PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer 9th Ed Wishlist



Plebian
05-02-2014, 01:19
-1" apart rule changed to not in B2B

-TLOS changed to area terrain and 4 sizes of models

-For winds of magic roll 3 dice. Top 2 are power dice, bottom 2 are dispel dice.

-Miscast on double 6s, but spell is not cast unless its power level is met and it is never irresistible

-Miscast table toned down:
2-5 Forget a spell
6-8 Cannot cast any more this turn, lose 2 power dice
9-12 Take an unsavable wound

-No irresistable dispels

-No more broken concentration

-All spells generate look out sir tests except direct damage

-Large targets are +2 to be hit

-Enemies in the flank or rear with one complete rank (5 for infantry, 4 for cavalry) disrupt. Also, skirmishers can disrupt.

-Flank is +2, Rear is +4

-Steadfast can be negated by disruption

-Cavalry only need four models for a rank

-Monstrous Cavalry cannot ever make supporting attacks and take double wounds when failing terrain tests

-Thunderstomp always does 3 hits

-Bolt Throwers do double wounds and penetrate ranks whether they kill a model or not. They never suffer any penalties for firing single shots but are at a -1 when firing multiple shots.

-Cannons place a marker, then scatter Artillery-Ballistic Skill. Then resolve bounce as normal. They do quadruple wounds.

-Stone throwers do triple wounds on center hole. Scatter is artillery dice -BS.

-Spears are at -1 to be hit in the front arc

-Bows, strength as wielder

-Hills, Fire in 3 Ranks, Can charge downhill for +1 CR

-Forests, soft cover, Area terrain

-Rivers, cannot march, no rank bonus

-Marshes, Dangerous Terrain when charging, marching or fleeing

-Buildings, Hard Cover, 5 models can shoot per floor, Fight combat as normal.

-Obstacles, Soft/Hard cover, Dangerous Terrain to Cav and Monstrous Cav

-Keep random cool terrain as optional ruleset

-Victory points- Wipe out unit get full points, take unit below half get half points.

-No duplicate Rares

-Max of 2 duplicate specials


What do you think?

SteveW
05-02-2014, 01:42
-Bows, strength as wielder



Bro, do you even archery?

Bows would have to have separate classes for this to happen. You'd have to have short bows and recurve short bows, bows and recurve Bows, longbows and recurve longbows. Are you saying you only want super high tech(respectively) bows or do you want both types?

Archon of Death
05-02-2014, 03:13
-No duplicate Rares

-Max of 2 duplicate specials

Oh no he di'nt!

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 04:12
1" apart rule changed to not in B2B
No, I like the clarification.

TLOS changed to area terrain and 4 sizes of models
Yes.

For winds of magic roll 3 dice. Top 2 are power dice, bottom 2 are dispel dice.
No. Far too easy to have duplicate power/dispel dice in a phase.

Miscast on double 6s
Yes.

but spell is not cast unless its power level is met
Yes.

and it is never irresistible
No. That's just normal casting, except now we're outright punishing high double-6s with no bonus. There are better ways to tone down magic.

Miscast table toned down
No, if anything I think it needs to be toned up to make players think twice about 6-dicing a spell.

No irresistable dispels
This makes sense in your world of no irresistible force, but no for me.

No more broken concentration
No. This prevents people from one-dicing spells.

All spells generate look out sir tests except direct damage
What? No. Heroes in Deathstars need to be affected by Hexes, too.

Large targets are +2 to be hit
No. +1 is plenty, and already infinitely more than the current +0.

Enemies in the flank or rear with one complete rank (5 for infantry, 4 for cavalry) disrupt. Also, skirmishers can disrupt.
Sure. I'm tired of saying no, and see nothing wrong with this. :p

Flank is +2, Rear is +4
Yes.

Steadfast can be negated by disruption
Yes.

Cavalry only need four models for a rank
Sure.

Monstrous Cavalry cannot ever make supporting attacks and take double wounds when failing terrain tests
Hate Skullcrushers much? ;) No. Keep it as is: riders can attack, mounts cannot.

Thunderstomp always does 3 hits
Or...you can just accept that in this game of dice sometimes they'll roll a 1 and sometimes they'll roll a 6. No.

Bolt Throwers do double wounds and penetrate ranks whether they kill a model or not. They never suffer any penalties for firing single shots but are at a -1 when firing multiple shots.
No and no.

Cannons place a marker, then scatter Artillery-Ballistic Skill. Then resolve bounce as normal. They do quadruple wounds.
Enough with the set-value wounding. No.

Stone throwers do triple wounds on center hole.
No.

Scatter is artillery dice -BS.
This I like. Yes.

Spears are at -1 to be hit in the front arc
Yes.

Bows, strength as wielder
Does anything with a bow have more than S3? Are you just hoping for Wyssans to have an affect?

Hills, Fire in 3 Ranks, Can charge downhill for +1 CR
Random. Sure.

Forests, soft cover, Area terrain
Yes.

Rivers, cannot march, no rank bonus
Yes.

Marshes, Dangerous Terrain when charging, marching or fleeing
No. I really don't think you should be able to march through difficult terrain.

Buildings, Hard Cover, 5 models can shoot per floor, Fight combat as normal.
I though that was how it is already? Is it 10 per floor?

Obstacles, Soft/Hard cover, Dangerous Terrain to Cav and Monstrous Cav
Yes.

Keep random cool terrain as optional ruleset
Emphasis optional. Yes.

Victory points- Wipe out unit get full points, take unit below half get half points.
Yep.

No duplicate Rares
No.

Max of 2 duplicate specials
No.

WLBjork
05-02-2014, 06:38
Have to agree most of those ideas are pretty poor.

I rather suspect the proposed changes to magic and miscasts would make Wizards more popular. Whilst there's no IF, there's not really any downside to miscasting, therefore I can see more Wizards being taken.

I'd leave miscast/IF as is, but change the chart to be either D6+number of dice rolled or D6+number of 6s rolled.

Think the first option is more stable, and will make use of the full table. 2-5 should have little effect on the wizard (maybe a stat drain, forget a spell), 6-9 should have an intermediate effect (wounds etc. on the wizard) and 10-12 should be pretty devastating (affect wizard and the unit)

Lord Dan
05-02-2014, 07:06
I'd leave miscast/IF as is, but change the chart to be either D6+number of dice rolled or D6+number of 6s rolled.

I like this a lot. Punish those 6-dicing a spell over someone 2-dicing a spell in the same way that the Steam Boiler Mishap chart for the Steam Tank punishes those who try to generate the maximum number of Steam Points.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-02-2014, 08:40
I think we have a wishlisting thread every week. IcedCrow just started one, so what's the point?

logan054
05-02-2014, 14:47
I think we have a wishlisting thread every week. IcedCrow just started one, so what's the point?

I guess people like to discuss things, if you don't enjoy the discussion you could always not read the topic. It's as if IcedCrow or Plebian came around your house, turned your computer on, brought up this page on your browser and held a gun to your head and forced you to read it.


-1" apart rule changed to not in B2B

You could always expand this to models enemy models within 1" take dangerous terrain tests


-TLOS changed to area terrain and 4 sizes of models

I don't see any issues with that


-For winds of magic roll 3 dice. Top 2 are power dice, bottom 2 are dispel dice.

I don't see the need for this, the current system is fine, all this achieves is moving back to multiple wizards being useful like in previous edition, If you want a game with lots of power and dispel dice we have storm of magic.


-Miscast on double 6s, but spell is not cast unless its power level is met and it is never irresistible

To be honest with you, I would totally remove the double 6 rule all together and have dice limits based on spell caster size magic level +1 dice, I would then remove adding your level to your casting and dispelling rolls. After that have +1 to dispel/cast if your a higher level, -1 to dispel if you don't have a wizard. you could change roll a double 6 to getting a free casting dice for the spell


-Miscast table toned down:
2-5 Forget a spell
6-8 Cannot cast any more this turn, lose 2 power dice
9-12 Take an unsavable wound

While I don't think I would keep this, I think if you kept it you need to make it worse, it doesn't need to be lose clumps of units but gaining negative rules like having to reroll any rolls of a 6 in the next magic phase, losing wizard levels, models in b2b taking the effects of the spell if direct damage, unit if a hex, placing vortex's over the caster, losing leadership, gaining stupidity.


-No irresistable dispels

only if you remove irresistable casting, the alternate being as I said with casting.


-No more broken concentration

Couldn't disagree more, you can't remove the risks from casting, it becomes to reliable, the only reason you do this is if you really tone down the magic.


-All spells generate look out sir tests except direct damage

All spells bar debuffs


-Large targets are +2 to be hit

+1 is enough if the terrain rules are changed, you could always just allow the entire unit to fire at them like in older editions.


-Enemies in the flank or rear with one complete rank (5 for infantry, 4 for cavalry) disrupt. Also, skirmishers can disrupt.

