steam tanks obviously modified - and work the multi-rank spells into this.

Reduce the random element in charges - m + 3 + d6 or something rather than m plus 2d6 - some variation but not enough to allow you to luck out of bad manovering completely.

Increase the penalty for being flanked/rear charged

Introduce an army break point system - to prevent the boring eggs in one basket deathstar play.

Introduce objective based play - seize the high ground, hold out for reinforcement etc - simply vp matches are not very rewarding.

Revisit the terrain rules - way to unrestrictive and dial back the mysterious terrain - its just poor and not in keeping with traditional background. Which needs to be return too rather than this super magic deathworld we currently have going on.

Revisit some special rules - frenzy/asf as currently they seem to good compared to others etc.

Allow overkill in challenges to spill over into the unit when fighting a champion with a hero or greater - simply brushed aside by a more powerful opponent.

I am sure there are more but thats my ideas for now.

Tholanan
13-12-2012, 13:55
I like all you idea.
For magic d6 for each 1000 point, but with one dice how work dispel dice. My solution is ou cut in two the number roll. or a game 1k and less get d6 and after each 500 point give you a d6
This way magic should be more inrestig nowing that generally you have 2 time power dice of your enney.
I'm so tired of the roll of 6 and 1. This broke so mush a magic phase.
Also it will be nice to put magic item that give a power dice and/or a banner. that can be only taken y a bsb (more then 50 points)
Magic can be strong but some army need to a good magic phase to substain (Undead).

Edit: For magic resistance it will nice that the number give a bonus to the dispel atemp.
Really now, hey my unit is uber resistant to magic but only again a magic missile but get cursed so easyly

Thuggrim
13-12-2012, 14:08
Oh had another though - a radical one stop limiting themself to d6 and use d10 and d12 - shake up the profiles and do something new.

Sexiest_hero
13-12-2012, 14:16
Tell you what I don't want. Rules for allies in normal games.

God, idk what they were thinking, with that. When I found out 40k wouldn't be like fantasy I was blindsided. Now I get to face Vendettas AND psycannons? Woohoo. Now give me Hydras AND HPAs. Now your playing with power!

theunwantedbeing
13-12-2012, 14:29
What would make 9th edition better than previous editions?

-powergamers playtesting and the developers actually altering stuff that is broken
-a standardised set of words for all the rules so no confusion arises and no loopholes are possible
-GW to quit bothering with FAQs and Errata's because all they are is an excuse for GW to be lazy about writing their rules and they haven't released a flawless FAQ ever anyway

As for actual rules alterations
-cannons aren't templates when hitting single models
-line of sight rules tweaked so terrain actually does something
-terrain tweaked so it's less like walking through the realms of chaos and more like actually walking through terrain
-artillery accuracy based on the skill of the crew, not the player using the machine
-more low level magical items

Lord Solar Plexus
13-12-2012, 14:29
I'm surprised it took a whole page until the first attempt to turn this into a steadfast debate! ;)



What else are they going to do to make it more 'cinematic'?


Well, codpieces are right out, they're already in...what's a recurrent topic in the movies...love? That's it! 9th will involve more love stories. :evilgrin:

brotherk
13-12-2012, 14:30
Make movement matter more. Thats what made the game good in past editions and separated it from 40k. So include movement penalties for difficult terrain etc.
Also for magic... make double 1 a miscast and double 6 ultimate force.

Blinder
13-12-2012, 16:31
Make movement matter more. Thats what made the game good in past editions and separated it from 40k. So include movement penalties for difficult terrain etc.
Also for magic... make double 1 a miscast and double 6 ultimate force.

I think they needed to include a couple more "annoying but not crazy" options in the rand-o-terrain. Basically a decent chance for any feature to be the current "normal" (impacts fights and things that try to move a lot faster than infantry), a chance for it to be more like a scree slope (makes *everyone* slow down), and a chance for it to be one of the weird things (but there should be an alternate table in the BRB to roll the whole "field" at once, and you get a set of results that apply to everything that rolled up as mysterious/mystical). Terrain impacts movement plenty in 8th, it just impacts it *differently* than before, and really if it weren't for the fact that so many things so often throw around so many effects I much prefer the decision to more often be about slowing down (to bypass terrain) or having unfortunate things happen (by going through terrain and having it decide to snack on my unit, or just having things crash/break their necks) than about slowing down (to bypass terrain) or slowing down (by going through terrain).

With the magic suggestions... I like LI's "double 1's are insufficient power" idea, though I'd probably keep the dice cap (and make it after "extras" the way a lot of tournaments seem to, so "extra dice" items are about making the phase more powerful, not making a *spell* more powerful) and make 1's and 6's cancel out (so if you throw 4 dice and get 2 1's and 2 6's, it's the same as rolling 2 2's and 2 5's- no IF, no miscast, no auto-fail). The highest you'd get in that case would be 26 + your wizard level, which is a lot but at least the target gets a chance to stop it. I like that bad things happen on IF, because it means the other player (who just lost their chance to keep something bad from happening) can at least take solace that it isn't all roses for the caster, either. I do think the "d6 + dice" for the miscast result idea is also a really good idea, too.

I'd like to see MR apply to any magical damage not originating from the unit in question (so no, wizards can't use MR to avoid getting sent to the Wastes nor to avoid damage to themselves or their unit from their own heads exploding... but a nearby unit with MR could use it against the explosion), and see "magical damage" extended to include "death by test" and other things that just happen rather than "cause wounds" (1 save/model regardless of wounds, MR only... wards still fail). I'd also like it written into some of buff/hex spells so MR mitigates the effect, stuff like Miasma's D3 roll has the target's MR subtracted before conversion or attacks by Mindrazored units are reduced in S by the MR of the unit they're directed at.

Really though, I agree with the "mostly small tweaks" group- 6th had some interest but in a lot of ways did feel at least as much about being good at judging distances as it was about judging situations, I *like* that making a charge is now about deciding where to put my units to balance the chance that they'll reach their target against the chance that my opponent will decide to spoil and successfully charge me instead, and that the safer I want to be against having that happen the less certain it is that my unit will reach. I like that the decision to back up out of charge range is now about how much ground to cede based on if you want to *probably* not get charged or *definitely* not get charged, rather than hoping you've probably ceded enough to definitely not get charged. Yes, having a unit fail a 7-inch charge bites, but not nearly as much as playing a whole game of "I can eyeball distances better than you so you better hope my dice hate me." Guarantees work when they are equally available and equally avoidable- so they're great for something like chess or grid/hex-based games, but not so great with the freedom of movement available in a game like WFB.

Phazael
13-12-2012, 17:30
The kill spells need to exist to curb death stars. Most of the issues with the top kill spells can be solved with a couple simple adjustments and/or updating some of the more broken army books. I agree that Cannons, Ridden Monsters, and Buildings all need some revision and I am on board with Lord Inquisitor's ideas. Here are a few of my own:

Characters in Close Combat- Here is a fix that will solve a ton of issues. Base to Base attacks go against the rank and file if you desire and support attacks can ONLY go against rank and file. This cuts down on several issues with the game. The Etherial wall or Wall of Ogre Characters stops being a problem and there is no more using challenges to limit rank and file attacks. Similarly, there is no more ganging up a ton of attacks on a wizard in the unit, so they become easier to bunker, though this change would not affect traditional wizard hunters in any way. This would clean up a lot of the close combat shennanigans and shut down a good number of abuses in the system.

Crown of Command- Get rid of this, plain and simple.

Magic Resistance- Let MR increase the charactaristic value for charactaristic tests involving spells and magic effects. For example, a Saurus unit with MR 2 would behave like it had Ini 3 when Purple Sun was cast on them. This would make MR more useful and curb some of the more abusive aspects of the magic phase.

Problem Spells- Some spells are simply an issue due to books not being updated, but a couple could use minor tweaks. Dwellers (and spells like it that affect the entire unit) should allow a look out sir roll. No spell should be able to snipe characters AND gib units at the same time. Mind Razor should probably be altered to just make the affected unit ignore armor saves and toned down in cost a little, because Lore Of Shadow is frankly too good to have two I Win buttons in it. Lore of Death attribute should not apply to Purple Sun. Models affected by Transformation should cease to be characters and lose all other special rules that do not directly affect break tests when they transform. The magic phase is really good where its at now, it just needs some minor tweaks. If you guys are all complaining its too good and I feel fine with L2s (or sometimes no wizards at all), then its probably pretty close to balanced.

Steadfast- Simple rule here. Any unit engaged in the rear cannot claim steadfast. This would make high speed units (hello cavalry) valuable again and prevent the whole "Its turn 4 and I am winning so let me present my ass to you" tactic. Conversely, unstable units that would otherwise be steadfast should suffer from half normal instability so that undead can gain some benefit from the rule.

Psychology- Hatred and Frenzy are a little too good right now. Hatred should go back to requiring mandatory over runs and persuit. Frenzy is a little more tricky to fix, but I think negating the use of both Inspiring Presence and Stand Your Ground for Frenzy checks (unless obviously, the BSB and/or general are housed within said unit) would make Frenzy have enough downside. Panic is spot on where it needs to be right now.

I agree that special terrain needs to be a little less common, but making woods limit marching would too much. Make it a test for march blocking (that skirmishers and Wood Elves auto pass) and thats probably enough.

Random Charges need to stay. The amount of arguments that are cut down thanks to pre measuring and knowing the odds before you roll are worth the trade off of the occasional pooched charge.

White_13oy
13-12-2012, 17:32
Psychology meaning something again. Move hatred, frenzy, stupidity and the like back to it. Units that are frenzy are just immune to fear, terror, and panic. Also introduce moral tests and let the banner reroll moral. Basically panic, break, and what not. Makes no sense for rerolling things like the casket of souls.

Right now psychology is a joke, its what made older editions mean something. Psychology being very important is one of the things that seperated fantasy because it was feasible possible to happen.

decker_cky
13-12-2012, 17:37
Oh...I forgot one suggestion: You can always attack rank and file models if you're in base to base contact with a unit. Deals with the rules abuse boosting minobuses, ogrestars, and a unit of goblins with a front rank of all big bosses. I see the allocation games as a negative play experience, and with the supporting attacks concept, I think the 'feel' is that the units aren't as static as the models you use.

edit: Just saw Phazael's similar suggestion. I like that one, and the limitation on supporting attacks.

tmarichards
13-12-2012, 18:28
There are a few things I would like to see changed/introduced:

1. Disruption removes Steadfast.

2. 5 dice cap on all spells, 6 is just a bit too mindless and it makes you think through your magic phase more.

3. If a character refuses a challenge you lose any bonuses they give- no re-rolls from BSB, no using their leadership, no Locus or anything like that.

4. Reverse the ruling on the Standard of Discipline, so that it can't be used to boost the general's leadership.

5. All of the auto-kill spells (Dwellers, 13th, Final Transmutation, Gateway namely) give a LOS to 1 (randomly determined) character (but not champion) in the target unit. This will bring them in line with other "test or die" spells like Pit/Purple Sun, will reduce the amount of reward you get for how little skill it requires to spam spells at them, but will still give opponents an incentive to not load up one unit with multiple characters.

6. Mournfang moved to rare.

7. Crown of Command removed from the game.

8. Close combat attacks from rank and file models can always be directed enemy at rank and file models. This stops Ogres specifically, but Brets as well, from loading up their front rank with unkillable characters and/or champions. I'd deliberately just do this for rank and file though, so that you still have to be a bit careful with your character placement as a clever opponent could punish poor positioning with tricksy champion/challenge shenanigans.

9. Cap on models in a building, 20 works well.If unsuccessful in the assault, the attacking unit gets a free reform to face in any direction. They can fudge their central point slightly in order to increase their frontage to the minimum amount required for a rank bonus but no more. For example assuming an infantry unit that is 10x3 assaults a building and is unsuccessful they would be able to turn to face in any direction- usually , they would only be able to go 3 wide and 10 deep because anything else would change their centre point and/or take them within 1" of the building, under my suggestion they would be able to fudge their centre away from the building slightly in order to go 5 wide.

10. This is probably one of the most important I think- set up a team of people who will just deal with the FAQs, and put in some continuity. If they want to FAQ things to be closer to the fluff, then fine. If they want them to be more practical in game, then fine. However, changing from one to the other just doesn't make sense- the example that comes to mind is a Slaughtermaster being allowed to take magic armour even though it's very much against the fluff, but Eternal Guard Kindred getting a massive hit in order to make it fit in with the fluff.

11. War machines to go on circular bases. This would cut down on nonsense like pivoting Helblasters.

12. Every unit, especially the ones for which they don't immediately release models, gets an official base size.

AmaroK
13-12-2012, 18:47
There are a few things I would like to see changed/introduced:

1. Disruption removes Steadfast.

2. 5 dice cap on all spells, 6 is just a bit too mindless and it makes you think through your magic phase more.

3. If a character refuses a challenge you lose any bonuses they give- no re-rolls from BSB, no using their leadership, no Locus or anything like that.

4. Reverse the ruling on the Standard of Discipline, so that it can't be used to boost the general's leadership.

5. All of the auto-kill spells (Dwellers, 13th, Final Transmutation, Gateway namely) give a LOS to 1 (randomly determined) character (but not champion) in the target unit. This will bring them in line with other "test or die" spells like Pit/Purple Sun, will reduce the amount of reward you get for how little skill it requires to spam spells at them, but will still give opponents an incentive to not load up one unit with multiple characters.

6. Mournfang moved to rare.

7. Crown of Command removed from the game.

8. Close combat attacks from rank and file models can always be directed enemy at rank and file models. This stops Ogres specifically, but Brets as well, from loading up their front rank with unkillable characters and/or champions. I'd deliberately just do this for rank and file though, so that you still have to be a bit careful with your character placement as a clever opponent could punish poor positioning with tricksy champion/challenge shenanigans.

9. Cap on models in a building, 20 works well.If unsuccessful in the assault, the attacking unit gets a free reform to face in any direction. They can fudge their central point slightly in order to increase their frontage to the minimum amount required for a rank bonus but no more. For example assuming an infantry unit that is 10x3 assaults a building and is unsuccessful they would be able to turn to face in any direction- usually , they would only be able to go 3 wide and 10 deep because anything else would change their centre point and/or take them within 1" of the building, under my suggestion they would be able to fudge their centre away from the building slightly in order to go 5 wide.

10. This is probably one of the most important I think- set up a team of people who will just deal with the FAQs, and put in some continuity. If they want to FAQ things to be closer to the fluff, then fine. If they want them to be more practical in game, then fine. However, changing from one to the other just doesn't make sense- the example that comes to mind is a Slaughtermaster being allowed to take magic armour even though it's very much against the fluff, but Eternal Guard Kindred getting a massive hit in order to make it fit in with the fluff.

11. War machines to go on circular bases. This would cut down on nonsense like pivoting Helblasters.

12. Every unit, especially the ones for which they don't immediately release models, gets an official base size.

In line with your number 8, I´d remove the make way! rule. Making the characters able to move within a unit to reach the combat before it starts dumbs down the game and encourages death stars with many heros. You make a flank or rear charge? no worries, the characters go there anyways, making their damage and (sometimes) absorving the damage. It dumbs down the game and add nothing. You placed badly your characters, you should pay for it. And later you can move them with a combat reform anyways....

Phazael
13-12-2012, 18:55
Make way actually prevents some abuses, though. It stops people from doing stupid clip charges and makes comb charging more useful (put a body on the character and he cannot make way). Sometimes dumbing down the game is good because it limits arguments.

White_13oy
13-12-2012, 19:00
What, don't like the "draw an imaginary square around the model" that they tell you to do for the casket of souls in the tomb king book.

AmaroK
13-12-2012, 19:05
Make way actually prevents some abuses, though. It stops people from doing stupid clip charges and makes comb charging more useful (put a body on the character and he cannot make way). Sometimes dumbing down the game is good because it limits arguments.

If you have to delete the benefits of flank/rear charges to prevent some minor abuses, I think something is going wrong. I can see your point, but with make way rule, adding the steadfast not being disrupted even with flank/rear charges and easy access to stubborn (someone remove that crowd of command!! :D), it really makes a bit too easy to build steadfast/supersized units.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2012, 20:07
4. Reverse the ruling on the Standard of Discipline, so that it can't be used to boost the general's leadership.
Yes! Actually, we shouldn't need to wait until a new edition for that. Such a mistake!

Blinder
13-12-2012, 20:17
If you have to delete the benefits of flank/rear charges to prevent some minor abuses, I think something is going wrong. I can see your point, but with make way rule, adding the steadfast not being disrupted even with flank/rear charges and easy access to stubborn (someone remove that crowd of command!! :D), it really makes a bit too easy to build steadfast/supersized units.

"The benefits of flank/rear charges" are +1/+2 CR, and potentially up to an additional 3 points denied to the charged unit. They aren't "force characters to pick their noses when in all other situations characters are compelled to be in the fight." Sure, if you get a rear charge off on a unit that isn't already preoccupied, it should hurt... but it's more the fact that steadfast is "biggest unit" rather than something like aggregate ranks and aforementioned easy access to Stubborn (rather than yank entirely though, what if the Crown were in the armor section? So, you can get your stubborn... but can't protect it with fancy armor or by putting it on off-limits casters) or similar (WTF Rapturous Standard or whatever it is... "my guys need snake-eyes... but I guess box-cars will do!). Unkillable character walls are an issue no matter the facing, and yes getting caught out should be punishable... but I don't think *just* flanking should be the answer to characters.

AmaroK
13-12-2012, 20:29
Well, "just" flanking isn´t that easy. Im ok with the bonuses, but if you place your characters badly, you should pay for that. And if you get them out of the action. Like it is now, just filling the unit with chars makes too hard to take adventage of a good tactic movement (gutstar, bretonnians, ethereals in VC), and even without the crown of command, this makes the deathstar tactic too appealing.

popisdead
13-12-2012, 20:37
I see allies coming back. 25% of your army can be allies.

It's a huge success with 40k and I predict it will make it's way back.

Basically Fantasy and 40k will become a bit more homogenous (pre-measuring in both, etc).

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2012, 21:45
I see allies coming back. 25% of your army can be allies.

It's a huge success with 40k and I predict it will make it's way back.
I think the success in 40K is pretty questionable but at least in 40K it allows you to make a lot of fluffy combinations (marines + guard, chaos space marines + daemons + traitor guard, blood angels + necrons, etc), but I don't see it the same in WFB. Given that half the army books are from one faction, alliances are easy. In WFB, other than Empire with Elves or Dwarfs, not many alliances make a lot of sense... Yes, I remember the days of the "dogs of war" allowances and even before that the ally permissions but it seems to jar with where WFB is now.

I hope it doesn't happen anyway. We don't need to see every tournament army with cannons again. Ironblasters for everyone!

Tholanan
13-12-2012, 21:54
What do you tink to put back a max number of lord and hero with the pourcentage and the point in the games. Now you can have two wizard lvl 4 or lvl 4 4 a uner cc caracter.
It will be cool also that every army have different number of hero and lord maximum. Can give another tactic choice for army.

Sexiest_hero
13-12-2012, 22:40
blood angels + necrons,

HA I see what you did, there!

Maoriboy007
13-12-2012, 23:11
9th should be the good midground about what was good about 7th and what is good about 8th

Magic:
Certain spells need fixing, most notably any spell (or effect) which "removes the model regardless of number of wounds and with no saves of any kind allowed". These spells should allow Magic resistances and/or ward saves and cause multple wounds (D3 on infantry,2D3 to monsters). You can still devestate units but these allowances would mean that even the staunchest opponants would grudgingly allow then thier due. Mindrazor should grant a single str 6-7 attack that hits on a 4+ or something, or allow MR saves against units with an active combat buff.

I would hesitate messing with the casting system itself though as nerfing it would gimp the reasonable casters who dont use lore of Death or Life such as Lich priests of Gobbo Wizards. Having double ones cause a miscast and overide IF is a step too far. Either go back to double one case an auto fail and amiscast and double 6s being plain old IF again, or have double ones cause an auto fail over twin 6s but negate the miscast.

Steadfast:
Disruption needs to have some affect on steadfast because if you have allowed yourself to be charged in the flank due to failure to reform, protect your flank or outmaneuver your opponant then you deserve no such breaks IMO. Either the Disruption should cancel steadfast or the Disrupting unit should be allowed to subtract its Flanking and Rank Bonus from the subsequent steafast test.

Charging:
I actually like the new random charging distance. Its brought a dynamism and risk to the movement phase that it lacked. What really holds it back IMO is the new Striking Order . In all honesty all the old problems with charging and attacking were already fixed with the new steadfast , step up and fighting ranks changes, striking in initiative was more of a mistep. Chargers should go after asf models then followed by initiative, perhaps have GW chargers attack simultaneously. Cavalry units would be more tempting as well.

Instability:
More of a personal gripe here, but I feel the current rules are a bit lazy. Allow a cumulative D3/D6 less casualties as a Steadfast and BSB bonus.

Terrain and Line of Sight:
Its been said before. 7th ed terrain was too restricting, 8th edition not restricting enough. Terrain and Interposing units should just count as blocking line of sight and take D3 off movement.

Warmachines:
All warmachines should do D3 wounds or D6 on a successful BS roll, earn that instant kill for goodness sake and bring monsters back. All stonethrowers should have str 4 (except mortars).

Characters:
Allow look out sir rolls for supporting attacks and any ranged attack without the sniper rule, actual sniper spells and weapons (such as Spirit Leech) should then have the sniper rule added into thier description.
Perhaps Cavalry models in infantry units should get a 4+ Look out sir rule. Template attacks should only hit rider or mount not both.

Buildings:
Either remove steadfast from buildings or alow an assaulting unit that wins combat tocontinue the assault even if the defending unit passes its test.

ASF: No more re-rolls to hit, +1 to hit maybe?

Maltor
14-12-2012, 03:21
My group is looking at the following rules adjustments.

Movement:
Charge Distance is M+Highest of 2d6. Swiftstride M+Addition of 2d6.

Combat:
+1 Init when charging.
If in base contact with a challenged model you may attack supporting rank and file models.

Magic:
Double 1s not enough power. Double 1s and double 6s mean not irresistable. Double 6s irresistable + Miscast with each additional 6 causing another roll on miscast chart.
Remove dice loss from table.
Doom spells roll for each wound causing 1 wound per failed roll.
Mindrazer to be changed to spell that teleports unit 2D6 inches 4d6 boosted.

Warmachines.
Cannons hit always hit monster and also hit rider on 5+. Do D3+1 wounds and must roll a d6 for each forest or hill failing to make it through on a roll of 1. obstacles still stop and destroyed.
Flame throwers use d6 + Artillery dice for distance.

Impact hits on lone Characters are not subject to look out sir.

Challenges:
Refusing a challenge reduces the units leadership tests by 1.

BSB:
Only reroll Break, Rally, Panic.
Drop banner if broken.

Large Target:
Take 1 additional wound from warmachines.

Magic Resistance:
Rolling <= on D6 causes Hexes, and Augments to fail.
Work on doom spells per model.

Terror:
Reroll successful fear test.

Unstable:
If units may not overrun if unit loses final models by crumbling.
If steadfast reduce crumbling by each additional rank.

Initiative Levels (using initiative):
Always Strike First
Standard
Always Strike Last
Having both cancel each other. Attacking a unit at a lower initiative level will allow +1 to hit. No reroll.

Buildings:
May not enter on turn you reform.

Steadfast:
Broken by disruption.

Victory Points:
Done in 25% increments. Fleeing at end of game provide additional 25%.

Replace Watchtower with d3+1 objective battle line mission ending using same game ending rules.

Cheers!

decker_cky
14-12-2012, 03:53
I think the success in 40K is pretty questionable but at least in 40K it allows you to make a lot of fluffy combinations (marines + guard, chaos space marines + daemons + traitor guard, blood angels + necrons, etc), but I don't see it the same in WFB. Given that half the army books are from one faction, alliances are easy. In WFB, other than Empire with Elves or Dwarfs, not many alliances make a lot of sense... Yes, I remember the days of the "dogs of war" allowances and even before that the ally permissions but it seems to jar with where WFB is now.

