PDA

View Full Version : 9th ed smaller unit ideas



English 2000
18-05-2014, 02:53
So I keep hearing about 9th ed going back to smaller units, but does anyone have any thoughts on how that could be done?

If you eliminate step up you go back to the old days where killing the front rank means no return attacks. I don't see that being a positive change.

Standardised unit sizes with a certain number of "hit points" would mean a boxed set of unit x is all you need for a fully combat effective unit, but that would over simplify the game ala Battlemasters. We would lose the flexibility and variety we have now. Another negative in my books.

What are your thoughts on what might happen?

Kingrick
18-05-2014, 03:16
well losing steadfast and horde formation would make larger units less appealing. Half victory points would be a good idea too so point denial isn't as common.

PS I like the avatar

Tarliyn
18-05-2014, 05:10
As long as you don't take away step up and no-asf on charge infantry would still be viable even if steadfast and horde were removed.

You could also still have steadfast and horde as a rule but only give it to certain units as a special ability.

Avian
18-05-2014, 07:32
Measure charges from the outside, rather than the inside, corner. Then hordes will have trouble charging anything other than straight ahead.

Let rank bonus go up to +5. Let the unit with the highest rank bonus be steadfast (if a tie then nobody is steadfast).

Voss
18-05-2014, 07:44
So I keep hearing about 9th ed going back to smaller units, but does anyone have any thoughts on how that could be done?

Easily. Drop steadfast, army standard rerolls, hordes, fight in extra ranks, rank bonuses and bring real panic, fear and assorted psychology tests back into the game.
There is now no reason to make big units, and easily broken units means piling a lot of resources into a single unit is a bad idea.

The real problem is doing in it a way that horde armies (gobbos, skaven, etc) are still functional afterwards.

Hoffa
18-05-2014, 08:16
It only requires one small fix really, make it so that disrupted units can not be steadfast. That is all that is needed. Now there is a risk with fielding very large units.

Another fix that is badly needed is to reduces the effectiveness of diverting, it is to hard to get infantry blocks into combat. Try facing avoidance DE* with an infantry based list and see how 6 turns can go by with out any combat.

*I'm talking about a list made of a mage bunker + multiple fast cav for core, max RBT for special and dual warlocks for rare. Rest of points are used on flying / fast cav characters. The army has a gazillion shoots, deadly magic, and lots of diverters. There is nothing in the list to fight. A game against this army feels more like 40k than fantasy.

Lorcryst
18-05-2014, 09:48
All I see here is a whinefest of people that want to go back to the horrible days of Cavalry-Hammer and Hero-Hammer ...

Steadfast is good, it allow mediocre troops to have a chance.

Step-up is in the same boat, gone are the days of "I charge, wipe the first rank, auto-win".

Hordes are a bit wierd, but please try to play Night Goblins or any of the weakest troops without that rule ... yes, that's right, you lose the game in the deployment phase against anything competent.

Also, small units are indeed viable in 8th Ed, you don't *need* Hordes to win ... a Warriors of Chaos army with a couple of chariots and a couple of 15-18 strong units of Chaos Warriors hits like a ton of bricks, for example, but yes, again, the weaker units in the game need the Horde and Steadfast rules to be remotely usefull (and then, only as tarpits until something hitty can flank charge and save them from a gory doom).

Most boxes sold currently give you a small but already usefull unit, with the exceptions of gobboes and skavens ... but even then, an unit of 20 Night Goblins with Full Command and Netters is quite solid ... yes, you need at least a couple of those to have a decent battleline, but it's true for every army.

Finally, huge games of 4000+ points are not the norm, try playing 1500-2000 points games, and you'll see far less Hordes ...

theunwantedbeing
18-05-2014, 10:08
"Elite" squad gimmick.
Pick a unit at the start of the game with no more than 20 models.
All models in the unit may attack as if they were in base contact.

There we go, small unit's are awesome now.
Also introduce random buffs for the general, and maybe unit's for no reason as that's a really great thing to have.

Wooo roll on 9th edition.

