PDA

View Full Version : Scaling rank bonus



Darnok
25-01-2014, 05:22
In one of the N&R threads about the rumoured changes to WHF, the following idea came up:


Maximum rank bonus = (Points value of game)/1000

Job done. ;)

So for example, in a game of 3000 points, you would get no higher rank bonus than 3, but when playing with 1000 points, it would be capped at 1.

The question is: does that indeed make WHF a better "scalable" game? One of the biggest issues of the game right now is: you need at least 1500-2000 points for a "proper" game, with the usual standard game size being much higher, at about 2400 to 3000 points. For a beginner that often is downright scary, and since playing WHF at very small point levels is almost pointless, many get "lost" on their way to an actual army. As pointed out over there, my opinion is this:


If they want to re-work WHF into something that appeals to beginners and veterans alike, they have to make it playable at small and big point levels. A game of two 20er-blocks plus a chara and a warmachine should be interesting, as should be a game you would currently have at about 3000-4000 points. The latter has always been one of those goals you were inspired by, and one of the trademarks of WHF: huge armies of shiny models. But without a way to play the game on the way towards that goal, a lot of people get lost - and that is one of the biggest issues of the current WHF. To make Warhammer shine again, GW has to find a way to solve this. That rumour of a "small-scale WHF" might be just that.

So to return to the opening idea: is this a good one to solve that issue? Is there maybe somebody who has actually played with it as a houserule and tell about the experiences made? Or are there other things that people have tried? I'm really curious to hear about it.

dalezzz
25-01-2014, 06:16
It sounds workable and best of all simple. That said I am hung over and have been forced out of bed by the smallest punk in town so my judgements not great right now ;)

Ludaman
25-01-2014, 06:32
I'd be a bigger fan of: disruption negates steadfast and stubborn. It would destroy the way the game is played competitively now. Deathstars would only be as good as their weakest flank, but armies that could afford multiple cheap hordes and still pay for flank protection could still run them. Also I think minimum rank size should be 5 for infantry 4 for cavalry, and 3 for monstrous infantry/cavalry. It might swing the balance back a bit towards cavalry, but I think in most cases it would swing the trend away from massive hordes and bring it back towards smaller units and coordinated movement. Just a thought

@allmyownbattles
25-01-2014, 08:05
I remember Jervis once saying that good game mechanics always represented something which might happen (you should think about making it realistic before being balanced). This rule doesn't seem to translate. A unit with three ranks sound receive the same rank bonus, as it hits just as hard, regardless of how many other units are on the battlefield. It really wouldn't make sense. Effectively the dwarfs/orcs/elves or whatever at the back of the unit would be thinking, 'We've got to hang back here, this battle is at the wrong points value.'

Griefbringer
25-01-2014, 08:29
Wouldn't a more sensible restriction be capping maximum unit size (in models)? This would then limit the amount of ranks that could be obtained at best. For example, how about:

maximum unit size (in models) = game size (in points) / 50

Lord Solar Plexus
25-01-2014, 08:37
I think the premises are incorrect. What's the problem with rank bonus of all things? You don't need 2k to get a rank bonus. It's nice to have a rank bonus but not something strictly necessary. "Ranks & flanks" is actually a 7th (6th?) edition term, as the vast majority of players believe they are overshadowed by casualties.

Scaling rank bonus makes no sense I'm afraid.

Durloth
25-01-2014, 09:03
I don't know internationally, but in tournaments here in Norway (and consequently the local meta) you never see infantry any more, so for me the rank bonus idea would just make infantry even less useful in small games. Our battlefields are completely ruled over by MI, MC and high save cavalry. If anything I wish something was done to make infantry stronger. Especially in smaller games...

Edit: Thinking about it, we do see some infantry, but only the kind that isn't taken for rank bonus, like witch elves and savage orcs.

StygianBeach
25-01-2014, 09:35
Scaling rank bonus makes no sense I'm afraid.

I agree. I think the Rank bonus has little to do with the size of units these days.

I do like the idea of Cavalry getting a rank at 4 models.

Pavisel
25-01-2014, 12:52
I'd be a bigger fan of: disruption negates steadfast an... It would destroy the way the game is played competitively now. Deathstars would only be as good as their weakest flank, but armies that could afford multiple cheap hordes and still pay for flank protection could still run them.

This. I don't care how big your unit is, if you're being attacked on several fronts, it should affect the troops' moral. nobody likes to be surrounded. except maybe slayers... Regular stubborn should remain as is, that's the point of that rule, but steadfast should be affected by disruption.

Kingly
25-01-2014, 13:07
Why does everyone have such a bug bear with larger units!?
I just don't get it? A large unit has SO many disadvantages, it's such a weird focal point of posters gripes on here (especially from my observation) People who claim not to play anymore, weird.

Devastating spells that make every chap in the unit die on a 4+ etc! massive flanks or rears! a huge points sink so everything else in the army is at a disadvantage to the oppositions points comparison, if he hasn't also got a 'well OP' huge unit as well.

I'll admit I've now only played 25 ish games with my high elf army but every time I play my Skaven or undead mate I decimate these huge units in two-three turns...

I LOVE the fact Fantasy isn't what it used to be where I charge a guy with my heavy cav, kill 5-6 men, he doesn't get an attack back and runs off due to combat res, rinse and repeat. Now it is more similar to a slugfest, and the only alagory I can associate it to is games of total war where all the hard core gamers on forums, like us!, complained that combats were over too quickly?!

Keep rank bonuses as, because it gives Johnny scrivs a reason to be on the board, with his braided handkerchief and helmet...

theunwantedbeing
25-01-2014, 13:47
Why does everyone have such a bug bear with larger units!?

They help cause low unit count armies, so the game ends out being quite dull as a result.


I don't think altering rank bonus would help in the slightest, given how meaningless it is.
A better solution would probably be to change how the rank width works.
So at 1k the minimum rank width could be 4, and 2k it could be 5, at 3K it could be 6, and so on

You'll get smaller units overall in smaller battles, bigger units in bigger ones.

Archon of Death
25-01-2014, 14:04
They help cause low unit count armies, so the game ends out being quite dull as a result.

Which means they lack chaff. Which means you can shut them down with yours, and dictate how the battle goes.

Lord Solar Plexus
25-01-2014, 14:20
Big units only lead to a low unit count if you take nothing but. Every army that can field big units of say, 30-60 models, can easily field 10+ units. 30 White lions only become better with 2*5 Reavers or some GE. 40 Greatswords are helped a lot by a detachment and buff wagon, and 60+ Slaves or Goblins simply don't work on their own.

None of these big units is primarily taken for their static CR though. If you don't like to see big units (or nothing but), play differently and show your opponent that his way isn't an easy auto-win.

WLBjork
25-01-2014, 14:28
Which is nice if an army has chaff available in the first place. Also depends on the quality of the troops in that big block.

Remove horde in sub-2k point games, agree that steadfast should be disruptable (but not stubborn as that doesn't depend on ranks). Magic will need looking at, maybe 1D6 per 1000 pts (or part thereof).

Probably a few other things that can be looked at as well.

moonlapse
25-01-2014, 15:02
I like the idea of adding a rule or rules in order to make smaller games work better and be slightly different to larger ones, but I have no idea where capping rank bonuses would come into it. I don'ttunderstand what doing that would add. I mean how many combats are so close that the rank bonuses matter much, and even then, why does having less rank bonus in smaller games make any difference :s

Lord Solar Plexus
25-01-2014, 15:05
Almost all factions have something that can serve as chaff. Dwarfs are just around the corner, so wait and see. Bretonia perhaps but they're not exactly known for big game-breaking units. Everyone else has some archers, tigers, eagles, wolves, dogs, harpies, bats, rats or light cavalry.

Urgat
25-01-2014, 15:48
Huh? So at 1000 points, my friend's chaos warriors still retain their one point of rank bonus, and my gobs can only have one point of rank bonus? How about you offer him a can of oil and a match to burn my army while we're at it? I'm sorry, this is completely stupid. I don't even get what this would achieve. Forcing people to ignore units that are above "minimum size:10" in games lower than 3K (3K!!!)?

Ludaman
25-01-2014, 15:49
Almost all factions have something that can serve as chaff. Dwarfs are just around the corner, so wait and see. Bretonia perhaps but they're not exactly known for big game-breaking units. Everyone else has some archers, tigers, eagles, wolves, dogs, harpies, bats, rats or light cavalry.



agree! I think you solved the puzzle here Plexus, GW should just send employees around to all the local indies worldwide and just tell people how to play warhammer. Interest in smaller more effective units and armies will be instant! I love it!

Archon of Death
25-01-2014, 18:36
Removing horde in lower point games just doesn't make sense, as was said before about the soldiers determining the combat's point cost was too low. They'd be better off removing Horde, retaining Steadfast and determining steadfast based on actually outnumbering, while allowing it to be disrupted. That retains elements of the horde concept while making it not limit people to a certain optimal frontage.

Darnok
25-01-2014, 20:13
So, I guess the initial idea doesn't really help with the problems. I got that, thanks. :D

Is "disruption negating steadfast" enough then? Or are there other things people would like to see? I'm looking for simple solution, which don't break the game balance, and which would help to scale the game better in the range of 500 to 2000 points. I think from there upwards the game is solid as it is, right?