No real issues with that, the alternate would be that the steadfast is taken at -1 for each complete rank in the flank rear.


-Flank is +2, Rear is +4

+1 flank, +2 rear is enough with what I said above, maybe +3 for rear


-Steadfast can be negated by disruption

Already commented above


-Cavalry only need four models for a rank

Personally I would give all cavalry the lance formation, I would just make Brets have some special rule that makes them better at it, +1 to hit, counts rank as double, something like that.


-Monstrous Cavalry cannot ever make supporting attacks and take double wounds when failing terrain tests

I wasn't aware people had issues with ranked up MC, I would make it so that supporting attacks in general allowed the model to make half its attacks (rounding up) with MC getting half of each part of the model, buffs up the ones with A1 riders and A3 mounts


-Thunderstomp always does 3 hits

How about thunderstomp is equal to half its base attacks, ASL but has to roll to hit at +1 and doesn't benefit from things like magic items/gifts/powers/magic.


-Bolt Throwers do double wounds and penetrate ranks whether they kill a model or not. They never suffer any penalties for firing single shots but are at a -1 when firing multiple shots.

Nothing wrong with bolt throwers as they stand


-Cannons place a marker, then scatter Artillery-Ballistic Skill. Then resolve bounce as normal. They do quadruple wounds.

Rolls to hit a spot using BS, if it misses then it scatters D6 and work out bounce as normal. You could make it more simple by rolling to hit a target, if it hits its bounces like now with it still doing D6 wounds. That and make them S8. Another one is simply make them -1 strength per 1" they bounce.


-Stone throwers do triple wounds on center hole. Scatter is artillery dice -BS.

How about D6 wounds on the center, scatter 2D6-BS, if they fire indirect then you don't get the -BS from the roll


-Spears are at -1 to be hit in the front arc

how ap when charged, +1 strength against cavalry?


-Bows, strength as wielder

What about +1 to hit when in short range?


-Hills, Fire in 3 Ranks, Can charge downhill for +1 CR

Or simply fire in +1 rank, +1 CR on charge and +D6 to charge range


-Forests, soft cover, Area terrain

or -1 to hit while within 2"of the edge, blocks LoS if more than 2" into the forest


-Rivers, cannot march, no rank bonus

Cannot march and ranks are negated


-Marshes, Dangerous Terrain when charging, marching or fleeing

That and -D3 when marching, charging or fleeing through them


-Buildings, Hard Cover, 5 models can shoot per floor, Fight combat as normal.

My only real issue is when the defender isn't broken, I don't think you should be pushed back, I think it should be if when assaulting a building and you win in the next round you should get your 10 wounds able to attack +1 supporting attacks, I think it represents the idea of the unit pushing its way into the building.


-Obstacles, Soft/Hard cover, Dangerous Terrain to Cav and Monstrous Cav

Only when marching or charging.


-Keep random cool terrain as optional ruleset

Not that bothered about it either way


-Victory points- Wipe out unit get full points, take unit below half get half points.

Sounds good


-No duplicate Rares

While I agree, I think certain rares (like eagles) should count as half a rare


-Max of 2 duplicate specials

As Above

Archon of Death
05-02-2014, 14:55
I guess people like to discuss things, if you don't enjoy the discussion you could always not read the topic. It's as if IcedCrow or Plebian came around your house, turned your computer on, brought up this page on your browser and held a gun to your head and forced you to read it.

"OKAY OKAY I'LL READ IT! Oh, it's so bad! Ungh, this just creates new issues! Oh god, it poisons my rational mind! I... I can't go on!"
"READ THE TOPIC!"
"Oh god, oh god, don't kill me... ... ... Okay, I read it!"
"POST IN THE TOPIC!"
"Fine!" *complains about how many repeat topics keep popping up*

Thalandor
05-02-2014, 15:44
Bro, do you even archery?

Bows would have to have separate classes for this to happen. You'd have to have short bows and recurve short bows, bows and recurve Bows, longbows and recurve longbows. Are you saying you only want super high tech(respectively) bows or do you want both types?

I used to do archery, and even conventional bows come with different draw weight, which can vary a lot. It's all about small differences in length, shape, thickness and material. A kid's bow could look not so much different than an adult's bow, yet have 2 times less draw weight.

The point is, archers pick a bow with suitable draw weight for their strength. What the OP said makes very much sense.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-02-2014, 15:54
I guess people like to discuss things, if you don't enjoy the discussion you could always not read the topic. It's as if IcedCrow or Plebian came around your house, turned your computer on, brought up this page on your browser and held a gun to your head and forced you to read it.


Not at all. It's as if I switch on my computer, go to Warseer and inevitably see the same old tiring litany once more. ;) When asked what I think, I'm polite enough to reply.

Starting exactly the same thread as the one above or below the new one is borderline spamming.

logan054
05-02-2014, 15:59
Not at all. It's as if I switch on my computer, go to Warseer and inevitably see the same old tiring litany once more. ;) When asked what I think, I'm polite enough to reply.

Starting exactly the same thread as the one above or below the new one is borderline spamming.

sometimes it's just as polite (if not more polite) to say nothing ;) In the grand scheme of things, what does it even matter? it makes as much difference to your life as it does to mine (or I hope so lol!).

SpanielBear
05-02-2014, 16:24
Should we agree on a code phrase, in case this is going on? That way we know its under duress. Have to make sure it's a phrase that never occurs normally. How about, "cannons are OP"?

T10
06-02-2014, 14:32
I have a few points I'd like to see improve:

Rewrite all special rules to take into account the fact that units are not the same as models. They did this well in 40k where a lot of the rules are of the sort that either affects the model, units where at least one model has the special rule, or all models in the unit must have the special rule for it to take effect. This resolves a lot of

Change the approach to writing how attacks/hits are allocated from assuming a unit of homogenous rank-and-file, and assume istead that units consist of a mix of models.

Change cover modifiers (that currently only affects To Hit rolls) into cover saves (which will affect hits, even from weapons that do not roll to hit).

Magic Resistance should grant the model the ability to resist magic. Assuming that the MR ratings of 1-3 (or more) will remain, I figure a nice scalable way is for a unit affected by magic to roll 1d6 per point of MR. If one or more dice come up 6, then the unit is unaffected.

Bound Spells should be cast with exactly 1 power dice from the power pool, and the power level of the spell added to the result. All bound spells should fail on a roll 1 on the casting dice, and the casting result is otherwise only used for determining how hard it is to dispel.

-T10

leopard
07-02-2014, 22:05
Forget what the rules mean, all I really wish for is that they are written in an unambiguous way and don't contradict themselves.

Cross referencing or a clear detailed index of defined terms would be a bonus.

For me a good 9th edition would be 8th as it plays, written a clearer way, more logically laid out and with a few more scenarios thrown in.

Plus many bonus points if they brought all the special rules to a single table and worked out how many of them were needed and write them into the main book - so the army book just tells you which ones you have but they are all in the book, then the army books need only worry about new special rules, and there is no longer a need for the same rule written twice with different names in two different books, plus a lot easier to check the logic on the rules.

Even more bonus points for a clearly defined turn sequence that indicates which special rules act before others (even if they just said "resolve in alphabetical order, earlier letters act before later ones").

There are many changes you could make to how the game actually plays but I think they should tidy up the way its written first - specifically to try and have a clear rules framework they don;t have to work on again for a while and can just republish with errata included and other such updates every other year say.

Only real change I'd make, rip out the magic lores and items, all of them except for a few examples that you can never actually use that just illustrate the rules. Now release a "magic pack" every January for that year, with all the lores in it and all the items (none in the books), new cards each year and allow magic to change year on year (should make it easier to balance better, if something turns out to be a bit much just adjust the casting value or tweak it a bit)

inq.serge
07-02-2014, 22:09
-Miscast table toned down:
2-5 Forget a spell
6-8 Cannot cast any more this turn, lose 2 power dice
9-12 Take an unsavable wound


No! And that's actually a toning up.
I've once had a wizard miscast every turn for a game without ever losing a single spell or wound, and I'd like it to stay that way.

Rousse
11-02-2014, 20:52
Cannon aiming: aim with small round, scatter artillery minus BS. Bounce as normal from landing spot. Anyone under the template not hit by ball takes s4 hit.

Charging: a unit with a lower rank bonus must close the door on a charge. Or something else to stop single model redirectors. I know it's tactical but under current rules it's too easy to send big units off into never never land.

lost_limey
12-02-2014, 22:33
As a Tomb Kings player (but WFB8 newbie) those changes to magic suggested both frighten and confuse me.

Bugg13
13-02-2014, 04:51
No! And that's actually a toning up.
I've once had a wizard miscast every turn for a game without ever losing a single spell or wound, and I'd like it to stay that way.