Urgat
18-05-2014, 10:25
Indeed, this topic clearly turned into a "I dislike steadfast" topic.
Which is stupid because you can be steadfast with only 10 models :rolleyes: But I can already hear people saying that it promotes a race to bigger numbers (I thought it was the guy using the gun who was dangerous, not the gun?). Well, that's easy enough. Allow steadfast only for stuff like skavens or goblins, chaos warriors or white lions have no business trying to be steadfast. And with that, rabble players won't feel the need to bring 80+strong units because someone decided he needed his elite hammer to outnumber some gobs. Genius!
More seriously, solution for smaller games? Well, d'huh. Make a "patrol" version of the army list on the other side of the spectrum compared to Grand Armies, with lower unit caps, restrictions on some unit sizes, etc.
Yeah, doesn't sound as good as "remove steadfast so my bloodcrushers can steamcatapult yor stuff out of the table on the charge", sure, but I'm still oddly partial to less one-sided solutions.

StygianBeach
18-05-2014, 10:51
Also introduce random buffs for the general, and maybe unit's for no reason as that's a really great thing to have.

Wooo roll on 9th edition.

General Buffs is an awesome idea, everyone like Virtues, Blood lines etc.. Random General Buffs on the other hand..... suck.
Hopefully 9th adds in some general skills Generals can take much like the common magic items. If done correctly it would be a good reason to take Fighters over Mages.

With regards to units today being so large, well with supporting attacks they have to be.
If supporting attacks were dropped the Strength 3 Infantry have become even more overcosted, Monstrous Cav would be more undercosted.

What I would like to see would be Steadfast removed and Supporting Attacks removed. To balance this change with regards to Elite vs Grunts.
In combat I would change the +1 combat resolution per wound to + combat resolution for more wounds inflicted.
+1 for more Ranks.
+1 for Outnumber (total number of wounds remaining within the unit).
Then you can keep your +1 for charges, flanks etc...

With the combat modifiers generally being so low Steadfast would not be necessary.

ihavetoomuchminis
18-05-2014, 12:03
I think all these problems could be fixed through limiting the maximum size of a unit according to the game points. P. ex. say......no unit, taking in account command and magical banners but no the characters inside this unit, can be more than 20% of the armies total points (random value of mine, but you get the point)

Another rule they could introduce is no allowing more than 2 characters in the same unit. Call it "leader's pride" or whatever.

Lorcryst
18-05-2014, 12:31
I think all these problems could be fixed through limiting the maximum size of a unit according to the game points. P. ex. say......no unit, taking in account command and magical banners but no the characters inside this unit, can be more than 20% of the armies total points (random value of mine, but you get the point)

Another rule they could introduce is no allowing more than 2 characters in the same unit. Call it "leader's pride" or whatever.

20% of 2000 points (standard game size around here) is 400 points ... with that I can take an unit of 100 Night Goblins, Full Command, Netters and 1 Fanatic ... doesn't really solve the "problem" of large units, eh ? And I don't even have enough points to reach the minimum of 25% Core ...

Frankly, I think the problem is more in the heads of the WAACers and optimizers, we're playing 1500-2000-3000 points games with my gaming group, and most of the time we use units between 15 and 30 strong, with some rare exceptions being the gobboes ... OK, I do have a Horded Squig Herd in my latest list (that I'll test this afternoon), composed of 30 Squigs and 20 Herders ... without armour of any kind and with Toughness 3, I WILL lose at least a third of that unit to the first round of shooting of my Dwarf opponent (unless he takes a full contact list).

ihavetoomuchminis
18-05-2014, 12:41
20% of 2000 points (standard game size around here) is 400 points ... with that I can take an unit of 100 Night Goblins, Full Command, Netters and 1 Fanatic ... doesn't really solve the "problem" of large units, eh ? And I don't even have enough points to reach the minimum of 25% Core ...

Frankly, I think the problem is more in the heads of the WAACers and optimizers, we're playing 1500-2000-3000 points games with my gaming group, and most of the time we use units between 15 and 30 strong, with some rare exceptions being the gobboes ... OK, I do have a Horded Squig Herd in my latest list (that I'll test this afternoon), composed of 30 Squigs and 20 Herders ... without armour of any kind and with Toughness 3, I WILL lose at least a third of that unit to the first round of shooting of my Dwarf opponent (unless he takes a full contact list).