StygianBeach
25-01-2014, 20:36
So, I guess the initial idea doesn't really help with the problems. I got that, thanks. :D

Is "disruption negating steadfast" enough then? Or are there other things people would like to see? I'm looking for simple solution, which don't break the game balance, and which would help to scale the game better in the range of 500 to 2000 points. I think from there upwards the game is solid as it is, right?

Dropping Monster Cav from 3 wounds to 2 woulds would help I believe.

The only problem then would be that Monster Infantry would probably need a Wound nerf as well, and apart from Troll core and Gutstars, Monster Infantry are not much of a problem.

Darnok
25-01-2014, 20:43
The only problem then would be that Monster Infantry would probably need a Wound nerf as well, and apart from Troll core and Gutstars, Monster Infantry are not much of a problem.

That sounds a bit like "fixing" a problem that isn't much of a problem in the first place?

HurrDurr
26-01-2014, 00:18
Not that this is the right thread, but I don't recall anyone suggesting flanking a unit removes X number of supporting attacks.

Samsonov
26-01-2014, 01:18
Increasing the combat modifiers for flank and rear combat might help people decrease the size of their units.

Skywave
26-01-2014, 02:32
So, I guess the initial idea doesn't really help with the problems. I got that, thanks. :D

Is "disruption negating steadfast" enough then? Or are there other things people would like to see? I'm looking for simple solution, which don't break the game balance, and which would help to scale the game better in the range of 500 to 2000 points. I think from there upwards the game is solid as it is, right?

I would make that steadfast is lost when fighting on multiple front at the same time. A single unit on the flank is still only a single threat, and the current disruption and flank/rear bonus is enough for that. But when you start to combo charge from multiple angles that's when the unit should start loosing it's resolve and panic more easily, thus loosing steadfast.

Montegue
26-01-2014, 05:40
in fairness, with that many units in place, steadfast isn't going to last much at all. Honestly, I've never seen the problem with steadfast. I like the grinding nature of combat - back and forth, a big fight, until someone breaks and runs. I don't think I'd enjoy any return to the 7th ed style of "autobreak" combats. Flanking gives a lot of bonuses (As do rear charges). I don't know that more is really needed.

Malagor
26-01-2014, 07:34
I wouldn't make it so that you lose steadfast if you get attacked on the flanks or even being completely surrounded.
As some people are looking at this in a realistic point of view which is a bit in error considering we are talking about a fantasy game here but how about if you win over your opponent by a certain amount of CR, let's say 12 or 15, the opponent loses steadfast as the momentum and casualty rate is too much for them so they lose heart.

Ramius4
26-01-2014, 07:44
With only having read the OP, I don't like the idea. I don't feel that it makes the game more scaleable at all for one reason... At lower points, it only serves to make elite troops, more elite since the tend to rely on 'active combat resolution' rather than static.

Eyrenthaal
26-01-2014, 07:55
I would make that steadfast is lost when fighting on multiple front at the same time. A single unit on the flank is still only a single threat, and the current disruption and flank/rear bonus is enough for that. But when you start to combo charge from multiple angles that's when the unit should start loosing it's resolve and panic more easily, thus loosing steadfast.

This is a really good idea.. :)

Lord Solar Plexus
26-01-2014, 07:58
I think the first factor that needs some scaling is magic. Make it 2d3, no #6 spells at 1k and below and it's fine.

Unit sizes...hmm. I honestly never thought they were a huge problem in small games, and I play quite a lot of 1k games or thereabouts. Skaven are an exception but almost everyone else has to give up something instead.

dementian
27-01-2014, 04:03
So at 1000 points my Skaven can't get above Ld 8? At 2000 points I am capped at Ld 9? 3000 points I can get to Ld 10! (Assuming not bringing Queek)

Darnok
27-01-2014, 05:51
So at 1000 points my Skaven can't get above Ld 8? At 2000 points I am capped at Ld 9? 3000 points I can get to Ld 10! (Assuming not bringing Queek)
At least that one sounds somewhat good to me. Shouldn't the "strength in numbers" thing only kick in with... I don't know, numbers?

teafloy_the_damned
27-01-2014, 07:39
To make it scalable, as Griefbringer mentioned, unit number caps should be re-introduced.

But, dependent on the unit/army being used.
The better the unit, the less you can have in one place

So a Skaven clanrat unit may have a unit cap of 50 models, to be deployed in whatever formation they choose.
Stormvermin, unit cap at 40
Chaos warriors, unit cap of say, 25 models
Chaos Chosen, unit cap of 15

I realize this is sort of what the points cost and core, special and rare options try and do. But its not really working

This would stop the deathstar, deathstar, 5x flack 2000pt armies and may well make "tournament unviable" units, useable.
If you had a unit cap of 60 on chaos marauders, people may consider them (not me though, there awful)

Caps could be increased in larger games, Double the caps in grand army lists or something

N1AK
27-01-2014, 13:20
One of the biggest issues of the game right now is: you need at least 1500-2000 points for a "proper" game, with the usual standard game size being much higher, at about 2400 to 3000 points. For a beginner that often is downright scary, and since playing WHF at very small point levels is almost pointless, many get "lost" on their way to an actual army.


I'm inclined to think removing rank bonus would create as many new problems as it removes. If players take 'balanced' armies then a game in the 500-800pt range already works well. I've played in and run tournaments at that points value as well as playing casual games. Removing rank bonus would make units like Goblins/Skeletons etc weaker while making all expensive elite units better.

Why do you think Warhammer is pointless at very small point levels and what issues have caused that? Personally, the only issue seems to be that there can be some very poor match ups but none I can think of were caused by ranks.

Personally I think the unit minimum sizes are probably the only mechanism that scales poorly. Perhaps allowing all infantry and cavalry to be taken in units of 3+ and Monstrous Infantry and Cavalry to be taken in units of 1+ when playing a 'small game' (800pts or below, perhaps?).

N1AK
27-01-2014, 13:35
They help cause low unit count armies, so the game ends out being quite dull as a result.


Then why would two big units of Ogres (4 Ogres don't need a second rank) with a character and a unit of Mournfang a good army; when an Orc army with two ranked units of Goblins, two chariots, a warmachine and some fast Cav is a problem.

Personally I'd be happy to see unit points values capped if the intent is to stop people only fielding 1-2 large units rather than further nerfing many infantry choices. It could be done by bands (like army and grand army restrictions or could be done as a % of the armies total size).

logan054
27-01-2014, 13:59
To make it scalable, as Griefbringer mentioned, unit number caps should be re-introduced.

I really don't see the need for unit caps, the problem with unit sizes is a result of the horde formation, both of these rules improve MI far more than they do standard infantry. If you stop a unit of stormvermin, white lions, executioners, etc being able to generate 30 attacks a turn at high initiative then you remove the need for units to be so large. If you remove rules like the horde formation then you also remove the need for units like trolls, ogres, chimera's, etc to have the stomp/thunder stomp rules, those rules seem like they got added to compensate for the amount of additional attacks a unit would be gaining through supporting attacks and horde formation, it also removes the need for mega spells to counter the much larger units (or at least gives you some room to nerf them).

If you wanted to retain the horde formation then perhaps it should be restricted to weaker units which you could do by introducing different troops types.

I don't think ranks are the issue, ranks bonus does little now, it just gives you a couple of extra of points in a game that has units pumping out anything from 30-60 high strength attacks a turn, if you limited steadfast to rank bonus then you simple add even more power to such units, it would be next to impossible for a unit to be steadfast making combat all about kills.

All you can really do is give people reasons not to use massive units, the current rules do not do this.

N1AK
27-01-2014, 15:30
I really don't see the need for unit caps, the problem with unit sizes is a result of the horde formation, both of these rules improve MI far more than they do standard infantry. If you stop a unit of stormvermin, white lions, executioners, etc being able to generate 30 attacks a turn at high initiative then you remove the need for units to be so large.

I'm not sure I get the logic of this change. What is the problem with Hordes? A horde of Storm Vermin is fine. A horde of White Lions is good, but at 420+ points it should be when they'd lose ~10 to just the impact hits from 6 Mournfang which would proceed to kill another 15 White Lions in the first round of combat and run them down. Executioners? Personally I think they get too much for their points but that's true of dozens of army choices and the vast majority of them aren't infantry.

Horde infantry isn't dominating the game, in fact infantry is marginalised. You see infantry in Elf armies, Skaven armies and Dwarf armies because they can't spend points on other choices.

The only reason I take hordes in my Dwarf army is because by the time I've taken impact hits and attacks from a unit of mournfang or Skullcrushers (and lost 10+ models) I'd have nothing left to fight back if I didn't.

logan054
27-01-2014, 15:57
I'm not sure I get the logic of this change. What is the problem with Hordes? A horde of Storm Vermin is fine. A horde of White Lions is good, but at 420+ points it should be when they'd lose ~10 to just the impact hits from 6 Mournfang which would proceed to kill another 15 White Lions in the first round of combat and run them down. Executioners? Personally I think they get too much for their points but that's true of dozens of army choices and the vast majority of them aren't infantry.

Horde infantry isn't dominating the game, in fact infantry is marginalised. You see infantry in Elf armies, Skaven armies and Dwarf armies because they can't spend points on other choices.

The only reason I take hordes in my Dwarf army is because by the time I've taken impact hits and attacks from a unit of mournfang or Skullcrushers (and lost 10+ models) I'd have nothing left to fight back if I didn't.