That strikes me as a pretty obvious sign of the miscast table needing toning up (in regards to damage to the wizard at least) - if a wizard miscasts there should be a backlash.

Maoriboy007
13-02-2014, 23:36
That strikes me as a pretty obvious sign of the miscast table needing toning up (in regards to damage to the wizard at least) - if a wizard miscasts there should be a backlash.Why? simply getting decent value out of a wizard character shouldn't deserve an automatic strike any more than a combat character deserves to automatically die for getting into combat. Simply toning down the spells so that you can't get over inflated value from said caster is a far better solution IMO


As a Tomb Kings player (but WFB8 newbie) those changes to magic suggested both frighten and confuse me.Yeah, I'm with you on this.
Recommended changes to the magic always seem to be backwards to me, why nerf a Liche priest simply trying to march (or even cast skullstorm) to fix a Dark Elf sorceress obliterating units with Purple Sun? Fix the 5 or so problem spells, changing them to do multiple wounds and allow ward saves (and LOS) for the most part and you don't really need a harsh(er) mistcast table, although scaling the current miscast table to the quantity of dice used might make more sense.
If you keep miscasts then you really have to keep IF, personally the old double 1 causing miscasts AND failing the spell, and boxcars being simple IF (subject to snake eyes) seemed a better system to me. You have more chance to fail and miscast the spell and 6 dicing is that much riskier.

Steadfast vs Disruption is a pretty old debate, Im on the pro disruption side myself since I can't see it doing anything except making the game more dynamic.

I'm hoping against hope that the old striking in initiative system comes back (ASF strikes first - then chargers - then Initiative order - then ASL) for the same reason that it would make for a more dynamic game but also so ASF (which is rapidly becoming obnoxious) can be legitimately toned back to lose re-rolls while still granting a legitimate advantage

mirloor
14-02-2014, 15:45
- cannons changed TO:

cannon hit with Stregth 10 D6 wounds ONLY on direct hit, everything after that is strength 6 ONE -1 wound.

- challange system changed to:

Characters can challange multiple characters, (all present in the unit, including champions, or pick ONLY one) - Vamp and Chaos Lords would not be stopped by current silliness. Wounds left after challange are allocated against the unit. Refusing to challange should have some impact on morale of the unit -2 LD, cannot use inpiring presence or LD of characters. ( i mean come on, best of them are hiding behind their backs and they are fine with that?)

- delete ALL uber spells, purple sun, dreaded 13... ETC

- double 1 should ALWAYS create miscast even if roll was 6 6 1 1 - it should be JUST miscast no irresistible force. It would make you think twice about spell spamming.

- Cavalry should do impact hits to infantry units on the turn they charge.

- Rulebooks - MORE magic items.

And that would be all. Steadfest should stay as it is, no more power dice so 2d6 is ok for winds of magic. Well rest of the 8ED book is just great.

This would make it so it would be Warhammer Fantasy Battle, no Warhammer Fantasy Mages or Warhammer Fantasy Artillery

hellharlequin
15-02-2014, 03:32
Changes I would do:
Cannons: 48'' range S7(greatcannonS8) d3 wounds. first and landt impact point scatter d6 inches. must have LOS to targeted point before scatter.

simpler LOS system.

ASB allows only Break and Panic rerolls.

Thrown weapon rule back.

Units models succumbing to fear loose steadfast.

terrors gives a rallying penalty within 6''

Panic would be overworked
more after I slept

P_B_B_89
15-02-2014, 03:53
-1" apart rule changed to not in B2B
A: No comment right now.

-TLOS changed to area terrain and 4 sizes of models
A: No comment.

-For winds of magic roll 3 dice. Top 2 are power dice, bottom 2 are dispel dice.

A: No. 2D6 should remain, but I think it would be cool with a “typed classed” Wizard system that gave bonuses. Such as:
Wizard- Adds Lv to casting value.
Sorcerer - Adds Lv to Channel atempt (e.i. Lv1 Channel 6+, Lv2 Cannel 5+, Lv3 Channel 4+, Lv4 Channel 3+ and Loremaster, reguardless of Lv, Channels 2+-
Mage - Adds +D3 to cast Augment Spells.
Witch - Adds +D3 to cast Hex Spells.
Necromancer - Lore of Death (or Undead army Lore) only. Roles D6 for each model Raised or Slain by Conjurer in Magic Phase. For each 6 rolled add +1 To Cast next casting attempt.
Shaman - May Re-Roll Winds of Magic role each Friendly turn and adds +D3 to spells cast on Warbeasts, Cavelry, Monsterous Cavelry, Swarms and Monsters.
Pyromancer - Lore of Fire only. Direct Damage and Magic Missile Spells costs D3 less to cast. Pyromancer must pass unmodified Ld test before casting Spell or suffer 1 Wound with No Armour Saves allowed.
Conjurer - Select one spell in Conjurer’s Lore. When attempting to cast the selected spell it adds a free Power Dice to (this may not go beyond the normal max 12 Pd/Dd per Magic Phase). When a Conjurer Miscasts, role 3D6 instead and remove the highest valued dice.
Gemini - Add a Power Dice or Dispel Dice for every friendly Gemini with the same Lore (E.i. 1 Gemini = 0 Pd/Dd, 2 Gemini = 1 Pd/Dc, 3 Gemini = 2Pd/Dd and 4 Gemini = 3 Pd/Dd). But if either friendly Gemini is forced to take a Fear, Panic or Terror test then all Geminis must take the same test.
Sage - Select one. Direct Damage, Magic Missile, Augment, Hex or Magical Vortex. The Sage adds his Lv when attempting to Dispel the selected Magic type. Furthermore, if the Sage has Loremaster, he/she may re-roll one failed Dispel attempt of said Magic type each turn.
Seer- At start of either friendly turn or opponent’s turn, the Seer may use his special ability. During casting or dispelling, the Seer may re-roll a single 1 rolled, but must take a Toughness test if selecting to do so. If the test succeeds nothing happens, but if it fails then the Seer is subjected to Stupidity until the End Phase of its next turn.



-Miscast on double 6s, but spell is not cast unless its power level is met and it is never irresistible
A: Well, either both Irresistible goes or no go. I could go either way to be honest.

-Miscast table toned down:
2-5 Forget a spell
6-8 Cannot cast any more this turn, lose 2 power dice
9-12 Take an unsavable wound
A: No, the table is balanced the way it is, maybe with the exception of result 7. Too good for lone mage.

-No irresistable dispels
A: Again, one goes or no go.

-No more broken concentration
A: No. BC stays to stop low dice attempts.

-All spells generate look out sir tests except direct damage
A: Magic Missile should be LOS. Direct Damage, Hex, Augment and Vortex no. Furthermore, if any template (mainly refering to Large Template) covers entire unit, then no LOS (You can’t hide behind yourself!).

-Large targets are +2 to be hit
A: No, Monsters (which mainly covers LT creatures) already have it tough. Thunderstomp is the greatest boost to Monsters in quite some time and before then they where kinda “off table” models.

-Enemies in the flank or rear with one complete rank (5 for infantry, 4 for cavalry) disrupt. Also, skirmishers can disrupt.
A: Yes, on turn the Flanker (Rear-charger) charged.

-Flank is +2, Rear is +4
A: No. Since you already have +2 when Flank (Fighting in Flank + Charge) and Rear (Fighting in Rear + Charge +3) its already fair. To me I would also add during turn it charge in Flank opponent’s unit (Not Characters) gets -1 WS and -D3 WS if charged in Rear. This makes it an element of surprise as well as gaining Combat Res.

-Steadfast can be negated by disruption.
A: Yes, on turn of Charge, not after. Superior Numbers must count for something.

-Cavalry only need four models for a rank
A: I would even go so far as to say 3 is enough for a Rank. Cavalry then could have two, if not three, forms of formation. Assault, Crusader and Raid formation.
Assault Formation is 5 wide minimum and gets Fast Cavalry rule except if Barded. (Barded will then become buyable upgrade for Mounts). (This is to give Heavier Cav the option if being more maneuverable).

Raid Formation is 4 wide minimum and takes away opponents Rank bonus on turn it charged in Flank or Rear.

Crusader Formation is 3 wide minimum and fights similar to Bretonnian Cavelry and also adds its Rank bonus to the Lances Strenght value when it charges (should the unit have Lances, usually causing +3S on charge as 3+ is max Rank Bonus). While in Crusader formation the unit may not benefit from Fast Cavalry rule and cannot March.

Furthmore, Barded Steeds/Barded Monsterous Mounts that role equal or higher then their unmodified Movement Value when rolling Charge distance, and succeeds in charging its foe, inflicts 1 Impact Hit (Mounts’ Strenght value) each in the front rank.

-Monstrous Cavalry cannot ever make supporting attacks and take double wounds when failing terrain tests
A: I would say that Monstrous Cav support attack is fair enough to remove. Double Wounds if failing Dangerous Terrain on the otherhand, No.