Well, that was exactly my point. As i said 20% was a random value (it could be 15 or even 10 if you want), but the point is that it allows for big units of cheap models like goblins, slaves, empire soldiers.....and disallows hordes of WoC, WL and other things that, IMO, make the game boring and turn it into a dicefest. It would need a rebalance of some units, but the point stands.

Another problem i find in WHFB is the predominance of LD10 across the board, due to some special rules (Strength in numbers comes to mind), and the dreaded +1L banner that should be removed. And that's not only a problem due to steadfast, wich i find to be a great addition to the game, but it makes Fear, and psychology in a whole, secondary and useless, when it should be a valid tactic for some armies.

Clockwork
18-05-2014, 12:57
Really, the only problem that I see with big units are the points-denial consequences - and that can be fixed very easily with half VPs for units under 50%, without having the negative effect on the game that the removal of Steadfast, Step Up or Hordes would. Steadfast specifically is a necessary to curtail the worst extremes of armies of lone characters, monsters, chariots and monstrous cavalry. If you are having trouble breaking Steadfast, then you might want to consider a few less of those units and bringing along some cheap units to give you ranks.

I would, though, like to see Psychology playing a bigger effect again. In a similar fashion, I've sometimes wondered what it would be like to introduce Combat Resolution modifiers to ranged attacks. For instance, at the moment you just take an unmodified Leadership check at the over 25% mark - what if that Leadership check was modified like in combat, so you receive penalties for the number of wounds inflicted, but bonuses for ranks and other effects? Could make column (5 wide) formations more attractive over Hordes, at least in the early game, which is somewhat realistic. But would be a pain for small units, so I dunno.

English 2000
18-05-2014, 13:17
Lots of good thoughts here. Thanks guys.

Making disruption remove steadfast is something that gets discussed a lot around here. It would really up the level of medium sized cavalry units.

I myself have suggested a 2 character limit to eliminate death stars in the past. Coupled with half vps and vps for units fleeing at the end of the game and we might see the end of deathstars. Which means you can tone down magic because it will no longer be the only thing that can kill a deathstar.

I don't like the idea of removing steadfast entirely. Without major revisions it's going to mean the end of infantry. MC will just roll it in a single round.

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

English 2000
18-05-2014, 13:18
Edit for double post

snyggejygge
18-05-2014, 14:13
Make steadfast easier to disrupt. Make combat be the first rank only, step-up is nice & all & we don´t want the wipe 1 rank, no fighting back thing again, but why the second rank has to strike is beyond me (hordes would now fight in 2 ranks, making hordeformation a viable choice, but not as great as it is atm). Count victory Points per model killed, rather than having to kill the entire unit. Voila, no need for units of 40+ models everywhere.

Knifeparty
18-05-2014, 14:36
Stead fast and Step up are the two rules that make Fantasy work, if you get rid of them you might as well play another game. Fantasy is about large units (which it should be), deal with it.

If you remove stead fast all you're going to see is a bunch of cavalry steam roll everything into oblivion again. Stead Fast is the ONLY rule that makes light infantry viable, if you take it away then no one will ever take non-elite infantry again. Stop trying to remove an integral part of the game.

If you want to make smaller units viable then give them other options.

First, add other formations other than Horde. Things like shield wall, testudo etc.

Then give them movement bonuses. Small units are easier to manoeuvre in real life than a huge horde of men, Maybe a unit under a certain amount can make quick re-forms without testing, or add double-time where they increase their movement slightly if they march. Add in a larger charge arc to smaller units as they are able to turn and face more quickly than larger formations. Add +1 to the charge and flee distance rolled.

Small units should serve a purpose (IMO they already do). But don't **** on the functionality of the game just because you want some units to be more viable. The changes purposed regarding eliminating stead fast are a huge pendulum swing in the wrong direction. It makes infantry work, and I'm all for large scale battles with huge units. If you aren't, then this isn' t the right game for you.

Skywave
18-05-2014, 14:49
Let the unit with the highest rank bonus be steadfast (if a tie then nobody is steadfast).

I like the idea of steadfast going with rank bonus.

That would instantly eliminate the steadfast for a single rank of 5+ models versus a monster and the like. It would reduce the arms race of going bigger and bigger to get that steadfast with your 15 ranks versus your enemy's 12, you don't really need to go that big anymore. And it would allow expensive units a chance of getting it without going all deathstar with them (not all of the expensive units dominate the fights, and might need steadfast here and there when they loose).