I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion that 6 mournfang would proced to killer an additional 15 models after when half the unit would be dead from the counter attack, not defending MC as they are to powreful, even so, I don't believe I have ever seen a list that uses a unit of 6 mournfang (as such, it would rely on both making a charge). btw, whire lions are stubborn, so no, it's unlikely they will be chased down that unit.

Anyway, you seem to concentrating you counter point on infantry not thinking about the effect the horde formation has on MI, look at chaos trolls, a horde of them is pumping out 60 S5 attacks including stomps, you can't take away the horde formation away from them really, they would struggle to complete with infantry. My issue with the horde formation is the other changes it has brought to warhammer, the changes to template weapons, the need for monsters/MI to have thunderstomp/stomp attacks, the need for mega spells which sadly can result in a very short game. You will see many posts about how purple sun is needed to counter things like troll hordes or how dwellers for infantry deathstars, if you removed rules that prompted death star building you remove the need for such counters, as such, magic can do what it's meant to do (support your army).

Basically a lot of the things people complain about are a result of the horde rule, remove that and you can remove/tweak those things.

StygianBeach
27-01-2014, 16:51
Basically a lot of the things people complain about are a result of the horde rule, remove that and you can remove/tweak those things.

I think the Horde rule could stay, just phase out Supporting attacks as an automatic effect. Then Hordes could be trimmed by 10 models.

Voss
27-01-2014, 20:06
I think the premises are incorrect. What's the problem with rank bonus of all things? You don't need 2k to get a rank bonus. It's nice to have a rank bonus but not something strictly necessary. "Ranks & flanks" is actually a 7th (6th?) edition term, as the vast majority of players believe they are overshadowed by casualties.

Scaling rank bonus makes no sense I'm afraid.agreed. The static rank bonus is frankly trivial with all the multi attack models out there. Making it smaller just means that models with 3-4 attacks a piece are even better at small points values, and they're absurdly common now. It actually makes supposed mainstay units like spearmen, marauders or halberdiers even more pointless.

White_13oy
27-01-2014, 20:15
I've always wanted calv to disrupt on the turn they charge. Getting slammed by horses is always a hard thing on moral. Imo the bsb rule needs to change, a lot of problems stems from that imo. Me it so you can reroll panic within 12" and reroll break tests in the unit the bsb is in. Oh and make psychology back to what it was in 7th, you know, when psychology actually mattered.

logan054
27-01-2014, 20:48
I think the Horde rule could stay, just phase out Supporting attacks as an automatic effect. Then Hordes could be trimmed by 10 models.

Well either or, I think keeping supporting over horde means your not forcing units into large wide formations, it also gives a reason to have a 2nd rank in a unit of MI outside of a horde unit.

thormon
27-01-2014, 21:04
I've always wanted calv to disrupt on the turn they charge. Getting slammed by horses is always a hard thing on moral. Imo the bsb rule needs to change, a lot of problems stems from that imo. Me it so you can reroll panic within 12" and reroll break tests in the unit the bsb is in. Oh and make psychology back to what it was in 7th, you know, when psychology actually mattered.
The other way around is a better idea. You don't want to break every unit in the first round of combat, that's not fun. I liked the psychology in 6th.

Lord Solar Plexus
27-01-2014, 22:14
I've always wanted calv to disrupt on the turn they charge. Getting slammed by horses is always a hard thing on moral.

Except that cavalry normally only slammed skirmishers or other loose (routed) troops, hardly ever formations or units (in the sense of a unified entity), and that getting spiked by lances, slashed by swords or pierced by arrows wasn't particularly great for morale either.

WhispersofBlood
27-01-2014, 22:53
I've always wanted calv to disrupt on the turn they charge. Getting slammed by horses is always a hard thing on moral. Imo the bsb rule needs to change, a lot of problems stems from that imo. Me it so you can reroll panic within 12" and reroll break tests in the unit the bsb is in. Oh and make psychology back to what it was in 7th, you know, when psychology actually mattered.

You must misremember, my recollection of 7th edition was either had ld10 armies, immune to fear armies, immune to panic, or just plain old itp armies. I honestly don't think I had someone fail a panic test the last two years of fantasy... unless I was running a demo game or staff challenge against a newbie.

N1AK
28-01-2014, 12:54
I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion that 6 mournfang would proced to killer an additional 15 models after when half the unit would be dead from the counter attack, not defending MC as they are to powreful, even so, I don't believe I have ever seen a list that uses a unit of 6 mournfang (as such, it would rely on both making a charge). btw, whire lions are stubborn, so no, it's unlikely they will be chased down that unit.


Because I can do mathematics ;) 20 White Lions = 13 hits = 11 wounds = 7 failed armour saves = 6 failed ward saves = 2 Dead Mournfangs. 4 Mournfangs back is 7 wounds, 4 Ogres is 4 wounds and 4 stops is 3 wounds = 14 wounds. You're right that they're stubborn at least but 6 stubborn white lions isn't going to last another round against 4 Mournfangs. The reason you don't see 6 Mournfangs is because 3-4 is already so incredibly good that they don't need the rest.

Anyway, you seem to concentrating you counter point on infantry not thinking about the effect the horde formation has on MI, look at chaos trolls, a horde of them is pumping out 60 S5 attacks including stomps, you can't take away the horde formation away from them really, they would struggle to complete with infantry. My issue with the horde formation is the other changes it has brought to warhammer, the changes to template weapons, the need for monsters/MI to have thunderstomp/stomp attacks, the need for mega spells which sadly can result in a very short game. You will see many posts about how purple sun is needed to counter things like troll hordes or how dwellers for infantry deathstars, if you removed rules that prompted death star building you remove the need for such counters, as such, magic can do what it's meant to do (support your army).
[/QUOTE]

Why would you want to take horde away from Trolls? If someone wants to field 700pt unit with a huge footprint which needs babysitting by someone with great leadership then great. There's plenty of good counters out there and it's easy to avoid. There's a reason why tournament winning builds are all chariots, flying characters and Skullcrushers.

You seem to have some ideological issue with large units of infantry. Personally I like the fact that units can scale competitively if players want them to. One of the best things about 8th over 7th is that combat has stopped being about having a few elite models wipe out the front rank of their opponent and then run them down. Remove the horde rules and why on earth would a Warriors player field Marauders instead of Chariots? The Marauders get even worse and the chariots get even better (because infantry will struggle even more to kill it). Why would an Empire player start putting in some infantry instead of knights and demis.

I very rarely see posts about countering infantry deathstars now, maybe there's been a couple recently as two infantry heavy armies have just been released. UK tournaments are dominated by death magic not because it deals with hordes but because it deals effectively with heavily armoured and/or multi-wound models.

logan054
28-01-2014, 20:25
Because I can do mathematics ;) 20 White Lions = 13 hits = 11 wounds = 7 failed armour saves = 6 failed ward saves = 2 Dead Mournfangs. 4 Mournfangs back is 7 wounds, 4 Ogres is 4 wounds and 4 stops is 3 wounds = 14 wounds. You're right that they're stubborn at least but 6 stubborn white lions isn't going to last another round against 4 Mournfangs. The reason you don't see 6 Mournfangs is because 3-4 is already so incredibly good that they don't need the rest.

My mistake, I was assuming this was a horde unit that actually had the model count to sustain wounds before losing attacks, so your comparing a min sized horde unit to a oversize MC unit that people don't use and then using this as a reason why infantry such and MC rock, so basically the most unrealistic vacuum I have seen to date, the reason you don't see units of 6 mournfang may also be because the unit would be 300mm wide ;)


Why would you want to take horde away from Trolls? If someone wants to field 700pt unit with a huge footprint which needs babysitting by someone with great leadership then great. There's plenty of good counters out there and it's easy to avoid. There's a reason why tournament winning builds are all chariots, flying characters and Skullcrushers.

The reason why I would take horde formation away from all units (or as suggested removed supporting attacks and have horde formation to attacking in two ranks) is because caused a lot of the issues of have with warhammer, the game itself feels like you push blog a vs blob b, some mega death spell goes off, I wouldn't be surprised if they had an effect on the terrain rules, this was already said in more detail. I don't think skullcrushers an essential part of a tournament winning list, yes they are better than knights, knights are not a bad unit


You seem to have some ideological issue with large units of infantry. Personally I like the fact that units can scale competitively if players want them to. One of the best things about 8th over 7th is that combat has stopped being about having a few elite models wipe out the front rank of their opponent and then run them down. Remove the horde rules and why on earth would a Warriors player field Marauders instead of Chariots? The Marauders get even worse and the chariots get even better (because infantry will struggle even more to kill it). Why would an Empire player start putting in some infantry instead of knights and demis.

I agree, the way combat worked in 7th was horrible, the horde formation isn't what fixed that, stepup and steadfast are what solved the issues, the horde formation is simply a rule to sell lots of the same model. As you've already pointed out, winning tournament lists use chariots, clearly the horde formation has had no effect on this, I personally don't use marauders in my chaos lists, they are to expensive, if they had been made so expensive (perhaps because of the horde rule combined with GW's and MoK?) then marauders would be a lot cheaper and be able to perform a vital function the army needs. To provide cheap(er) ranks to break the enemies steadfast.

Empire players generally don't do infantry lists over knights and demis, but again, is it not the horde formation that is to blame for the heavy price of infantry


I very rarely see posts about countering infantry deathstars now, maybe there's been a couple recently as two infantry heavy armies have just been released. UK tournaments are dominated by death magic not because it deals with hordes but because it deals effectively with heavily armoured and/or multi-wound models.