I hope it doesn't happen anyway. We don't need to see every tournament army with cannons again. Ironblasters for everyone!

Empire + VC (Sylvannia), Dark Elves + Daemons (cult of slaanesh), Chaos working properly again, Skaven + Beastmen (Children of Chaos tag team), etc..

Lots of easily justifiable alliances in Warhammer. Probably more than there is in 40k once you factor out that half of the factions are a single faction with tons of duplicate choices in 40k.

I think properly restricted (something like character as leader + 25% of alliance is core + 3 non-character units minimum + fit into 25% of larger army), it opens up some fun options without much abuse (empire having captains, most core troops and cannons all increase in cost prevented the easiest abuse).

m1acca1551
14-12-2012, 04:08
I agree with decker_cky that if properly managed it will actually add rather than subtract to the game, If it is employed the same as 40k then no... for the love of god no.

My issue will be if the alliances contravene the fluff, as with 40k DE+eldar??? i mean WTF, come on these guys hate each other with such a passion they'd kill each other even though a greater threat may lurk near.

So with WFB, HE cannont ally with DE under any circumstances!! well you get my point.

Allied forces point allocation should depend on the size of the game you are playing, and maybe only core selections only... i really don't want to be running into empire armies featuring a White lion horde unless i'm playing 10000.

decker_cky
14-12-2012, 04:28
Allied forces point allocation should depend on the size of the game you are playing, and maybe only core selections only... i really don't want to be running into empire armies featuring a White lion horde unless i'm playing 10000.

With popisdead's 25% restriction and a legal army restriction, you'd need a 3600 pt army for there to be 30 white lions with no command. Strong core is probably the bigger issue, as skaven with a big chaos warrior block would be pretty scary (though maybe no worse than those same points going into abominations).

Shimmergloom
14-12-2012, 07:52
I want actual magic items and magic defense for Orcs and Goblins. Even just a main rulebook change to allow one scroll per caster would be great.

Oh and if double 1's being a miscast is going too far, then how about double 1's just cause the spell to fail no matter what, but no miscast?

Rekmar
14-12-2012, 09:08
For the game to ever be played at my club again the random charges need to go and replaced with the old 7th Ed rules. There has literally been three games of WFB played at my club since the 8th edition rules came into force, when WFB used to be the most widely played game at the club followed by 40k.

When I've ask people why they've stopped, it is purely due to the charge rules. The club members have played through all previous editions of WFB and this is the rule change that they hate the most and has led to the complete death of the game at my club.

The rest of the rules are fine, even if magic seems a little over the top currently.

The only other comment that I have is that I really wish that GW would release all the new army lists ala Ravening Hordes when the new edition comes out, but that is probably a dicussion for another thread.

Sexiest_hero
14-12-2012, 09:13
Empire + VC (Sylvannia), Dark Elves + Daemons (cult of slaanesh), Chaos working properly again, Skaven + Beastmen (Children of Chaos tag team), etc..

Lots of easily justifiable alliances in Warhammer. Probably more than there is in 40k once you factor out that half of the factions are a single faction with tons of duplicate choices in 40k.

I think properly restricted (something like character as leader + 25% of alliance is core + 3 non-character units minimum + fit into 25% of larger army), it opens up some fun options without much abuse (empire having captains, most core troops and cannons all increase in cost prevented the easiest abuse).

You know GW won't be able to properly restrict Allies, we'll get two Hydras with the cheapest skave units to get and abom or two.

Poseidal
14-12-2012, 09:15
Steadfast must go; attacking in multiple ranks for non spears must go but step up can stay.

Magic needs a major rework, but it is something that hasn't really worked well for 8 editions.

tmarichards
14-12-2012, 09:26
There has literally been three games of WFB played at my club since the 8th edition rules came into force, when WFB used to be the most widely played game at the club

To be honest, I don't really view this as an argument against random charges, just that they're too stuck in their ways to adapt to a new game that they never gave a chance to- 3 games is nowhere near enough to work out the nuances of what was very much a new game. The random distances can be frustrating, but it absolutely reward risk-taking/minimising instead of who can estimate double their movement better. It might have been less random, but the cat and mouse millimetre game of 7th was dull.


Steadfast must go

I could not disagree more. Getting rid of Steadfast would be an awful idea that would just lead back towards hero/monsterhammer. One of the dumbest things in 7th edition was that a single chariot/combat character could charge a unit of ranked up infantry and break it in a single round. Tweaking/limiting it as per some of the suggestions in the thread is good, but outright removing it would make for a worse game.

TheDungen
14-12-2012, 09:52
i could see high elves and dark elves band together against a greater threat, its like superman and lex luthor teaming up on general zod in superman 2 (and likely with the same outcome but i wont spoil it for you)

otherwise, magic fail on double 1.

maybe tone it down anyway.


steadfast is removed by flanking to be the new way to deal with death stars.

Fix cavalry by giving them strike first as well as the str bonus when charging with lances or spears (the diffrence between those is still the str bonus)

Make spears strike first in the first round of close combat when getting charged from the front and have a str bonus against cavalry charging them from the front.

woods block line of sight an impair movement. (combined with flank charging negating steadfast this makes units that can move around terrain like say fast cavarly and skirmishers more useful again)

cannons rolls to hit.

oh and charging needs a looking over.

The Low King
14-12-2012, 10:31
For the game to ever be played at my club again the random charges need to go and replaced with the old 7th Ed rules. There has literally been three games of WFB played at my club since the 8th edition rules came into force, when WFB used to be the most widely played game at the club followed by 40k.
.

How can they possibly know what the game is like if theyve only played 3 times?

Vipoid
14-12-2012, 11:38
These are the changes I'd like to see:

1) Make the BRB magic lores more like the ones in the 8th edition army book. Essentially, weaken the over-the-top spells - in particular those that involve 'characteristic test or die'. At best, they should be a high-strength (7-8) hit on the models. I'd also suggest having it so that they inflict a number of hits on the unit equal to the number of models under the template, distributed as shooting (thereby preventing sniping with them). Or, alternatively, allowing LoS for characters touched.

2) Have a miscast table that takes into account the number of dice used to cast a spell.

3) Another way to break steadfast (either disruption or something else).

It would also be nice if steadfast helped unbreakable units in some way. However, that's probably just jealousy from an undead player.

4) Fixed charge distances. Yes, I'm aware that many 7th edition games amounted to both armies hovering 1/8 of an inch out of charge range. However, surely that was more a result of the disproportionate effect charging had on combat - especially with no step-up. Since the current bonus for charging (aside from lances and the like) is just +1 to CR, it seems like a fixed charge distance could be re-implemented more safely.

5) War Machines all use BS in some way - so that they can't just ignore cover completely.

6) Cannons that hit a ridden-monster hit either the rider or mount, but not both.

7) Fear actually does something meaningful.

8) Anyone on the GW team who utters the word "cinematic" is fired. Preferably out of a cannon.

9) Challenge rules could use some work.

10) Monsters count as having a specific number of ranks, so that they can actually disrupt a unit with a flank or rear charge.

11) Not technically a fault of the BRB, but I'd really like to see a reversal of the 8-army-specific-items per army book idea. Which is dull, stupid, and seems to serve no purpose other than sheer laziness.

12) Related to the above, if most of the items are going to be in the BRB, how about some more that are actually useful? The magic weapon section in particular needs looking at - there are about 4 or 5 decent weapons that are taken often, and the rest is utter garbage. "Aha, if I manage to inflict 4 wounds on a Lv4 wizard, and somehow not kill him, then I'll have drained all his magic levels." Terrifying. :eyebrows:



On the subject of magic,and toning it down, I'm interested to hear what people think about these:

- Making power dice directly related to the total levels of wizards you brought.

- Making the wizard level the maximum number of power dice that wizard can use on any one spell.

I believe both of these were used at one time or another. Would either or both help, or was it good that they were removed?

IcedCrow
14-12-2012, 12:57
You know GW won't be able to properly restrict Allies, we'll get two Hydras with the cheapest skave units to get and abom or two.

Make allies only available from the troop selection of your allied list.

Gradek
14-12-2012, 13:25
1) I love random charges (I started playing in 4th). They add a lot of excitement and risk to the game, which makes it more fun and less like chess (and with step up and attack on I who gets the charge is less important, so keep the excitement).
2) Steadfast is fine, but a better resolution for flankers has to exist, maybe total ranks with a bonus of +1 for flank and +2 for rear to disrupt.
3) Eliminate IF for spells. If magic is going to be a big part of the game going forward, there has to be at least an opportunity to dispel so games don't end on lucky 6 dicing.
4) Challenges need a major rework. They should not be a way to avoid combat. Perhaps allow challenges from champions (or acceptance of challenges by champions) to be ignored.
5) A rework of terrain rules to incorporate common sense (ie no shooting at things behind hills or forests/buildings etc. I think the cannon rules are fine, but the terrain rules need a fix.

Blinder
14-12-2012, 13:44
On the subject of magic,and toning it down, I'm interested to hear what people think about these:

- Making power dice directly related to the total levels of wizards you brought.

- Making the wizard level the maximum number of power dice that wizard can use on any one spell.

I believe both of these were used at one time or another. Would either or both help, or was it good that they were removed?

Assuming you're not also parking spells almost entirely in the "minor support" category, this just exaggerates the current troubles with wizards: On the surface, yes it will stop 6-dicing, but it makes level 4's immensely powerful compared to level 2's, and makes level 1's essentially a platform to take an arcane item (like dispel scrolls to try to keep someone's L4 shut down). Likewise, having the PD roll almost entirely divorced from your army list is a big part of what makes lower-level casters viable (since you don't need to load up on magic levels to get enough dice to get a spell through). Generally, I think it was overall a good thing that these went away, the current *casting* system is mainly good with some issues around IF. Maybe even if you could just try for ID (which would negate the spell *and* the miscast... but you couldn't use any items/abilities, just the dispel dice you had when the attempt was made).

Baluc
14-12-2012, 13:54
I think most peoples objections are coming from the fact that none of the truly elite armies have new army books. So things like steadfast, and a general improvment of infantry have left the elite infantry armies in the cold, as these things see a lot of diminishing returns. With rumours of Chaos and HE getting a new book, I'm really excited for the next 2-3 years of 8th edition.

A couple people's suggestions basically remove all the real changes from 7th to 8th edition. I question if these people have a) really played 8th edition and b) if they actually enjoyed 7th. There is a lot of hyperbole out there about 7th edition but it really did come down to the mm dance, at its core. I like random charges, as I love surprises and having to think on my feet. I've never felt powerless in 8th edition, a feeling I've felt more than once in 7th against gunlines, or min core max cav lists.

Plague Lord
14-12-2012, 14:48
I agree with decker_cky that if properly managed it will actually add rather than subtract to the game, If it is employed the same as 40k then no... for the love of god no.

My issue will be if the alliances contravene the fluff, as with 40k DE+eldar??? i mean WTF, come on these guys hate each other with such a passion they'd kill each other even though a greater threat may lurk near.

So with WFB, HE cannont ally with DE under any circumstances!! well you get my point.

Allied forces point allocation should depend on the size of the game you are playing, and maybe only core selections only... i really don't want to be running into empire armies featuring a White lion horde unless i'm playing 10000.

Sorry bro but Eldar and Dark Eldar don't hate eachother. They even work together sometimes...

as for allies in WFB then NO please NO! I don't like it in 40k I don't like it in WFB. If you want to go 2 armies then just collect 2 armies no sense to make 1 army out of say orcs and chaos...

on the point of dark elves and high elves working together i can see it happen. Obviously not malekith followers but possibly if 2 fighting elf ships would get attacked both by a leviathan or sea dragon or whatever then I can see them fighting together to take it down (and then sink the other ship ofc). I think there are a few honourable DE warriors left and if both a DE and a HE army were attacked by chaos followers then they could join forces and after defeating the foe could even go their own ways acknowlageing the other side's battle prowess. I don't think all DE have succumbed to Malekith's madness...

sorry for OT

DaemonReign
14-12-2012, 15:34
For the share fun of it, I'm gonna sift through this thread and see what I can find that constitutes really good ideas. It's easy to just say no to stuff one disagrees with, but let's take the positive stance instead:

Terror = Re-roll successfull Fear-tests. This is a pretty nifty idea somebody posted a page back or so. Aside of the problems most of us have with remembering to take Fear-tests in the first Place, this idea passes my standards of scrutiny as it 'builds' on an existing mechanic in an intuitive way.

Steadfast - Aggregate ranks people. I suspect all this talk about "flanking negating steadfast" is mostly due to people not bothering to truly fathom the impact of simply counting aggregate ranks. It would be dynamic, it would be fair, it would be intuitive. A very simple fix with a superior result.

Magic - Now.. If the Winds of Magic scaled a bit more one could look at nerfing the top-spells a Little bit. Failing or getting Miscasts on double 1's was an abomination however. For the love of all that is decent just 'no'. Similarly, one could actually make the Casting Dice dependant on game-size as well - for example saying that you can Always use 3 Casting Dice on a spell, and then for every 1000pts beyond 3k you 'unlock' Another casting Dice, meaning that 'six-dicing' stuff would only be allowed in 6k+ games. Something like that. Not sure about the specifics. However, those nuke-spells that it's become so very trendy to harp about are simply not a problem (at all) in bigger games, on the contrary, I find them to be rather a lot of fun actually.. so in the best of Worlds we'd get something that satisifies skirmish-play as well as Epic play at the same time. Well sue me for dreaming..

Combat - I really Think Phazael had a good idea about stipulating that Support Attacks cannot be directed on specific models. That's pretty damn clever.

I am sure I've missed one or two good ones... at least I certainly hope that I have... :)

Vipoid
14-12-2012, 15:57
I like random charges, as I love surprises and having to think on my feet.

I don't understand this as an argument for why random charge distance is a good thing.

Ok, let's say that it is more interesting if things don't go the way you plan, and you're forced to think on your feet.

Firstly, you act as if charge distance is the only random element in fantasy. However, shooting, combat, terrain and especially magic all involve various random elements, so it's not like having fixed charge distances would suddenly turn the game into chess.

Second, I don't really see how this forces you to 'think on your feet'. I mean, if a squad fails a charge, you're not exactly flooded with options about what to do instead. You can't do any more movement, so there's no chance of getting into a more favourable position. If you can shoot with the unit, then that's a no-brainer. Really, though, the most likely event is that either your enemy will charge you, or they'll instead shoot you (or fail their charge), and you'll charge them in your turn. In that respect, it seems more like a pointless delay, rather than requiring a great deal of thought.

Finally, with regard to surprises, I can usually find some sort of surprise in my games without factoring in random charge distance. Usually there'll be at least one combat that goes unexpectedly (for better or worse), or perhaps a character over-/under-performs, or perhaps my opponent simply makes a move that I never would have expected.

Kayosiv
14-12-2012, 16:18
8) Anyone on the GW team who utters the word "cinematic" is fired. Preferably out of a cannon.



As long as it has to roll with its ballistic skill in order to hit, I support this.



Second, I don't really see how this forces you to 'think on your feet'. I mean, if a squad fails a charge, you're not exactly flooded with options about what to do instead. You can't do any more movement, so there's no chance of getting into a more favourable position. If you can shoot with the unit, then that's a no-brainer. Really, though, the most likely event is that either your enemy will charge you, or they'll instead shoot you (or fail their charge), and you'll charge them in your turn. In that respect, it seems more like a pointless delay, rather than requiring a great deal of thought.


Charges happen before you move any of your other troops. Failed charges means you needed to have backup plans to redirect, support, or sacrifice with other troops. If you didn't have backup plans, you need to start making some. Not to mention that if you're trying to charge something, you probably want those 2 things to be in combat. If you want them in combat, it is very likely that your opponent doesn't. If all he does it charge your unit that already wanted to fight, he's not "thinking on his feet" either; he's just making the tactical mistake of giving his opponent what he wanted. Now this isn't always the case, especially in situations with lances or similar charge bonus type weapons, but it does often occur that a failed charge will take planning and clever movement to capitalize on for the defending player, while the attacker who failed tries to mitigate the damage to his plans as best he can.

Eladimir
14-12-2012, 16:33
All warmachines do max D3 wounds
and/or
Cannon shots only hit the rider or the mount not both, randomize the shot.

There are all these cool new monster and monstrous infantry model but the fear of cannons keeps alot of these off the table.

sninsch
14-12-2012, 17:19
- max. 2 additional ED/DD can be generated(this includes all extra dices, like warpstone token, slaan extra dice, ...)
- bound spells, level as a bonus to the casting
- steadfast only on leadership of the unit, hero/lord with better L in unit raise the L one point
- extra attacks from the horde rule without weapon bonus
- thunderstomp works against mounstrous infantry, cav, ... and gives D3 auto hits
- poison only gives +1 to wound
- BSB + unstable --> D3 less crumble, steadfast--> halves crumble
- fear tests on L value of the unit, or hero/lord if he is in the unit

Vipoid
14-12-2012, 17:20
Charges happen before you move any of your other troops.

But that's the thing - I just don't see many backup plans being very different from 'try again next turn'. :shifty:



If all he does it charge your unit that already wanted to fight, he's not "thinking on his feet" either; he's just making the tactical mistake of giving his opponent what he wanted. Now this isn't always the case, especially in situations with lances or similar charge bonus type weapons, but it does often occur that a failed charge will take planning and clever movement to capitalize on for the defending player, while the attacker who failed tries to mitigate the damage to his plans as best he can.

Well, as you say, there are many reasons why you (or your opponent) might try to charge into an unfavourable combat - denying impact hits or devastating charge, for example. Or perhaps so that your magic phase comes just before combat, allowing you to buff your units just before they attack.

On the other hand, let's say that this is a very unfavourable matchup for your opponent. In this case, you've either outmanoeuvred him or positioned your units much better, and yet you're the one who's going to suffer. It doesn't seem like a good way to reward superior tactics. :p

I mean, in the case of a ranged unit, your opponent's unit will have a shooting unit, meaning he just gets a free turn of shooting (almost certainly at short-range) at your unit.

I guess just don't see the necessity of having random charge distance. The game already has plenty of random elements, and surely playing a human opponent will already bring an extra element of unpredictability.

IcedCrow
14-12-2012, 17:23
I don't understand this as an argument for why random charge distance is a good thing.

What is good and/or bad is subjective to the one making the judgement.

Why *I* think random charge distance is a good thing:

* forces you to have a contingency plan in case you fail. Set charge distance removes this. You will know if you are in charge range or not. Even if we say "no premeasuring" because that's a joke. There were a half dozen methods in 7th edition tournament play to circumvent no premeasuring which were discussed either in this thread or another (I think the death of the hobby thread).

* forces you to plan your movements to respect the chance you can fail. Otherwise you can put your units out there with no worry and just plow ahead knowing you'll get the charge off.

* allows for longshot charges to succeed if one wants to take the risk. Set charge ranges do not allow for this. You are either in X" or you are not. If its down to the last turn of the game, it is more exciting (IMO) to gun for an improbable 18" charge and succeed with it and pull off a late turn victory as opposed to the game already being over because my opponent did his thing and then used math to hunker back and win because he's now 18" away and my charge is only 14". Makes the game a game for all turns.

Counter: "but the player using the math to win used SKILL to win and you're arguing for a system where the player used math to set himself up for a win but was jacked up by the dice! That's SKILLLESS!!!"

No it's not skillless. It means that the player used the math to set himself up for a win and gambled on the probability of him being safe being very high and then lost on a longshot, which removes set math from the game. The other player has a position where he's at a longshot but doesn't have to fold the game by turn 5 because there is a longshot that he may pull something improbable off. You know... like real war =)

* set math being there = boring stale games that play out the same way over and over again. Chess matches are like that. Openings and end games play out roughly the same every time if you are a student of the game. The middle game has variance. That's great for chess, but not great for an organic entity that a battlefield represents, which is what I'd rather play on the table, a more accurate representation of actually being there on the battlefield (immersion) as opposed to a computer simulation where the trick is to learn the math and then use the math to set up trig formulas to win with.

Is that good? Bad? Boring? Not Boring? That depends on your point of view. To me, that is boring. And not desirable.

Random charges also mean that the game won't play out the same way over and over and over. Which it did in 7th.

Unit A 12" from Unit B. 7th edition, Unit A has 14" charge. Unit A always makes charge. Unit A math hammers to always do X wounds, and Unit B always has Y% of staying or fleeing. Typically Y was >= 75%. Game played out similar or the same depending on who flubbed 14.1 - 13.9". Made the game entirely about taking fastest elements possible and loading them down with killy heroes to maximize wounds. IE... all cav all the time. Good majority of games in 7th that I saw, wrote about, and played were entirely about who was the first to mistake that 0.1". He who charged first most often won. And you could sit back and script the entire game based off of that and be correct about most of what was going to happen. We used to joke on that at the store.

Random Charges

Unit A 12" from Unit B. 8th edition, Unit A has 2D6 + 7" charge. Unit A may succeed. Or he may fail. Game doesn't play out the same each way. Math hammering takes a backseat. One must be more reactive in 8th as opposed to using math formulae to play comfortable set odds.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2012, 17:51
I think in general random charges are a good thing. I have thought since 8th came out that they're a bit too random, that the variance is a bit too high and movement isn't important enough. But after hundreds of 8th ed games, I find it's pretty rare that a game is won or lost on the basis of a failed or made charge. It happens, of course, and I can think of a couple of GT games won by a lucky long charge or lost because of an abysmal snake eyes on the roll when all I needed was a three.

I don't think random for the sake of random is good, but a degree of uncertainty when maneuvering around the enemy isn't bad. Rather than knowing you can march up 8.1" away and the M4 enemy can't charge you, every inch closer than 16" brings you that much more in danger of being charged.

I think the whole system could do with a good look at. While I think the uncertainty is necessary, it seems a bit random and gives infantry a huge threat range. You typically see combat joined by turn 2 at the latest and it has really reduced the effective maneuvering space. I've gotten very used to it now and high-maneuver armies are still possible to play but there's definitely room for improvement.

Then again, do we want to make changes to core mechanics at this point, even if they are an improvement? 8th edition army books are pretty good in terms of balance. Mucking up the core mechanics will again throw established points values into disarray.

Phazael
14-12-2012, 18:02
Actually, I do pretty well with movement these days. Granted, its better in variable degree of win formats than strict win loss ones, but my use of chaffe is often the deciding factor in most of my games. So, despite all the Internet Hyperbole, random charging has done nothing to reduce my use of the movement phase to win. What is has done is ended the non stop arguments over one millimeter of distance, which is the best change of 8th by far.

Phazael
14-12-2012, 18:10
edit- Purely annecdotal, but for me people who complain about 8th generally fall into two catagories (speaking as a tournament player here):

1) Change Haters-
These are the guys who have one set list and do not want to adapt it to the new realities of the game. Or, sometimes, its the guy who's army was brokenface powerful last edition (Daemons, Empire) who hates the indirect nerfs their army took. There is no reasoning with these guys because they want to make everyone else conform to their playstyle. These guys generally either give up the game, change to someone elses netlist, or just keep slamming their head against the wall.

2) Mathematically Challenged-
This guy knows how to do addition but not guage probability. This is the same guy who complained about one panic test costing him the game and now he complains that bowling snake eyes on a charge loses him every game. This guy can be trained not to deathstar up and to make backup plans. He can be taught that the game is more akin to bloodbowl (risk management) now and become more successful as a result. This guy is fixable, the first guy is not.

Really, I just hope the next edition is just some minor tweaks, akin to what 7th was. Honestly, a couple minor faq adjustments and pushing out updates of the more over the top armies would make Fantasy the most balanced it has ever been.

Vipoid
14-12-2012, 18:19
What is has done is ended the non stop arguments over one millimeter of distance, which is the best change of 8th by far.

What do you mean?


edit- Purely annecdotal, but for me people who complain about 8th generally fall into two catagories (speaking as a tournament player here):

1) Change Haters-
These are the guys who have one set list and do not want to adapt it to the new realities of the game. Or, sometimes, its the guy who's army was brokenface powerful last edition (Daemons, Empire) who hates the indirect nerfs their army took. There is no reasoning with these guys because they want to make everyone else conform to their playstyle. These guys generally either give up the game, change to someone elses netlist, or just keep slamming their head against the wall.