Clockwork
18-05-2014, 15:09
That would instantly eliminate the steadfast for a single rank of 5+ models versus a monster and the like.

Why shouldn't units with a single rank be Steadfast against one monster, chariot or character?

theunwantedbeing
18-05-2014, 15:16
Why shouldn't units with a single rank be Steadfast against one monster, chariot or character?

Because it's stupid.

Skywave
18-05-2014, 15:54
Why shouldn't units with a single rank be Steadfast against one monster, chariot or character?

Because it's a gripe many have with the steadfast mechanic. I don't hate this "feature" personally, but I feel that a single rank doesn't represent "outnumbering" enough to make such unit steadfast in the game, so I wouldn't mind seeing it goes away.

Kingrick
18-05-2014, 17:18
so this is to Urgat and Lorcryst. I think you guys missed the point some people were trying to make. It's not a "whinefest" or a "hate steadfast" thread. It was asked what would make people take smaller units again, and the idea of dropping steadfast was one of them. I'm not saying I support that, I was just throwing out an idea that could work. I like steadfast, I like step-up. I like 8th edition a lot. I do however like the idea of half victory points, because point denial games can be frustrating, why shouldn't you get credit for almost killing a unit?

Just saying, you guys don't have to come in so abrasive, I know its the internet and that's what people do, but still

Knifeparty
18-05-2014, 17:54
I also support half victory points, there are a lot of extreme points denial units now. This would mitigate that.

Malagor
18-05-2014, 18:06
Where I play I see small units all the time. This naturally depends on the army, WoC and the Elven armies are often seen with MSU armies and they do very well for themselves.
My first and I would say main army is Beastmen and I go big with my gors, 2 units of 50 in each in horde formation. Against other horde armies they do well but against armies that aren't I do struggle since the damage output from say WoC is just insane. There is no way for me to win a straight fight with them unless the WoC rolls are horrible so I need steadfast just to keep them in the fight long enough to get support.
But on the other hand I also play Brets, where the infantry works in much of the same manner, keeping a opponent locked in place long enough for the cavalry to sarrive hence needing steadfast but the cavarly themselves however suffer from steadfast since they are very much depend on breaking the opponent on the turn they charged and with steadfast this is a very hard job to do.

Overall tho I think works fine now but would allow distruption to cancel steadfast but make it a bit harder to achieve, 10 gnoblars in 5x2 formation in the flank should not make a 50 man gor unit drop their horns for example.
It's a tough balance tho.

Kingrick
18-05-2014, 18:42
[/QUOTE]Overall tho I think works fine now but would allow distruption to cancel steadfast but make it a bit harder to achieve, 10 gnoblars in 5x2 formation in the flank should not make a 50 man gor unit drop their horns for example.
It's a tough balance tho.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, if they add a disruption it must be well thought out. Not sure of the exact way to do this, maybe if you outnumber them? Or give some units an elite rule that would allow to disrupt steadfast on a flank or rear charge? Those are just off the top of my head so not likely ideal

Clockwork
18-05-2014, 19:29
Because it's stupid.

From a fluff perspective or rules mechanics? If the former, then that might be justified - even though you can make the strong case that its meant to represent a formation maintaining its cohesion against a non-cohesive opponent, until its critically undermined and can no longer do so. But there are a ton of rules that don't make literal sense because they are abstractions.

Regardless, it works fine from a mechanics perspective because its a detriment to solo models running around rolling armies even more than they do at the moment. Just support your monsters, or accept that they might get held up by a ranked unit. This seems to me to be an acceptable compromise in the interest of balance.

Big Brother
18-05-2014, 19:29
Another thought, make hoards unable to march. Kinda fluffy in that it should be hard to get a hoard of fighters moving together, and would make it harder to get them to combat.

Pathstrider
18-05-2014, 19:35
Let the unit with the highest rank bonus be steadfast (if a tie then nobody is steadfast).
This is a great idea.

theunwantedbeing
18-05-2014, 20:05
From a fluff perspective or rules mechanics?

Both.
A handful of warriors have no reason to be holding up a Chariot, Monster or powerful Hero especially not after they just lost combat.
It's not a unit, it's just a handful of enemies rather than a coherent fighting force.