-Thunderstomp always does 3 hits
A: No, D6 hits is perfect as it is. The average role of D6 is 3 anyway.

-Bolt Throwers do double wounds and penetrate ranks whether they kill a model or not. They never suffer any penalties for firing single shots but are at a -1 when firing multiple shots.
A: No on double wounds, no on penetrating without kill and yes on single/multiple shots penalty.

-Cannons place a marker, then scatter Artillery-Ballistic Skill. Then resolve bounce as normal. They do quadruple wounds.
A: Artillery- Ballistic Skills seems like an awesome idea with the bounce. D6 Wounds, but S6 for Cannon and S9 for Great Cannon (if that not already the case then nevermind).

-Stone throwers do triple wounds on center hole. Scatter is artillery dice -BS.
A: Again, love the whole Scatter Dice - BS, but the D3 or D6 Wounds in center seems legit in my eyes.

-Spears are at -1 to be hit in the front arc.
A: Awesome idea, should be on charge though (Yours or your opponents). Also, if charged by Cav in Front arc they should cause Impact Hits for each guy in the front rank on turn opponent’s Cav charged.
-Bows, strength as wielder
A: No, but if model has S4 or higher I do see them getting Armour Piercing on their shots. That sounds more balanced.

-Hills, Fire in 3 Ranks, Can charge downhill for +1 CR
A: Sounds awesome.

-Forests, soft cover, Area terrain
A: Great again.

-Rivers, cannot march, no rank bonus
A: Spot on. Excemtion for Aquatic creatures from Lizardmen. That could give Skinks a fighting chance in CC if terrain is on their side.

-Marshes, Dangerous Terrain when charging, marching or fleeing
A: For Cav, Monstrous Cav and Chariots, yes. Infantry, Swarms, Warbeast and Monsters, no.

-Buildings, Hard Cover, 5 models can shoot per floor, Fight combat as normal.
A: Hard Cover no doubt, 5 shots per floor seems fair. Combat as per normal is the tough part. Weather or not “assault party” should remain is one aspect, and Steadfast for being in Building is another aspect. Not sure if both or neither should change. But one thing is for sure. Flaming Attacks (CC or Magic) SHOULD do damage to Building (and maybe kill or weaken the occupying forces). If so, Steadfast and “Assault Party” stacks well with “Fire Affects”.

-Obstacles, Soft/Hard cover, Dangerous Terrain to Cav and Monstrous Cav.
A: Yes, unless Hover or Fly.

-Keep random cool terrain as optional ruleset
A: Yes.

-Victory points- Wipe out unit get full points, take unit below half get half points.
A: Couldn’t agree more. A very important thing that is needed for the game to function right.

-No duplicate Rares
A: Way no. No duplicates have already in one way or another been tried out and it has always failed one way or the other.

-Max of 2 duplicate specials
A: No...

What do you think?
A: Pretty good ideas.

leopard
15-02-2014, 21:12
Wonder on VP, you know what each R&F model costs, you knew that when you wrote the army list. Give VP for each model killed. The command upgrades are given if the model for the upgrade is dead, 'unit' upgrades such as fanatics etc you get when the unit is dead as now.

Kill half a unit, get roughly half VP, kill 10% get roughly 10% VP, at a stroke 'points denial' is not longer a way to win, you win by killing stuff, not killing a couple of things then hiding all game.

P_B_B_89
16-02-2014, 11:26
"Give VP for each model killed" is Always a big "no no". This focuses all killing Power on Rare and Special units. Also, killing, for example, one Chaos Warrior is not the same as killing
a Dark Elf Spearman. Half for half is fair and wiped is a given.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2014, 12:24
I disagree. First of all, I see no reason why it would focus killing power in a certain direction. A Knight is double the points of a Greatsword. Secondly, why would that be bad? Thirdly, is that greatly different from today? People already try to get rid of Chimeras, cannon and Terrorgheists...? Fourthly, and kind of tying in with #1, specials or rares are often harder to kill. I know a Steam Tank is way harder to kill than Spearmen. Also, the Dark Elf is easier to kill than a Chaos Warrior yet cheaper...if anyone's even going for those, which you claim would not be the case...which in turn leaves core free to do what they want, such as kill stuff.

It's actually a very good system.

Vipoid
16-02-2014, 13:43
"Give VP for each model killed" is Always a big "no no". This focuses all killing Power on Rare and Special units. Also, killing, for example, one Chaos Warrior is not the same as killing
a Dark Elf Spearman. Half for half is fair and wiped is a given.

Could you perhaps elaborate on this?

I'm struggling to understand your argument.

Archon of Death
16-02-2014, 14:25
To be honest, I'd much rather they simply keep the uber spells and somehow make them only accessible to level 3/4 casters. From there allow a means of not getting wiped by them (ward save, armour save, regen, something).

Toning down miscasts isn't necessary, they should be brutal as they are, but drop the stupid Broken Concentration. I get what they want to do, force 3+ dice, but that is a major push toward dropping all your dice on spells. Don't punish failed casting, they already wasted the dice and the spell for the turn.

P_B_B_89
16-02-2014, 17:43
Could you perhaps elaborate on this?

I'm struggling to understand your argument.

Well, the whole argument revolves around the value of each battle. By making it "kill each model and get points" you then lay all
your killing power on Rare units and Special units (as they in general cost more Points by model Count then Core models). Bringing Core
down game vise. Also by counting Core in main sequence, each model does not Count the same. A Chaos Warrior is X Points and a State Trooper is
Y Points. X is double (if not triple) the cost of Y. Granted X is more durable and has more killing power, but it's a Dice game leaving such things to
chance, compared to share nr which exist in solid form. Translation: Nr beats high cost killy things.
So doing Points by killed model then favours high amount model armies (Skaven, Gobbos, VC and some Empire builds) and punish armies like (WoC, OK, and Cav Heavy Brett).

P_B_B_89
16-02-2014, 18:27
And what I'm getting at as a whole is that I want diversity to 9th Edition.

Look:

7th Ed = Bring as Little Core as possible, and Special and Rare makes the win.
8th Ed = Bring Core, but Horde styled, and they can win you the battle. Special (I mean mainly Cav here) and Rare are add-ons that's very killy and/or hard.

My wish - 9th Ed = Make 20-25 blocks of Core Count in one aspect and 30+ Horde Another. Small blocks that rely on position and "ability" to charge
while Horde can charge but isn't afraid to be charged. But to do so you must make a proper balance between the two. That is why I argue, for examle; small units
that attack on more sides then front gains bonus only during Charge and not later. Because if not small units "multi-charge" style would almost always beat Horde style.
But Horde cannot have Steadfast as it is now in 8th as Horde then becomes an "immovable object".

Win for Horde: It takes a while (unless pursuid to death) to take away half the unit to get Points, let alone whole unit. Horde also gives more support attacks
and +3 Rank bonus is taken away slower.

Loss for Horde: Since small units "multi-charge" is dangerous on turn of Charge against Horde it can be wiped during a turn if not causious in its movement.
Which means that in general that Horde wont get the charge. And as they (most time) get charged in Flank they get -1 WS (on turn of Charged) to it Flank unit(s)
and -D3 WS (on turn of charged) when attempting to hit Rear models. -1 WS may not sound as much, but WS4 vs WS4 Flanker then makes a difference for the
Flanker as he/she then hits on 3+ instead of 4+. And if in Rare (and you role 5+ on D3) your opponent now only hits you back on 5+ instead of 4+.
---It's better to make it about WS instead of S and T as it is all about in 8th Ed---

Win for Multi-Small units: "Crowd Control" styled means Horde has to play "opponent's game" instead of simply rushing in for easy wipeout. Mear fact that
you have more things to deal with. Flank/Rear attacks is part of Win-Con.

Loss for Multi-Small units: Not as many attacks as Horde. Rank Bonus goes away faster and affect on turn of Charge is vital to achieve victory
(Flank/Rear takes away Rank Bonus on Charge only. After "Strenght in Numbers" kicks in). An argument that goes well with Cav Flank/Rear Charge(s):
They are deadly and scary on the turn they happen, but in a stalemate with a foe that's 10x your size and all of the sudden you don't look so scary anymore.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2014, 18:32
To be completely frank, I don't see any argument, just a peculiar claim.

10 MoN Halberd Warriors, 200 points. 200 Skaven Slaves. Both are core by the way. The high-quality Warriors cost 10 times as much as those Slaves. The Warriors kill 11 Slaves each round for 22 points. The Slaves are extremely lucky to kill half a Warrior each round for zero points, and this is as extreme as it gets, with the most underpriced unit ever. Even if they suddenly start rolling dozens of 6's in a row, the Warriors are ahead by a small margin.