Playing Devil's Advocate here, but couldn't you just as easily say that there are people who will support any new edition, regardless of its faults because:

a) They're essentially the opposite of the people you suggest, and love adapting to change, but will defend it relentlessly, even if it makes the game much worse than before.

b) Their armies were the ones that got buffed considerably by the core rules, probably at the expense of other people's, and are essentially defending it because, whilst the edition may be unbalanced, they're the ones riding high because of it.

Vulcan7200
14-12-2012, 18:46
I've always been of the opinion, that neither 7th or 8th were really that great. It seems like 8th tried to fix everything that was wrong with 7th, and then broke other parts of the rules. I think a mixture of 7th and 8th would actually be perfect. What I would honestly like is:

More reliable charges. I don't mind random charges. But I think Movement + 2d6 is way too much, and too unreliable. I think something like Movement + highest of 2d6 would be much more appropriate. It's now reliable enough that you still feel like your own manuevering matters, and random enough that you can still get a fail charge due to bad dice. It also limits people from trying super long charges just because they can, and it doesn't really hurt them to try.

I think Flanking needs to matter more. It shouldn't disrupt Steadfast, but what I think it should do, is give a minus to their leadership seperate from CR. -2 Leadership for each flank you're attacked on, and -4 for a rear charge, cumulative. This way you DO have a better chance of breaking a big unit if you flank charge, with a greater chance for each flank you're hitting, until you have them completely surronded. At that point, only the truely Stubborn units could possibly hold.

I think fighting in two ranks should be done with. Other than making the games "more bloody" I saw no reason for this. Step up, and fight at initiative I think were good enough for combat.

BSB should only let you re-roll Panic, Break, and Rally. It would still be almost an auto include in every army, but still have limitations.

Monsters/Chariots and riders should get a shared profile, with half of the riders wounds added as extra wounds (rounded up). This makes both more survivable with a character on top and can't be one shot by cannons, and lets you share a ward save if you decide to get one.

I think Magic needs the biggest overhaul. As long as magic is so powerful, and level 2's are at a distinct disadvantage when trying to dispel, you almost NEED a level 4, just to make sure you're not completely out classed in that phase. I think most of the BRB lores need a nerf to how powerful they are, so they aren't completely game changing on their own. I think the casting costs need to go back down, and to remove the bonus to cast/dispell based off of level. Power Dice generation should be a combination of 7th and 8th. 2d6 Winds of Magic, defender gets the highest of the two rolls. And then you get an extra power dice for each wizard level you have (NOT cumulative between wizards). And the dispeller should get 1 dispel dice for a level 1 and 2, and 2 for a level 3 and 4. This way when you pay for a level 4, you're paying for a more reliable magic phase, and if you decided to stick with a level 2, you have enough dispel dice to reliable shut down spells that you really want to stop, but not all of them. Furthermore, I think loss of power should be removed in it's current form. If you want to 1 dice cast a spell, you shouldn't be punished with a risk of stopping your entire magic phase. A 1 or 2 failing means you only EVER have a 66% chance to one dice cast a spell. I think loss of power should only be on double 1's, overriding IR. If you get double 1's, THEN your magic phase is over. And lastly, I think throwing more dice at a spell should be more risky. Something like, -3 to your Miscast Roll for every dice you used beyond 2. If you want to 6 dice cast something, it'll be risky, and you're better off trying to be more reliable with magic, instead of simply trying to overpower it.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2012, 19:01
I agree with a lot of your ideas and they echo much of what I've said already. Not fighting in one rank though. In fact, I'd be inclined to say more fighting not less. Fighting in two ranks is an important part of what makes 8th good for me, indeed, I think we need a more abstract system where the front two (or three?) ranks fight whether in base contact or not. Not sure about adding dice per wizard (that can be abused) but I agree about the double-one being a failure. Although don't you think it would be an issue if rolling one dice didn't carry a risk of loss of power?

DaemonReign
14-12-2012, 20:00
Random Charges, Step-Up, fighting in ranks, the Horde Rule, Steadfast.
It amazes me that we didn't Always have these rules, and I would never update to an edition that didn't include them. Especially not if the alternative is going back to anything resembling 7th - that was the Edition so stale and static you couldn't have character, fluff and variety without unacceptable differences in 'power'.
8th fixed that. It's given us room to Breathe again.

So yeah 9th Ed should be all about really surgical Changes, with no radical Changes what-so-ever because the risk of actually making things worse is just too big.
Aggregate ranks for Steadfast, templates randomized between Rider and Monster-Mount, the Horde-rule and Winds of Magic scaling up, RiP spells retaining their boosted values in subsequent phases... Little things like that.
8th really is that much better compared to anything we've ever had Before. Some of the stuff released within this Edition is crap, for sure - in terms of models and individual rules - but the core system is pretty ace.

Vulcan7200
14-12-2012, 20:21
I agree with a lot of your ideas and they echo much of what I've said already. Not fighting in one rank though. In fact, I'd be inclined to say more fighting not less. Fighting in two ranks is an important part of what makes 8th good for me, indeed, I think we need a more abstract system where the front two (or three?) ranks fight whether in base contact or not. Not sure about adding dice per wizard (that can be abused) but I agree about the double-one being a failure. Although don't you think it would be an issue if rolling one dice didn't carry a risk of loss of power?

The fighting in multiple ranks was never a "deal breaker" for me in this edition. I don't particularly like it, but I'm not adamantly opposed to it. I think my biggest issue is, if you start adding in two many ranks fighting, it starts to marginalize the usefulness of extra attacks. With the it used to be, a unit with 2 attacks base would have double the amount of attacks as a unit with 1 attack base. So while both sides technically got the same bonus of getting to fight in an extra rank in 8th, the unit with 2 attacks is only getting 15 to 10 instead of 10 to 5. Like I said, it's not actually something I care TOO much about. But the one great thing about it, is it DOES make you more likely to get your average, and have less spikey numbers in terms of how many hits you get through. Atleast from my experience.

I think any way of doing magic can potentially be abused. It really is such a hard thing to balance in the game, and I don't think it will ever be perfect. You might be right on one dice casting being an issue due to how many dice casters can get now a days. I just don't like wizards being penalized for throwing less dice as opposed to more. I think that's part of what makes people so eager to throw a handful of dice at spells. The risk of NOT getting a spell off is too big. So maybe one dice should carry the risk of Loss of Power, but I really don't think the game should penalize players too much for trying to be conservative with their dice.

theunwantedbeing
14-12-2012, 20:28
I think any way of doing magic can potentially be abused. It really is such a hard thing to balance in the game, and I don't think it will ever be perfect. You might be right on one dice casting being an issue due to how many dice casters can get now a days. I just don't like wizards being penalized for throwing less dice as opposed to more. I think that's part of what makes people so eager to throw a handful of dice at spells. The risk of NOT getting a spell off is too big. So maybe one dice should carry the risk of Loss of Power, but I really don't think the game should penalize players too much for trying to be conservative with their dice.

Well 7th ed magic got abused because GW in their infinite wisdom gave certain armies way to generate absurd amounts of dice at zero risk.
And then gave one of those armies an insta-kill spell that wipes entire units off the board.

8th ed magic got abused because GW again in their infinite wisdom decided to add in some absurd uber spells and then let everyone have access to at least one of them.
Then they brought out a bunch of really terrible FAQs that basically allowed most of the rediculous abuses rather than do something to stop them.
Letting everyone use 6 dice wasn't overly bright either.....

GW has a problem with balance when it's incredibly obvious how to solve the issuse.
For 7th edition, the solution was not to give anyone access to an unfair level of magic.
For 8th edition, the solution is to just nerf the uber spells.
For 9th edition, who knows? It'll probably be something mind bendingly obvious as well and GW will refuse to solve the issue or will create an issue where one doesn't exist.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2012, 20:35
The 6-dice limit is a symptom of the system not working. If double-ones auto failed the spell, you wouldn't really need an arbitrary maximum dice because the more dice you rolled the higher the odds of an auto-fail. Having to put in a hard limit like this should have been a warning sign during development. "How many dice can I roll?" "I've set the limit at 6" "Okay, I'll roll 6 then!"

Phazael
14-12-2012, 20:39
What do you mean?



Playing Devil's Advocate here, but couldn't you just as easily say that there are people who will support any new edition, regardless of its faults because:

a) They're essentially the opposite of the people you suggest, and love adapting to change, but will defend it relentlessly, even if it makes the game much worse than before.

b) Their armies were the ones that got buffed considerably by the core rules, probably at the expense of other people's, and are essentially defending it because, whilst the edition may be unbalanced, they're the ones riding high because of it.

Even people who like the changes are generally critical of failings in the rules. I like 8th a lot, but there are flaws I aknowledge in this very thread. I see these sorts of arguments as false equivalencies. Even people who's armies got nerfed by the change had zero issue with greenskins becomming slightly better and its not like there were a ton of Ogre players (previous book) championing the new edition because their army got better in the new edition. Making more armies playable is good for diversity at events and helps the health of the game in general. And ultimately, even people who like constant change to the metagame generally prefer that its done by army book rather than ruleset. Adding new stuff to the metagame is easier to balance than people having to constantly relearn the rules.

As for the 1 millimeter argument, if you have never seen people argue over whether a charge was in or not, you must live in an area where there are no fragile male egos. Under the current rules, you know what you need to roll to reach before you pickup the dice and both opponents have agreed to it at that point. Under the old system, people would argue over tiny slivers of distance AFTER charges had been declared. Trust me when I say that as a TO, the first scenario results in a lot less bickering.

Phazael
14-12-2012, 20:44
The 6-dice limit is a symptom of the system not working. If double-ones auto failed the spell, you wouldn't really need an arbitrary maximum dice because the more dice you rolled the higher the odds of an auto-fail. Having to put in a hard limit like this should have been a warning sign during development. "How many dice can I roll?" "I've set the limit at 6" "Okay, I'll roll 6 then!"

Well, I can understand people hating on the magic system, but really wizards coast too much to not have a major impact on the game. Too often in 7th magic phases degenerated into three turns of buring through scrolls and rolling dice with nothing happening. I like that one or two L2s are useful in a game and that nothing is 100% certain (unless you are a dark elf/slaan). Once they finish pruning the extra dice items out of the game, all that needs to happen will be a minor toning down of a couple spells. Really all that needs to happen is for the miscast table to scale with the number of diced used, kind of like how the Steam Tank malfunction table works, and the miscast table to have almost assured catastrophic results when someone pulls a six dice chuck it and F--- it manuever.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2012, 20:50
Well, like I said, I think if the chance of "not enough power" scales with the number of dice used (e.g. 2 or more 1s) and NEP overrides IF, then that kind of helps to make everything a bit more risky to roll so many dice.

But I agree, I think reducing the extra dice items and making the miscast scale with power dice used, both good ideas.

Vipoid
14-12-2012, 20:53
Even people who like the changes are generally critical of failings in the rules. I like 8th a lot, but there are flaws I aknowledge in this very thread. I see these sorts of arguments as false equivalencies. Even people who's armies got nerfed by the change had zero issue with greenskins becomming slightly better and its not like there were a ton of Ogre players (previous book) championing the new edition because their army got better in the new edition. Making more armies playable is good for diversity at events and helps the health of the game in general. And ultimately, even people who like constant change to the metagame generally prefer that its done by army book rather than ruleset. Adding new stuff to the metagame is easier to balance than people having to constantly relearn the rules.

But that's the thing - surely your own profiles were equally one-sided.

Most people who prefer previous editions seem perfectly capable of acknowledging flaws in the old system. And, it seems unfair to make sweeping statements like "There is no reasoning with these guys because they want to make everyone else conform to their playstyle." I mean - surely you could just as easily accuse fans of any current edition of the same thing - they're pleased because the edition has moved closer to some sort of 'ideal state'. However, that ideal state of the game is just as opinionated as the view of the people who preferred previous editions. For them, the game has moved away from their own idea of its 'ideal state', and so they're obviously unhappy.


As for the 1 millimeter argument, if you have never seen people argue over whether a charge was in or not, you must live in an area where there are no fragile male egos. Under the current rules, you know what you need to roll to reach before you pickup the dice and both opponents have agreed to it at that point. Under the old system, people would argue over tiny slivers of distance AFTER charges had been declared. Trust me when I say that as a TO, the first scenario results in a lot less bickering.

Well, firstly, I haven't played any edition prior to 8th, so I've never watched a non-random charge being performed (although, I played 40 and it seemed to work fine in that).

Anyway, I still don't understand how the 8th edition rules prevent this sort of argument. I mean, both systems involve the use of a tape measure, so surely you can still have an argument in 8th about what you need to roll to make the charge?

The only difference seems to be that the argument occurs before the charge is declared, rather than after. :p



The 6-dice limit is a symptom of the system not working. If double-ones auto failed the spell, you wouldn't really need an arbitrary maximum dice because the more dice you rolled the higher the odds of an auto-fail. Having to put in a hard limit like this should have been a warning sign during development. "How many dice can I roll?" "I've set the limit at 6" "Okay, I'll roll 6 then!"

To be honest though, I really wouldn't want to have double-1s causing either miscasts or automatic spell-failure.

I think the problem lies with the spells themselves, rather than the ability to 6-dice spells, and have a good chance of getting IF.

I mean, when you use 6 dice to cast a spell, you're likely going to be spending most of your power dice (and there's a good chance that a miscast will remove any remaining ones). Really, it's only a problem when the spell itself is ludicrously powerful

Sexiest_hero
15-12-2012, 00:13
Allow los for ubre spells, or have heroes only fail on a 6.

Blinder
15-12-2012, 01:00
Anyway, I still don't understand how the 8th edition rules prevent this sort of argument. I mean, both systems involve the use of a tape measure, so surely you can still have an argument in 8th about what you need to roll to make the charge?

The only difference seems to be that the argument occurs before the charge is declared, rather than after. :p

Before, everyone would want to be *just* past the "can't charge" line, either their own or that of their opponent. Given two opponents with good tricks for figuring out distances and a strong motivation to win (i.e. "especially at tournaments") that's a LOT of argument about if it's in, out, or someone's holding the tape wrong. Now, if you want to stay out of someone's max charge range, it's pretty hard to screw up so that's a lot of arguments prevented, and when you're measuring up the roll needed you may get some dispute as to which side of an inch line the unit is on but in most cases it will be fairly clear... and even if not people have a much better time staying objective ("hey, it's just a game, even if there is a chance at a nifty prize") because you still haven't rolled for it yet and thus you aren't measuring the fate of the game or whatever you think is riding on that charge working out.

In 40k I think things went a lot more smoothly because the free-form units and largely universal (and often larger) ranges meant things were a lot more likely to be sufficiently far across any lines, and crossing the longer lines generally wasn't as big a problem as getting a fantasy unit too close to one when you were trying to charge another.

IcedCrow
15-12-2012, 03:30
The 6-dice limit is a symptom of the system not working. If double-ones auto failed the spell, you wouldn't really need an arbitrary maximum dice because the more dice you rolled the higher the odds of an auto-fail. Having to put in a hard limit like this should have been a warning sign during development. "How many dice can I roll?" "I've set the limit at 6" "Okay, I'll roll 6 then!"

And this is how the campaigns I write house rule it as well. You get a lot less 6 dice chucking hoping for uba kill spell.

Tholanan
15-12-2012, 05:01
Perhasp for making charge more reliable say for infantry, movement +2+d6,
In last edition charge was so important, a charge was making you strike before the opponent. I remember paying again HE and start to play with my VC ( i start really playing the game with them, but start them before noying they where uber string in this edition), Why i will rush to charge because in any way the my opponent strike first so i will wait he come on me and necked to boost my undead whit abusing roll of one dice :P.
Anyway getting the charge first in 8 edition is less important in some way, if he charge you back and you still get better ini you will strike before him.
The random charge rules have helped alot dwarf where some unit was walking at same speed of a dwarf marching.

Generally when i loose a game is because of a bad army composition, bad decision with what my units fights.
Because if you need that spell to win to kill out your ennemy or this unit will kill everyting......bad strategis.
I have 5 army and starting a new one and generaly change army every game. I some time make a really bad army list but i try new ting to see if he can work or just for fun :P.

Kayosiv
15-12-2012, 06:27
I'll submit a thought. Irresistible Force is stupid.

If you're getting two or more 6's in a roll, your roll is likely very high, and will be difficult for your opponent to dispel because you got at least a 13 to cast and likely much higher. Isn't that enough? Isn't a natural roll of 22+4 plenty to get a spell through unless your opponent has a scroll or perhaps throws everything they have in a desperate attempt to stop it more cinematic and fun? That seems a lot more better than sitting there with a big pile of dispel dice and watching your opponent cast spells that you are unable to stop.

Scaling up the miscasts is too a great idea, and can exist independently if irresistible force or a miscast. You could have a minor miscast (say, a strength 2 hit, lose 1 power dice from pool, unable to cast spells with your caster bonus for the rest of the turn) if you get doubles, a bad miscast if you get triples, or just explode or lose wizard levels if you get quadruples. Just an example of how the casting system could work.

Spiney Norman
15-12-2012, 07:29
- laser guided cannons need to go, and be replaced with using BS to hit, and a even a d3" scatter just allowing monster some survivability, i'd like flying monsters to have some for form of I test to dodge missiles, i personally love the idea of a dragon simply jinking to the left to avoid a cannon ball to the face. Make the roll of a six always fails, and then you can roll to hit either monster or character.

If i think of more, then i will post:)

I guess you don't play an army with cannons then? I agree they need to be toned down, but making them hit on Bs AND scatter is ally not the answer, in fact making them hit on BS at all is a ridiculous idea as they'd just end up as a str 10 bolt thrower, which would make it very hard to justify both in the same list (dwarfs). You also don't want to nerf cannons totally out of the park, because if you do something that would halve the points value of the machine you've got 4 armies (Empire, dwarfs, ogres and Skaven) which you immediately need to redo as soon as the edition hits.

I don't have a problem with cannons ignoring cover in most situations, a cannon ball is not going to be stopped by a bit of undergrowth etc, buildings are a slightly different kettle of fish, but that can be addressed in a revised rules for buildings, not cannons. The only thing that is really offensive about cannons is the way they interact with characters on monsters, having been on the receiving end of cannonfire many times I can honestly say I don't object to how cannons resolve against blocks of troops. At the end of the day if you're going to pay 120pts for a warmachine you will be expecting some kind of return for those points

On miscasts vs IF, I like the current system's balance of risk vs reward, however I would like to see the following

Change the miscast table round so that more damaging results are higher up the table and the more preferably results are lower down, then generate your miscast result by rolling 2D6+ the number of dice used to cast the spell you miscast on, so miscasting with more dice would give a more severe miscast result, and 'unlucky' miscasts with only 2 dice would get off more lightly. That would certainly discourage 6 dicing of spells.

Also on magic "remove as a casualty" spells need to be changed to "suffers a wound with no AS" or in extreme cases "suffers a multiple wound (D3) with no AS" so that magic resistance would apply. I like the way MR works now, if only it would apply to every DD and MM spell.

DaemonReign
15-12-2012, 18:37
Spiney's right.
There are TWO issues with cannons that should be fixed.
1 - Hitting BOTH rider and monster with regards to Mounted Monsters.
2 - Precision in hitting 20-25mm 'single characters'.

The first one would be solved with a simple randomization-roll, the second *could* be solved with a minute (small) scatter.
None would be resolved with basing stuff on BS.
You could base it on BS - of course, but it would spill over left and right and require re-costing. As such: Far fetched compared to fixing what's actually problematic (Point 1 & 2).

Vipoid
15-12-2012, 18:41
Spiney's right.
There are TWO issues with cannons that should be fixed.
1 - Hitting BOTH rider and monster with regards to Mounted Monsters.
2 - Precision in hitting 20-25mm 'single characters'.

The first one would be solved with a simple randomization-roll, the second *could* be solved with a minute (small) scatter.
None would be resolved with basing stuff on BS.
You could base it on BS - of course, but it would spill over left and right and require re-costing. As such: Far fetched compared to fixing what's actually problematic (Point 1 & 2).

With regard to the sniping aspect, couldn't you just make it that for each model the cannonball passes over, the unit takes a wound (distributed as shooting)?

Maltor
15-12-2012, 22:19
I think cannons simply need to always hit the monster and also hit the rider on a 5+. For dwarfs and empire cannons are a deterrent to monster who would otherwise kill all again. Cannons could also do d3+1 damage and an additional +1 to only the large targets. If you make forests on entering and hills when passing over stop cannonballs on a roll of a 1 on a d6 then this could also help. Monster-hammer should never happen again.

The terrain suggestion would also help against character sniping. Combined with look-out sir it should limit character sniping to a very rare occurance. You also take a risk having your character in the open field.

decker_cky
15-12-2012, 22:54
6 dice is a symptom of the miscast chart not being dangerous. It might be more damaging, but when throwing around incredibly damaging spells that cause more, it almost always is worth the cost. Make it so miscasts do terrible things again - give your opponents a free spell, spin and scatter the caster's unit into a new direction and make them choose another legal target, turn the caster into a frog, etc.. I like the division of one half of the chart being damage and the other half being other stuff, but make the other stuff mess with the casting and make it unreliable. Hitting all wizards with a strength 6 hit should fit on the damage side too. On a 7, have some minor damage and blast the wizard's unit back D3". A bunch of these results only make sense if they happen before the spell is cast, and that might actually be a nice thing to tone down 6 dice attempts.

Also, from a fun point of view....give each potential 2d6 result on the miscast result chart a different result. Current chart is just lazy.

But doing that would require a heavy change to the arcane items that currently exist. If GW can't be creative, then just delete all the troublesome arcane items from 7th edition books (along with the hellheart).

theunwantedbeing
15-12-2012, 23:05
I think cannons simply need to always hit the monster and also hit the rider on a 5+.
Or randomise to see which they hit.


For dwarfs and empire cannons are a deterrent to monster who would otherwise kill all again.
Monsters have never killed all.


Cannons could also do d3+1 damage and an additional +1 to only the large targets.
Why? Guaranteed 3 wounds vs large targets?
2-4 wounds per hit vs monstrous infantry/cavalry units..this just makes them better, not worse.


If you make forests on entering and hills when passing over stop cannonballs on a roll of a 1 on a d6 then this could also help.
Finally an actually decent suggestion.
Although making them use ballistic skill would also do the same thing.


Monster-hammer should never happen again.
When did monster-hammer happen?

Maltor
15-12-2012, 23:05
The other big changes i'd like to see is an adjustment to random charges to M+2D6 (highest) for non-swiftstride, and M+2D6 added for swiftstride. No unit should be able to charge 5x their natural speed. This would also give more effect to the movement phase to allow more planning of flank charges as well as more Shooting. The current distances are just too unreal.

Secondly i agree with most that IF and doom spells need adjusting. The change for doom spell we are using are that magic resistance saves are allowed and you roll the test for each remaining wound losing only 1 wound per fail. This helps against character assassination of dwellers as a fully healthy lord choice would need to fail 3 tests on average to die. We like Double 1s being NEP for non IF, and cancelling IF status for IF rolls. Each dice contributing to an IF past the 1st double causes a wound no AS. So 3 6s mean a miscast roll and 1 NAS wound to the caster.

the group i play with is looking at initiative levels. The levels are ASF, general, and ASL. Each level plays out in initiative order. If your initiative falls in a higher category you get a +1 bonus to hit (no rerolls). ASF and ASL mean you strike at the general level.

Charging also provides a +1 bonus to initiative to make charging like on like matter.

Maltor
15-12-2012, 23:45
Or randomise to see which they hit.

This idea is the middle ground of 7th and 8th. A template only hitting the rider never made sense. A template always hitting both also does not make sense. So you always hit the larger part and occasionally hit the monster where the rider is. We did initially try a 6+ but found that was not often enough in conjunction with the other changes. This is also along the lines of what DAemonReigns is suggesting and we have found it to work out well.