The net effect of deny steadfast on single rank units would be simple
Single rank units would be incapable of holding up certain enemies
Everyone else would be completely unchanged and we'de not see solo models rolling armies (not even armies of single rank troops).

But some people are so terrified of hero hammer returning that they oppose anything that makes single models a little more useful.

Von Wibble
18-05-2014, 20:11
Measure charges from the outside, rather than the inside, corner. Then hordes will have trouble charging anything other than straight ahead.

Let rank bonus go up to +5. Let the unit with the highest rank bonus be steadfast (if a tie then nobody is steadfast).

I agree with all of this.

GW would never do it as it doesn't sell models but unit caps are the most sensible approach.

And bring back half VPs for half destroyed units.

Also scenarios could do it. If each unit remaining in the army gave you VPs rather than each unit killed, you'd want more units rather than less.

Clockwork
18-05-2014, 20:16
Both.
A handful of warriors have no reason to be holding up a Chariot, Monster or powerful Hero especially not after they just lost combat.
It's not a unit, it's just a handful of enemies rather than a coherent fighting force.

The net effect of deny steadfast on single rank units would be simple
Single rank units would be incapable of holding up certain enemies
Everyone else would be completely unchanged and we'de not see solo models rolling armies (not even armies of single rank troops).

But some people are so terrified of hero hammer returning that they oppose anything that makes single models a little more useful.
.

See, right here we're going to be running into problems. When is a handful not a handful? Is there a 1:1 scale representation? If so, these armies are pretty small and unrealistic anyway. If not, then we accept we're dealing with an abstraction, that there's more warriors there than there are models representing them, and the whole point is moot.

What's the difference between 5 guys holding a Chariot up through a Steadfast check, or 4 guys holding it up through Insane Courage or passing their Break test? Should infantry just auto-break against certain kinds of units? I'm not sure what your point was getting at here.

I still don't see a legitimate gameplay reason for changing it. Its not like single models are unpopular. Like I said, just support them with ranks.

Hengist
18-05-2014, 20:36
Standardised unit sizes with a certain number of "hit points" would mean a boxed set of unit x is all you need for a fully combat effective unit, but that would over simplify the game ala Battlemasters. We would lose the flexibility and variety we have now. Another negative in my books.

What are your thoughts on what might happen?
I haven't played WFB in a long time, so I'm not all that well-placed to comment on 8th ed.'s problems (nor indeed on 7th's), but I'd be wholly in favour of abandoning ranks in favour of standardised unit footprints; it's how both Warmaster and Hail Caesar handle unit sizes, and both are tactically deeper mass battle systems than WFB has ever been.

Spiney Norman
18-05-2014, 20:51
There are a couple of very easy steps to reducing overall unit size.

Firstly ditch the horde rule, stop encouraging people to field large units just for the sake of it. Perhaps make 'horde' a USR that some units have (like goblins, Skaven etc) which represents less-disciplined troops which allows them to fight in more ranks but never count as steadfast or something.

Then simply add upper limits on unit sizes, 10 for cavalry units, 20 for most infantry would be fine, with perhaps 30 for lower quality troops like Night goblins and Skaven etc.

Ironically its not like the horde rules really help the viability of low-quality troops, all they accomplish is to make high-quality troops into potential absurd death-star builds.

Lorcryst
18-05-2014, 20:54
Mea Culpa, I was indeed too abrasive in my previous posts ... to explain that a bit, I have a very painfull physical wound in my nether region, and in the mornings before ointments and painkillers, it affects my mood ... sorry about that :p

Remember that in the current rules, "dead or fled" is there, so an unit fleeing in the last turn of the game does give it's Victory Points.

I totally agree about half-VPs for half-destroyed units, even if it would mean that I would lose even more games (my Daemons and Night Goblins tend to suffer horribly against my usual opponents, Dwarves and Warriors of Chaos).

Steadfast could, maybe, benefit from a few tweaks, yes, but it's currently the only incentive to take mediocre infantry in a meta full of Monstrous Cavalry, ultra-hitty elite infantry and Blender/Unkillable Lords ... and keep in mind that said Steadfast mediocre infantry won't usually kill something on their own, they need another "hammer" unit to come to their help.