It's the very same story with 10 MoN Halberdiers vs. 33 Empire Halberdiers - Chaos kills 11 (always assuming hordes on both sides for ease of computation, it's really insubstantial) or 66 points, Empire kills maybe 2 for 40 points.

The claim that these Slaves suddenly start to ignore the Warriors and run after the Chimera or Gorebeast is hard to believe.

High-model count armies bleed less points per model but lose more models and vice versa. I mean if your notion was true, low-model count armies like WoC and Ogres would already lose now under the current rule set since losing more models and having smaller units means more dead units, faster.

White Lions are in special. I'm already trying to kill them if I can. I cannot suddenly kill them any better if I get points per model. A Steam Tank or Helblaster are in rare. People are already trying to kill them. They cannot possibly do so any more. Yes, you might want to kill a more expensive model more than a cheap one (d'oh!) but I don't see how wishlisting will have any effect. With the proposed system, you'd be giving up points yourself to do that, at least in combat.

Once more, it's easy to get a couple of points from State Troop-class core. It's not easy to get points from Steam Tanks. Lastly, even if someone actively tried to go after your specials and rares, I don't see the problem. Why in the world would that be a problem?

Odin
16-02-2014, 18:34
I 6think I may have fixed Steadfast and Horde!

3 changes:

You cannot claim more ranks for steadfast than the width of the unit. So a unit 5-wide never counts as having more than 5 ranks for calculating whether they are steadfast. This prevents the very silly "bus formation".

Steadfast ignores all modifiers EXCEPT the -1 for flank and -2 for rear charges. So outmaneouvreing a unit is an advantage, it just doesn't mean you get to ignore flankers like now.

Horde copies the rules for volley fire. So, if you are 10 or more models wide, you get your normal attacks, plus half the attacks for any models in rear ranks who can't attack. This makes it MORE useful for the cheap units like Goblins and Skaven who it was intended for, and LESS useful for the elite unitss it wasn't intended for but who benefitted most.

Ithankyou.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2014, 18:52
Why fix something that isn't broken?

Going from horde and bus to only horde is just taking away options. What is silly or not obviously lies in the eye of the beholder - I'm perfectly happy with my bus being able to resist more elite units for a while.

There's nothing wrong with Ld modifiers for flanking except the notion that outmaneouvering is not a huge advantage currently and that units can ignore flankers. Neither is true; I wonder where that idea comes from. Not from 8th, certainly, as I'll massacre your Chaos Warriors with my S3 guys when I get into their flank. I mean it completely tips a combat.

Also, it is very realistic for deep and dense formations to ignore a couple of guys on their flanks. They simply couldn't hope to annoy a formation without a critical mass. Just because there's a bowman running straight into a phalanx flank doesn't mean they all go home...the idea alone is ridiculous.

P_B_B_89
16-02-2014, 19:00
10 MoN Helberd does not kill 11 models (15/2 = 7,5 /3-4 after To Wound. All and all around 3-6 models will die by math).
But even if you where right on 11 kills, Emp Halberd Horde (21/2 (maybe more) = 8-10,5 /2-4 after To Wound. All and all 2-4 models will die by math).
If we go even by lowest nr that's 3 dead Emp and 2 dead Chaos. Chaos cost 19x2 Emp Helb 13?x3. Sure 13x3 is more then 19x2, but you'll have 30 Helb left
while I'll have 8 CW left.

So no, it's not "the same story".

'The claim that these Slaves suddenly start to ignore the Warriors and run after the Chimera or Gorebeast is hard to believe.'

No, it would be Believe-able if its by model-killed Points (which it still would be since that's all there is with Chimera at least.

leopard
16-02-2014, 19:12
"Give VP for each model killed" is Always a big "no no". This focuses all killing Power on Rare and Special units. Also, killing, for example, one Chaos Warrior is not the same as killing
a Dark Elf Spearman. Half for half is fair and wiped is a given.

Horses for things horses run round of course, actually what I would like is a selection of ways to determine victory, the points for each model is an 'attrition' set of conditions, keep the current method as another option, blood and glory as another etc.

Not suggesting there should be a random roll pre-game to determine which you use, it should be written into the scenario (of which I'd like to see some 18+ and a constant stream of new ones).

Odin
16-02-2014, 19:16
Why fix something that isn't broken?

Going from horde and bus to only horde is just taking away options. What is silly or not obviously lies in the eye of the beholder - I'm perfectly happy with my bus being able to resist more elite units for a while.

There's nothing wrong with Ld modifiers for flanking except the notion that outmaneouvering is not a huge advantage currently and that units can ignore flankers. Neither is true; I wonder where that idea comes from. Not from 8th, certainly, as I'll massacre your Chaos Warriors with my S3 guys when I get into their flank. I mean it completely tips a combat.

Also, it is very realistic for deep and dense formations to ignore a couple of guys on their flanks. They simply couldn't hope to annoy a formation without a critical mass. Just because there's a bowman running straight into a phalanx flank doesn't mean they all go home...the idea alone is ridiculous.

Er, because it is broken?

It isn't realistic for deep narrow units to exist full stop. Dense units, where they are wide and deep, yes. That's exactly what my rules would do, I think - take away the horde/bus and instead have a range of valid unit shapes. Cheap units can get plenty of ranks for steadfast, if they want more than 5 ranks worth, but they can't unrealistically keep half the enemy unit out of the combat.

Anyway, there would still be a benefit to deeper units - after all, if you are 5-wide and more than 5 ranks deep, it will take longer for an enemy unit to kill enough of you to get you down below 5 ranks. So you'll still be steadfast for ages against enemy elites, unless you regularly fight elites more than 5 ranks deep?!

I really can't work out what you're saying in the bold sentence. I'm guessing some or all of it is sarcastic, but as that doesn't transfer so well in text I'm struggling to get your point!

leopard
16-02-2014, 19:17
I 6think I may have fixed Steadfast and Horde!

3 changes:

You cannot claim more ranks for steadfast than the width of the unit. So a unit 5-wide never counts as having more than 5 ranks for calculating whether they are steadfast. This prevents the very silly "bus formation".

Steadfast ignores all modifiers EXCEPT the -1 for flank and -2 for rear charges. So outmaneouvreing a unit is an advantage, it just doesn't mean you get to ignore flankers like now.

Horde copies the rules for volley fire. So, if you are 10 or more models wide, you get your normal attacks, plus half the attacks for any models in rear ranks who can't attack. This makes it MORE useful for the cheap units like Goblins and Skaven who it was intended for, and LESS useful for the elite unitss it wasn't intended for but who benefitted most.

Ithankyou.

This is something I like, point #1 especially, then column becomes something you do in order to move and turn, a wide formation becomes what you fight in.

Point #2 is also pretty clever, nice and simple, if you can disrupt you will remove the rank bonus, if you have more ranks you remove steadfast totally, but otherwise you get the modifier, I like this.

Not sure on point #3, the current limits on how many ranks can attack seem to represent the way people too far back are just too far away to fight, could see this leading to a brick of 100 goblins being something you just dare not go near without something similar, even elite troops will fall to the volume of attacks such units can put out. Its not a bad concept, but I think it has a knock on effect thats not desirable

P_B_B_89
16-02-2014, 19:21
Well, I didn't add Bus to account, mearly Horde vs small-multi charge.

No, it is true. Look, if I have 3 small units to your 1 Horde, I can make position of each unit a hassle for your Horde. But your Horde should still count for something
as numbers should count for something. Horde should dread being flanked, Small units should dread being in a stalemate. This makes perfect sense. This is why
I argue Horde only lose Rank Bonus/Steadfast on turn it got charged, not later turns.

And by my own account, your S3 guys will be Horde (at least in comparisson to Chaos' nr) the Chaos would be the one going for the Flank.
And again, no you wont. your S3 guys will have (most likely) WS4 and Warriors have WS5. That's to hit 4+ for both and I have better armour and T. You'd need
a Rare charge to get ahead and Rare is tougher to get then Flank in general.

And no one said a bowmen unit should attack a Horde unit (That has never been a vise choice in any edition).
And yes, Flankers and Rear attackers die too, but if they get a chance to take away Rank Bonus and Steadfast for one turn It'll be Worth it. But if they get stuck, odds are
they'l run or die sooner then their foe.

A Dense army formation of Horde won't garuantee anything as multi-small then counter with "Umbrella" formation to make Horde go outwards and break Dense army formation.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2014, 19:24
10 Warriors 10 wide - as I said above, this only needs repeating because you didn't read it or ignored it - get 20 attacks. Please remember we're talking about something like 100+ Slaves, there's no reason for them not to be 10 or 12 wide to fit into the DZ.

Your math is not correct I'm afraid. 22 attacks means 2 kills and a wee bit. They're all dead in the next round, in both the current and the proposed system, and that alone disproves your claim.