Monsters have never killed all.
The star dragons from 7th edition would like to argue this point. They killed enough infantry so you couldnt attacks back and would lose on combat resolution.

Why? Guaranteed 3 wounds vs large targets?
2-4 wounds per hit vs monstrous infantry/cavalry units..this just makes them better, not worse.
Because 2-4 wounds cannot outright kill most monsters. If cannons are changed to a D3+1 like i have often seen suggested the threat of the cannon is reduced too much. Personally I'd prefer to see acannons left at D6 instead adding 1 against large targets but i was outvoted.

Finally an actually decent suggestion.
Although making them use ballistic skill would also do the same thing.

Not quite the same thing. The main randomness of cannons comes from the artillery dice rolls. Using BS also entails cover from units among other modifiers. The idea is to give a player some intelligent way to reduce the likelihood of their monster being Hit when using terrain, but not completely avoid being hit. Using BS also makes the cannon a glorified bolt thrower.

When did monster-hammer happen?
Around here 7th ed was largely monsters and cavalry. Striking first on the charge without stepup was likely the main reason.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 00:20
the cannon's weaker is a must for 9ed or have to go up in points. or scater not juist bounce. a canon hase no chance of missing a chariot or a monster. ore all cannons should go up by 30pnt min. even the one in the new 8 ed empire book is to cheap for the d6 wound rule and the fact that it almost never misses.
Step up fixes monster hammer the d6 cannon rule was over kill. this edition is a infantry edition and war machine game. some cav is oke monster infantry is oke but juist plain infantry army's are most of the time the best way to go.

DaemonReign
16-12-2012, 00:43
With regard to the sniping aspect, couldn't you just make it that for each model the cannonball passes over, the unit takes a wound (distributed as shooting)?

Look Out Sir deals with this for Characters that are inside units. It's the 'single model' characters that have gone completely missing from today's game.
I'd love to see a 'scatter' for Cannons of 0-3".
This would make it almost pointless to try hitting individual 20-25mm bases.
You'd still be hitting 50mm bases rather reliably, although with a slight risk of missing.
Units would essentially be just as easy to hit as they are now.

The challange is 'How' to incorporate that 'Scatter' into the present mechanics in an aesthethically pleasing way.

On the issue of Monster-mounts I actually Think the Monster should be hit on a 1-5 while the rider should only be hit on a 6. In most cases that's the most reasonable ratio in my opinion, although there's nothing stopping certain Monster-Mounts to have Special Rules that alters this; Such as an Ogre ontop of a Monster should perhaps be hit on a 5+ rather than a 6.

Playing Daemons, VC and OnG almost exclusively I tend to be on the recieving end of cannons. So biased perhaps.. although I really wouldn't mess with the D6 wounds caused to be honest as I see no real reason for this..

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 01:10
I would do somthing with the D6 wounds. I play Vc OnG skaven and a bit of demons. de scater after wear it hits first de bounce would scater. and keep a d6 only on wear the canon ball hits the ground. not on the compleet line it passes.

DaemonReign
16-12-2012, 01:55
Yes the 'scatter' would definately be concerned with the first 'hit' - so that you essentially had to adjust the placing of the Point of origin for the 'bounce'; D3 inches would suffice, but I would actually want there to be a slight chance/risk of 'no scatter' occuring as well, which is why I wrote 0-3" in my previous post.

Letting the D6 wounds be restricted to the 'intitial spot' where the Bounce begins would really nerf cannons too much as far as I'm concerned. I get where you're coming from quietus but cannons really need to 'exist' as a counter for certain enemies (that are not all necessarily feasable as a targets for 'direct' hits on the first Bounce). Now.. if ALL monsters get those 100x150 bases then perhaps your suggestion would be prudent, but until then I really Think it would be a bit much..

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 02:05
Giants are easy brouth down bye any thing but al deze large basses are a hell for cannons.I cant say for army's I don't use I think d3+1 or maybe 2 but a scatter would ba a good nerf . but I mostly meant it scatter or D6 nerf. I have learned to use monsters like terrorgheist even with 2 cannon's on the other side. but to get good with monsters is very hard. If the cannon can miss it shoot and not be so sniper like than all problems are solved.

DaemonReign
16-12-2012, 02:34
but I mostly meant it scatter or D6 nerf. < .... > If the cannon can miss it shoot and not be so sniper like than all problems are solved.

Ah ok my bad I missed what you meant to say earlier...
So we're basically agreeing then. :)

MajorWesJanson
16-12-2012, 03:00
Ideas on magic/miscast and charges from a non-fantasy player who has the BRB.

Make Power/dispell dice scale with Winds of magic, and unlink them. 0-1499 points would be 1d6 Power dice and 1d3 Dispell dice. 1500-2999 points would be 2d6 power dice and 1d6 dispell dice. 3000-4499 would be 3d6 power dice and 2d6 dispell dice. 4500-5999 would be 4d6 power dice and 3d6 dispell dice, ect.

Double 6s are IF, double 1s are Miscast. If you get both double 6s and double 1s in a roll, they cancel out.
Miscast chart is 2d6+ the number of dice you threw, with results numbered 4-18:
4. spell fails, lose a power dice from the pool.
5. spell fails, lose d3 power dice.
6. spell fails, wizard takes a wound
7. spell fails, lose d3 power dice, opponent gains that many dispell dice
8. spell fails, caster loses a caster level.
9. spell goes off, lose d3 power dice, caster loses d3 caster levels.
10. spell fails, , lose d3 power dice, caster loses d3 caster levels
11. spell goes off, but is retargeted to the nearest unit, friendly or enemy, not counting one the caster is attached to. For template spells it targets the center of the retargeted unit. For moving templates, it moves in a straight line drawn from the caster through the center of the retargeted unit.
12. spell fails, roll a scatter dice. The caster is relocated Xd6 in that direction. (where X is the number of dice used to cast the spell that miscast). If a hit is rolled move in the direction of the small arrow. If this would result in the caster being placed in an enemy unit, unit it may not join, or impassable terrain, reduce the distance so that it remains 1" away from the unit or terrain piece. If it would be placed within a friendly unit that it could join, it immediately joins that unit in the front row.
13. spell goes off, but center a small blast over the caster. All models under the template take a Strength X hit at -X to saves (where X is the number of dice used to cast the spell that miscast).
14. spell fails, opponent may immediately cast a spell using the same number of dice that you used on the spell that miscast. You may use power dice from your pool to attempt to dispell the attempt.
15. spell goes off, but center a large blast over the caster. All models under the template take a Strength X hit at -X to saves (where X is the number of dice used to cast the spell that miscast).
16. spell fails, caster is removed from play, and all other casters within Xd6 (where Xis the number of dice used to cast the spell that miscast) lose d3 caster levels.
17. spell goes off with IF, but opponent may retarget it to any unit within range.
18. spell goes off with IF, but opponent may retarget it to any unit within range. Caster is removed from play and a large blast template centered on their old position. models under the template take a strength X hit with -X to saves, where X is the number of power dice remaining in your pool. Those dice are then lost after the hits are resolved.


As for random charge distances, why not keep the M + 2d6, with the option to instead choose to charge M + M after rolling the 2d6.

Lord Inquisitor
16-12-2012, 03:14
For dwarfs and empire cannons are a deterrent to monster who would otherwise kill all again.
This is, as far as I can tell, an absolute myth.

If ridden monsters were that good against infantry, you'd expect a good return at tournaments using them just hoping you don't run into the three armies with cannons (not counting skaven warp lightnings). Etherial-heavy armies are very vulnerable to a few armies but pretty good against the others. People run them despite the risk of running into daemons or skaven. Yet you don't see the same thing with ridden monsters?

If you know you're not facing an army that runs cannons, why aren't you taking a ridden monster? Why don't we get 20 threads a day "My opponent knows I play beastmen and keeps running a dragon with a rider, what can I do?" etc.

Ridden monsters just aren't that good. With 4 cannons, I can take a Griffon-mounted lord with my Empire and have a pretty good chance of getting him to the enemy just by shooting the enemy cannons with my own. Then what? Just about any infantry unit can challenge him out or whittle down the griffon's, what, 5 T5 wounds with no armour. Then the lord is on foot and easy pickings. The griffon won't last two rounds of combat against any half decent unit and even cheap troops will probably win before you can break steadfast. Someone's going to say "yeah, what do you expect sending him in alone, he needs support!" When we're talking about a unit like a dragon-rider often costing up to a quarter of the army's points, I expect something more from it. I can achieve the same sort of effect with a cheap lord or hero on a pegasus for much less and it is far more survivable both against cannons and rank and file. The major issue with monsters is that you don't have a combined profile like pegasi.

To quote myself on a different thread on this subject:


This is not the only problem with ridden monsters. There are three aspects.

1) Too vulnerable to cannons
2) Screwed by the challenge rules
3) Not viable against enemy infantry

Honestly a unit of great weapon troops will take down a rider/mount very quickly. Even regular S3 or S4 troops will cut a griffon or manticore out from under you or kill any character on top that doesn't have armour.

Really we need all three areas to have an overhaul.

1) Cannons need a rework. They need to get a BS-based system in SOME format. They're just too accurate. The artillery dice system was always meant to complement a guess-range system and just isn't made for a premeasure system and don't work with the established terrain modifier system.
2) The challenge rules need a complete overhaul. They're one aspect that needed a revamp in 7th and didn't get it in 8th. The game would simply be better if the challenge rules didn't exist because they're generally used to avoid a character or deny someone's attacks somewhere. Rarely do they allow mighty heroes to fight!
3) Mounted heroes need a consistent set of rules and multiple-part figures have been removed from 8th edition. A more streamlined and elegant system needs to be implemented. The obvious solution is to make them a single split profile figure.

All three need a look at in 9th.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 03:23
yea I juist think canons are juist bit to good. in that way that monster and cav wear to good in 7ed and hero's and lords in 6th. they juist cand find a good center look at the canon for the ogers way over powert its realy hard to deal with.
If empire players say you don't need canons to kill monsters its bad.

IcedCrow
16-12-2012, 03:36
When did monster-hammer happen?

5th edition. The edition that centered entirely around your killy heroes and their petting-zoo of monsters that they rode in on while being cheered to victory by the small handful of bodyguard models you had to take because you had to field 25% of "troops".

DaemonReign
16-12-2012, 03:42
For the Miscast Table I Think it would be sufficient to just say that you roll 1D6+'Number of PD used to Cast Spell'.
The current table isn't really that bad. It's 'balanced' to have a reasonable impact BOTH when you roll IF on two Dice and also when you consciously six-dice a spell.. and as such it works just fine.
Still.. if you made the Miscast-roll 1D6+Casting Dice then you could make the Table a bit more progressive since the 8-12 results wouldn't ever come into play when using your PD carefully.

And Lord Inq what can I say except: You're blowing these issues out of proportion..
Cannons need nothing but a tiny Little scatter and hitting the Rider on a 5 (or 6!).
The Challange rules are just plain unproblematic and the 'problem' you describe is exactly what you deserve if you bring poorly planned lists against a more savvy opponant (Yeah man what's stopping you from letting your gruesome combat-lord be accompanied by a Hero or Champ that can step up and take that challange? I really don't buy this premise.)
Combined profiles for ridden monsters.. Right. Well sure go ahead, but 4+ Wardsave is gone too right? There's just no reason to go this far. You're waving a sledgehammer at a scalpel's job.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 03:50
the challenge thing is not that much of a problem. had my combat lord on terrorgheist kill a unit of great sword oke 25 in one turn ( oke my lord alone killed 12 they flee and I got them )
and in challenges let them hit my terrorgheist than my strogoi king will not get hit. 240 point of monster of 400+ lord let them kill the monster. not alot of lords have servived after 2 round if they don't kill the terrorgheist in 2 combat rounds then the scream wil be on his character and not on the unit.

The Low King
16-12-2012, 08:36
the cannon's weaker is a must for 9ed or have to go up in points. or scater not juist bounce. a canon hase no chance of missing a chariot or a monster.

its about a 75% chance of hitting a monster when fireing strait no (ie, length of his base).

theunwantedbeing
16-12-2012, 08:36
5th edition. The edition that centered entirely around your killy heroes and their petting-zoo of monsters that they rode in on while being cheered to victory by the small handful of bodyguard models you had to take because you had to field 25% of "troops".

That was hero-hammer....not monster-hammer.


the challenge thing is not that much of a problem. had my combat lord on terrorgheist kill a unit of great sword oke 25 in one turn ( oke my lord alone killed 12 they flee and I got them )
So he wasn't in a challenge then was he?


and in challenges let them hit my terrorgheist than my strogoi king will not get hit. 240 point of monster of 400+ lord let them kill the monster. not alot of lords have servived after 2 round if they don't kill the terrorgheist in 2 combat rounds then the scream wil be on his character and not on the unit.
You don't get a say in which bit the enemy decides to attack, if he wants to aim his attacks at your 400pt lord rather than a 250pt monster he can do and there is nothing you can do about that. You also don't get to scream at individuals within a unit.....

Tygre
16-12-2012, 09:35
its about a 75% chance of hitting a monster when fireing strait no (ie, length of his base).
For 50mm base and aiming 6" in from the base rear 55.6% actually. Basically BS 3.5, not enough for BS 4.

I would give single characters and characters on monsters, in 9th Ed, a 4+ 'look out sir'. That does not depend on being within 3" of another unit. And does not pass the hit on to anyone.
I would also give characters in units a 'look out sir' as long as the troops in the unit are equal to or bigger than the character. It should be hard to see someone on foot amongst a cavalry unit.
In 9th Ed I would also get rid of True Line of Sight.

Vipoid
16-12-2012, 09:46
Not quite the same thing. The main randomness of cannons comes from the artillery dice rolls. Using BS also entails cover from units among other modifiers.


Yes, that's the idea. :eyebrows:


The idea is to give a player some intelligent way to reduce the likelihood of their monster being Hit when using terrain, but not completely avoid being hit.


If only this could be incorporated into some sort of roll.

Something that would take into account the skill of the people firing the cannon, balanced by the effect of cover.

If only such a system existed. :rolleyes:


Using BS also makes the cannon a glorified bolt thrower.

I don't get this argument.

Unless by "glorified bolt thrower" you actually mean "much better bolt thrower".

The cannon can misfire, but that's literally the only way in which it would be worse. It has much higher strength, causes d6 wounds, rather than d3, can hit more than one unit and can snipe models.

Furthermore, with a couple of exceptions, the cannon doesn't need to successfully wound a model in order to wound others behind it. On the other hand, if a bolt thrower fails to wound something, it stops there. And, whilst the bolt thrower gets weaker with every shot (and only starts at S6), the cannon gets its full strength against every model it hits.

yabbadabba
16-12-2012, 10:05
I think the rules are almost spot on at the moment. There are a few things that need to be tweaked but I think the main thing that needs to be addressed is gamers attitudes to the rules and each other. To be honest some of the attitudes on here leave me considering a hobby hermit's life. It seems to me that with every edition that is released, the problem is not how the new rules changes will impact on the game, but how the attitudes of the gamers implementing those changes will impact on the gamer base.


Steadfast could do with a small tweak. The move from highest (easy fix) to accumulative ranks would be good (more tactically challenging).
Pursuit - no more instant wipeouts if you are pursued by a unit which is smaller than yours please. Auto-hits and auto-wounds per attack of the pursuing unit.
Conformity of terms - a flank is a flank is a flank
A slightly harsher miscast table. It's getting pretty tough to be a wizard already
Allies rules. This makes sense, so make it official. It's easier to say no, than yes.



Then my own gripe. We want three versions of the game please; a beginner/tournament set, a full expanded campaign add on, and a full, expanded veteran rules add on. All official, and with money off vouchers in the beginner/tournament set for buying the add ons.

pippin_nl
16-12-2012, 10:39
my 5c:

Multiple Wound Models should get a test for each wound and suffer a wound for each failed test versus instant kill spells. (6+ Saves if the spell does not allow for a test like Gateway and 13th)

Canons should do 1d6 hits on each unit they hit (no more sniping) and the hits should be randomized
Stonethrowers should also do 1d6 or 1d3 (mortar) hits under the hole (but only the model under the hole is ever hit)

Steadfast should only be used for the break test not for the reform (this will make flank and rear charges better, but not overpowering and combats will be more exciting)

Characters should all be able to hide in a unit (why would a wizard be in the front rank?) without losing LOS

Less magical terrain (should be rare, maybe on a '6') and rules for normal terrain that make a bit of difference (reduced movement for instance).

Undead BSB grants a 6+ Crumble Save 12" and the General a 6+ Crumble Save to the unit joined

MR should be added to the casting value of the spell (this also applies to beneficial spells), this will make it worth wile again

IcedCrow
16-12-2012, 14:24
That was hero-hammer....not monster-hammer.

When the table is dominated by heroes AND monsters, then "monster-hammer" is still just as apt as "hero-hammer".

Maltor
16-12-2012, 17:59
Yes, that's the idea. :eyebrows:



If only this could be incorporated into some sort of roll.
So thats why terrain would stop a cannon template on a roll of a 1 on a D6 when enter a forest or passing over the apex of a hill. Some randomness but not overdone.

In my previous example, i was the one using the Star Dragon prince along with Dragon princes.

I don't get this argument.

Unless by "glorified bolt thrower" you actually mean "much better bolt thrower."

Pretty much. I believe it serves variety better to keep BS away from the cannons. Terrain and player skill should be the deciding factor for machines that can misfire, miss the target, not wound, ward/regen saved, and only do 1 wound. When things go right cannons seem like the greatest thing in the game. But many times things will and do go wrong. 8th only allows non-tradesmen the ability to use cannons better. People in construction rarely would mistake the guess distance.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 18:07
its about a 75% chance of hitting a monster when fireing strait no (ie, length of his base).
no not with a terrorgheist or the others that big and thats alot for somthing that kan kill it in one go.



You don't get a say in which bit the enemy decides to attack, if he wants to aim his attacks at your 400pt lord rather than a 250pt monster he can do and there is nothing you can do about that. You also don't get to scream at individuals within a unit.....

In a challenge all attacks are on you Challenger you are in close combat only with you challenger. so in you second round of a challenge the scream is only on the character alone in combat he can only scream on unit that he is in combat with .

logan054
16-12-2012, 18:54
For me a I think a few key things need to be addressed to make 9th a better edition.

1) Magic, the BRB lores need to be brough more in line with the 8th ed AB lores, I think using the VC lore as a baseline would be a great starting point.
2) Terrain, tbh, it either does to little or to much (high silly building rules)
4) warmachines, I would be more of a fan of something like what we have in 40k to determine scatter (dice - BS + a arrow/hit dice)

I really like yabba's idea of different levels of play, I would however rather have it in one book, however I think something like beginers and advanced would be enough.




In a challenge all attacks are on you Challenger you are in close combat only with you challenger. so in you second round of a challenge the scream is only on the character alone in combat he can only scream on unit that he is in combat with .

Screams are done in the shooting phase, they are distributed as a shooting attacks, just as with impact hits they cannot target the character, they have to made against the unit.


Pretty much. I believe it serves variety better to keep BS away from the cannons. Terrain and player skill should be the deciding factor for machines that can misfire, miss the target, not wound, ward/regen saved, and only do 1 wound. When things go right cannons seem like the greatest thing in the game. But many times things will and do go wrong. 8th only allows non-tradesmen the ability to use cannons better. People in construction rarely would mistake the guess distance.

So basically, for the sake of variety, a shooting unit with a very powerful weapon shouldn't having its shooting effected by BS. I'm not sure what being in construction would have to do with anything either, what your talking about is people estimating ranges on a stationary target, a cannon on the other hand is trying to hit a moving target while accounting for wind speed, I really doubt the only variance is going to be distance.

theunwantedbeing
16-12-2012, 19:19
In a challenge all attacks are on you Challenger you are in close combat only with you challenger. so in you second round of a challenge the scream is only on the character alone in combat he can only scream on unit that he is in combat with .

Can you rephrase that please?
I don't fully understand what you are saying.

Vipoid
16-12-2012, 19:37
Pretty much. I believe it serves variety better to keep BS away from the cannons.

I think you've misunderstood my argument.

The point I was making was that, even if you gave cannons BS, they'd still be considerably better than bolt throwers.


Terrain and player skill should be the deciding factor for machines that can misfire, miss the target, not wound, ward/regen saved, and only do 1 wound. When things go right cannons seem like the greatest thing in the game. But many times things will and do go wrong.

Surely you could say that about a lot of things though?


People in construction rarely would mistake the guess distance.

I've honestly no idea what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying that cannon operators are excellent shots?

Because, if you are, I fear that you're mistaken.

There's a number known as BS, which measures how accurate a person is with the weapon(s) he has been trained to fire. And, if you look at Dwarf/Empire cannon crews, you'll notice that they have BS3. Or, not counting penalties for distance, cover etc., they can be expected to hit with just 50% of their shots. Guess they can't be that good at guessing distances after all...


As an aside, I'd be equally happy if, instead of cannons firing using BS, the TLoS/Cover rules got changed, so that cover actually affects cannons.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 19:56
The scream is only on the unit you are fighting but in a challenge you are only fighting a challengers so the full scream is on him. Was discution point I wanted it to still be on the unit a lord with one wound isn't somthing I wane scream When I em sure that my rider will kill him. but only in the second round of a challenge becose you don't move out of a challenge in between turns.

Vipoid
16-12-2012, 20:14
The scream is only on the unit you are fighting but in a challenge you are only fighting a challengers so the full scream is on him.

That's incorrect.

In combat, the scream targets a unit in base contact with the terrorghiest, and the hits are distributed as shooting.

A challenge is, in fact, irrelevant, because it is not a CC attack, nor is it even conducted in the combat phase.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 21:16
sweet that makes the combination of a terrorgheist and a combat lord even better to charge small elite units and def challenge. de lord kills of fights the scream kills the unit :D

Vipoid
16-12-2012, 21:18
sweet that makes the combination of a terrorgheist and a combat lord even better to charge small elite units and def challenge. de lord kills of fights the scream kills the unit :D

Indeed.

Just beware that the casualties from the scream don't count towards combat resolution.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 21:41
I know but its one of the beter monster lord combinations :D

Maoriboy007
16-12-2012, 22:01
I know but its one of the beter monster lord combinations :DIts okay, its still possible to pip it off with a warmachine, and the terrogheist has no armour like a dragon so normal missile fire and attack wound it just fine, also making its scream that much weaker. Its not bad in the right circumstances though.

Jerry
16-12-2012, 23:02
I hope WFB adopts 40k's allies rule. And also change all the super spells to causing one wound instead of removing the model.

quietus1986
16-12-2012, 23:29
I only use lords like that in game's with 3000 or more points.

Lord Inquisitor
17-12-2012, 03:03
And Lord Inq what can I say except: You're blowing these issues out of proportion..
Cannons need nothing but a tiny Little scatter and hitting the Rider on a 5 (or 6!).
The issue with cannons goes right to the core of their design. The current system is little changed since 4th edition but the game has changed a lot since then. It is just an overcomplicated and antiquated system that doesn't work within the 8th ed framework. The idea was cute, to allow the player's skill at guessing to replace the gunner's ballistic skill, but guessing has gone the way of the dodo and what we are left with is a system where neither the player's skill at guessing or the gunner's ballistic skill affects the chance of hitting!

All of the issues people have with cannons - precision sniping, too good against monsters, ignores terrain, better return against massed infantry than stone throwers, etc., all actually stem from the cannon mechanics. And why do we need them? There's two pages of cannon mechanics but you could have decent cannon rules in a paragraph.

Overcomplicated. Archaic. Problematic. I've not heard an argument for why cannons shouldn't use BS that doesn't boil down, sooner or later, to "we've always done it this way".