Why is it dominated by death magic? maybe partly because of purple sun which wouldn't of been needed if the horde formation hadn't been added.

N1AK
29-01-2014, 09:32
My mistake, I was assuming this was a horde unit that actually had the model count to sustain wounds before losing attacks, so your comparing a min sized horde unit to a oversize MC unit that people don't use and then using this as a reason why infantry such and MC rock, so basically the most unrealistic vacuum I have seen to date, the reason you don't see units of 6 mournfang may also be because the unit would be 300mm wide ;)

I was comparing two equally priced units. If your naive enough to think White Lions need nerfing because a unit that costs 200pts more than a unit of Mournfang could beat the Mournfang in combat then fine, but not many other people are.

I've played against units of 6 Mournfang in two Ogre armies that did very well in large UK tournaments, again your inability to see the benefits isn't proof they don't exist. Normally you would deploy them in two ranks but when facing a White Lion horde a competent player would obviously go wide. Besides which, surely White Lions should be the perfect counter to Monstrous Cavalry in HE book as they're the strongest great weapon wielding infantry. Instead they are simply the least worst unit to put in front of it.

You've done an embarrassingly poor job of demonstrating even a single unit of infantry which makes the horde rule problematic when faced with units that aren't hordes. You've also entirely failed to address the point that horde infantry is largely irrelevant in competitive Warhammer especially in armies that have core choices that aren't infantry. People aren't taking infantry to tournaments if they can avoid it, it's painfully obvious that people aren't taking death magic to counter it but you're either too biased to see it or so determined to 'win' on the internet that you can't bring yourself to admit it.

logan054
29-01-2014, 10:21
I was comparing two equally priced units. If your naive enough to think White Lions need nerfing

My exact words are White lions need nerfing? Your essentially defending a rule that's primary purpose is to prompt model sales, claiming it's a good thing and then saying I am being naive? You might want to have a think about what your saying.

You have also claimed that the horde rule solved the issues with 7th ed combat, lets think about that? lets removed step up and steadfast and striking in Initiative order, how does the horde rule change how 7th ed combat worked aside from simply having wider units that roll more attacks? it doesn't, the charger simply rolls a lot more dice, the receiver of the charge has a better chance of getting strikes back but the end result in the same (simply with the charger taking some extra loses). Step up the rule that solved the issue of the front rank being wiped out i, steadfast is help reduce the chance of unit being broken on the charge while also adding more power to ranks.

Lord Solar Plexus
29-01-2014, 10:42
I was comparing two equally priced units.

People hardly ever field equally priced units though. It's a logical assumption but an unrealistic one.

N1AK
29-01-2014, 13:06
People hardly ever field equally priced units though. It's a logical assumption but an unrealistic one.

Quite true. They, generally, take the size of unit that they best believe fills the need they have for the minimal number of points. If Mournfangs needed to be in 6s to deal with the best elite great weapon armed infantry hordes in the game then we'd see people running them in 6s but as it stands a couple of units of 3 is even better (which is common and would be equally good at flattening White Lions).

People don't take infantry hordes because they're broken and great value for points. They take them because when they field anything less than around 30 infantry it gets knocked over by a stiff breeze. You'll get one or two viable deathstar builds but even those have tended towards people using cavalry if they can because it allows them to get it where they need it and have better saves as well.

N1AK
29-01-2014, 13:15
My exact words are White lions need nerfing?

You want to remove the horde rule which makes White Lions worse. It's a painfully obvious point so I can only assume your being obtuse because accepting it would further undermine your position that infantry hordes are somehow a balance issue to the game.

You clearly don't like larger infantry units and have decided therefore that the rules that make them viable should be removed. That's fine, and if you just said it and left it at that then we could agree to disagree, but you're determined to try and hide that position behind the aforementioned false premise.

N1AK
29-01-2014, 13:25
People hardly ever field equally priced units though. It's a logical assumption but an unrealistic one.

As a slight aside. This is a pretty common, imo false, premise used to dismiss these kinds of comparisons. It has its place but it isn't some universal truth.

What is a realistic way to compare Mournfang to White Lions? People typically take White Lion hordes and 3-4 man Mournfang units but an Ogre player isn't going to just throw 3 Mournfangs into the front of a White Lion horde unless he's knowingly sacrificing that 200pt unit to vastly weaken a 400pt unit so he can finish it off with something else; However surely a good High Elf player isn't going to allow an Ogre general to easily weaken his White Lion horde and then mop it up unless it fits into his wider game plan...

If my Dwarves could take either Mournfangs or White Lions I'd take the Mournfangs. I'd do the same with my Vampire Counts, Lizardmen and Warriors. In fact, I can't off the top of my head think of an army that would benefit more from having White Lions available than from having Mournfangs, except Empire because they already have a Mournfang equivalent in special. However, even this can be, again false imo, dismissed by saying that units can't be compared between books because of wider balance. Again this has its place but it does not mean that such comparisons never have any relevance.

logan054
29-01-2014, 13:45
You want to remove the horde rule which makes White Lions worse. It's a painfully obvious point so I can only assume your being obtuse because accepting it would further undermine your position that infantry hordes are somehow a balance issue to the game.

You clearly don't like larger infantry units and have decided therefore that the rules that make them viable should be removed. That's fine, and if you just said it and left it at that then we could agree to disagree, but you're determined to try and hide that position behind the aforementioned false premise.

Which false premise is that then? the Horde rule didn't fix the issues with 7th ed combat or that horde rule is a rule designed to sell more of the same model than previous editions just as increasing the required number of models for a rank was with 7th? You still haven't explained how it was the horde rule (which simply rewards you for buying lots of the same model) fixed the issues with 7th ed close combat rather than steadfast and stepup. Removing the horde rule effects a far more units than white lions, as I said, the horde rule had several knock on effects and I would guess that is why they changed the terrain rules, the old terrain rules would be a nightmare with horde units.

I've seen many complaints about 8th ed, some I agree with:

Magic: mega spells can win games, the counter to this (which is seen in many of the topics) is big death spells counter horde units and keeps them in check, but if people are complaining about the spells having to much effect on the game while others are saying they are counter to these, it seems logical that removing the horde rule (or the alternate suggestion of removing supporting attacks and having hordes only attack in 2 ranks) would remove the need for spells like dwellers, purple sun, black horror. It also removes that whole 6dice a spell that some people encounter which can be very off putting for new players and can give the impression that game is about getting your number spell, throwing 6 dice and the enemies wizard bunker and seeing if you kill the enemy wizard so you can control the magic phase.

Monsters: I have seen many people complain about thunderstomps on power monsters, was this rule not added to compensate somewhat for the increased damage output of units? if you remove the rule then it removed the need for powerful monsters to have thunderstomp. Of course this complaint seems to be limited to certain monsters rather than all. On the flip side of course, because of the amount of attacks a monsters will have coming back at it, the weaker monsters have an even hard time competing because they simply struggle to surviving large volumes of attacks, cannons, high strength magic attacks and spells that kill them outright because of a low stat (like purple sun). The only ones that are viable are because they are incredibly powerful (like the daemon prince).

Big blobs: Many people feel like the game is simply you have your death star, I have mine, which every deathstar wins will win the game, that tends to be a result of horde units, regardless of if you like that style, it does put people off the game, given all these shakes up at GW, it would seem something is going wrong with the game.

If you do have a reason why rolling lots of dice because you have lots of models in a really wide units fixed the issues of the charger winning and breaking the enemy unit in 7th ed as opposed to steadfast and step up, I would like to hear your reason. You don't like horde units isn't answer, its the response of someone who doesn't have a valid counter point.

Shakkara
30-01-2014, 19:22
I would like to see each unit type in the armybook have a maximum unit size. But that the max unit size increases for each 500 points in the army. Make units fall into categories...

The below is just an example and there is probably plenty wrong with it, but it's just an idea.

Category A
Horde infantry (goblins, skaven slaves, etc)
0-500 - 30
501-1000 - 40
1001-1500 - 50
1501-2000 - 60
2001-2500 - 70
=>2501 - 80

Category B
Medium infantry (Empire troops, Elf spearmen, etc)
0-500 - 25
501-1000 - 30
1001-1500 - 35
1501-2000 - 40
2001-2500 - 45
=>2501 - 50

Category C
Elite infantry (White Lions, Chaos Warriors, etc)
0-500 - 15
501-1000 - 18
1001-1500 - 21
1501-2000 - 24
2001-2500 - 27
=>2501 - 30

Category D
Light Cavalry (Pistoleers, Skeleton Cavalry, Reaver Knights, etc)
0-500 - 10
501-1000 - 12
1001-1500 - 14
1501-2000 - 16
2001-2500 - 18
=>2501 - 20

Category E
Heavy Cavalry (Empire Knights, Silver Helms, etc)
0-500 - 8
501-1000 - 10
1001-1500 - 12
1501-2000 - 15
2001-2500 - 18
=>2501 - 20

Category F
Elite Cavalry (Blood Knights, Dragon Princes, etc)
0-500 - 4
501-1000 - 6
1001-1500 - 8
1501-2000 - 10
2001-2500 - 12
=>2501 - 14

Either that or limit the amount of points in each unit to the percentage of the total points in the army?

I'd like to see big core units and smaller elite units.