Even if they kill only 8, what does it matter? Currently, they get zero points. With the change, they would get *some* points, and not lose a lot themselves, and this is in a complete vacuum with a silly frontal charge. It's as much a risk/reward thing as it is now, and the overall end result (dead State Troops) is the same, too.

Just show why people would suddenly go for Elites more than they do today (you hopefully have a number of how much they go for Elites already), how they would suddenly aquire the means to successfully do so if they could not defeat them under this system and why that would be problematic. My Gorebeasts and Executioners actually want to be in combat, so what if the enemy wants that too? They already get shot at and magicked and I'm defending against that, so what exactly do you think will change? More Dwellers? Sorry, that's just not convincing.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2014, 19:30
Er, because it is broken?


Not that I can see. Both formations are realistic and both are useful. Some people win with hordes, I've won my last 20 games without.



That's exactly what my rules would do


With all due respect, Odin, I'm calm and happy in the knowledge that you're not making my rules.



I really can't work out what you're saying in the bold sentence.


It is very, very easy. You can disagree of course but if you don't understand it, you're not trying: Getting a flank charge off completely turns almost any given combat on its head and is hugely advantageous. Matter of fact, Odin. Again, no offense, I'm not talking about you but usually the idea that flanks are not important comes from the same people who are content to push unit A straight ahead against unit B because flanks don't matter and then wonder why the game dissolves into a dice fest.

Vipoid
16-02-2014, 19:32
I 6think I may have fixed Steadfast and Horde!

3 changes:

You cannot claim more ranks for steadfast than the width of the unit. So a unit 5-wide never counts as having more than 5 ranks for calculating whether they are steadfast. This prevents the very silly "bus formation".

That seems reasonable.



Steadfast ignores all modifiers EXCEPT the -1 for flank and -2 for rear charges. So outmaneouvreing a unit is an advantage, it just doesn't mean you get to ignore flankers like now.

Also reasonable.



Horde copies the rules for volley fire. So, if you are 10 or more models wide, you get your normal attacks, plus half the attacks for any models in rear ranks who can't attack. This makes it MORE useful for the cheap units like Goblins and Skaven who it was intended for, and LESS useful for the elite unitss it wasn't intended for but who benefitted most.

Hmm, this I'm not so sure about.

For one, it just seems impractical in terms of the extra men contributing to the fight. More importantly though, I feel it will just end up helping the wrong units. After all, the units that will benefit most from such extra attacks are the ones that already do a lot of damage (witch elves come to mind).

I appreciate what you're going for. But, I think what we need is a rule that helps weak units (e.g. goblins) in horde formation, without also giving a greater bonus to elite units in horde formation.

leopard
16-02-2014, 19:35
To me I like the concept of VP for every model as it provides a role for the middling units in a list - you are now in a position you want to be better than the enemy (so you kill more of them than they kill of you) but not too much better, just enough to hit on a 3 and wound on a 2, any more is a waste since will make no difference - but with this system you are paying and losing points you didn't need to.

E.g. if you can be WS+1 and Strength 2 points more than the enemy Toughness thats as good as you need to be - if the enemy kills one of you, you have not lost anything more than you had to. if you are WS+3 and Strength 4 points more than enemy toughness you will do no more, but the enemy can scrap a few more points from you as they go down.

Thus there is an advantage to having a range of units in your army, and try to fight the enemy with the right one not simply the very best unit you have.

Odin
16-02-2014, 19:39
This is something I like, point #1 especially, then column becomes something you do in order to move and turn, a wide formation becomes what you fight in.

Point #2 is also pretty clever, nice and simple, if you can disrupt you will remove the rank bonus, if you have more ranks you remove steadfast totally, but otherwise you get the modifier, I like this.

Not sure on point #3, the current limits on how many ranks can attack seem to represent the way people too far back are just too far away to fight, could see this leading to a brick of 100 goblins being something you just dare not go near without something similar, even elite troops will fall to the volume of attacks such units can put out. Its not a bad concept, but I think it has a knock on effect thats not desirable

I think you're overestimating those Goblins!

Let's do a bit of Math(s)hammer and see, I haven't done it myself yet. A unit of Goblins (HW&S) 10x10 versus a typical horde unit of Halberdiers 10 wide and 5 deep. Points values are the same I think, standard and musician each.

Halberdiers strike first and get 35 attacks. That's 20 for the first two ranks plus 15 for the three ranks behind. By my calculations, they cause just under 11 wounds, let's call it 11.

Goblins strike back. Having lost 11, they have 65 attacks back (20 for the front two ranks, 35 for half of the rest, rounding up). They cause 13.5 wounds back.

Advantage to the goblins, but only just.



-----


Let's test out the "even elite troops will fall" thesis. The same unit of Goblins against a unit of 18 (3x6) Warriors of Khorne with Halberds. Standard and Musician again. The warriors are the more expensive unit by about 40 points. Only 9 goblins in the front rank are touching, so that takes one column out of the equation.

Warriors attack first and cause 11.1 wounds.

Goblins attack with 49 attacks, causing 2.7 wounds on average! Not too scary really. Goblins lose combat but are steadfast.

Odin
16-02-2014, 19:46
It is very, very easy. You can disagree of course but if you don't understand it, you're not trying: Getting a flank charge off completely turns almost any given combat on its head and is hugely advantageous. Matter of fact, Odin. Again, no offense, I'm not talking about you but usually the idea that flanks are not important comes from the same people who are content to push unit A straight ahead against unit B because flanks don't matter and then wonder why the game dissolves into a dice fest.

Well, I've had S3 units charge the flank of my chaos warriors on many occasions, and it's only rarely tipped the combat in my opponent's favour. In fact, it more often tips it in my favour as one or two more of my guys get to fight, usually with no additional casualties in return. But that's irrelevant to steadfast and my suggested changes to it surely? After all, chaos warriors are rarely benefitting from steadfast.




For one, it just seems impractical in terms of the extra men contributing to the fight. More importantly though, I feel it will just end up helping the wrong units. After all, the units that will benefit most from such extra attacks are the ones that already do a lot of damage (witch elves come to mind).

I appreciate what you're going for. But, I think what we need is a rule that helps weak units (e.g. goblins) in horde formation, without also giving a greater bonus to elite units in horde formation.

But it does help weak hordes and weaken strong hordes - that's exactly the point! Hordes that are only three ranks deep will have fewer attacks than they do now. Hordes that are 4 ranks deep will have the same number of attacks as they do now. Only units with more than 40 models will start to see an improvement, and while that's reasonably easy for goblins and skaven, 50 witch elves is a huge investment, especially for just 5 extra attacks on top of what a unit of 30 would get under the current rules!

Lord Solar Plexus
17-02-2014, 11:41
That seems reasonable.


No, it does not when you look at the consequences. If you actually get shallower units, then Elites benefit more. Even the most expensive ones can form a shallow formation and go 5 wide; they already do. They wouldn't even need to be 5 deep because of casualties, and therefore low quality stuff would always run. That's the problem with all of these ideas, they usually mean weak core units become useless again.

Of course Goblins could still go deeper to suck up casualties but then the rule change is unnecessary as we'd still see supposedly "silly" formations.


Well, I've had S3 units charge the flank of my chaos warriors on many occasions, and it's only rarely tipped the combat in my opponent's favour. In fact, it more often tips it in my favour as one or two more of my guys get to fight, usually with no additional casualties in return.


Then you've played it wrong - it's impossible to get more attacks or models to the flank compared to the front. A unit fighting Warriors to the front will suffer 18 or so S4-5 attacks. A unit fighting them to their flank will face 6 of those attacks and receive a bonus for flanking and receive a bonus for disruption. Even if not one Warrior dies and they kill the maximum 6 they'd only tie, whereas when fighting to the front they would have won very comfortably. Sorry, that cannot possibly tip in your favour.

No, it has nothing to do with steadfast, it just shows how important flanks can be. I just don't think one should get a benefit in this regard - morale, steadfast - with just a handful of guys, as one needs a critical mass to actually annoy a formed unit.



But it does help weak hordes and weaken strong hordes - that's exactly the point! Hordes that are only three ranks deep will have fewer attacks than they do now. Hordes that are 4 ranks deep will have the same number of attacks as they do now. Only units with more than 40 models will start to see an improvement, and while that's reasonably easy for goblins and skaven, 50 witch elves is a huge investment, especially for just 5 extra attacks on top of what a unit of 30 would get under the current rules!

I did misunderstand you. I thought you meant the first two ranks and half of the third rank should fight (I don't see a lot of volley fire). Still, that change is based on aesthetic considerations - you don't like rectangular units facing one of their short sides for one reason or the other. Apart from that, there's little reason for this change. Weak models can already contribute; they can form a horde but they don't have to, and the same goes for stronger ones. It's certainly not broken in the sense that certain units or formations automatically win, or even become relatively stronger. 30 White Lions or MoN Halberdiers are stronger than most core, certainly, but they also are a considerable investment.