The Challange rules are just plain unproblematic and the 'problem' you describe is exactly what you deserve if you bring poorly planned lists against a more savvy opponant (Yeah man what's stopping you from letting your gruesome combat-lord be accompanied by a Hero or Champ that can step up and take that challange? I really don't buy this premise.)
I know how to use, bend, abuse and rub my opponent's face in the challenge rules. My opponent typically does as well. The point isn't just that a combat lord can get stuck on a champion or whatever. The challenge rules are presented in each edition to allow mighty heroes to find each other in the swirling melee, in the style of the Illiad or any high fantasy you'd like to mention. Fair enough! It makes sense there needs to be a mechanic as they will often end up not in base to base when the units match up. But is this what it does? Almost never. The challenge rules are designed to screw one side or the other out of attacks. Preventing a ridden monsters or mount from attacking (and stomping). Taking a number of rank and file out of combat and denying them attacks - something I do all the time with my Ogres. And most often - allowing a hero to avoid being attacked by an enemy hero.

When the challenge rules are presented they don't really do what they say on the tin. They're described as allowing mighty heroes to battle - but they're used by so-called "mighty heroes" to avoid enemy attacks. Sure it takes skill and the challenge system provides a little "game within a game" but is merely requiring skill a good reason for keeping it? Guessing ranges was a skill but I love the change to premeasuring even though I was pretty damn good at guessing ranges. 40K has had challenges added and exactly the same issues but even worse have happened. Challenge rules are used overwhelmingly to deny attacks, not to actually fight heroic challenges.

The absolute worst case happened in a game a few months ago. I had my general in a combat with his general but not in base contact. Turned out that he wanted to fight my general with his and I wanted it too - I wanted to break his army and I had the upper hand in the challenge with my vampire but if his general got lucky and staked my vampire it would turn the tide of the war. But I didn't challenge because I didn't want to get stuck on a champion and he didn't challenge for the same reason. The challenge rules failed at their basic purpose!

I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. Allowing challenges to be issued in terms of "rank" might be one. A hero might issue a "hero challenge" in which case only heroes can accept or an "open challenge" where anyone including champions can accept. Likewise heroes can ignore a challenge from a lowly champion as it is beneath them, but must answer or refuse a challenge from a hero. If you charge a ridden monster into a unit your opponent can issue a challenge with his champion but the monster rider can ignore it if desired because he's a hero. But if the unit charged has a hero and the hero challenges, the monster rider can't back down from that one!

It's just a half-baked idea off the top of my head but the idea is to push challenges more towards "My hero heroically challenges your hero to a heroic duel. Heroically!"


Combined profiles for ridden monsters.. Right. Well sure go ahead, but 4+ Wardsave is gone too right? There's just no reason to go this far. You're waving a sledgehammer at a scalpel's job.
It is the last vestige of multi-part models. But for the most part - build a combat lord, give him whatever armour and wards you like and then compare the combined unit (assuming one profile with mount's wounds and toughness, like MC) to a tooled-up bloodthirster. Most of the time it's pretty equivalent in damage output, toughness, wounds, armour, ward and points value.


If only this could be incorporated into some sort of roll.

Something that would take into account the skill of the people firing the cannon, balanced by the effect of cover.

If only such a system existed. :rolleyes:
This! Haha... so much this.




Pursuit - no more instant wipeouts if you are pursued by a unit which is smaller than yours please. Auto-hits and auto-wounds per attack of the pursuing unit.
Really? I'm surprised this is something you of all people think needs to be changed. I don't mean that in any way as a derogatory statement, just surprised.

I don't know if it would be good or not. I know when I started I always thought it odd that one character could run down a whole unit but I got very used to it and I think it's relatively rare these days with steadfast... Is it a problem?


Allies rules. This makes sense, so make it official. It's easier to say no, than yes.
Funny I'd have said the opposite. If you put together a full set of ally rules - not just a few vague guidelines - incorporated into the main rules but say both sides need to agree to use them, then it is easy to say "hey, fancy a game using allies" just like "hey fancy a game with Storm of Magic" or "hey, fancy a siege game" or whatever.

Saying "no" is much harder. "Hey, fancy a game where you're not allowed to bring special characters" isn't something people often say. As you said, it's a matter of attitude and there's always an issue of people bringing "cheese" or "abusing" the rules and it's not an easy thing to say "no" to.

We can see what having default ally rules has done to 40K and I imagine it would only be worse for WFB.


sweet that makes the combination of a terrorgheist and a combat lord even better to charge small elite units and def challenge. de lord kills of fights the scream kills the unit :D
It is a sweet combo... but you don't put the vamp lord on the terrorgheist! That would be a terrible idea! Much better to run a terrorgheist without rider and run the ghoul king separately. Even if you don't put the vampire in a unit, even just giving the vampire wings and flying around behind the terrorgheist is a much better plan. They 'gheist can protect the vamp from cannonballs (and the vamp can get look out sir rolls for nearby units) and in combat, if the vampire is in a challenge it doesn't stop the 'gheist fighting and thunderstomping the unit. Best of all the 'gheist doesn't come out of your Lord allowance and you can afford a level 4 necromancer lord.

Kayosiv
17-12-2012, 03:58
There is a heaping helping of problems wit the challenge rules as you said, but one of the most illogical ones is that there is no benefit to actually winning one.

You challenge to save your unit, to tie up characters, to move your heroes, or to send enemies to the back of units, but who actually challenges to actually win at challenges?

Winning a challenge gives you 0 bonus, so what's the incentive? Well if winning isn't the incentive, you have to make one, so players use challenges for the above reasons. Why wouldn't the side who's champion kills the other champion get some sort of bonus? He won his challenge, but combat resolution remains unchanged, victory points remain unchanged, and the winner remains the same; the winner gets no prize! This by default creates a system were the only reason to use the challenge rules is to exploit them, because they actually serve no purpose other than to be exploited.

Shimmergloom
17-12-2012, 04:52
If you kill the enemy champion with your champion you get +1CR already cause you got the kill and they did not. You can even go up to +5 for overkill. That's plenty of incentive. But now you want to give chaos and ogre champs who already can hit like a ton of bricks, even more of an advantage for killing a gobbo in a challenge?

byrothegyro
17-12-2012, 05:11
But that +1CR would happen if you're in a challenge or not, so it's not really a benefit of the challenge. Up to +5CR for overkill is nice sure, but +5CR and 5 dead models is a lot better. Those two reasons are not incentive to get in a challenge. Giving a bonus for winning a challenge is a good idea, just because ogres and chaos already have something going for them doesn't mean another bonus would be bad because it would be for everyone. Challenges more often than not are a bad thing for armies that have to issue and accept challenges the way they are now.

Shimmergloom
17-12-2012, 05:15
No it wouldn't necessarily happen. If you are fighting again, gobbos, you would rather your gw wielding champ fight in the challenge vs 2 gobbo attacks, then not in a challenge vs many gobbo attacks.

Because of striking in initiative it is not a given that your champ is going to live to kill 5 models, instead of getting +CR from overkill.

Lord Inquisitor
17-12-2012, 05:23
That's a pretty small and specific advantage there. I can't imagine that comes up much. Let's face it, there are a whole host of reasons to challenge and that's way down on the list.

pippin_nl
17-12-2012, 05:52
The problem with using Bs for cannons is that they would become a very expensive bolt thrower, 120 points for a cannon and only 45 if I remember correctly for a bolt thrower. Also you would need to make extra rules or do you expect soft cover to grant protection from a cannonball. How would you resolve a cannonshot against a unit, just one model hit?

Lord Inquisitor
17-12-2012, 06:04
The problem with using Bs for cannons is that they would become a very expensive bolt thrower, 120 points for a cannon and only 45 if I remember correctly for a bolt thrower. Also you would need to make extra rules or do you expect soft cover to grant protection from a cannonball. How would you resolve a cannonshot against a unit, just one model hit?

Yes, I think it is reasonable for soft cover to provide protection. A cannonball shouldn't be as effective at hitting a target in a wood as in the open. While a cannonball might well smash through you would expect some chance of a tree stopping or deflecting a cannon shot. -1 seems reasonable.

As for how to resolve it, one model hit per rank seems reasonable to me. But it would certainly need some playtesting.

The fact that bolt throwers aren't worth their points is a different problem. I don't know if cannons would be worth the points they are now if they rolled for BS just like bolt throwers. I suspect they would be due a points drop but I imagine they'd still be a lot more worthwhile than bolt throwers. But any which way these things are easily solved by looking at the mechanics and/or points.

danny-d-b
17-12-2012, 06:10
why not just have the cannon scatter D6 minus your BS? stone throwers could do the same thing (art+D6- BS)

Vipoid
17-12-2012, 08:42
There is a heaping helping of problems wit the challenge rules as you said, but one of the most illogical ones is that there is no benefit to actually winning one.


That's a very good point.

There's overkill, but since you're attacking a champion or character, it's likely that you'd get more CR by simply wailing on rank and file models (something my Vampires have demonstrated more than once...).


I know a while ago, someone suggested (on a different thread) that CR from challenges should be doubled.

Could this help fix challenges?

theunwantedbeing
17-12-2012, 09:00
The problem with using Bs for cannons is that they would become a very expensive bolt thrower, 120 points for a cannon and only 45 if I remember correctly for a bolt thrower. Also you would need to make extra rules or do you expect soft cover to grant protection from a cannonball. How would you resolve a cannonshot against a unit, just one model hit?

A very expensive bolt thrower?
Possibly but they do hit much harder and have other abilities the bolt thrower lacks.

90 & 45pts respectively for bs3 with dwarves
105 & 60pts respectively for bs4 with dwarves

Bolt thrower...48" range, St6, D3 wounds loses strength going through ranks, stops if it fails to slay at any point.
Cannon...48" range, St10 D6 wounds, loses no strength going through ranks, stops only if it fails to slay MI/MC or Monsters...also able to destroy terrain, far better at hurting things in buildings.
For higher cost, I fail to see an issue.

The Bs roll would merely be to hit the chosen target spot, which is usually at short range (0-24" away).
Remember cannons can fire grapeshot as well, which means they can defend themselves a little from lighter troops. (this is one reason elves pay through the nose for their bolt throwers)

I can't see why that is unfair.

If this happened dwarves (if they keep runes for war machines) would likely get "hits on a 2+" available to be taken on both bolt throwers and cannon which certainly helps with accuracy, even at extreme ranges through cover to splatter those pesky enemy monsters on turn 1.
Empire gets a bum deal of course, but they have access to bs4 through a master engineer and buff spells that allow re-rolls to hit certainly help.

Stone throwers would follow a similar rule although I'm not sure what would happen to their indirect fire ability.
Maybe they'de lose it, maybe not.

Lord Solar Plexus
17-12-2012, 10:52
Winning a challenge gives you 0 bonus, so what's the incentive?


Killing an enemy character, getting the points for him or sending him to the back to deny him his attacks or other abilities. Or were you just talking about champions?

I don't think there should be any further benefit for slaying champions. Everyone expected him to go splat, and he was a bully anyways. Also, if a champion's challenge can be ignored they should get rid of champion rules completely, they'd only clutter the book then.

Vipoid
17-12-2012, 11:28
Killing an enemy character, getting the points for him or sending him to the back to deny him his attacks or other abilities. Or were you just talking about champions?

Well, to be fair, how many characters are in squads without unit-champions?

Most likely, he'll send in said champion, rather than exclude a character from combat. In fact, aside from skaven, the only characters I can see going to the back are mages - and that's only because it's exactly where they want to be.

Killing an enemy character is good, but that can also be done if your character is in base contact. If you're not in base contact, and you're forced to challenge, then it's likely to be an uneven fight (otherwise, why would you want them to fight one another?). In which case, as above, you're likely to just end up wailing on the unit champion, rather than your target character.


Also, if a champion's challenge can be ignored they should get rid of champion rules completely, they'd only clutter the book then.

Probably.

Thing is, at the moment, they only really exist to block challenges - by giving the enemy character something to wail on, whilst his own characters attack your rank and file normally.


Considering that challenges supposedly exist to allow epic combats between enemy characters, the champion rules seem to exist purely to undermine that idea.

pippin_nl
17-12-2012, 14:50
A very expensive bolt thrower?
Possibly but they do hit much harder and have other abilities the bolt thrower lacks.

90 & 45pts respectively for bs3 with dwarves
105 & 60pts respectively for bs4 with dwarves

Bolt thrower...48" range, St6, D3 wounds loses strength going through ranks, stops if it fails to slay at any point.
Cannon...48" range, St10 D6 wounds, loses no strength going through ranks, stops only if it fails to slay MI/MC or Monsters...also able to destroy terrain, far better at hurting things in buildings.
For higher cost, I fail to see an issue.

The Bs roll would merely be to hit the chosen target spot, which is usually at short range (0-24" away).
Remember cannons can fire grapeshot as well, which means they can defend themselves a little from lighter troops. (this is one reason elves pay through the nose for their bolt throwers)

I can't see why that is unfair.

If this happened dwarves (if they keep runes for war machines) would likely get "hits on a 2+" available to be taken on both bolt throwers and cannon which certainly helps with accuracy, even at extreme ranges through cover to splatter those pesky enemy monsters on turn 1.
Empire gets a bum deal of course, but they have access to bs4 through a master engineer and buff spells that allow re-rolls to hit certainly help.

Stone throwers would follow a similar rule although I'm not sure what would happen to their indirect fire ability.
Maybe they'de lose it, maybe not.

You should compare the Empire Cannon (120 pts) with the O&G Spear Chukka (35) as they are both 8th edition.

Empire Cannon: S10, BS 3, 1D6 wounds remains S10
O&G Spear Chukka: S6, BS 3, 1D3 wounds, -1S per rank

I would chose 7 Spear Chukkas over 2 BS Cannons every day

When I gave my example of soft cover unlikely to grant protection from a cannon, I was thinking about hedges, skirmishers, infantry units etc..
Counting on magic to boost war machines is hardly fair, Empire Wizards will be busy Purple Sunning and Dwelling from Below! Engineers are quite expensive and are only useful if the war machine is overpowered or undercosted (Hellblaster). Also Empire is stuck with a worthless stonethrower, so the cannon needs to be overpowered. Sure change the cannon and let them use BS, but the same should apply to the mortar in that case (besides changing the cost to 75 points)

Vipoid
17-12-2012, 15:03
You should compare the Empire Cannon (120 pts) with the O&G Spear Chukka (35) as they are both 8th edition.

Empire Cannon: S10, BS 3, 1D6 wounds remains S10
O&G Spear Chukka: S6, BS 3, 1D3 wounds, -1S per rank

I would chose 7 Spear Chukkas over 2 BS Cannons every day

Ok, but consider this:

Firstly, cheap as they are, O&G bolt throwers are the only bolt throwers that can actually misfire. Which is, let me remind you, the only advantage they have over cannons.

Furthermore, whilst you might say that 7 spear chuckers are better than 3 great cannons, good luck ever fielding that many.

In anything up to 3000pts, you can only ever field 3 great cannons, or 3 spear chuckers. True, the cannons are more expensive, but they're also much more likely to inflict serious damage on the enemy.

What I'm saying is that, unlike in 40k, the option to field many small units; instead of one large one, don't always exist.

Phazael
17-12-2012, 15:03
Simplest fix to cannons would be to roll to hit, taking range into account, then if the shot misses, roll two artillery dice and add them for the initial sail through the air distance. Ignore any other modifiers. Cannons would still be pretty damn effective at short range, but not the laser guided snipe machines at long that they are now. Everything else aside, its just the incredible accuracy that bothers me most about cannons.

theunwantedbeing
17-12-2012, 16:07
Also Empire is stuck with a worthless stonethrower, so the cannon needs to be overpowered.

Dark elves are stuck with worthless bolt throwers, so the Hydra needs to be overpowered. :angel:

The Low King
17-12-2012, 16:23
A very expensive bolt thrower?
Possibly but they do hit much harder and have other abilities the bolt thrower lacks.

90 & 45pts respectively for bs3 with dwarves
105 & 60pts respectively for bs4 with dwarves

Bolt thrower...48" range, St6, D3 wounds loses strength going through ranks, stops if it fails to slay at any point.
Cannon...48" range, St10 D6 wounds, loses no strength going through ranks, stops only if it fails to slay MI/MC or Monsters...also able to destroy terrain, far better at hurting things in buildings.
For higher cost, I fail to see an issue.


cannon also misfires...
has to roll the bounce distance (unless you also change that)...
you can take 2 bolt throwers as one special choice...


And they are 'very expensive bolt throwers' because they would just be upgraded bolt throwers. It would also render many of the bolt thrower runes a bit useless.

pippin_nl
17-12-2012, 16:37
Ok, but consider this:

Firstly, cheap as they are, O&G bolt throwers are the only bolt throwers that can actually misfire. Which is, let me remind you, the only advantage they have over cannons.

Furthermore, whilst you might say that 7 spear chuckers are better than 3 great cannons, good luck ever fielding that many.

In anything up to 3000pts, you can only ever field 3 great cannons, or 3 spear chuckers. True, the cannons are more expensive, but they're also much more likely to inflict serious damage on the enemy.

What I'm saying is that, unlike in 40k, the option to field many small units; instead of one large one, don't always exist.

In a 2400 game you would be able to field 3 cannons or 6 spear chukkas (2 for 1 rule), but 3 cannons cost 360 and 6 chukkas only 210. Chance of misfire is the same, but the cannon has twice the chance to blow up. But maybe if the cost would go down to 60 points it would be all right to use BS instead of the current rules.

pippin_nl
17-12-2012, 16:42
Dark elves are stuck with worthless bolt throwers, so the Hydra needs to be overpowered. :angel:

Ok that was not the best of reasons. The impact of cannons should become less, but they are expensive enough as it is with the current rules. Mortars should become 60 points at the most. RBT's should become about 75 pts and the hydra 225.

yabbadabba
17-12-2012, 16:42
The cannon debate is really redundant without other considerations. This thread is not going to develop unless we move on.

DaemonReign
17-12-2012, 16:48
RBT's should become about 75 pts and the hydra 225.

Now, now.. Let's be reasonable.. Take 25pts off the RBT and add those to the Hydra and things would be just dandy.

Phazael
17-12-2012, 16:54
Hydra would be fairly priced at 200 if the handlers followed the same rules as all other handlers in the game (ie if they were able to be killed) and the hydra were clarified to not be affected by the cauldron. As it is, the current hydra does have weaknesses to a couple of monsters out there (generic giants, treemen) but there is no hard counter to it. But thats an army book issue, not core rules.

Back on topic, just remember that simple solutions are the best guys.

NightHawk45
17-12-2012, 17:41
I wouldn't mind seeing how spell generation changes. Say there are 6 spells and a signature, a lvl 1 or 2 rolls a d3 to choose from the first 3 spells. A lvl 3 or higher gets to choose their spells the same way that one does now. The signature works the same for both types of mages. This would give low level casters more reliability, but at the same time prevent them from taking a nasty spell.

logan054
17-12-2012, 17:49
If you kill the enemy champion with your champion you get +1CR already cause you got the kill and they did not. You can even go up to +5 for overkill. That's plenty of incentive. But now you want to give chaos and ogre champs who already can hit like a ton of bricks, even more of an advantage for killing a gobbo in a challenge?

In the case of a character on a monster it will lower the damage he can do, more often than not a monster will not get to strike, as great as the overkill is, I would rather be killing those models, 5 dead models is better than one dead model and +4 CR, 5 dead models more often than not will be a rank gone (or a good portion of one), as such increasing the chance of breaking steadfast. Chaos and ogre champs/heroes cost a lot of points, a gobbo hero does not, you also do not have accept with the gobbo champion.

pippin_nl
17-12-2012, 18:04
On Warhammer Forum one of the posters had a good idea: Scale the Miscast table with the number of dice used, similar to what is used for the Steam Tank.

theunwantedbeing
17-12-2012, 18:22
Ok that was not the best of reasons.
Damned right it wasn't :P


The impact of cannons should become less, but they are expensive enough as it is with the current rules.
Dwarf cannons went from D3 to D6 wounds when normally they'de have needed an engineer hero for that.


Mortars should become 60 points at the most.
If they have to roll to hit and if they miss the shot doesn't fire....perhaps.
Plenty of units are t3 afterall and a st2 large template weapon can cause huge damage to them.


RBT's should become about 75 pts
Currently, elven bolt throwers are worth maybe 50pts at a push.

Seems the thread has moved on to hydra nerfing now sadly.

pippin_nl
17-12-2012, 19:37
Damned right it wasn't :P


Dwarf cannons went from D3 to D6 wounds when normally they'de have needed an engineer hero for that.


If they have to roll to hit and if they miss the shot doesn't fire....perhaps.
Plenty of units are t3 afterall and a st2 large template weapon can cause huge damage to them.


Currently, elven bolt throwers are worth maybe 50pts at a push.

Seems the thread has moved on to hydra nerfing now sadly.


When considering rules and point cost we should take a look at 8th edition AB's and the 8th edition rulebook. So indeed looking at Dwarfs and Dark Elves is not very useful. looking at Ogre and Empire Cannons we can say that their chance of sniping is too high and the rules for shooting at ridden monsters make those ridden monsters scarce. The 9th edition rules should change that without nerfing cannons as they are too expensive to make them useless.

Magic is too powerful at the moment, risks are not high enough, the gains are too great. The problem is not the 2d6 PD, but the power of a few instant win spells and the rules for MR. In my country characters get a LOS versus the instant kill spells which makes those spells slightly weaker, but Mind Razor is still unchained.

Vipoid
17-12-2012, 19:44
The 9th edition rules should change that without nerfing cannons as they are too expensive to make them useless.

I think you may be overreacting.

Making cannons use BS really shouldn't make them useless.

"Oh no, we'll have to use our shooting skill to fire a shooting weapon. The Horror!" :eyebrows:

theunwantedbeing
17-12-2012, 19:56
When considering rules and point cost we should take a look at 8th edition AB's and the 8th edition rulebook.
Why?


So indeed looking at Dwarfs and Dark Elves is not very useful.
Why isn't it?


looking at Ogre and Empire Cannons we can say that their chance of sniping is too high and the rules for shooting at ridden monsters make those ridden monsters scarce.
Help make them scarce, they aren't the only reason ridden monsters are scarce.


The 9th edition rules should change that without nerfing cannons as they are too expensive to make them useless.
Why can't the points costs change in 9th?
We had plenty of things that changed for the better in the move to 8th and plenty that changed for the worse.
There is no reason why cannons cannot get better, or worse with 9th edition changes while they wait for new points costs in a new book.

yabbadabba
17-12-2012, 20:02
Cannons are not the problem.

IcedCrow
17-12-2012, 20:04
You don't see ridden monsters for a host of reasons. Cannons IMO are benign.

Vipoid
17-12-2012, 20:06
Cannons are not the problem.

Not the problem with what?


Anyway, surely the fact that the cannon rules have remained unchanged through several editions now, despite considerable changes to LoS, cover etc. is a problem in and of itself?

yabbadabba
17-12-2012, 20:14
Not the problem with what? With whatever people are griping about them

Anyway, surely the fact that the cannon rules have remained unchanged through several editions now, despite considerable changes to LoS, cover etc. is a problem in and of itself? Change for changes sake?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Kayosiv
17-12-2012, 20:30
About as much sense as keeping things the same based on obsolete tradition.

AmaroK
17-12-2012, 20:34
With whatever people are griping about them
Change for changes sake?

Yeah, that makes sense.

No, changes for the sake of rules that were created for another edition, that used to consider smaller bases as targets, as well as you had to stimate. Only this would make a change of cannon rules something to be considered.

yabbadabba
17-12-2012, 20:46
About as much sense as keeping things the same based on obsolete tradition. Actually no. Two key things have changed how cannons work to the veteran player; the changes in terrain and the change in the rider/monster targeting. Removing guessing the range has no impact on the veteran artilleryman.

So, cannons which have remained almost completely constant in their damage potential, have been changed because of the impact of other rules that people also disagree with. Common sense and logic dictate that you change those rules before you go looking for scapegoats.

It's not tradition, but the simple logic of how you go about fixing things. We are wargamers, not politicians, we do not go around trying to fix things by making other things even bigger piles of crap.

pippin_nl
17-12-2012, 21:04
Why?


Why isn't it?


Help make them scarce, they aren't the only reason ridden monsters are scarce.