And that promotes a mixed, MSU-hammers with Horde-anvils, approach to the game ... WFB was always about armies fighting as a whole, even in the days were you had comparatively few models on the table ... mega-horde-deathstars don't play in a void, there are counters to them (nasty magic, redirectors, swamping them in loads of mediocre troops, etc), and if they don't kill at least their worth in points, they're not usefull ...

Lorcryst
18-05-2014, 20:59
Then simply add upper limits on unit sizes, 10 for cavalry units, 20 for most infantry would be fine, with perhaps 30 for lower quality troops like Night goblins and Skaven etc.

Second post only for this specifically : as a Night Goblin player, units of 20 without any Command or Netters are only a Fanatics delivery system, and Fanatics ARE NOT the biggest threat in the Warhammer World ... you really need at least 40 gobboes in a combat block to reach the enemy lines, and against a hard hitting gunline like the one I fought this afternoon, 80+ would have allowed me to cross the median line of the table (yes, I was massacred in three turns, Animosity wrecked my Horde of Squigs, my Manglers were shot to bits by Organ Guns, and my big unit of 45 gobboes lost 20 members from the first shot of a Grudge Thrower, then fled with my General, BSB and L4 Great Shaman in it).

some_scrub
19-05-2014, 00:08
Remember that in the current rules, "dead or fled" is there, so an unit fleeing in the last turn of the game does give it's Victory Points.


Apologies if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but the rule is Dead or Fled, not Dead or Fleeing. Units that are fleeing at the end of the game are not worth any VPs.
(Thus the frequent flee reactions in the bottom of turn 6).

As long as the game uses "Who let more points of their models die?" as the main or sole criterion for determining the outcome of the game, points denial is going to be a key element of almost every strategy. The main problem I see regarding unit sizes in the game right now is the use of massive units for points denial. It doesn't really make any sense and basically only works because the system for totalling up VPs at the end of the game is a bit too simple. Even going back to the 7th ed rule in this one spot would be a big help to the game.

People using tons of bad or mediocre models to have the best combat units via the Steadfast and Horde rules has mostly gone away, in my experience. Now that there has been a huge increase in the availability of troops with lot of armor saves and/or good attacks throughout the 8th ed books, I've pretty much stopped seeing those stupid games with 3 blocks against 3 blocks.

That said, I'd still love to see some sort of supplement for smaller games (under 1000 points, say) and there you'd probably need to think up some clever ways to encourage a bunch of smaller units and make sure the games have enough moving pieces to stay interesting.

Ramius4
19-05-2014, 00:45
Units that are fleeing at the end of the game are not worth any VPs.

Yes they are. Check your rulebook.

some_scrub
19-05-2014, 00:48
Yes they are. Check your rulebook.

Little Rulebook pg 143:

"Dead or Fled

Each enemy unit that has been destroyed or has fled the table is worth a number of victory points equal to ..."

English 2000
19-05-2014, 00:53
Yes they are. Check your rulebook.

Nope, not according to my rulebook. It hasn't been that way since 7th ed.

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

SuperHappyTime
19-05-2014, 03:34
So why do threads that complain about unit size always turn into ragefests about removing steadfast? It always happens because reducing unit size doesn't solve the problem of having to buy, paint, and use 100+ models for a 2500 point game. Playing 1000 point games instead does, and is why I insist GW promote and balance armies to make them playable at the 1000 points level.

Colonel Mayhem
19-05-2014, 06:19
I know this is probably very much dependent on your group, but in my experience dropping the army sizes to 2000 pts drastically reduces the amount of large units people bring.

Wesser
19-05-2014, 06:58
Mmm

With armies such as High Elves and Wood Elves we're already seeing smaller unit armies.

At least in my gaming group the tendency for very large units is waning, and really big units only seem prevalent with Undead, Empire and Skaven. I think it's good that some such armies still exist, and no action is really needed.

Lastavenger
19-05-2014, 07:50
I get that there are some problematic units, like skaven slaves, but do we really need smaller units? Currently some armies look like bunch of heroes and their drinking buddies want to kick someones @ss for looking funny at them. Heck even football riots have more participants than most of "epic fantasy battles". Want smaller units, play smaller games.