Odin
30-01-2014, 19:37
I'd be a bigger fan of: disruption negates steadfast and stubborn. It would destroy the way the game is played competitively now. Deathstars would only be as good as their weakest flank, but armies that could afford multiple cheap hordes and still pay for flank protection could still run them. Also I think minimum rank size should be 5 for infantry 4 for cavalry, and 3 for monstrous infantry/cavalry. It might swing the balance back a bit towards cavalry, but I think in most cases it would swing the trend away from massive hordes and bring it back towards smaller units and coordinated movement. Just a thought

Our houserule is that steadfast is only modified by flank and rear charges. It's still very useful, and we won't see a return to the days of a frontal charge by cavalry destroying an infantry unit in one turn, but it adds a suitable weakness and rewards good manoeuvring.

With that done, our 1000 point battles are great fun. No need for anything more complex.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Ludaman
30-01-2014, 19:57
You know, the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that the game needs a massive overhaul. Back in 5th, 6th, and 7th it was all about combat result: what's the most efficient use of points to cause a break test and pretty much auto-route the enemy? In 8th it's all about damage since the importance of leadership has been greatly diminished: what unit causes the most wounds for its points? Obviously movement was important in every edition, but often for rather boring reasons: in 5th, 6th, and 7th it was: what's my fastest hardest hitting unit, chargers go first, so I just HAVE to make the charge! In 8th it's been: what's my fastest/cheapest unit, I'll need to throw it away to re-direct their big ugly unit!

The point I'm getting to is this: when most of an army list does exactly the same thing, it's just a matter of grabbing a calculator to see which unit does it best. The game needs a thorough re-write, units need to have different purposes that actually make a difference. I wouldn't have any idea where to start, but re-hashing the same stats, the same army books, the same special rules, simply shuffles the imbalances around, it doesn't ever fix them.

All complaints aside though, warhammer 8th is a pretty damn fun "beer and pretzels game", especially if you have friends that play themed armies and balanced lists, but the fun beer and pretzels game is apparently dying, so if I had to offer a suggestion on how to fix it, it would be start over from scratch.

leopard
30-01-2014, 21:48
agree on the idea of a total overhaul, there is a bit too much baggage in the system currently.

Have played other 'unit' based systems though, and while I enjoy them I *like* the casualty removal mechanic that warhammer has and the flexibility to make a unit whatever size and shape you want generally.

needs a way of combining them

Urgat
31-01-2014, 10:27
Category A
Horde infantry (goblins, skaven slaves, etc)
0-500 - 30

Category C
Elite infantry (White Lions, Chaos Warriors, etc)
0-500 - 15

...

At 1500pts, my friend usually fields a unit of 13 chaos warriors with additionnal hand weapons plus a "naked" aspiring champion, which totally obliterates my horde of 60 goblins. Takes them two or three rounds of combat to get through steadfast in their best days, not even two turns. Which is totally fine, and how it should be. Now, those caps come in:
1) As if he would care that you cap them higher at 500 than what he uses at 1500
2) At the same time you cut the opposition by two
How in Gork's name can people always come up with such absurd caps (nothing personal pal, but this crops up all the time)? 15 CW vs 30 gobs? The freaken warriors already have more attacks (champion) than the gobs have wounds! It's always, always the same thing with unit caps. It's just a poor excuse to make elite stronger. I'll always be opposed to units caps because they always serve the same purpose. For the time being, I don't see that those CW need any help against hordes, whatever their size.

theunwantedbeing
31-01-2014, 11:20
I would like to see each unit type in the armybook have a maximum unit size. But that the max unit size increases for each 500 points in the army. Make units fall into categories...
Possibly too arbitrary. Really the limits need to make more sense.
Perhaps impose limitations on especially large units
ie.
Fast cavalry stop being fast cav after a certain amount (20+ models?)
Skirmishers lose the -1 to hit after a certain size (20+ models?)
Hordes cannot march or enter buildings


I'd like to see big core units and smaller elite units.
Agreed, ideally there would need to be a hefty downside to taking a large bloated unit.
ie. being flanked negates steadfast

That way if you take that 650pt elite horde and get flanked it might disappear in a single turn if you use it badly, as opposed to just losing a handful of models untill you can either turn round and crush the annoyance or send in some support to get rid of them. You also wouldn't be forced to take your own 4+ rank block to achieve the same effect. You'de also be forced to take more support to prevent the enemy getting that flank charge.

logan054
31-01-2014, 11:59
All complaints aside though, warhammer 8th is a pretty damn fun "beer and pretzels game", especially if you have friends that play themed armies and balanced lists, but the fun beer and pretzels game is apparently dying, so if I had to offer a suggestion on how to fix it, it would be start over from scratch.

Can't really agree more, i would love to play against more people who use balanced and themed lists, while I like the idea of a complete reboot I think large part of my would be pretty annoyed that my warhammer forge books and my new shinny armybooks suddenly became invalid, more so than with 6th ed, the books didn't cost me half as much then.


...

At 1500pts, my friend usually fields a unit of 13 chaos warriors with additionnal hand weapons plus a "naked" aspiring champion, which totally obliterates my horde of 60 goblins

Wrong edition, aspiring champions are pre 7th ed WoC :p

Urgat
01-02-2014, 09:59
In my mind, some units are firmly stuck in a pre 7th ed era :p How are the hero level warriors called in English now?

Lord Solar Plexus
01-02-2014, 11:48
Exalted champion I gather.

logan054
01-02-2014, 22:38
In my mind, some units are firmly stuck in a pre 7th ed era :p How are the hero level warriors called in English now?

They have had exalted heroes since at least 5th ed, they just dropped the aspiring heroes with 7th ed.

Shimmergloom
02-02-2014, 03:20
Is "disruption negating steadfast" enough then? Or are there other things people would like to see? I'm looking for simple solution, which don't break the game balance, and which would help to scale the game better in the range of 500 to 2000 points. I think from there upwards the game is solid as it is, right?

You don't need to do this anymore because almost no one plays infantry anymore unless they have no choice. It's all monster infantry, monster cav, knight buses and chariots. You only see infantry left over in armies that can't field MC, like dark elves, savage orcs(but trolls are still common after core is filled out) and skaven.

Everything else is 12 demi's, 12 skullcrushers and as many trolls or boN's as possible.

Steadfast is almost meaningless now and it's really the last vestige of any infantry being seen on the field outside of bunkers.

Ludaman
02-02-2014, 04:12
Why field 12 MC? It's the mounts that deal the damage mostly, and they can't fight from a second rank... Unless they changed the rules and my friends and I have been playing it wrong forever... Lol

Shimmergloom
02-02-2014, 06:29
You don't field them as one unit. But 3 units of 4 demis. or 2 units of 4 skullcrushers, since I think they are rare.

Lord Solar Plexus
02-02-2014, 08:07
Speak for yourself, Shimmergloom, and please don't waste our time with sweeping assumptions.

logan054
02-02-2014, 14:32
You don't field them as one unit. But 3 units of 4 demis. or 2 units of 4 skullcrushers, since I think they are rare.

i field them however i like!! Bar The 12 juggers you mentioned, can't be arsed to play a game that big ;)

N1AK
03-02-2014, 13:35
Speak for yourself, Shimmergloom, and please don't waste our time with sweeping assumptions.

Warseer: Where you point out the way that 95%+ of units are fielded in competitive play and get spammed with responses pointing out you're wrong because you didn't make the explicity clear which add nothing at all to the debate ;)

He was responding to someone who didn't understand why you'd field a single unit of 12 Monstrous Cav and was pointing out that he meant 12 Monstrous Cav in multiple units. I find it hard to believe you didn't know that yet simply couldn't resist the urge to be snarky.

logan054
03-02-2014, 13:56
He was responding to someone who didn't understand why you'd field a single unit of 12 Monstrous Cav and was pointing out that he meant 12 Monstrous Cav in multiple units. I find it hard to believe you didn't know that yet simply couldn't resist the urge to be snarky.

Aside the fact you would need to play a 4000pts game to field 12 skullcrushers because of the rare allowance restrictions? even two units of 4 cannot fit into a 2500pts game with any sort of command upgrades (even with lances).

Kingly
03-02-2014, 14:30
So to summarise, there is now actually no problem at all with rank bonus because no one ever uses infantry EVER! Unless they have to, and if they have to they come in unstoppable Horde formations that break the game entirely because they...Are a huge points sink...Wait but they...Mmm...Manouvere really badly...Ah but they do...suffer terribly from the 'big' spells...So...They seem a bit weak actually...BUT WAIT, they can tie units up foolish enough to try and kill them, like Skull Crushers, Cav Buses, internetz codex take only unit inserted here doesn't wipe them out in one charge!!!! Raaaaaaa BROKE!

...Sounds like a bunch of blokes that have played two games with their net lists, gone up against Skaven slaves/Zombies, been tied up all game by an 80 point unit whilst the rest of their army gets pounded because they don't have enough points left to deal with being out played.

I'm a Warhammer noob, 26 ish 8th ed games und my belt now but even I can see the massive disadvantage of hordes, why some one who has way more experience than me can't is baffling, no offence meant, honestly! I still just don't get it.

logan054
03-02-2014, 14:45
I'm a Warhammer noob, 26 ish 8th ed games und my belt now but even I can see the massive disadvantage of hordes, why some one who has way more experience than me can't is baffling, no offence meant, honestly! I still just don't get it.