Why can't the points costs change in 9th?
We had plenty of things that changed for the better in the move to 8th and plenty that changed for the worse.
There is no reason why cannons cannot get better, or worse with 9th edition changes while they wait for new points costs in a new book.

Looking at 8th edition and how to improve upon that, we should not also look at 7th and 6th edition books. Magic and war machines make ridden monsters scarce, once in combat most infantry and cavalry units will lose to them in the end. One thing 8th edition will hopefully have is an AB for every race.

Lord Inquisitor
17-12-2012, 21:05
Cannons are not the only problem with ridden monsters.
Ridden monsters are not the only problem with cannons.

Both sections need simpler rules, not more layers of complication. Both need a redesign from scratch how they work.

yabbadabba
17-12-2012, 21:07
Cannons are not the only problem with ridden monsters.
Ridden monsters are not the only problem with cannons.

Both sections need simpler rules, not more layers of complication. Both need a redesign from scratch how they work. I don't know about monsters, but I have been using cannons and teaching kids how to use cannons for more years than I care to remember. Simpler rules they do not need.

Thuggrim
17-12-2012, 21:31
For the game to ever be played at my club again the random charges need to go and replaced with the old 7th Ed rules. There has literally been three games of WFB played at my club since the 8th edition rules came into force, when WFB used to be the most widely played game at the club followed by 40k.

When I've ask people why they've stopped, it is purely due to the charge rules. The club members have played through all previous editions of WFB and this is the rule change that they hate the most and has led to the complete death of the game at my club.

The rest of the rules are fine, even if magic seems a little over the top currently.

The only other comment that I have is that I really wish that GW would release all the new army lists ala Ravening Hordes when the new edition comes out, but that is probably a dicussion for another thread.

The game does need an a'la ravening hordes reset, it also needs a design team that can they not screw a reset and balanced environment in under 3 books.... :shifty: 3 games is not many, but if something is a major turn off then thats what it it is. I don't mind a random element but think it is too great a variation at present - a 5" difference between lowest and highest would be about right in my view.


Steadfast must go; attacking in multiple ranks for non spears must go but step up can stay.

Nothing wrong with steadfast that allowing disruption from flank or rear to remove or reduce wouldn't solve. In a unit v unit face to face is fine, counters the old msu cavalry nonsense from 7th. No issue with the multiple ranks either its not causing issues that I can see.

Vipoid
17-12-2012, 21:33
Change for changes sake?

Yeah, that makes sense.

No, change for the sake of actually keeping their rules up to date with the rules for LoS and cover.


Alternatively, I guess you could keep the cannon rules the same and build the entire shooting, LoS and cover system around them. :shifty:

yabbadabba
17-12-2012, 21:39
No, change for the sake of actually keeping their rules up to date with the rules for LoS and cover.


Alternatively, I guess you could keep the cannon rules the same and build the entire shooting, LoS and cover system around them. :shifty: I take it you missed my reply earlier?

Vipoid
17-12-2012, 21:45
I take it you missed my reply earlier?

Apologies, it seems I did:


Actually no. Two key things have changed how cannons work to the veteran player; the changes in terrain and the change in the rider/monster targeting. Removing guessing the range has no impact on the veteran artilleryman.

So, cannons which have remained almost completely constant in their damage potential, have been changed because of the impact of other rules that people also disagree with. Common sense and logic dictate that you change those rules before you go looking for scapegoats.

Well, to be fair, not everyone is a veteran who can perfectly guess any range. So, premeasuring doesn't exactly effect everyone equally. :p

Regardless, I'll say this again - I have no objections with TLoS being replaced with abstract LoS, and cover being altered so that it affects all weapons - not just those that use BS.

However, if TLoS and the current Cover rules remain the same (not that I want them to, but it seems many others do), then it is only logical that the cannon rules are instead changed to bring them into line with these.

yabbadabba
17-12-2012, 21:53
Well, to be fair, not everyone is a veteran who can perfectly guess any range. So, premeasuring doesn't exactly effect everyone equally. :p I never said it did, but as there is not a landslide of new players bitching about the cannons, we can safely disregard their opinion on this thread at the moment.

Regardless, I'll say this again - I have no objections with TLoS being replaced with abstract LoS, and cover being altered so that it affects all weapons - not just those that use BS.
However, if TLoS and the current Cover rules remain the same (not that I want them to, but it seems many others do), then it is only logical that the cannon rules are instead changed to bring them into line with these. That's not what's being argued though, is it? This is a 9e discussion and as there are issues with terrain and the monster/rider combo, these are what most people complain about when it comes to cannons - being able to hide your vulnerable monster and a cannon not wiping out your centrepiece figure with a lucky shot on turn one. These issues also affect other types of war machine/missile/magic attacks so it's not a cannon exclusive issue but cannons are remarkably effective under such conditions. So by changing the cannon's rules, we are not correcting the situation, merely changing one aspect of it. Get back to the root cause, change those causes, then re-evaluate the potential of the cannon.

DaemonReign
17-12-2012, 22:02
On Warhammer Forum one of the posters had a good idea: Scale the Miscast table with the number of dice used, similar to what is used for the Steam Tank.

I aired this idea myself upthread and I'm hardly the first.
What I envision is that you roll 1D6 (instead of 2D6) and add the number of dice you used to cast to the result.
Then you have a very progressive chart where the results 3-7 a rather 'lenient' with 3 [rolling a double 6 with two PD and then a '1' on the chart] being nothing but a slap on the wrist really..
Then for results 8 and up you'd get increasingly horrible results with '12' (rolling 6 dice irresistable and rolling a 6 on the Chart) being a veritable oh god help me! result like: Casting Wizard removed from play, large template S10 hit on the spot, every friendly wizard takes a S10 hit, loses D3 magic levels, and the magic phase ends.'

I really like how 8th Ed works compared to previous Editions. I like the big hordes and the bloodbath, I like that there are spells that no kind of protection will save you from, a like that that there are spells that can radically shift the tide of battle. I think it's all epic and on the level where I play I find that 8th is balanced, fun, varied, and full of cotton-sugar epic fluffiness that keeps me coming back. That said, a Miscast table such as the laid out above would be the kind of [i]nerf to the über-spells that I wouldn't lament one tiny bit.
Question is if it would meet the haters half way as a sort of compromise.. (?)

Phazael
17-12-2012, 22:10
With the current table as the assumption, letting the opponent modify the roll by one for each dice after three that you toss would be enough. Sure would put a stop to the DE 12 dice Mindrazor shennanigans.

Tholanan
17-12-2012, 22:26
I hate so mush IF when you roll with 2 dice a spell with a lesser impact and the miscast blow up your mage and your magic phase.

decker_cky
17-12-2012, 22:44
Cannons don't necessarily need a BS roll,but there's other easy solutions:
-A 4+ roll whenever a cannon's path (from barrel to end of bounce) crosses terrain with any height, to represent the terrain deflecting the shot off it's path.
-Drop cannons to S7. Great cannons are S8.
-Template randomization as per 7th edition, or alternatively always hit the monster, only hits the rider on a 6.

For most purposes, those would balance out the issues with cannons while keeping the feel and effect of cannons. The strength difference would add value to the T6-8 monsters out there, many of which are devalued since the things that hunt monsters don't care about the difference between T4 and T8. The lower strength for normal cannons also balances the free D6 wounds that basic cannons gained in 8th.

DaemonReign
18-12-2012, 02:02
I hate so mush IF when you roll with 2 dice a spell with a lesser impact and the miscast blow up your mage and your magic phase.

Well that's the thing about the current Miscast Table:
It's 'balanced' to be a happy medium for both the freak occurance when you roll two dice and score two sixes, as well as when you roll two sixes with six dice.
If the table was progressive instead, you could actually have a relevant deterrant for six-dicing the P-Sun on a Dwarves/Ogres - while at the same time getting more moderate effects of those 'unintentional' instances of Miscasts..
So the result for '3' could be nothing more than "Lose D3 PD" while the result for '12' could be a heck of a lot worse than it is presently - something that would just become haywire with today's totally random Table.

@Phazael: Are you sure that would be enough? I'm not saying you're wrong, but sometimes I just find that forcing one of the big spells through is 'worth it' regardless of what happens to my wizard in the process.. Birona's on Bloodletters, Boosted P-Sun down a dwarf gunline, Dwellers on a huge unit of statetroops, etcetera.
All I'm saying is that the Miscast Table could very well be a bit more severe on the higher digits, but in order for that to work those 'more severe' results shouldn't be a risk (or at least a damn small one) when merely rolling 2-3 dice.
Still.. I guess you're right the current Table actually is pretty "progressive" already..

Lord Inquisitor
18-12-2012, 03:02
I don't know about monsters, but I have been using cannons and teaching kids how to use cannons for more years than I care to remember. Simpler rules they do not need.
I find cannons have nuances and even the most experienced players have disagreements about how they work. Whether or not you actually aim for a point on the ground or if you guess a point X inches away from your target. The number of very experienced players that I know that play the rules on which units catch cannonballs wrong is quite large - often I find players who express surprise that a chariot or unique doesn't stop a cannonball or that cavalry doesn't. Endless debates as to whether Slow to Fire applies to all cannons, bolt throwers, etc., or just to war machines. Does long range/moving apply to grapeshot? Not to mention the ever present "can your cannon really see my unit to make that shot?"

Actually no. Two key things have changed how cannons work to the veteran player; the changes in terrain and the change in the rider/monster targeting. Removing guessing the range has no impact on the veteran artilleryman.

So, cannons which have remained almost completely constant in their damage potential, have been changed because of the impact of other rules that people also disagree with. Common sense and logic dictate that you change those rules before you go looking for scapegoats.
The same can be said of many things. Teclis, for example, got rather better with the new magic rules. Flagellants got better for step up. Cupped Hands got rather more dangerous. These are all things that need a change or did get a change. Dynamics changed in 8th edition and you did see a response in game mechanics and points.

The cannon rules worked in older editions. Now they are problematic. Unless you throw TLOS and 8th's terrain rules out the window, yes, cannons are the issue. They've always had this issue but it is exacerbated by the new 8th ed mechanics - or put another way, it was masked by other rules like guessing range and LOS rules. TLOS, terrain, etc all work fine for normal BS shooting. As Vipoid says, you could easily imagine having a cover save mechanic in WFB and in many ways it would work well (another area that ignores terrain is magic and it doesn't really make a lot of sense - a cover save against a magic missile would be quite reasonable). I don't think a cover save is ever going to happen but the hit-modifier system works well enough - but you do have to make sure all weapons are affected by it, not least the single most effective missile weapon in the game.

m1acca1551
18-12-2012, 03:49
I aired this idea myself upthread and I'm hardly the first.
What I envision is that you roll 1D6 (instead of 2D6) and add the number of dice you used to cast to the result.
Then you have a very progressive chart where the results 3-7 a rather 'lenient' with 3 [rolling a double 6 with two PD and then a '1' on the chart] being nothing but a slap on the wrist really..
Then for results 8 and up you'd get increasingly horrible results with '12' (rolling 6 dice irresistable and rolling a 6 on the Chart) being a veritable oh god help me! result like: Casting Wizard removed from play, large template S10 hit on the spot, every friendly wizard takes a S10 hit, loses D3 magic levels, and the magic phase ends.'

I really like how 8th Ed works compared to previous Editions. I like the big hordes and the bloodbath, I like that there are spells that no kind of protection will save you from, a like that that there are spells that can radically shift the tide of battle. I think it's all epic and on the level where I play I find that 8th is balanced, fun, varied, and full of cotton-sugar epic fluffiness that keeps me coming back. That said, a Miscast table such as the laid out above would be the kind of [i]nerf to the über-spells that I wouldn't lament one tiny bit.
Question is if it would meet the haters half way as a sort of compromise.. (?)

Mmmm whilst i do love the idea, and i think a scaled miscast table should be included, it still doesnt really remove the "these spells are simply to good not too use" idea, all i see is people running naked casters and using the a suicide casters to get the big spell off knowing that they will die but take out half the enemy army in the process. I actually see that Empire wizards will be the best in the game from a competitive stand point as they are the cheapest, have the best access to all the nasty spells and to lose x points to bag xyz is still far to tempting.

I'm all for the miscast table as you have described, but without tackling the actual core issue of uber spells, all we will get is a band aid effect.

quietus1986
18-12-2012, 04:14
necromancer is a great suicide caster to being the same points as a empire caster. and knowing death spells

m1acca1551
18-12-2012, 04:41
My gaming group are trialing something i came up with for miscasts, a wizard level test, roll a d6 aiming to = you wizards level or under 6 always beeing a fail, if failed proceed to miscast table and the spell does not go off, if passed the spell goes off and then consolt the miscast table. We have found it stops spam and suicide level 2's.

A thought :)

ExquisiteMonkey
18-12-2012, 04:42
I personally feel the Cannon's are too accurate, and perhaps a little too damaging (more worried about the accuracy though) and wouldn't mind if BS was taken into account. However, I think that given they are more 'advanced' and temperamental than a Bolt Thrower, would prefer if there was an element of randomization involved.

An idea that I had was;
a)Initial point of target is the same as now (ie, owner says 'I target at this point'), to show the gunners taking general aim
b)This target point is then scattered 6" minus owners BS in a random direction (arrow on hit if a hit is rolled). This is to take into account variances that might affect the shot, gunpowder quality, cannon quality, elevation of the barrel etc, and also takes into account the crew's skill in compensating for these things/experience.
c)Once the new point is determined, the line of fire is taken from the cannon's barrel, and the cannon ball bounces along this line in the same fashion as it does currently.

I don't believe it's too much, but its enough that the firer has to think a little bit more about where to place the target point, and has the chance of deviating slightly, whilst still taking into account the 'skill' (BS) of the crew.

On to the damage, I had this idea the other day (not sure if it would actually work or not but....) we know that cannon's can pretty much hurt anything on a 2+, I think only the Cauldron of Blood has T10, maybe some monsters from Warhammer Forge books?
But what if the cannon's number of wounds caused was equal to the to wound roll. Ie 1 is nothing, since it misses, 2 is 2W, 3 is 3W etc. So the owner hopes for a better 'hit score' in order to wound.

*Now that I've typed that out, I'm not sure that would do any anything other than reduce rolling a die.....

m1acca1551
18-12-2012, 04:42
necromancer is a great suicide caster to being the same points as a empire caster. and knowing death spells

exactly... so unless you actually do something with the spells themselves nothing will stop them casting the uber seath spells.

DaemonReign
18-12-2012, 04:52
I'm all for the miscast table as you have described, but without tackling the actual core issue of uber spells, all we will get is a band aid effect.

Well concider the '12'-result I drew up for the progressive Miscast Chart:

1 - Casting Wizard is gone. [Fine. You brought a suicide-caster and expected it to happen.]
2 - Large Template bring lots of S10 hits on any unit that Wizard was joined to. [Whatever. It's worth it if you blow up a large unit on the enemy's side..]
3 - Every friendly wizard takes a S10 hit. [Whatever.. I got wardsaves and 2+ wounds so I'll be all right..]
4 - Every friendly wizard loses D3 Magic Levels.. [At this point at least I would start seriously weigh pro's and cons of six-dicing whatever grand spell it is I want to get off..]

Besides, there are two ways of going about the Magic Phase as far as I see it: One way is to go for the 6-diced top-spell and place your bets on a lucky roll. The other way is to play things a bit more cooly, drawing dispel dice, perhaps getting as much as 3 or 4 more minor spells off. And this second tactic is just as viable as chancing on one single big spell.
But because the Miscast table is random and designed to deliver an appropriate response to both 6-dice and 2-dice Miscasts, it does not deter enough if you opt to go for the über-spell approach.. and similarly it really punishes you waay too much if you go for the finesse-apprach and happen to stumble on a double-6.

Oh well.. My biggest gripe with the Magic Phase is actually that Boosted RiP spells can be dispelled at their nominal value in subsequent phases. That is plain blasphemy to me. :p

m1acca1551
18-12-2012, 05:39
Well concider the '12'-result I drew up for the progressive Miscast Chart:

1 - Casting Wizard is gone. [Fine. You brought a suicide-caster and expected it to happen.]
2 - Large Template bring lots of S10 hits on any unit that Wizard was joined to. [Whatever. It's worth it if you blow up a large unit on the enemy's side..]
3 - Every friendly wizard takes a S10 hit. [Whatever.. I got wardsaves and 2+ wounds so I'll be all right..]
4 - Every friendly wizard loses D3 Magic Levels.. [At this point at least I would start seriously weigh pro's and cons of six-dicing whatever grand spell it is I want to get off..]

Besides, there are two ways of going about the Magic Phase as far as I see it: One way is to go for the 6-diced top-spell and place your bets on a lucky roll. The other way is to play things a bit more cooly, drawing dispel dice, perhaps getting as much as 3 or 4 more minor spells off. And this second tactic is just as viable as chancing on one single big spell.
But because the Miscast table is random and designed to deliver an appropriate response to both 6-dice and 2-dice Miscasts, it does not deter enough if you opt to go for the über-spell approach.. and similarly it really punishes you waay too much if you go for the finesse-apprach and happen to stumble on a double-6.

Oh well.. My biggest gripe with the Magic Phase is actually that Boosted RiP spells can be dispelled at their nominal value in subsequent phases. That is plain blasphemy to me. :p

Perhaps forcing the uber spells to become more situational to stop the spam factor, as 1 use only?

Or a higher casting catergory, break the lores into 3 levels of concentration BASIC, ADVANCED, HIGH. Wizard cannot cast high level spells in the next turn (even if failed or cast), represents the sheer stress of trying to control so much power, there are plenty of ways to be able to down grade the uber spells. This takes the spam factor out, and really makes them situational, as in oh crap my backs to the wall i really need my mage to pull a rabbit out of the hat and save me, instead of turn 1, i dont like the look of that unit bye bye, turn 2 bye bye second unit etc etc

RiP spells being dispelled at basic casting level is stupid.

pippin_nl
18-12-2012, 05:39
Maybe something like this would be an idea:

Miscast rules: Roll X dice, X is the number of dice used to cast the spell. On any double the wizard suffers a wound with no armour saves allowed, on a triple two wounds etc...On a double six the wizard also loses a level, triple six two levels etc...

Miscast table:

2 duplicate the spell effect
3 - 5 gain 1d3 power dice
6 - 9 no effect
10 - 13
14 - 17
18 - 21
22 - 25
26 - 29
30 - 33
34 - 35 scatter a large template D6 inches, every model under takes a S6 hit
36+ scatter a large template D6 inches, every model under takes a S10 hit

or much simpler:

Roll a dice for every die used in the casting of the spell:

Each 1: suffer a wound with no armour saves
Each 6: lose a wizard level

Then roll 2d6 and consult the table below:

2 - 4 duplicate spell effect
5 - 7 roll on funky effect table
8 - 9 Small template centered on wizard, S equal to the number of dice used in the casting of the spell
10 - 12 Large template centered on wizard, S equal to the number of dice used in the casting of the spell

Funky effect table:

1 randomly turn any unit within X inches, where X is equal to the number of dice used times 3 (if a unit touches an enemy unit it counts as a charge, start with the closest unit)
2 randomly divide all spells between all wizards, each wizard receives the same number of spells (use the cards, shuffle them, etc...)
3
4
5
6

Vipoid
18-12-2012, 09:00
I never said it did, but as there is not a landslide of new players bitching about the cannons, we can safely disregard their opinion on this thread at the moment.

Ok, what on Earth are you talking about?

If there was a landslide of players complaining, it would have been before pre-measuring was introduced. My point was that you can't just assume that allowing pre-measuring (and so removing guess range) had no effect on the game.

However, since it makes it easier to fire cannons, why would new cannon users complain about it? Why would *any* cannon user complain about it?

"Oh, no! This system makes it far too easy for us to hit our targets. Please change the rules back!" :eyebrows:




That's not what's being argued though, is it? This is a 9e discussion and as there are issues with terrain and the monster/rider combo, these are what most people complain about when it comes to cannons - being able to hide your vulnerable monster and a cannon not wiping out your centrepiece figure with a lucky shot on turn one. These issues also affect other types of war machine/missile/magic attacks so it's not a cannon exclusive issue but cannons are remarkably effective under such conditions. So by changing the cannon's rules, we are not correcting the situation, merely changing one aspect of it. Get back to the root cause, change those causes, then re-evaluate the potential of the cannon.

Actually, that's not the only thing that's being argued about. What's being argued about (at least by myself) is that (aside from the aforementioned ridden monster fiasco) cannons can basically fire through virtually any cover, with no penalties.

The point is, there's currently a massive chasm between the TLoS/Cover rules and the Cannon rules. Logically, one *must* be changed, in order to bring it in line with the other.



With regard to the miscast issue, any thoughts on this table?

Roll 1d6 and add dice used to cast spell:
3-5: Detonation
6-7: Magical Feedback
8-9: Calamitous Detonation
10: Power Drain
11+ Dimensional Cascade

m1acca1551
18-12-2012, 09:51
With regard to the miscast issue, any thoughts on this table?

Roll 1d6 and add dice used to cast spell:
2-5: Detonation
6-7: Magical Feedback
8-9: Calamitous Detonation
10: Power Drain
11+ Dimensional Cascade

Simple, easy to use... Me likey! :)

pippin_nl
18-12-2012, 12:01
Ok, what on Earth are you talking about?

If there was a landslide of players complaining, it would have been before pre-measuring was introduced. My point was that you can't just assume that allowing pre-measuring (and so removing guess range) had no effect on the game.

However, since it makes it easier to fire cannons, why would new cannon users complain about it? Why would *any* cannon user complain about it?

"Oh, no! This system makes it far too easy for us to hit our targets. Please change the rules back!" :eyebrows:




Actually, that's not the only thing that's being argued about. What's being argued about (at least by myself) is that (aside from the aforementioned ridden monster fiasco) cannons can basically fire through virtually any cover, with no penalties.

The point is, there's currently a massive chasm between the TLoS/Cover rules and the Cannon rules. Logically, one *must* be changed, in order to bring it in line with the other.



With regard to the miscast issue, any thoughts on this table?

Roll 1d6 and add dice used to cast spell:
2-5: Detonation
6-7: Magical Feedback
8-9: Calamitous Detonation
10: Power Drain
11+ Dimensional Cascade

2 is impossible, you need two dice for a miscast and 1D6 is always 1+
You might also need to change magic items and abilities like the puppet, cupped hands etc..

pippin_nl
18-12-2012, 12:15
Ok, what on Earth are you talking about?

If there was a landslide of players complaining, it would have been before pre-measuring was introduced. My point was that you can't just assume that allowing pre-measuring (and so removing guess range) had no effect on the game.

However, since it makes it easier to fire cannons, why would new cannon users complain about it? Why would *any* cannon user complain about it?

"Oh, no! This system makes it far too easy for us to hit our targets. Please change the rules back!" :eyebrows:




Actually, that's not the only thing that's being argued about. What's being argued about (at least by myself) is that (aside from the aforementioned ridden monster fiasco) cannons can basically fire through virtually any cover, with no penalties.

The point is, there's currently a massive chasm between the TLoS/Cover rules and the Cannon rules. Logically, one *must* be changed, in order to bring it in line with the other.


<CUT>

There is an easy way to make cannons both playable and use BS.

Cannon BS 3: roll 2 dice to hit, pick the best, if you roll double one the cannon explodes.
Cannon with Engineer BS 4: roll 3 dice to hit, pick the best, if you roll triple one the cannon explodes.

You will often need a "6" (flying monsters are treated as skirmishers), 4+ (normally) +1 skirmisher +1 soft cover

Vipoid
18-12-2012, 14:04
2 is impossible, you need two dice for a miscast and 1D6 is always 1+

Yes, um, well done on spotting my.. deliberate mistake. Yeah, deliberate mistake to... um... test you. Yeah. Let's go with that. :shifty:

Well, since you've spotted it, my deliberate mistake has now been amended.

Congratulations on winning the 'spot the deliberate mistake' prize. :D



You might also need to change magic items and abilities like the puppet, cupped hands etc..

I think those probably need changing anyway...


There is an easy way to make cannons both playable and use BS.