Odin
17-02-2014, 12:01
No, it does not when you look at the consequences. If you actually get shallower units, then Elites benefit more. Even the most expensive ones can form a shallow formation and go 5 wide; they already do. They wouldn't even need to be 5 deep because of casualties, and therefore low quality stuff would always run. That's the problem with all of these ideas, they usually mean weak core units become useless again.

Of course Goblins could still go deeper to suck up casualties but then the rule change is unnecessary as we'd still see supposedly "silly" formations.

But there would be more of a variety of viable formations, and we'd see fewer buses. Do you trade off the depth of that goblin unit to go wider, giving you more ranks for steadfast but risking losing it quicker? Units 6 or 7 wide become a viable option for normal troops, especially as it would enable you to break the steadfast of a 5-wide unit.



Then you've played it wrong - it's impossible to get more attacks or models to the flank compared to the front. A unit fighting Warriors to the front will suffer 18 or so S4-5 attacks. A unit fighting them to their flank will face 6 of those attacks and receive a bonus for flanking and receive a bonus for disruption. Even if not one Warrior dies and they kill the maximum 6 they'd only tie, whereas when fighting to the front they would have won very comfortably. Sorry, that cannot possibly tip in your favour.

No, it has nothing to do with steadfast, it just shows how important flanks can be. I just don't think one should get a benefit in this regard - morale, steadfast - with just a handful of guys, as one needs a critical mass to actually annoy a formed unit.

Ah, I see - you mean if the warriors are unengaged? I assumed you meant the warriors were already engaged to the front and then got charged in the flank as well, in which case the second rank warrior would get all his attacks rather than just one supporting attack, and the third and occasionally fourth rank warriors get to attack when they wouldn't otherwise. But taking your example, the warriors still get at least 6 attacks, probably with halberds, and most S3 troops will struggle to do many wounds if any, and yes, I will often still win the combat.

But as you say, it's nothing to do with steadfast and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. I do somewhat lament the loss of the unit strength mechanism, even if it was a bit clunky. I'd agree that a single model or a handful of skirmishers should perhaps not affect steadfast, a lower threshold would make sense. But the idea that a 5 rank deep unit charging into the rear of an already engaged 6 rank unit wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to morale is a bit odd.



I did misunderstand you. I thought you meant the first two ranks and half of the third rank should fight (I don't see a lot of volley fire). Still, that change is based on aesthetic considerations - you don't like rectangular units facing one of their short sides for one reason or the other. Apart from that, there's little reason for this change. Weak models can already contribute; they can form a horde but they don't have to, and the same goes for stronger ones. It's certainly not broken in the sense that certain units or formations automatically win, or even become relatively stronger. 30 White Lions or MoN Halberdiers are stronger than most core, certainly, but they also are a considerable investment.

The reason for the proposed change is that cheap S3 units (the ones horde was supposed to help) don't get sufficient benefit from it to make it worthwhile, most of the time, while elite units (the ones it wasn't supposed to help) get a huge bonus from it. By linking it to the depth of a unit, you are making it a proper "horde" mechanic, rather than a "thin line of elites" mechanic. At the moment, you're always going to be better off taking two 50-goblin buses rather than one 100 goblin horde or two 50 goblin hordes. I'd like to make the hordes an option worth considering for them, and less of a no-brainer for high strength elites.

Vipoid
17-02-2014, 12:42
No, it does not when you look at the consequences. If you actually get shallower units, then Elites benefit more.

But that assumes you're only getting shallow units - as opposed to units that are large in both frontage and depth.

You might be right though - it might still be too much of a buff to elite units.

DaemonReign
17-02-2014, 20:13
I'm against most of the suggestions by the OP but I don't have all day so just the important stuff:

Steadfast - Resolved on aggregate ranks per any given combat. Elegant, "realistic", tactical. It should be resolved as rank-bonus too (i.e. never counting the front rank) - either that or give all Large Targets an 'innate rank' but this is really far less elegant compared to a naturalization with rank bonus.

Magic - Miscast on double 6 with Irreristable Force (i.e. like now) but the Miscast Table should be "D6+'dice used'" - here results 3 through ~7 should be pretty benign in terms of consequences for the miscasting model/player, where-as the top-results (8 and up) should be increasingly gruesome with a '12' Calling down truly cataclysmic penalty on who-ever just '6-diced' a game-changing spell.

Oh, and Spears could use the Strength of the attackers *unmodified* Movement value in the round in which they are charged. Or perhaps it'd be cool with 'pikes' making an appearance as a specific type of arms.

Vipoid
17-02-2014, 23:30
Magic - Miscast on double 6 with Irreristable Force (i.e. like now) but the Miscast Table should be "D6+'dice used'" - here results 3 through ~7 should be pretty benign in terms of consequences for the miscasting model/player, where-as the top-results (8 and up) should be increasingly gruesome with a '12' Calling down truly cataclysmic penalty on who-ever just '6-diced' a game-changing spell.

Aha! Another opportunity to copy the table I made ages ago:

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


If I copy it into enough threads, someone in GW will eventually see it and use it in the next edition. That's how logic works, right? :shifty:

Fear Ghoul
18-02-2014, 00:56
They should just remove irresistible force from the game entirely, as it has no background support and only serves to unbalance the game. Similarly miscasts could be reworked so that the most common outcome is a simple failure to cast, and then the other results can cause more damage with increasing dice used.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2014, 09:28
But there would be more of a variety of viable formations, and we'd see fewer buses. Do you trade off the depth of that goblin unit to go wider, giving you more ranks for steadfast but risking losing it quicker? Units 6 or 7 wide become a viable option for normal troops, especially as it would enable you to break the steadfast of a 5-wide unit.


Hmm. There are a lot of variables here. When we currently pit two similar units against each other, the one in horde will win and the one in bus will hold, barring peculiar dice rolls. Both have a dedicated role to play. I don't know if my conclusion is actually correct but it appears to me that with this proposed change, the unit that goes 6 wide against the 5 wide one will win and the other not hold because unit A gets more attacks and quite probably the same number of ranks...now unit B goes 6 wide, then unit A 7 wide and so on...it sounds like a mess with regard to simple practical consideration like regiment bases. Perhaps that's silly of me but seeing as it is a veritable PITA to get my State Troops to rank up nicely, more changing formation in game is not really what I want. ;)



Ah, I see - you mean if the warriors are unengaged?


Yes, indeed. However, I've had a lot of other situations where it mattered. Spearmen fighting Clanrats; the latter are a wee bit better. Add a flank charging detachment and things could turn around. Temple Guard fighting a Stank to their front and then being hit by Spearmen in the flank - cold-blooded becomes less relevant when you test on snake eyes. The remains of a White Lion unit fighting my depleted ICK to their front and doing slightly more wounds...yet again, Spears in the flank helped me win the fight through simple static res and so on (of course these guys are stubborn).



But the idea that a 5 rank deep unit charging into the rear of an already engaged 6 rank unit wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to morale is a bit odd.


In my experience, a deep unit charging in often makes a whole world of a difference. I mean the thing is, of course you need to have enough depth aka ranks for it to matter. I think that is quite realistic. Sure there are some odd situations but that's the price of abstraction. I just fear it might be overdone and units suddenly start breaking quite rapidly. Not that my fear has any relevance for upcoming rules of course but I remember how vainly I tried to get some kind of reliable block in 7th...and with Empire, I could field a completely stubborn list anyways...which is probably not what we want to see either.



The reason for the proposed change is that cheap S3 units (the ones horde was supposed to help) don't get sufficient benefit from it to make it worthwhile, most of the time, while elite units (the ones it wasn't supposed to help) get a huge bonus from it.


Are you not saying weak S3 hordes don't become killy enough while strong Elites do? That sounds very much WAD if you ask me. Again, there are probably a couple of odd situations but theoretically, weaker cheaper core can play the attrition game, that doesn't sound too bad. For example, 30 White Lions are the same points as 65 Empire Halberdiers; the former actually need to think twice before charging frontally...and the Halberdiers certainly won't be combat effective even if they win either. I know they're S4 but the equivalent number of Spearmen (78) would make a mess of those WL, too.

I do see where you're coming from though if that is any consolation! :)

Vipoid
18-02-2014, 09:35
They should just remove irresistible force from the game entirely, as it has no background support and only serves to unbalance the game.

I wouldn't object to this.

Von Wibble
18-02-2014, 09:56
I have a few points I'd like to see improve:

Rewrite all special rules to take into account the fact that units are not the same as models. They did this well in 40k where a lot of the rules are of the sort that either affects the model, units where at least one model has the special rule, or all models in the unit must have the special rule for it to take effect. This resolves a lot of

Change the approach to writing how attacks/hits are allocated from assuming a unit of homogenous rank-and-file, and assume istead that units consist of a mix of models.