Like I said, it was other changes that came into the game with the introduction of hordes, I have made my point from the assumption that hordes are a big factor in these other changes, it isn't that complex, i have also explained why, like some other people you have selectively read "hordes are brokenz". Couldn't tell you how many games of 8th i've had, 50-60, who knows, I've needed a horde in any army I use, I've played against them and found them easy to counter, as such, i don't see what they add to the game other than rewarding someone with lots of the same model in a unit with rolling lots of dice. Like with the increase of models required to have a rank in 7th, the horde rule just feels like a gimik to promote the sales of models. It's no offense to the design team, I would assume it was part of the brief when designing 8th (I don't mean specifically add the horde rule either).

Lord Solar Plexus
03-02-2014, 15:17
Warseer: Where you point out the way that 95%+ of units are fielded in competitive play and get spammed with responses pointing out you're wrong because you didn't make the explicity clear which add nothing at all to the debate ;)


Where did he speak about competetive play? Do not jump to conclusions.

He essentially says "Everyone fields the netlist". I'm not trying to be pedantic and point out some marginal exception to the rule; I'm criticizing a baseless sweeping assumption or projection. I see plenty of infantry, and so do others. Explain what denying that fact adds to the debate.


So to summarise, there is now actually no problem at all with rank bonus because no one ever uses infantry EVER! Unless they have to, and if they have to they come in unstoppable Horde formations that break the game entirely because they...Are a huge points sink...Wait but they...Mmm...Manouvere really badly...Ah but they do...suffer terribly from the 'big' spells...So...They seem a bit weak actually...BUT WAIT, they can tie units up foolish enough to try and kill them, like Skull Crushers, Cav Buses, internetz codex take only unit inserted here doesn't wipe them out in one charge!!!! Raaaaaaa BROKE!

Hmm. There's actually no problem with rank bonus because it's capped at 3 and oftentimes overshadowed by offensive damage output. Many factions who cannot help it still do not necessarily field hordes. They instead opt for deep units of the very same size; others who have a chance still field INF, from HE to Empire to WoC.

Neither a horde nor a bus with exactly the same footprint maneouvers "like really badly". They also don't suffer any more from big spells, since the same Dwellers will completely incapacitate a smaller unit. Objectively, the horde formation is still quite useful offensively especially considering that such units have the option to reform into a bus. Nothing of this has anything to do with rank bonus though...

Blinder
03-02-2014, 15:42
Like with the increase of models required to have a rank in 7th, the horde rule just feels like a gimik to promote the sales of models. It's no offense to the design team, I would assume it was part of the brief when designing 8th (I don't mean specifically add the horde rule either).

While I won't dispute that Horde (and Steadfast, for that matter) are for whatever reasons blatantly about piling more models into a unit, ranks being 5-wide I'm not so sure about... it may just be that I assign too much value to symmetry but 3 command models with at least a guy on each side just has a better feel to it, even if you toss a character in.

logan054
03-02-2014, 16:22
I don't think I agree with you on steadfast as much, it does help with the 7th ed issue of units breaking to easily, the 5 wide thing could be debated I guess but the general trend till now has been to make models cheaper and better every edition, I think with 8th ed books they have charged to much of a tax for steadfast and horde, of course it might be that are simply trying to lower the model count for armies, hence all these Monsters, MC and MI we see turning up in armies. 6th ed never prevent your from having a 5 wide unit, I always used my warriors 5 wide (even if they sucked).

Lord Solar Plexus
03-02-2014, 18:15
Does anyone remember 5 wide suicide? Ah well...

I disagree with your trend analysis. Vampire units didn't all become cheaper, and I don't think TK or O&G did. Empire infantry almost universally went up in cost. HE went down somewhat but didn't necessarily become better - White Lions can actually fail to hit now. WoC core became massively more costly (20 points for a MoN Halberdier, Marauders).

Both the horde and SF rules addressed the many problems of 7th edition infantry. It's a world of a difference whether you can hit back with 30 attacks or 1-2, and it's a world of a difference whether you're testing on Ld 2 or 8-10 with a possible re-roll (says Captain Obvious). This still holds true even when we consider MC. I mean, MC isn't always all that great - Necroknights or the DoC equivalent aren't all that hot. Demis, Mournfangs and Skullcrushers are pretty nifty but they're still not throwing out 30 attacks PLUS ranks...so infantry still has a place.

logan054
03-02-2014, 18:32
Does anyone remember 5 wide suicide? Ah well...

I disagree with your trend analysis. Vampire units didn't all become cheaper, and I don't think TK or O&G did. Empire infantry almost universally went up in cost. HE went down somewhat but didn't necessarily become better - White Lions can actually fail to hit now. WoC core became massively more costly (20 points for a MoN Halberdier, Marauders).

I meant pre-8th ed as "I said until now" (meaning until we started to get 8th ed book). I was talking more in regard to 7th ed and the increased size requirement for forming ranks being more to increase unit sized to get more models on the table, then supporting this with models becoming cheaper during that edition. This is intended to support the idea that GW for sometime have been making rules be it via the BRB or armybooks that increase the sizes of armies. After that I said " think with 8th ed books they have charged to much of a tax for steadfast and horde". I know that will sound like a contradiction to what I have said, but again, what I said has been more around the rule it self and other rules that have been introduced along with it which have had less than negative effects on the game.


both the horde and SF rules addressed the many problems of 7th edition infantry. It's a world of a difference whether you can hit back with 30 attacks or 1-2, and it's a world of a difference whether you're testing on Ld 2 or 8-10 with a possible re-roll (says Captain Obvious). This still holds true even when we consider MC. I mean, MC isn't always all that great - Necroknights or the DoC equivalent aren't all that hot. Demis, Mournfangs and Skullcrushers are pretty nifty but they're still not throwing out 30 attacks PLUS ranks...so infantry still has a place.

Simply rolling more dice does nothing to address the problems of 7th ed, step up allowing models in the front rank that have been killed to be replaced addressed the first issue, steadfast helps address the issue of units being easy to break on the charge, the horde rule simply speeds up the death rate of combat, however that was also addressed with supporting attacks (which is very biased towards MI, that is easy enough to address bu having a universal cap on it which still allows models which pay for a high number of attacks to gain some benefit from them while in the 2nd rank). Always striking in I order doesn't solve anything either, on the first round it rarely means all that much when units are fighting in much larger numbers as they should both have the numbers to absorb the attacks. Of course it will matter in the situation of 20 30 executioners/white lions vs 30 Orc boys/dwarfs as the boys/dwarfs will be losing models before they can attack. But it did lead to abilities like ASF needing some buff because of the effect such a change would make on armies which have large amounts of it.

Kingly
03-02-2014, 18:39
I should pro ably point out at thus stage I meant large units not 'horde formation' And all I could see as I skimmed over responses from a previous post were people saying its why 8th is rubbish, which is crazy, its boring, i disagree wholeheartedly.

Rank bonuses and steadfast give a reason to take Johnny no body, as opposed to previous editikns where they just died in droves, now suddenly the likes of 25-30 spearmen in 5 wide are a viable unit to defeat chariots and dragons, which is great.

I suppose some people want Warhammer to be faster and deadlier but i think its too fast too deadly, I played a game ladt night vs me mate whilst we also watched that pathetic excuse for a sport American Football (Pffft handball with pads) I had two units of 15 one sword masters one phoenix guard both guys ran despite steadfast vs two chariots and then in his turn charged and wiped out, youch. In my mind too fadt too deadly.

So Logan I think Hordes do add the ability to give your average joe a readon for being on the board but i think its far from broken.

jprp
03-02-2014, 19:01
Look just buy your minis from Black Tree in the New year sales, buy hundreds, play big and get painting!

logan054
03-02-2014, 21:15
So Logan I think Hordes do add the ability to give your average joe a readon for being on the board but i think its far from broken.

Still skim reading I see, not sure how you have translated "I think the problem with the horde unit is it's a rule to simply designed to sell more models which creates problems with other units/rules/phases which has lead to people having complaints about how these have been changed to compensate for the horde rule".... The step rule add's a reason for you to have larger units (not that it couldn't use some tweaking), the horde rule looks like a rule designed to get people to buy a few extra boxes for their army until the new units come out.


Look just buy your minis from Black Tree in the New year sales, buy hundreds, play big and get painting!

I don't have any issues affording models atm thanks seeing as my grave guard cost me more than some peoples armies for 30 guys, or the chosen made from skullcrusher ;)

Kingly
04-02-2014, 01:50
Logan. I have skim read the posts from others, but I have taken points on board.

Im a bit **** faced again but I'm going to break down what you've said as I still don't get it.

1. It's a rule that gives players an advantage if they buy more models...
It's not.

2.It affects other rules which makes it unfair..
It doesn't.

3. It effects phases of the play unfairly.
It doesn't.

4. the step rule adds reason for you to have larger units...

OK, this is the thing that bugs me the most, to play in the edition where there was no step Up rule...

I get charged by uber bus...my pathetic guys get their faces handed to them...they get no attacks back...they then get their LD test -5 I run get run over and unit wiped out...my useless core of Spearmen costing 200+ points is killed in one charge by a unit of cav...

that's seriously how you want the game to go back to?...Really? That's better warhammer? Better tactics? If so I'll Ebay my archers, my Seaguard, my Spearmen and my Elyrian Reavers and replace them with silver helms as everything else, like has been said, is useless...Mmm yummy yummy tactical depth.

logan054
04-02-2014, 08:26
1. It's a rule that gives players an advantage if they buy more models...
It's not.

So it isn't a rule that rewards you for having more models yet the rule is basically if I have lots of models in a unit, 10 wide atleast 3 deep I will get to make attacks with 30 guys, come again, your going to try and say the horde rule wasn't designed to shift more models, who are you trying to kid.