Cannon BS 3: roll 2 dice to hit, pick the best, if you roll double one the cannon explodes.
Cannon with Engineer BS 4: roll 3 dice to hit, pick the best, if you roll triple one the cannon explodes.

You will often need a "6" (flying monsters are treated as skirmishers), 4+ (normally) +1 skirmisher +1 soft cover

Out of interest, why did you quote me to say this? :confused:

pippin_nl
18-12-2012, 14:22
Yes, um, well done on spotting my.. deliberate mistake. Yeah, deliberate mistake to... um... test you. Yeah. Let's go with that. :shifty:

Well, since you've spotted it, my deliberate mistake has now been amended.

Congratulations on winning the 'spot the deliberate mistake' prize. :D




I think those probably need changing anyway...



Out of interest, why did you quote me to say this? :confused:

Could you ship my prize internationally? Well it was your remark of bringing into line that made me think of that solution.

quietus1986
18-12-2012, 15:22
OKe its list time I see.

- A good look at the war machines. no more lazer cannon. maby remove the no armor save on the bolt thrower and get something like armour piercing 3 ( I like to get lvl's in the armour piercing lvl1 -1 armour lvl2 -2 enz..)
they would still e almost nothing wit a armour save en on best a 6+ but this system will make the armour percing more intesting


-A redo the magic face gone wit the max of only 12 dice magic. chanelling attampts on lvl of the wizard lvl1 wiz on 6+ lvl 2wiz on 5+ lvl 3wiz on 4+ lvl 4wiz on 3+. but keep the 2dice magic generation for the random.


- change the miscast back to dubbel 1. make the mist cast table do progesife bij how manie dice you roll this will make the 6dice roll for spells dangers( suicide wizards will always exist but let them explode damaging the unit there in.

-change the BRB spell lore mostly the uber spells

- change steadfast. give monsters atliest one rank and maby make it losing less Ld for you roll if you lose than no roll. and i like it for horde's to lose a rank when it inst a complete rank of 10 not the 5 man rule.

-make challenge's more in portent. get extra victory points for winning challenges or something like that.

-change victory points return the 50% points for units under half str.





With regard to the miscast issue, any thoughts on this table?

Roll 1d6 and add dice used to cast spell:
3-5: Detonation
6-7: Magical Feedback
8-9: Calamitous Detonation
10: Power Drain
11+ Dimensional Cascade

I like

pippin_nl
18-12-2012, 15:49
OKe its list time I see.

- A good look at the war machines. no more lazer cannon. maby remove the no armor save on the bolt thrower and get something like armour piercing 3 ( I like to get lvl's in the armour piercing lvl1 -1 armour lvl2 -2 enz..)
they would still e almost nothing wit a armour save en on best a 6+ but this system will make the armour percing more intesting


-A redo the magic face gone wit the max of only 12 dice magic. chanelling attampts on lvl of the wizard lvl1 wiz on 6+ lvl 2wiz on 5+ lvl 3wiz on 4+ lvl 4wiz on 3+. but keep the 2dice magic generation for the random.


- change the miscast back to dubbel 1. make the mist cast table do progesife bij how manie dice you roll this will make the 6dice roll for spells dangers( suicide wizards will always exist but let them explode damaging the unit there in.

-change the BRB spell lore mostly the uber spells

- change steadfast. give monsters atliest one rank and maby make it losing less Ld for you roll if you lose than no roll. and i like it for horde's to lose a rank when it inst a complete rank of 10 not the 5 man rule.

-make challenge's more in portent. get extra victory points for winning challenges or something like that.

-change victory points return the 50% points for units under half str.




I like

1) Bolt Thrower will be S6 AP 3; that will change a 1+ save into a 7+ save, no Armour Save is easier I think
2) This will slow down the game as you need to roll separately for wizards, why not Level 1 rolls 1 die, ... Level 4 rolls 4 dice, I do disagree making Magic more powerful and a level 4 even better
3) I actually prefer the idea of a combined miscast and irresistible force
4) agree
5) I hardly ever see monsters losing against infantry without any magic in play, why make them better, they do not need to break units in a single round
5)

quietus1986
18-12-2012, 18:03
I have killed gaints with out them doing any thing but I mostly play vampire counts I never break.

Charistoph
18-12-2012, 20:29
Sorry if I address something that was settled, I've only read page 1 & 11:

Charge range: 2M+D6. Get base movement and minimal randomness, and stop Dwarfs from magically flying across the field of battle.

Keep Immunity as being a 2+ Ward Save. Ethereals are now Immune to non-magical attacks.

Lances and Mounted Spears provide a similar affect and timing as Impact Hits, just have roll to hit them instead. Some other units Impact Hits may be changed to a similar affect (Ogres and Minotaurs, for example).

Large Targets getting some Rank equivalent, even if it's just 1. 5 guys being Stubborn after a Ghorgon just ate several Ranks just doesn't add up.

theunwantedbeing
18-12-2012, 20:45
Keep Immunity as being a 2+ Ward Save. Ethereals are now Immune to non-magical attacks.

So they get a 2+ ward vs mundane attacks?

Kayosiv
18-12-2012, 21:11
So they get a 2+ ward vs mundane attacks?

As a vampire counts player who frequently uses spirit hosts, I would support this. Winning is great, but when your spirit host charges down a hill at your buddies unit of minotaurs with Gorebull BSB inside, beats them by 1 point, and runs them down, you have to admit that total immunity is a problem.

pippin_nl
18-12-2012, 21:16
Sorry if I address something that was settled, I've only read page 1 & 11:

Charge range: 2M+D6. Get base movement and minimal randomness, and stop Dwarfs from magically flying across the field of battle.

Keep Immunity as being a 2+ Ward Save. Ethereals are now Immune to non-magical attacks.

Lances and Mounted Spears provide a similar affect and timing as Impact Hits, just have roll to hit them instead. Some other units Impact Hits may be changed to a similar affect (Ogres and Minotaurs, for example).

Large Targets getting some Rank equivalent, even if it's just 1. 5 guys being Stubborn after a Ghorgon just ate several Ranks just doesn't add up.

2M + D6 is tactically less interesting, dwarves would have a charge range of 12, while cavalry would have a minimumof 15, cavalry would always have the charge versus dwarves and also versus humans, no risk involved and thus boring and less tactical.

Vipoid
18-12-2012, 21:20
As a vampire counts player who frequently uses spirit hosts, I would support this. Winning is great, but when your spirit host charges down a hill at your buddies unit of minotaurs with Gorebull BSB inside, beats them by 1 point, and runs them down, you have to admit that total immunity is a problem.

By the same token though, if they're not going to have complete protection against mundane weapons, it would be nice if they had a bit of protection (e.g. a 5+ or 6+ ward save) against magic attacks.

It's not particularly fun when any daemon army can completely ignore ethereal units. :p

"Mundane attacks? What are they?"

DaemonReign
18-12-2012, 21:28
It's not exactly a big deal (2+ Ward vs 'immune') but I think I'd prefer Ethereals to remain as now.
That Doombull should've brought a Magic Weapon and those charging ghosts would have crumbled like no tomorrow.

Vipoid
18-12-2012, 21:39
It's not exactly a big deal (2+ Ward vs 'immune') but I think I'd prefer Ethereals to remain as now.
That Doombull should've brought a Magic Weapon and those charging ghosts would have crumbled like no tomorrow.

Yeah.

Thing is, I'd be more inclined to go with the 2+ thing, if ethereal units had some other protection.

However, with WS3, T3 and no save, it seems like they really wouldn't be worth their cost if suddenly everything had a chance of wounding them.

I could be wrong, of course, but they're already swingy (since virtually anything with a magic weapon will slice them apart effortlessly). And, making mundane weapons able to wound them seems like it's taking away their only real advantage.

Maoriboy007
18-12-2012, 21:48
Yeah.

Thing is, I'd be more inclined to go with the 2+ thing, if ethereal units had some other protection.

However, with WS3, T3 and no save, it seems like they really wouldn't be worth their cost if suddenly everything had a chance of wounding them.

I could be wrong, of course, but they're already swingy (since virtually anything with a magic weapon will slice them apart effortlessly). And, making mundane weapons able to wound them seems like it's taking away their only real advantage.a 2+ ward vs mundane attack would be a good start but they'd also have to wound on 6's or hit on 6's or something like that.

theunwantedbeing
18-12-2012, 22:08
I think being immune has it's place, alongside ward saves against certain kinds of attack (whatever it may be, from 2+ to 6+).

I wouldn't like ethereal things to be harmable by non-magical attacks, it just seems wrong to me.
In the same way I don't think that say.....I don;t know, there aren't any other things that I can think of within warhammer that really deserve to be immune to a certain type of thing.

40k has examples though.
The Eldar avatar has every right to be immune to fire based attacks, being a fire daemon thingy it is completely believable that he'de be able to ignore such things, in exactly the same way that a ghost would be immune to being stabbed by a sword.

Charistoph
19-12-2012, 00:23
So they get a 2+ ward vs mundane attacks?

As opposed to not receiving any attacks at all. I'm not dedicated to it, it's more of, "since Immune to Fire isn't really Immune..."


2M + D6 is tactically less interesting, dwarves would have a charge range of 12, while cavalry would have a minimumof 15, cavalry would always have the charge versus dwarves and also versus humans, no risk involved and thus boring and less tactical.

As opposed to just 2M or M+2D6? One is too set, and the other is too random. This sets it as the compromise and a little more sedate.


By the same token though, if they're not going to have complete protection against mundane weapons, it would be nice if they had a bit of protection (e.g. a 5+ or 6+ ward save) against magic attacks.

It's not particularly fun when any daemon army can completely ignore ethereal units. :p

"Mundane attacks? What are they?"

Why should they have protection vs Magical Attacks? If anything, Spirit Hosts should be dropped in points or given another boon. It's not like they are the only Ethereal unit in the game, or Vampires the only possessors (just the most prolific).

But hey, they could get an Armour Save vs Magical Attacks with it, too.

pippin_nl
19-12-2012, 05:52
<CUT>

As opposed to just 2M or M+2D6? One is too set, and the other is too random. This sets it as the compromise and a little more sedate.



<CUT>.

As opposed to M + 2D6. I agree that M + 2D6 is not the most realistic, but it's far more interesting than 2M + D6. Even if you have double the movement value of the other unit, you will have to take risks.

In your proposal Cavalry can sit back 14.1 inch from a human infantry unit and charge the next turn even if the humans fall back 2 inch (only failing on a double 1). That's boring. Be glad that we got rid of that in this edition.

Lord Solar Plexus
19-12-2012, 06:52
I never said it [premeasuring] did [affect everyone the same], but as there is not a landslide of new players bitching about the cannons, we can safely disregard their opinion on this thread at the moment.


You said it did not affect veterans, thereby implying it wasn't a problem. It is. That landslide of people complaining about a cannon's accuracy has already arrived at the bottom of the mountain. It was in motion for about two years, then people tired.



That's not what's being argued though, is it? This is a 9e discussion and as there are issues with terrain and the monster/rider combo, these are what most people complain about when it comes to cannons - being able to hide your vulnerable monster and a cannon not wiping out your centrepiece figure with a lucky shot on turn one. These issues also affect other types of war machine/missile/magic attacks so it's not a cannon exclusive issue but cannons are remarkably effective under such conditions. So by changing the cannon's rules, we are not correcting the situation, merely changing one aspect of it. Get back to the root cause, change those causes, then re-evaluate the potential of the cannon.

The root cause for centrepieces dying are cannon, or so I hear (no firsthand experience on this issue). Changes to them (and yes, template effects in general) are exactly right in a 9e discussion I figure.


2 is impossible, you need two dice for a miscast and 1D6 is always 1+

He doesn't use 1D6.

Vipoid
19-12-2012, 09:15
Why should they have protection vs Magical Attacks?

Because, as it stands, they're an all-or-nothing unit:

Against mundane attacks, they're completely protected. Against magic attacks, they're very unlikely to survive.

If you're going to make one of their only defence a lot worse, then it seems reasonable to make it a little better vs. magic attacks.




If anything, Spirit Hosts should be dropped in points or given another boon.

This seems illogical in context.


It's not like they are the only Ethereal unit in the game, or Vampires the only possessors (just the most prolific).

I never said that they were. Although, I'd hazard a guess that VCs easily possess the most ethereal units.

However, I'll admit that when I try to think of ethereal units in other races, none come to mind. I think the Green Knight might be, but he's the only one I can think of.

What other ethereal units are there?

Gromdal
19-12-2012, 12:55
I agree with immunity always just meaning 2+ ward save. Fire immunity or whatever. Being unable to wound at all is simply poor game mechanics

Blinder
19-12-2012, 13:47
RE: Ethereal- Black Coach? Of course, that's another VC unit... though it would be a point to suggest that the notion of Ethereal units and Spirit Hosts remain sufficiently distinct- sure, the Spirit Hosts get no protection from magic attacks, but the above mentioned Green Knight (and I believe the Coach, but don't really know) has a nice beefy save. There's also the Ethereal Slann, and the pseudo-ethereal mage robe the HE have...

I'm not sure I like the idea of turning it into a 2+ ward though... that makes some sense vs. fire these days (I'd have preferred, "2+ ward vs. Flaming Attacks, immune to Fire-based breath weapons and the effects of spells from the Lore of Fire," but just the ward is a lot less convoluted and doesn't require the inevitable FAQ that hits from units with the "Grants Flaming Attacks" spell do in fact fall under the "Flaming Attacks" part and not the "Lore of Fire" part. Which I fully expect would be answered incorrectly anyway), but I think ghosts and such should have mostly-perfect defense given that they *are* on the whole torn apart by the existing counter. Sure, the units can be redesigned, but if anything the rule just needs to change so that you can strike through Ethereal models you can't harm (if weapons pass through them, *weapons pass through them*).

Charistoph
19-12-2012, 14:13
As opposed to M + 2D6. I agree that M + 2D6 is not the most realistic, but it's far more interesting than 2M + D6. Even if you have double the movement value of the other unit, you will have to take risks.

In your proposal Cavalry can sit back 14.1 inch from a human infantry unit and charge the next turn even if the humans fall back 2 inch (only failing on a double 1). That's boring. Be glad that we got rid of that in this edition.

They can already sit back a little, though not as reliably,, but the main reason for bringing this up was that the charge range being too random is one of the chief complaints about 8th Edition, both here and locally (certain magic spells being the other).


Because, as it stands, they're an all-or-nothing unit:

Against mundane attacks, they're completely protected. Against magic attacks, they're very unlikely to survive.

If you're going to make one of their only defence a lot worse, then it seems reasonable to make it a little better vs. magic attacks.

And how many units have ZERO defence whatsoever? Not just against Magic Attacks, but mundane as well. We should give Ethereal to Slayers then, and Empire Handgunners and Archers. Many Wood Elves also have no defense, should we give them Ethereal as well? And then there are the Swarm units from Tomb Kings, Lizardmen, and Skaven. They are far more vulnerable than the Spirit Host, and indeed, any other unit in their armies.

The odd thing here is, if you gave any other unit a 2+ Ward Save against most of what they'd face, they'd jump on it. Sure, not having to roll is better than avoiding a 1, but then, I like the thought that anything has the chance to hurt anything, even if it's just really hard to.


This seems illogical in context.

I thought you were worried about balancing out the Spirit Hosts since you brought them up specifically, hardly out of context.

pippin_nl
19-12-2012, 15:05
They can already sit back a little, though not as reliably,, but the main reason for bringing this up was that the charge range being too random is one of the chief complaints about 8th Edition, both here and locally (certain magic spells being the other).



And how many units have ZERO defence whatsoever? Not just against Magic Attacks, but mundane as well. We should give Ethereal to Slayers then, and Empire Handgunners and Archers. Many Wood Elves also have no defense, should we give them Ethereal as well? And then there are the Swarm units from Tomb Kings, Lizardmen, and Skaven. They are far more vulnerable than the Spirit Host, and indeed, any other unit in their armies.

The odd thing here is, if you gave any other unit a 2+ Ward Save against most of what they'd face, they'd jump on it. Sure, not having to roll is better than avoiding a 1, but then, I like the thought that anything has the chance to hurt anything, even if it's just really hard to.



I thought you were worried about balancing out the Spirit Hosts since you brought them up specifically, hardly out of context.

I think people love or hate random charges. Most players I encounter love them. Finding a solution that both sides will like will be difficult.

IcedCrow
19-12-2012, 15:11
You won't because both mechanics appeal to a vastly different fan base.

Set distance charges appeal to those people that want their wargame to be more like chess, where everything does exactly what they know it will do all of the time and where optimization has more of a precedent.

Random charge distance appeals to those that enjoy reactive strategies and setting up what-if scenarios more and where optimization is less important.

Charistoph
19-12-2012, 15:13
I think people love or hate random charges. Most players I encounter love them. Finding a solution that both sides will like will be difficult.


You won't because both mechanics appeal to a vastly different fan base.

Set distance charges appeal to those people that want their wargame to be more like chess, where everything does exactly what they know it will do all of the time and where optimization has more of a precedent.

Random charge distance appeals to those that enjoy reactive strategies and setting up what-if scenarios more and where optimization is less important.

True, but you have to admit that it's odd that a Dwarf can charge across the field 5 times "faster" than he can run... And I like Dwarfs.

Vipoid
19-12-2012, 15:20
And how many units have ZERO defence whatsoever? Not just against Magic Attacks, but mundane as well. We should give Ethereal to Slayers then, and Empire Handgunners and Archers. Many Wood Elves also have no defense, should we give them Ethereal as well? And then there are the Swarm units from Tomb Kings, Lizardmen, and Skaven. They are far more vulnerable than the Spirit Host, and indeed, any other unit in their armies.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

It seems the same as saying "Daemons have ward saves on all their units. Therefore, every unit should be given a ward save." :eyebrows:




The odd thing here is, if you gave any other unit a 2+ Ward Save against most of what they'd face, they'd jump on it. Sure, not having to roll is better than avoiding a 1, but then, I like the thought that anything has the chance to hurt anything, even if it's just really hard to.

That's true, but then most units aren't immune to any type of weapon. Going from 'impossible to hurt' to 'wounded 1/6 times' seems like a hell of a drop to me. :p

I just thought it was reasonable that they be compensated for that loss of protection.




I thought you were worried about balancing out the Spirit Hosts since you brought them up specifically.

Actually, *you* brought them up. I never mentioned spirit hosts.

AmaroK
19-12-2012, 15:22
True, but you have to admit that it's odd that a Dwarf can charge across the field 5 times "faster" than he can run... And I like Dwarfs.

That´s the whole point. Its about the distance, not about how random the charge is. When people say "charge should be movement + 1d6 only, not 2 d6" (this is just an example), they don´t realize that the odds can be more or less the same in the current system by just placing the units at the range that provide them the given chance. For example, you can get a, lets say, 32% chance of getting the charge with both systems. The difference would be the distance needed to get that %. If anything, the 2d6 is more scalable with the odds, and get some longer charges, but thats it. Thats why Im ok with the current system: once you get randomness, is about you what % you want to be sure and what to risk, and the lenght of the charges are in line with the game usual measures, imo.

The Low King
19-12-2012, 15:39
True, but you have to admit that it's odd that a Dwarf can charge across the field 5 times "faster" than he can run... And I like Dwarfs.

Running is what you do in 40k, in fantasy its marching. If you run you are rushing forwards as fast as you go, like a charge, but marching you are still moving in an orderly unit. A move is them shuffling slightly forwards with weapons out (or pikes leveled), a march is them lifting up/putting away their weapons (lifting their pikes) to move forwards, a charge is them rushing forwards weapons poised to strike (hence why you dont get spear bonus'). Looking at it that way it makes sense that a charge is faster than a march.

And dwarfs can only charge just over twice the distance they can march.

pippin_nl
19-12-2012, 18:25
You won't because both mechanics appeal to a vastly different fan base.

Set distance charges appeal to those people that want their wargame to be more like chess, where everything does exactly what they know it will do all of the time and where optimization has more of a precedent.

Random charge distance appeals to those that enjoy reactive strategies and setting up what-if scenarios more and where optimization is less important.

As a former chess player I have to disagree, set distance charges create an avoidance no risk play, chess is anything but. Random charges force the players to make risk assessments just like in mind games like chess. Chess is also a game of calculation, with random charges you have to calculate the odds of the enemy unit making the charge and the odds of the combat itself, which might be influenced by magic or magical items.

IcedCrow
19-12-2012, 18:28
Apologies. Im also a chess player. I use chess as my comparison because the pieces always move the same. A bishop always moves like a bishop.

Maoriboy007
19-12-2012, 19:34
And how many units have ZERO defence whatsoever? Not just against Magic Attacks, but mundane as well. We should give Ethereal to Slayers then, and Empire Handgunners and Archers. Many Wood Elves also have no defense, should we give them Ethereal as well?..Ethereal units cost more have low statlines and are unstable, Woodelves, handgunners and archers get ranged attacks, woodelves and Dwarves get vastly beter statlines, all are far cheaper than your standard ethereal unit, they're completely different animals with different purpouse and function.

And then there are the Swarm units from Tomb Kings, Lizardmen, and Skaven. They are far more vulnerable than the Spirit Host, and indeed, any other unit in their armies.Dont get me started on Swarms because they do indeed suck, making them unstable was a mistake IMO. However that just makes the case that swarms need to be made better.

The odd thing here is, if you gave any other unit a 2+ Ward Save against most of what they'd face, they'd jump on it. Sure, not having to roll is better than avoiding a 1, but then, I like the thought that anything has the chance to hurt anything, even if it's just really hard to..AS much as etheral makes them awesome, in all other respects the units would suck hard for thier cost. I think the point vipoid is trying to make is with that in mind any weakening of etheral is a major downgrade requiring a bit more compensation. Thats why I like the idea of 6 to hit and wound with a 2+ ward save vs mundane. Still fairly immune, but a horde would have more chance to wound them than they do now, and cause wounds through instability.

That's true, but then most units aren't immune to any type of weapon. Going from 'impossible to hurt' to 'wounded 1/6 times' seems like a hell of a drop to me. :p
I just thought it was reasonable that they be compensated for that loss of protection.Agreed, without etheral they wouldn't have much else going for them, and they can always be wounded by instability as well as magical attacks. Invulnerable might be a bit much, but it should be really hard to hurt them otherwise.

Charistoph
19-12-2012, 20:16
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

It seems the same as saying "Daemons have ward saves on all their units. Therefore, every unit should be given a ward save." :eyebrows:

No, you said that they would be defenseless, and I was pointing out that there are units far more defenseless than Ethereal Spirit Hosts, even if it was just a 2+ Ward Save vs mundane attacks. The point is a 2+ Ward Save is as defensible as you can get against an attack without completely ignoring it. It's not like the tactics with them would change appreciably, they just have a slightly lower chance of lasting as long as they used to, but that's still far longer than any other Swarm in the game.


That's true, but then most units aren't immune to any type of weapon. Going from 'impossible to hurt' to 'wounded 1/6 times' seems like a hell of a drop to me. :p

I just thought it was reasonable that they be compensated for that loss of protection.

Nor did I mention that they shouldn't be compensated for. In fact I specifically mentioned another boon or a price drop.


Actually, *you* brought them up. I never mentioned spirit hosts.

No, I didn't. Someone else brought them up and that they would be fine with it. YOU were concerned with only that unit's balance.


That´s the whole point. Its about the distance, not about how random the charge is. When people say "charge should be movement + 1d6 only, not 2 d6" (this is just an example), they don´t realize that the odds can be more or less the same in the current system by just placing the units at the range that provide them the given chance. For example, you can get a, lets say, 32% chance of getting the charge with both systems. The difference would be the distance needed to get that %. If anything, the 2d6 is more scalable with the odds, and get some longer charges, but thats it. Thats why Im ok with the current system: once you get randomness, is about you what % you want to be sure and what to risk, and the lenght of the charges are in line with the game usual measures, imo.

You make a good point about odds, and yes, the 2D6 does provide for a greater risk/reward. All I'm saying is that the biggest complaint I have heard about 8th Edition was the Charge range. That is always the first thing brought up by a former player if it isn't Magic, and second if Magic is brought up first.