Change cover modifiers (that currently only affects To Hit rolls) into cover saves (which will affect hits, even from weapons that do not roll to hit).

Magic Resistance should grant the model the ability to resist magic. Assuming that the MR ratings of 1-3 (or more) will remain, I figure a nice scalable way is for a unit affected by magic to roll 1d6 per point of MR. If one or more dice come up 6, then the unit is unaffected.

Bound Spells should be cast with exactly 1 power dice from the power pool, and the power level of the spell added to the result. All bound spells should fail on a roll 1 on the casting dice, and the casting result is otherwise only used for determining how hard it is to dispel.

-T10

I like all of these. My thought for MR is that the caster should roll a d6 and get a higher score than the MR of the unit to have the spell affect it, but its the same kind of mechanic.

On magic - I would have the miscast table expanded with results running from -3 to 15. When rolling on the miscast table, add the level of the wizard casting the spell and subtract the number of dice you used to cast the spell. For example, a level 4 wizard casting with 3 dice will add 1 to the score on 2D6 (+4 for level, -3 for dice).

Many of the results would stay the same, with 14 and 15 having very little negative effect. Results of -3 or the like would have you cast the spell on a target of the opponents choice (counts as having been cast by the opponent if it doesn't target anything) - and also the detonation effect as normal.

In short, don't throw 6 dice at spells with level 1s.

Vipoid
18-02-2014, 10:01
On magic - I would have the miscast table expanded with results running from -3 to 15. When rolling on the miscast table, add the level of the wizard casting the spell and subtract the number of dice you used to cast the spell. For example, a level 4 wizard casting with 3 dice will add 1 to the score on 2D6 (+4 for level, -3 for dice).

Many of the results would stay the same, with 14 and 15 having very little negative effect. Results of -3 or the like would have you cast the spell on a target of the opponents choice (counts as having been cast by the opponent if it doesn't target anything) - and also the detonation effect as normal.

In short, don't throw 6 dice at spells with level 1s.

I really hope this doesn't happen.

Lv4 Wizards have enough advantages already - without also being less vulnerable to miscasts.

Snake1311
18-02-2014, 10:12
-1" apart rule changed to not in B2B

Everything else is the usual random list of personal preferences, some sensible, some badly thought out.

Except the one above. Thats just weird.

Care to explain why you want this in there?

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2014, 11:58
Indeed, that's odd. That's the only rule that already must not have any in-game impact and where we exactly know the RAI because it is stated.

BUB
18-02-2014, 12:21
Artillery D3 wounds against large targets

Rulebook lores, especially Death, toned down

Maybe 3 sixes needed for irresistible force

Max armour save 2+

Regen not just a dull ward save but actually regains wounds like the War Hydra

Monsters can thunder stomp anything except other monsters

Spears get a strength bonus when the unit is charged

No more long range penalty to BS shooting

Decent scenarios

Total rework of the building rules

Get rid of the more bent rulebook items, Crown, standard of Discipline, Dawnstone etc

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2014, 15:31
Artillery D3 wounds against large targets


Sure, if large targets only do D3 attacks against everyone else.



Max armour save 2+


Never.



Monsters can thunder stomp anything except other monsters


So cannon and knights become useless against monsters? Are you on some kind of anti-Empire crusade? :wtf:

Seriously, those ideas are as arbitrary and out of left field as capping strength at 5.

P_B_B_89
18-02-2014, 17:15
Artillery D3 wounds against large targets

Rulebook lores, especially Death, toned down

Maybe 3 sixes needed for irresistible force

Max armour save 2+

Regen not just a dull ward save but actually regains wounds like the War Hydra

Monsters can thunder stomp anything except other monsters

Spears get a strength bonus when the unit is charged

No more long range penalty to BS shooting

Decent scenarios

Total rework of the building rules

Get rid of the more bent rulebook items, Crown, standard of Discipline, Dawnstone etc

"Espeially Death"? How about Especially Lore of Life and Shadow! Regain W on Meg-Char and -D3 T? No effin way man...

I.F can go or stay. Not big on either.

No, 1+ is fine. Get A.P Banner.

Regen used to be that way in, was it 5th or 6th? Anyway, Regen is good the way it is.

Thunder S, maybe Cav, but not anyting Monsterous or Monster.

Spears should inflict "Impact Hit" on S value if charged in front (perhaps only to Cav and Moster-Cav?) or -1 WS if charged in front to any unit (charge turn only).

Don't want to pay for Long Range? Play Dwarfs..

Absolutly, Scenarios should be great.

No. Build the way you want, apply Swedish Comp System with Set score values.

Apply more items, since army books remove theirs.

P_B_B_89
18-02-2014, 17:29
And another thing:

Bound Spell, Use PD but get's to Channel once for Wizard and once for Bound Spell. (It's a magical item after all).

Innate Bound Spell. Take T-test or Ld-test minus Lv of Spell's casting value. (Such Magic rely's on the Wizards Innate Abilities, not abilities to summon WoM like he/
she normally does).

Thoughts?

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2014, 17:42
Well, Death is indeed a bit iffy. Very, very low casting values compared to Life and Shadow and a couple of very versatile spells. It's the premier tournament lore for everyone who can take it for a reason. The lore attribute is especially harsh, as it can be used to fuel a second wizard. Be that as it may, I wouldn't be opposed to a toning down of magic. What they did with Warlocks and DE magic doesn't bode well for the future though.

BUB
19-02-2014, 11:18
Sure, if large targets only do D3 attacks against everyone else.



Never.



So cannon and knights become useless against monsters? Are you on some kind of anti-Empire crusade? :wtf:

Seriously, those ideas are as arbitrary and out of left field as capping strength at 5.

They really aren't I think you just love you're dull as dishwater Empire ;)

Monsters are never seen because of cannons, 1+ saves make strength 4 irrelevant and Monsterous Cav and Cav are everywhere with their 1+

Fear Ghoul
19-02-2014, 11:58
Monsters are never seen because of cannons, 1+ saves make strength 4 irrelevant and Monsterous Cav and Cav are everywhere with their 1+

None of the above is true. The Hydra, Daemon Prince, Terrorgheist, Chimera, and Frostheart Phoenix all see regular play. Furthermore 1+ saves are extremely uncommon and most armies don't have access to Monstrous Cavalry.

Lord Solar Plexus
19-02-2014, 12:58
They really aren't I think you just love you're dull as dishwater Empire ;)


Of course I do.



Monsters are never seen because of cannons, 1+ saves make strength 4 irrelevant and Monsterous Cav and Cav are everywhere with their 1+

And everyone gives up when they note their opponent pulls out Empire, sure. Knights are so OP and invincible...not. ;)

Vipoid
19-02-2014, 13:02
Monsters are never seen because of cannons

Maybe some monsters. However, you're find that many other monsters (Frost Phoenix, Daemon Princes etc.) are still fielded, in spite of the prevalence of cannons.


1+ saves make strength 4 irrelevant and Monsterous Cav and Cav are everywhere with their 1+

Have I missed something? This seems like a really random statement, and one that seems entirely unrelated to what you quoted. :confused:

SpanielBear
19-02-2014, 13:53
Maybe some monsters. However, you're find that many other monsters (Frost Phoenix, Daemon Princes etc.) are still fielded, in spite of the prevalence of cannons.



Have I missed something? This seems like a really random statement, and one that seems entirely unrelated to what you quoted. :confused:

Besides, there are plenty of other targets that S4 is very valuable against. Changing a save from 4+ to 5+, or even 5+ to 6+ is deeply useful. It just means that S4 isn't the ultimate in armour piercing, which seems okay, given strength goes all the way up to 10.

Besides, even with strength four, add Lore of Beasts and the Razor Standard and even a 1+ save begins to look dodgy...

For me, I like the edition. I guess the only thing I have a problem with, and a very minor problem at that, is re-rollable ward saves. Having three chances to avoid damage seems a little unecessary.

Vipoid
19-02-2014, 14:04
Besides, there are plenty of other targets that S4 is very valuable against. Changing a save from 4+ to 5+, or even 5+ to 6+ is deeply useful. It just means that S4 isn't the ultimate in armour piercing, which seems okay, given strength goes all the way up to 10.

The other aspect is how many S4 attacks you have, and where. For example, 4 S4 attacks on a Lord choice is pretty meagre; but a horde that produces 30 S4 attacks as a core choice is pretty nice.

underscore
19-02-2014, 14:40
Maybe some monsters. However, you're find that many other monsters (Frost Phoenix, Daemon Princes etc.) are still fielded, in spite of the prevalence of cannons.
...the ones that still get a save from them, you mean?

Vipoid
19-02-2014, 15:17
...the ones that still get a save from them, you mean?

Pretty much.

Also, don't get me wrong - I've absolutely no love for the current cannon rules and hope they change in 9th. However, I don't believe inaccurate, blanket-statements help that case.