2.It affects other rules which makes it unfair..
It doesn't.

Still not understanding are we? You keep adding in these words like unfair which display you are not understanding what I'm saying


3. It effects phases of the play unfairly.
It doesn't.

Again, still not understanding?


4. the step rule adds reason for you to have larger units...

Not directly, I guess in part

OK, this is the thing that bugs me the most, to play in the edition where there was no step Up rule...


that's seriously how you want the game to go back to?...Really? That's better warhammer? Better tactics? If so I'll Ebay my archers, my Seaguard, my Spearmen and my Elyrian Reavers and replace them with silver helms as everything else, like has been said, is useless...Mmm yummy yummy tactical depth.

I have never said anything about going back to anything, I would not want to see a return of 7th ed. 7th ed was awful, the horde rule did not fix the problems of 7th, step up, steadfast did. I can't see how that such a complicated idea. I already explained this.

To summarize your post, "no, your wrong logan, I can't be arsed to back anything up with a logical reason, I like hordes, anyone who doesn't like them is just wrong".

Kingly
04-02-2014, 09:20
Hungover now but glad you replied...(I've also only just realised you're annoyed with me as well, seriously might go get myself checked for symptoms of dementia...That or I should definitely stop drinking!)

Its a reward for having more models yes, but hordes have a lot of disadvantages as discussed earlier, so visa vie it's not an advantage to shift models as it's not broken. Now that's NOT saying it's a rule to encourage shifting models as it may well be, no assumptions here.

ok you said...(I'm just trying to get over my confusion here, and yes it could be a Whiskey based haze ;D)

Still skim reading I see, not sure how you have translated "I think the problem with the horde unit is it's a rule to simply designed to sell more models which creates problems with other units/rules/phases which has lead to people having complaints about how these have been changed to compensate for the horde rule".... The step rule add's a reason for you to have larger units (not that it couldn't use some tweaking), the horde rule looks like a rule designed to get people to buy a few extra boxes for their army until the new units come out.

Which to translate for my tiny brain into a digestible sentence summary makes...

"The hordes rule is designed to increase sales, but it's inclusion in the rules creates issues with other units, rules and phases of the game turn."

How, explain?

Also sorry what I interpreted about what you were saying about the step up rule, I thought you didn't like it but that's not the case, sorry misread that one.

logan054
04-02-2014, 14:59
Na, just woken up and annoyed with other things.

Anyway, first up, what are the disadvantages of hordes? hard to maneuver? imagine them with the old terrain rules! So here comes (in my opinion) a problem hordes have caused, very simply terrain rules, while yes, other factors are involved, I believe that Hordes are factor (debatable how large a factor) in the over streamlining of the terrain rules. Number 6 spells for several of the lores are another weakness, then again, those spells are good against most units (well depending on the spell) and have this very annoying habbit of snipping wizards out of units which can put you at a massive disadvantage. While it might not be true that you roll 6 dice and win, many players can be put off (as you see by posts on here) that the guy who rolls 6 dice at a mega spells and manages to get it through first wins. Many says these spells are why hordes are fine, my issue here again isn't so much with the horde, but the spells which are boring to play against, would these spells be needed if hordes hadn't been added to the game, from many of the posts you read on here it certainly suggests you not.

You then have the knock on effects, read the cannon thread, how many people complain about the damage output of monsters because of thunderstomp, breath weapons and then how hard they can be to kill in combat because of armour and/or wardsave, is not also the case that the damage output of monsters was raised (not with all) to compensate for the increased damage output of units in the horde formation? with the horde rule would monsters till need thunderstomp, breath weapons that do 2D6 auto hits and these wardsave, silly high toughness to be viable. Probably not, this then links into cannons, would they need to be the hard counter to said monster if monsters went down in power slightly (which might also make the weaker ones more viable)?

The issue with the horde rule is more caused by how the supporting attack rules favors MI and elite units with a single high strength attack, why should a savage orc big un or a chaos warriors get less use out of the rule than a troll? A chaos warriors isn't all that much cheaper than a troll.

So what am I saying (again!), what has it added to the game, it didn't solve the issues with 7th ed combat (that was steadfast and stepup), it probably lead to the big silly spells that annoy so many people (I put probably because this isn't fact, just my opinion), it probably lead to terrain rules that mean very little in game turns, you get the geist anyway.

Do I think 8th is bad edition? Not really, I like how the magic system works (certain lores are op, number 6 spells can be very silly and I dislike the idea of certain lores being very against certain armies), I like the random movement (The old dance was annoying, I don't think it perfect, most other random charge systems would require different dice, over complicated rule and/or rolling lots of dice), I like how it much harder to break a unit on the charge (well, depends on the situation), I like the use of scenarios (could use a little tweaking), I like step up and supporting attacks, I like MC (I've been using that khorne lord on jugger since it was released, now I have a proper unit for him to go in!!! hell!!).

Just because you have a negative opinion apart parts of a game, it doesn't mean you hate it! I don't think I would have bought all them boxes of skullcrushers and knights to make my chosen if I hated the game or wanted to play 7th ed (I hated 7th ed and how magic worked, I hadn't played for maybe 2 years when 8th came out).

The horde rule (and steadfast really) have certainly had an effect on the model count of armies, just look at what armies look like now in comparison to previous editions, I think the current msu armies look like the normal sized units of 7th. At the end of the day, GW rules are designed to sell models before balance, its a miniature company that has some rules strapped on the side.

jprp
04-02-2014, 15:35
Better to limit magic items and wizards in my opinion.
Big units look better and hordes (which are small compared to actual unit sizes in ancient and medievil battles -and Tolkien) stand up better to monsters and heroes making troops actually viable in the game.

Blinder
04-02-2014, 17:14
Apologies if (realistically, "that") this is a bit dis-jointed, and if I've misconstrued some of the points made. This is generally in reply to Logan's posts including #85, and is, of course, just my opinion.

Does Horde really inflate *army* size, or just *unit* size? If I didn't get an extra rank of attacks from a 10x3 unit of killy models, they'd likely be fielded as 3 5x2 units. Assuming all 3 could get into a fight, I get the same output (possibly a little more for multi-attack models), though at least one unit would certainly have to be in a flanking position (so any gains in individual maneuverability compared to the horde are offset by having to work 3 times the frontage into position). That's really the main disadvantage to doing that *now*, that and it being easier to nickel-and-dime panic tests from shooting and such... you also don't have as many wounds before you lose LoS and such but a lot of actual "bunker" units seem to be around 20 models anyway, far from an excessive size. I know that for my own army I don't think I'd have any fewer *models* without Horde, though with Brets that just means a couple units of M@A to get run over one at a time (assuming Steadfast also went out the door) so admittedly most of my expectation is from what I see my opponents doing. At most though, you'd just see an even heavier bias towards "elite" units which are already viable outside of a horde formation... at which point I stop caring about wondering if the rule were play-driven or sales-driven, the choice itself is gone. Sure, the rules could make all infantry "optimally powerful" in units of 10-20, but... does that *really* feel right for zombies or goblins, even if you have 10 units of 20?

Thunderstomp seems more like a way around "static res," and high toughness somewhat offsets not being ASF on the charge (and are monsters *really* getting big toughness increases compared to 7th?). Are monsters really that much more dangerous to a very deep unit than a horde? Similar with supporting attacks... yes, MI hordes get a bigger bonus than infantry hordes, and multi-attack infantry don't get as big a % boost as single-attack infantry. They also don't get as big a % boost by adding a second rank... as you note, it's due to the way supporting attacks work, horde is just one way the gap gets bigger. If there were some multi-attack spear unit they'd be in the same boat compared to a single-attack or MI spear unit (not that I can think of anything that has spears and more than one attack...), and White Lions get just as much more out of the HE "extra rank" rule than Swordmasters just as they get more out of Horde. Perhaps if the second rank of *any* unit could have up to 3 attacks, and "extra" ranks granted by things like Horde and "Fights in Extra Ranks" are limited to 1 regardless of type? It might simply move the problem to the other side of the fence, but I think it would make more sense. Already-good multi-attack infantry could become insane, though, and the "underwhelming" to "generally sensible" MCav (I'm thinking Snakes and the 6e holdovers) would probably refuse to take anything but green paint unless you allowed the supporting attacks to come from the whole model (though I'm not entirely sure that would be a disaster either, even with Demis and such, especially if the rider attacks had to be used first. Could even be a genuine "good thing" assuming they could hold off buffing units until the dust had some time to settle).

Yes... the #6 spells are often touted as "why hordes aren't broken." They're basically in the same spot as Cannon are in the "why monsters don't rule the world" debate though- as an actual control mechanic they don't work and if they're supposed to hard counter something they've been allowed to be FAR too punishing to everything else, as well. *ANY* high-value unit is at risk of being utterly crippled by a suitable "or die" spell, be it a horde of trolls eating an I test or Dwellers v. a horde of S3 Great Weapon units, or Dwellers v. a block of my Knights. At least with a horde you have bodies to spare... while any given Demigryph isn't going to be too scared of Dwellers, losing a bird is potentially as bad for the unit as having half your halberdiers dragged under (the halberds just aren't nearly such a steal). So... while Horde may have contributed to the writing of the mega-spells, toning them down doesn't really require also removing Horde... because they don't *really* do all that much compared to flinging them at a couple smaller units (especially the vortex spells)... they just generally suck the fun out of games in their current form. "Test or d3 wounds" would probably make them reasonably palatable, even if they were "no armor" (though reducing the save by your fail could be interesting for some, even if it meant splitting save rolls up a bit).