Running is what you do in 40k, in fantasy its marching. If you run you are rushing forwards as fast as you go, like a charge, but marching you are still moving in an orderly unit. A move is them shuffling slightly forwards with weapons out (or pikes leveled), a march is them lifting up/putting away their weapons (lifting their pikes) to move forwards, a charge is them rushing forwards weapons poised to strike (hence why you dont get spear bonus'). Looking at it that way it makes sense that a charge is faster than a march.

And dwarfs can only charge just over twice the distance they can march.

And you still don't think it's weird that Dwarfs have the most explosive charge now? 5x their movement, versus 4x for average Infantry, a little over 3x for Elves and Skaven, 3x for MI and Skinks, and 2 1/2 for most Cavalry. The dudes must have rockets in their pants being able to out charge a horse! I thought that was a Goblin thing.


Ethereal units cost more have low statlines and are unstable, Woodelves, handgunners and archers get ranged attacks, woodelves and Dwarves get vastly beter statlines, all are far cheaper than your standard ethereal unit, they're completely different animals with different purpouse and function.
Dont get me started on Swarms because they do indeed suck, making them unstable was a mistake IMO. However that just makes the case that swarms need to be made better.
AS much as etheral makes them awesome, in all other respects the units would suck hard for thier cost. I think the point vipoid is trying to make is with that in mind any weakening of etheral is a major downgrade requiring a bit more compensation. Thats why I like the idea of 6 to hit and wound with a 2+ ward save vs mundane. Still fairly immune, but a horde would have more chance to wound them than they do now, and cause wounds through instability.

That's a good balance. Realistically, some Ethereals should be hard as hell to hit (Spirit Hosts, for example), but some are far more... present than they are. Again, let me state that other changes to them would be fine to compensate for this change.

DaemonReign
19-12-2012, 21:38
Ah yes but honestly guys if the 'change' calls for compensation then that by itself casts a shadow of doubt on the change itself doesn't it?
I have to say no-matter how I concider this issue Ethereals being 'flat out immune' to mundane attacks fits their 'background', where-as a wardsave (of any kind) implies something slightly different and where-as any kind of Armour Save (or other arbitrary penalty; like 'can only be hit on a 6, if your weapon's not magical'..) looks kinda desperate.

The Low King
19-12-2012, 22:21
And you still don't think it's weird that Dwarfs have the most explosive charge now? 5x their movement, versus 4x for average Infantry, a little over 3x for Elves and Skaven, 3x for MI and Skinks, and 2 1/2 for most Cavalry. The dudes must have rockets in their pants being able to out charge a horse! I thought that was a Goblin thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4qZrPX60bw :D

A fully armoured horse complete with plate armoured rider is not going to be that fast, its was more their weight than speed (also, humans are not that slow compared to horses, paticualrly over very long and very short distances). There is nothing strange about having the potential to have a longer charge range, since a failed charge represents more than just not being able to reach the enemy, it is also about not being able to build up momentum, losing cohesion etc.

Dwarfs will have the most explosive charge if you have any amount added to their movement. If you had 423M+ 1d3 they would still have the most explosive charge. If you took the idea of 2M+D6 they would have the most explosive charge. Hell, if you had their movement +1 as their charge distance they would have the most explosive charge. Thats how proportions work, the comparison means nothing.

Maoriboy007
19-12-2012, 22:26
Ah yes but honestly guys if the 'change' calls for compensation then that by itself casts a shadow of doubt on the change itself doesn't it?
I have to say no-matter how I concider this issue Ethereals being 'flat out immune' to mundane attacks fits their 'background', where-as a wardsave (of any kind) implies something slightly different and where-as any kind of Armour Save (or other arbitrary penalty; like 'can only be hit on a 6, if your weapon's not magical'..) looks kinda desperate.As someone who plays etheral troops, I think 6s to hit and wound with a 2+ ward save would be a ground both side can live with, after all ethereals can be killed in this game right now, but I can understand an opponants frustration with having a unit being able to do absolutely nothing once locked in combat.
On the other hand it can be equally frustrating to have an expensive special unit flop because of low weaponskill and instability or wiped out by even weak magical attacks, keep both sides happy make em still really hard to kill with non magic attacks, but not impossible (CR notwithstanding)

Vipoid
19-12-2012, 22:27
No, you said that they would be defenseless,

No I didn't.

If you're going to say that I 'said something earlier' please quote it, because this is the second time you've misquoted what I said.

At most, I might have said that they're defenceless against magic attacks. Which they are.



and I was pointing out that there are units far more defenseless than Ethereal Spirit Hosts, even if it was just a 2+ Ward Save vs mundane attacks.

Yes, but they're not paying for immunity that they're no longer getting.


The point is a 2+ Ward Save is as defensible as you can get against an attack without completely ignoring it.

Yes, but it's still a hell of a comedown from being immune to those attacks.

In any case, why does this need changing at all? :confused:



they just have a slightly lower chance of lasting as long as they used to, but that's still far longer than any other Swarm in the game.
.

That's probably because most swarms suck.

Also, once again you're fixated on spirit hosts - not all ethereal units have that sort of survivability.




Nor did I mention that they shouldn't be compensated for. In fact I specifically mentioned another boon or a price drop.

But you also seemed horrified at the idea of them gaining a measure of protection (even a 6+ save) against magic attacks. Would such a boon really be game-breaking?



No, I didn't. Someone else brought them up and that they would be fine with it. YOU were concerned with only that unit's balance.

#3

No, I wasn't. and No, I'm not.

Once again, I haven't brought up spirit hosts - this is something you keep attributing to me, for reasons I have yet to understand.

The only explanation I can think of is that I brought up the fact that many ethereal units have WS3, T3 and no armour or ward saves.

Yes, this could refer to spirit hosts.
Or Cairn Wraiths
Or Cairn Wraith Characters
Or Tomb Banshees
Or Tomb Banshee Characters

:eyebrows:

Lord Inquisitor
20-12-2012, 00:22
A fully armoured horse complete with plate armoured rider is not going to be that fast, its was more their weight than speed (also, humans are not that slow compared to horses, paticualrly over very long and very short distances).
I believe Terry Pratchett said that a man can outrun a horse over short distances as he has less legs to sort out...


Dwarfs will have the most explosive charge if you have any amount added to their movement. If you had 423M+ 1d3 they would still have the most explosive charge. If you took the idea of 2M+D6 they would have the most explosive charge. Hell, if you had their movement +1 as their charge distance they would have the most explosive charge. Thats how proportions work, the comparison means nothing.
I think the complaint might be reworded that the variance in the dice roll is much more important in most cases than the difference in M values.

Charistoph
20-12-2012, 03:58
No I didn't.

If you're going to say that I 'said something earlier' please quote it, because this is the second time you've misquoted what I said.

At most, I might have said that they're defenceless against magic attacks. Which they are.

There's still nothing different now with Ethereal vs Magic Attacks vs my suggestion, so I have no idea why this is such a bugbear. There are NUMEROUS units that have no defense at all. There are some units that lost an Armor Save in 8th, but gained a very minor Ward Save. Things change, and not always for the better. Remember when Str 1 couldn't touch Str 10, for example?


Yes, but they're not paying for immunity that they're no longer getting.

Yes, but it's still a hell of a comedown from being immune to those attacks.

In any case, why does this need changing at all? :confused:

Why did Parry change from a +1 Armour Save to a 6+ Ward? Why did any Strength attack now be able to wound any target, no matter how tough? But as I said earlier, why should there be anything that cannot be hurt no matter what? Difficult, I can understand, but have to rely on Ranks and a Banner to do ANYTHING against a unit?



Also, once again you're fixated on spirit hosts - not all ethereal units have that sort of survivability.

I'm not fixated, I'm simply responding to responses. You may have noticed that I've actually quoted what I was responding, too. My responses to you started to your original response about someone who brought up Spirit Hosts. Please note farther below.

And yeah, a lot of Ethereals have more survivability than Spirit Hosts.


But you also seemed horrified at the idea of them gaining a measure of protection (even a 6+ save) against magic attacks. Would such a boon really be game-breaking?

Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying that a few things have been nerfed and have had ZERO change at all. No price change, no boon, zip, nothing. Why should Ethereals get something, too? Or did you think about it?


#3

No, I wasn't. and No, I'm not.

Once again, I haven't brought up spirit hosts - this is something you keep attributing to me, for reasons I have yet to understand.

The only explanation I can think of is that I brought up the fact that many ethereal units have WS3, T3 and no armour or ward saves.

Yes, this could refer to spirit hosts.
Or Cairn Wraiths
Or Cairn Wraith Characters
Or Tomb Banshees
Or Tomb Banshee Characters

:eyebrows:

You mean like the following?


As a vampire counts player who frequently uses spirit hosts, I would support this. Winning is great, but when your spirit host charges down a hill at your buddies unit of minotaurs with Gorebull BSB inside, beats them by 1 point, and runs them down, you have to admit that total immunity is a problem.
By the same token though, if they're not going to have complete protection against mundane weapons, it would be nice if they had a bit of protection (e.g. a 5+ or 6+ ward save) against magic attacks.

It's not particularly fun when any daemon army can completely ignore ethereal units. :p

"Mundane attacks? What are they?"


Yeah.

Thing is, I'd be more inclined to go with the 2+ thing, if ethereal units had some other protection.

However, with WS3, T3 and no save, it seems like they really wouldn't be worth their cost if suddenly everything had a chance of wounding them.

I could be wrong, of course, but they're already swingy (since virtually anything with a magic weapon will slice them apart effortlessly). And, making mundane weapons able to wound them seems like it's taking away their only real advantage.

Maybe I'm blind, but it seems like your name on those.

Urgat
20-12-2012, 06:45
You said it first! No, you! No, you!
Are you in kindergarten or what?

theunwantedbeing
20-12-2012, 08:54
Maybe I'm blind, but it seems like your name on those.

Who cares if you're blind or not? Your points do nothing to further the discussion.

Current Ethereals are as follows
Cairn Wraith Ws3, To3, 2 wounds each.
Tomb Banshee Ws3, To3, 2 wounds each.
Spirit Host Ws3, To3, 4 wounds each.
Hex Wraiths Ws3, To3, 1 wound each...6+ save.
and doesn't really count but it can potentially be ethereal
Black Coach Ws3 To6 Wo4, 3+ save, 4+ ward.

Erm...spirit host are 45pts a base now.
They're cheap....being undead means being a swarm is irrelevant as far as I can tell...or does the FAQ say they take double crumble wounds?

The only ethereal that gets any save are the Hexwraiths, they're cavalry and it's a 6+ save which is barely even a save most of the time.
Nothing wrong with such units being 100% immune to being hurt by non-magical attacks, it's a nice simple rule and works fine.
Yes it sucks to face them with non-magical attacks....boo hoo, they can still be crumbled and have massive trouble generating any combat resolution from anything that isn't close combat attacks of their own...of which only Cairn Wraiths really have any ability there.

If they have a 2+ ward instead of immunity, they'de die much faster and likely need to be allowed in much bigger units, or given an extra rule to compensate them to make them harder to hit.
Few liked the idea of ethereals being To7 afterall, why do people like 2+ wards?
Immunity to flaming attacks turned into a 2+ ward as certain units started to cause trouble

I want to see immunity to things, as well as 2+ wards(and 3+,4+,5+ & 6+) for things that should be merely highly resistant. (like dragon armour vs fire and such)
2+ wards against poison would be nice as well, as well as killing blow and so forth.
It adds a lot of diversity to what is available as a result :)

The Low King
20-12-2012, 09:32
I believe Terry Pratchett said that a man can outrun a horse over short distances as he has less legs to sort out...

haha,yes, he did.
But i was refering more to actual studies and races done. In both 100m sprints and 26mile marathons the horses tend to win, but only by a bit and not always.



I think the complaint might be reworded that the variance in the dice roll is much more important in most cases than the difference in M values.

yeah, i can see that, the other complaint was a bit silly though. The thing is that cavalry have a very small chance of charging a smaller distance than the human/dwarf in warhammer, and since it is random thats the point of it.

Vipoid
20-12-2012, 09:51
There's still nothing different now with Ethereal vs Magic Attacks vs my suggestion, so I have no idea why this is such a bugbear.

I don't wish to be offensive here, but you are an incredibly infuriating person to have a discussion with.

I didn't say that there was a difference, nor that it was a particular bugbear.

The only reason I keep bringing it up is that you keep talking about is (and misquoting me), and so I feel obliged to respond.

Previously, I was probably pointing out that they're an all-or-nothing unit, with protection from normal weapons, but defenceless against magic attacks. I just suggested that, if you're going to reduce their protection against mundane attacks, you could potentially balance it by giving them a measure of protection against magic attacks.

However, in the post you just responded to, I was defending the context in which I used defenceless in the post you referred to in your last post but, of course, never actually quoted.

*pauses for breath*


There are NUMEROUS units that have no defense at all.

Yes, but you're talking about a unit that's paying for immunity, which it's no longer getting.


As an idea, how about this - all ward saves (whether innate or from magic items, abilities, spells etc.) are permanently worsened by 1pt. 4+ becomes 5+, 5+ becomes 6+, 6+ disappears completely, you get the idea.

Is this fair?


There are some units that lost an Armor Save in 8th, but gained a very minor Ward Save.

I'm sure that's entirely different from ethereal units becoming vulnerable to normal attacks, but gaining a minor ward save vs. magical ones... :rolleyes:


Things change, and not always for the better. Remember when Str 1 couldn't touch Str 10, for example?


Ok, firstly, I assume you mean S1 couldn't hurt Toughness 10.

Yeah, sometimes change is bad. So, why on Earth would you want things to change for the worse? :confused:



Why did Parry change from a +1 Armour Save to a 6+ Ward?

Um... if you're referring to shields, they grant both of those.



Why did any Strength attack now be able to wound any target, no matter how tough?

Idiocy?


But as I said earlier, why should there be anything that cannot be hurt no matter what? Difficult, I can understand, but have to rely on Ranks and a Banner to do ANYTHING against a unit?

There shouldn't be.

Which is why ethereal units can be hurt by magic weapons, spells and, in the case of undead ones, combat-resolution.

Also, ethereal units aren't assassins. They don't hide in units and then spring out at you. So, if you can't be bothered sending a magic-weapon-wielding character at an ethereal character, or using a spell or two to remove an ethereal unit, then you frankly deserve to get stuck in combat with it.


I'm not fixated, I'm simply responding to responses.

No, you're not.

Or, if you are, you're responding to the wrong person. :p

You keep talking about spirit hosts to me, instead of whoever it was who actually brought them up.



And yeah, a lot of Ethereals have more survivability than Spirit Hosts.

Your case probably isn't helped by you citing all of no examples.



Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying that a few things have been nerfed and have had ZERO change at all. No price change, no boon, zip, nothing. Why should Ethereals get something, too? Or did you think about it?

Well, quite.

We should just nerf everything purely for the sake of nerfing it.




You mean like the following?

Maybe I'm blind, but it seems like your name on those.

It is indeed my name on those.

Wow, can you see what isn't on either of those?

Here's a clue - it involves the word 'spirit' and the word 'hosts'.

The person I quoted mentioned spirit hosts. I, however, made a point of not mentioning them, because my point related to ethereal units in general, not just spirit hosts.

With regard to the second post, as I already said, "WS3, T3 and no save" can refer to several ethereal units - not just spirit hosts.

Again, please drop the spirit host thing.

pippin_nl
20-12-2012, 10:51
This is becoming a spirited debate. But since we are not high on spirits, I suggest this part of the discussion should end amicably;) and that we should focus on a host of other options to be made better in 9th or 8.5 (what I would prefer).

pippin_nl
20-12-2012, 11:40
Immunities in general are interesting stuff, you have immune to non-magical weapons, -1 to wound (non magical weapons). Maybe -1 to hit (non magical weapons) would be a good addition. I would prefer the -1 to hit / wound instead of complete immunity.

danny-d-b
20-12-2012, 12:46
if your changing etherials your going to have to point drop them because with out the ethereal rule they are the most over pointed things known to man- to be honnest i'd be wanting them to ignore armour at the same time- these are ghosts, they aren't going to be stomped from doing harm by a leather vest or full plate, maybe they should ignore all non-magical armour as well

Vipoid
20-12-2012, 14:39
if your changing etherials your going to have to point drop them because with out the ethereal rule they are the most over pointed things known to man- to be honnest i'd be wanting them to ignore armour at the same time- these are ghosts, they aren't going to be stomped from doing harm by a leather vest or full plate, maybe they should ignore all non-magical armour as well

The 'ignoring armour' is an interesting point.


With regard to the invulnerable thing, I feel I should add this - one of the most common uses of ethereal units is to soak up mundane attacks. The trouble with making their immunity 2+ is that it makes them vulnerable to a large number of attacks - which is exactly what they're used to absorb.

Charistoph
20-12-2012, 14:43
Who cares if you're blind or not? Your points do nothing to further the discussion.

Current Ethereals are as follows
Cairn Wraith Ws3, To3, 2 wounds each.
Tomb Banshee Ws3, To3, 2 wounds each.
Spirit Host Ws3, To3, 4 wounds each.
Hex Wraiths Ws3, To3, 1 wound each...6+ save.
and doesn't really count but it can potentially be ethereal
Black Coach Ws3 To6 Wo4, 3+ save, 4+ ward.

Erm...spirit host are 45pts a base now.
They're cheap....being undead means being a swarm is irrelevant as far as I can tell...or does the FAQ say they take double crumble wounds?

The only ethereal that gets any save are the Hexwraiths, they're cavalry and it's a 6+ save which is barely even a save most of the time.
Nothing wrong with such units being 100% immune to being hurt by non-magical attacks, it's a nice simple rule and works fine.
Yes it sucks to face them with non-magical attacks....boo hoo, they can still be crumbled and have massive trouble generating any combat resolution from anything that isn't close combat attacks of their own...of which only Cairn Wraiths really have any ability there.

So I guess the Green Knight, a Slaan, and a High Elf don't count? True Vampire Counts have the most Ethereal units, and you've just listed a couple more that have a Save. I'm sorry I can't bring up every example, as I don't have every army book at my disposal.


If they have a 2+ ward instead of immunity, they'de die much faster and likely need to be allowed in much bigger units, or given an extra rule to compensate them to make them harder to hit.
Few liked the idea of ethereals being To7 afterall, why do people like 2+ wards?
Immunity to flaming attacks turned into a 2+ ward as certain units started to cause trouble

I want to see immunity to things, as well as 2+ wards(and 3+,4+,5+ & 6+) for things that should be merely highly resistant. (like dragon armour vs fire and such)
2+ wards against poison would be nice as well, as well as killing blow and so forth.
It adds a lot of diversity to what is available as a result :)

And I never said that certain units shouldn't be compensated for it, just that a lot of units haven't been for their drop in effectiveness, so why should this in its rules?


I don't wish to be offensive here, but you are an incredibly infuriating person to have a discussion with.

I didn't say that there was a difference, nor that it was a particular bugbear.

The only reason I keep bringing it up is that you keep talking about is (and misquoting me), and so I feel obliged to respond.

As I stated, I quote and then respond. If you're responding to me as if you were the one I responded to, I tend to take that as you are either the same person I quote. I don't always have your name right available when I respond. It's the limitations of certain technology.


Previously, I was probably pointing out that they're an all-or-nothing unit, with protection from normal weapons, but defenceless against magic attacks. I just suggested that, if you're going to reduce their protection against mundane attacks, you could potentially balance it by giving them a measure of protection against magic attacks.

But WHY should they have an additional measure of protection against Magical attacks? Just because they used to be able to completely ignore mundane attacks and now can just mostly ignore them? There were a lot of changes that have occurred which made some units more defenseless than they used to be, and there are numerous units which have ZERO defenses at all and have to accept the damage they receive.



As an idea, how about this - all ward saves (whether innate or from magic items, abilities, spells etc.) are permanently worsened by 1pt. 4+ becomes 5+, 5+ becomes 6+, 6+ disappears completely, you get the idea.

Is this fair?

That's an army book address, not a BRB address.



Ok, firstly, I assume you mean S1 couldn't hurt Toughness 10.

Well, yeah, sometimes I type too fast and typos occur.



Yeah, sometimes change is bad. So, why on Earth would you want things to change for the worse? :confused:

To give the PBI a chance besides hoping the enemy doesn't do more damage to them than they have Ranks. For every advantage, there is someone who suffers from it. One thing I like about Warhammer is that, in most cases, you can hurt anything. Ethereal is the only case of that exception.



Um... if you're referring to shields, they grant both of those.

No, I was referring to PARRY. A HW+Shield used to provide a +2 AS modifier instead of a +1 AS and 6+ WS. But hey, 6+ is better than nothing, right?



It is indeed my name on those.

Wow, can you see what isn't on either of those?

Here's a clue - it involves the word 'spirit' and the word 'hosts'.

The person I quoted mentioned spirit hosts. I, however, made a point of not mentioning them, because my point related to ethereal units in general, not just spirit hosts.

With regard to the second post, as I already said, "WS3, T3 and no save" can refer to several ethereal units - not just spirit hosts.

Again, please drop the spirit host thing.

And your quote intimated that you were specifically directed your response towards Spirit Hosts...


if your changing etherials your going to have to point drop them because with out the ethereal rule they are the most over pointed things known to man- to be honnest i'd be wanting them to ignore armour at the same time- these are ghosts, they aren't going to be stomped from doing harm by a leather vest or full plate, maybe they should ignore all non-magical armour as well

:facepalm: How many times do I have to say that? Yes, individual units will have to be updated. How many Cavalry units haven't been updated, though? But that is an army book issue. This thread is not about army books, though, this is about the Edition, the Main Rules, the BRB.

Vipoid
20-12-2012, 15:00
But WHY should they have an additional measure of protection against Magical attacks? Just because they used to be able to completely ignore mundane attacks and now can just mostly ignore them? There were a lot of changes that have occurred which made some units more defenseless than they used to be, and there are numerous units which have ZERO defenses at all and have to accept the damage they receive.

Well, because you're already changing their immunity.

Currently they either have absolute immunity, or are defenceless, depending on the attack.

If you're reducing their defence from absolute to 5/6, then it simply seems reasonable to up their non-immunity.

Here's the thing though - why do they need to be changed. You keep wanting me to defend the idea of upping their magical defence (from nothing), but you haven't said why they need to be changed at all.

Yes, some units have been changed for the worse, but that doesn't mean that all negative changes should be made with no compensation for the unit.




That's an army book address, not a BRB address.


It's a universal change. Just like altering ethereal units.



To give the PBI a chance besides hoping the enemy doesn't do more damage to them than they have Ranks. For every advantage, there is someone who suffers from it. One thing I like about Warhammer is that, in most cases, you can hurt anything. Ethereal is the only case of that exception.

PBI? :confused:

But that's the thing - I don't see the problem in having units that can't be hurt by every weapon.

Also, again, ranks aren't the only way to hurt them.

Magic weapons and spells both work fine - and it's not as if either are uncommon.



No, I was referring to PARRY. A HW+Shield used to provide a +2 AS modifier instead of a +1 AS and 6+ WS. But hey, 6+ is better than nothing, right?


Ah, fair enough.

To be honest though, this doesn't seem like much of a negative change. It makes infantry better against higher strength attacks, and about the same vs most low strength attacks.

I don't see this as a flat-out nerf, such as you're proposing for ethereal units.




And your quote intimated that you were specifically directed your response towards Spirit Hosts...

That wasn't my intention, but perhaps I could have made it a little more clear.

pippin_nl
20-12-2012, 15:56
<CUT>

But that's the thing - I don't see the problem in having units that can't be hurt by every weapon.

Also, again, ranks aren't the only way to hurt them.

Magic weapons and spells both work fine - and it's not as if either are uncommon.

<CUT>



I would not mind if in 9th edition magic / spells would no longer be necessary to compete / make strong army builds. One other thing can currently harm ethereals without having ranks: the Giant. I would really like it if Giants would be more numerous and that it would be possible to give them upgrades and that they would no longer suck!