What if Hordes couldn't claim ranks (since we're supposedly discussing rank bonus) for CR (though I'd still let them be steadfast)? That way you *have* to put the extra damage output to good use and makes the decision more likely to be revisited throughout a game (about to go after a monster, or "even match" unit? Time to decide if you want a reliable boost from ranks or if you think the extra attacks would be more useful).

logan054
04-02-2014, 20:21
Does Horde really inflate *army* size, or just *unit* size? If I didn't get an extra rank of attacks from a 10x3 unit of killy models, they'd likely be fielded as 3 5x2 units. Assuming all 3 could get into a fight, I get the same output (possibly a little more for multi-attack models), though at least one unit would certainly have to be in a flanking position (so any gains in individual maneuverability compared to the horde are offset by having to work 3 times the frontage into position). That's really the main disadvantage to doing that *now*, that and it being easier to nickel-and-dime panic tests from shooting and such... you also don't have as many wounds before you lose LoS and such but a lot of actual "bunker" units seem to be around 20 models anyway, far from an excessive size. I know that for my own army I don't think I'd have any fewer *models* without Horde, though with Brets that just means a couple units of M@A to get run over one at a time (assuming Steadfast also went out the door) so admittedly most of my expectation is from what I see my opponents doing. At most though, you'd just see an even heavier bias towards "elite" units which are already viable outside of a horde formation... at which point I stop caring about wondering if the rule were play-driven or sales-driven, the choice itself is gone. Sure, the rules could make all infantry "optimally powerful" in units of 10-20, but... does that *really* feel right for zombies or goblins, even if you have 10 units of 20?

Lets talk about how armies looked back in 6th and 7th, you had no minimum points for core, most people would take 3 min sized units for core, be it 3 units of 5 fast cav, or whatever, then ontop of that you had no maximum points for lords or heroes, at 2k (if I remember correctly lol) it was 1 lord and 3 heroes, more often than not you would see 1 lord level wizard and 3 level 2 wizards to maximize your and power and dispel pools (far worse in 6th). I'm not sure how you remember this edition, back when I still had the HoC book (be it 6th or 7th ed) I would more often than not outnumber people with a Mono-khorne army that was infantry based, it was very rare to find myself outnumbers (I think maybe Skaven and orcs managed it). This was because unlike most people, I didn't spend over half my points on characters (which was very easy, anyone remember how character heavy VC use to be? armies with teclis? super slaan or whatever you). Seriously, when 8th came acround, the armies got a hell of a lot better, now I think alot of people tend to aim to spend 25-30% on characters rather than the old 50%+ With that in mind, are you seriously suggesting that people didn't need to buy more models to make competitive 8th ed armies out of 7th ed ones ( I didn't, my armies already worked perfectly So I guess really percentages and the new magic inflate the size of the armies (needing less wizards) while Hordes and steadfast inflate unit sizes (I have no real issues with steadfast). Of course other factors affected army size, we started to see less of these msu knight units which have simply been replaced with msu MC.

We know the rules are sales driven, they have been for a long time, hence why we are 8th end and not 3rd with a possible 9th on the way. When I do face infantry armies, its rare I see units of 20 models, usually the min I see is 30 with the going up to 50 models, this doesn't mean I hate large units either, I do find that armies with lots of horde units are less challenging to play (I think the only horde unit that really makes me groan is one with the botwd), I would personally rather see units that smaller with a bigger variety of support units, who knows, rather than having the horde rule we could have other rules that make ranks mean a little more than being stubborn or +3 combat res.



Thunderstomp seems more like a way around "static res," and high toughness somewhat offsets not being ASF on the charge (and are monsters *really* getting big toughness increases compared to 7th?). Are monsters really that much more dangerous to a very deep unit than a horde? Similar with supporting attacks... yes, MI hordes get a bigger bonus than infantry hordes, and multi-attack infantry don't get as big a % boost as single-attack infantry. They also don't get as big a % boost by adding a second rank... as you note, it's due to the way supporting attacks work, horde is just one way the gap gets bigger. If there were some multi-attack spear unit they'd be in the same boat compared to a single-attack or MI spear unit (not that I can think of anything that has spears and more than one attack...), and White Lions get just as much more out of the HE "extra rank" rule than Swordmasters just as they get more out of Horde. Perhaps if the second rank of *any* unit could have up to 3 attacks, and "extra" ranks granted by things like Horde and "Fights in Extra Ranks" are limited to 1 regardless of type? It might simply move the problem to the other side of the fence, but I think it would make more sense. Already-good multi-attack infantry could become insane, though, and the "underwhelming" to "generally sensible" MCav (I'm thinking Snakes and the 6e holdovers) would probably refuse to take anything but green paint unless you allowed the supporting attacks to come from the whole model (though I'm not entirely sure that would be a disaster either, even with Demis and such, especially if the rider attacks had to be used first. Could even be a genuine "good thing" assuming they could hold off buffing units until the dust had some time to settle).

I disagree, infantry (rare as they use to be in older editions) had more static combat res (as you had outnumber), monsters also didn't get +1 for charging, I guess you could say that the units of 8th have more reliable static combat res because they are generally larger (which is true), I guess we are both right with what stomp is intended to do, I personally have no issues with it, but I have seen the complaints about the damage out of things like chimera's because of it combined with breath weapons. I would personally like to see cannons toned down, for it to be justified certain things would need to change. As for monsters getting tougher, it really depends what your comparing them to, I don't think models with the large target rule should have T less than 6, it just looks strange that things like a giant is the same T as a chaos lord.

With the supporting attack on MC it should be each part gets half its attacks rounding up (just no stomps allowed, I would apply that to all models).


Yes... the #6 spells are often touted as "why hordes aren't broken." They're basically in the same spot as Cannon are in the "why monsters don't rule the world" debate though- as an actual control mechanic they don't work and if they're supposed to hard counter something they've been allowed to be FAR too punishing to everything else, as well. *ANY* high-value unit is at risk of being utterly crippled by a suitable "or die" spell, be it a horde of trolls eating an I test or Dwellers v. a horde of S3 Great Weapon units, or Dwellers v. a block of my Knights. At least with a horde you have bodies to spare... while any given Demigryph isn't going to be too scared of Dwellers, losing a bird is potentially as bad for the unit as having half your halberdiers dragged under (the halberds just aren't nearly such a steal). So... while Horde may have contributed to the writing of the mega-spells, toning them down doesn't really require also removing Horde... because they don't *really* do all that much compared to flinging them at a couple smaller units (especially the vortex spells)... they just generally suck the fun out of games in their current form. "Test or d3 wounds" would probably make them reasonably palatable, even if they were "no armor" (though reducing the save by your fail could be interesting for some, even if it meant splitting save rolls up a bit).

That's my issue with the number 6 spells, if they didn't outright kill models (the lore of metal one isn't as bad as the chance is much lower). The vortex's are silly, I saw a battle report with a daemon prince of nurgle purple pretty much a whole army of the board. I still don't think the horde rule adds anything to the game other than allowing people to simply roll more dice (it also kind counter to the positive effects of steadfast), because of it power with MI, I think thats why we are seeing more of a shift towards larger units of MI. Not that I'm one of these jealous players who wishes he had access to it, if I wanted I could enjoy the fun of chaos trolls hordes.


What if Hordes couldn't claim ranks (since we're supposedly discussing rank bonus) for CR (though I'd still let them be steadfast)? That way you *have* to put the extra damage output to good use and makes the decision more likely to be revisited throughout a game (about to go after a monster, or "even match" unit? Time to decide if you want a reliable boost from ranks or if you think the extra attacks would be more useful).

Sadly losing +3 combat bonus doesn't really do all that, you can make unit sizes matter more with bonues for outnumbering, not like the old days of auto break fear.

I admit I'm very negative towards the horde rule, I've mainly played against savage orc big un hordes, saraus hordes and temple guard hordes, I haven't found playing these armies (in my local meta) all that challenging, the armies tended to lack support units so you end up combo charging them or making it so they can't get into combat until you want to be in combat. I can remember playing this Orc army at a tournament in reading a few years ago, had this massive black orc horde, had three characters in it,the guy was telling me how no one had ever killed it. The guy got a lucky charge on my knights and then my army counter charged, guess I was the first person to kill it ;) What was the point in me saying that? I find many people will think horde units are these immortal blocks that shouldn't die, as such they don't think any unit will possibly stand up to them, they use them stupidly and get upset when they die. They are just another eggs in one basket option which we see each edition that focus the attention of the game around killing a single object, I just don't get any enjoyment out of playing against them, just as in 7th I hated playing against the silly dragon lords of half your opponents points.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-02-2014, 23:11
That's as convincing as saying I'm negative to dolls painted blue, so let's get rid of them.

Rake
05-02-2014, 00:07
Trying to convince one poster he is wrong wasn't the point of this thread. Ultimately I think the consensus is that step up and horde should remain and steadfast should get affected by disrupted. Another point to throw in: How about instead of limiting rank CR we limit wounds as CR? I would prefer that a hell of a lot more.

logan054
05-02-2014, 14:42
That's as convincing as saying I'm negative to dolls painted blue, so let's get rid of them.

Can't be any less convincing than the arguments for horde rule being designed not to sell models.