WLBjork
19-05-2014, 07:53
Part of the problem is linked to scaleability.

A horde of 50 Chaos Warriors is unreasonable in a 2000pt game. The same unit at 5000pts is much more manageable.

I think the simplest solution as others have suggested is to cap units at 15-20% of the agreed points limit.

That allows cheap infantry to be taken in big blocks, whilst limiting the number of models in a unit proportionally to the size of the game.

Urgat
19-05-2014, 08:13
so this is to Urgat and Lorcryst. I think you guys missed the point some people were trying to make. It's not a "whinefest" or a "hate steadfast" thread. It was asked what would make people take smaller units again, and the idea of dropping steadfast was one of them. I'm not saying I support that, I was just throwing out an idea that could work. I like steadfast, I like step-up. I like 8th edition a lot. I do however like the idea of half victory points, because point denial games can be frustrating, why shouldn't you get credit for almost killing a unit?
Coz every such thread gets the two or three ideas against steadfast when steadfast is not an offender. The same ideas repeated again and again years after years. You'd get abrasive too if someone repeated year after years that, dunno, your elite should be all capped at 1 attack each because more makes them remove other troops too fast.
I'm not for half VP either: it is just as unfair to get no point for killing 29 gobs in a unit of 60. I'm for point for point VP. If you kill 17 marauders and the champion in a unit of 30 marauders, you get their points (as in AB point cost) as VP. So whatever you kill, you get points for. Of course, non-kill VP need to be adjusted accordingly.

Oh, another of those "but why are you so abrasive?!?" posts, courtesy of Urgat, incoming after the brea-her, quote:

Then simply add upper limits on unit sizes, 10 for cavalry units, 20 for most infantry would be fine, with perhaps 30 for lower quality troops like Night goblins and Skaven etc.
"Hello, I've reintroduced unit caps. I get 20 chaos warriors, you get 30 gobs. Deal?"

baransiege
19-05-2014, 09:02
Well, that was exactly my point. As i said 20% was a random value (it could be 15 or even 10 if you want), but the point is that it allows for big units of cheap models like goblins, slaves, empire soldiers.....and disallows hordes of WoC, WL and other things that, IMO, make the game boring and turn it into a dicefest. It would need a rebalance of some units, but the point stands.


It's impossible to make a percentage sized system like that which prevents huge 100 man units of cheap stuff like Slaves and still allows people to take things like Monstrous Cavalry.

ihavetoomuchminis
19-05-2014, 10:08
Coz every such thread gets the two or three ideas against steadfast when steadfast is not an offender. The same ideas repeated again and again years after years. You'd get abrasive too if someone repeated year after years that, dunno, your elite should be all capped at 1 attack each because more makes them remove other troops too fast.
I'm not for half VP either: it is just as unfair to get no point for killing 29 gobs in a unit of 60. I'm for point for point VP. If you kill 17 marauders and the champion in a unit of 30 marauders, you get their points (as in AB point cost) as VP. So whatever you kill, you get points for. Of course, non-kill VP need to be adjusted accordingly.

Oh, another of those "but why are you so abrasive?!?" posts, courtesy of Urgat, incoming after the brea-her, quote:

"Hello, I've reintroduced unit caps. I get 20 chaos warriors, you get 30 gobs. Deal?"

Im with you in the camp of point for point VP. Point you kill point you get. This would fix too the deathstars...as there is no point denial....and few big elite units configurstion would be a bad idea...as the opponent could concentrste fire in the deathstar and scratch points. MSU will be more prevalent...as it offers more targets to the opponent, and the game will be more tactical. It would need the removal of some nighly unkillable characters....but its needed anyway (im looking at you nurgle dp).

Im all for it.

Voss
19-05-2014, 10:15
Stead fast and Step up are the two rules that make Fantasy work, if you get rid of them you might as well play another game. Fantasy is about large units (which it should be), deal with it.

If you remove stead fast all you're going to see is a bunch of cavalry steam roll everything into oblivion again. Stead Fast is the ONLY rule that makes light infantry viable, if you take it away then no one will ever take non-elite infantry again. Stop trying to remove an integral part of the game.

If you want to make smaller units viable then give them other options.

First, add other formations other than Horde. Things like shield wall, testudo etc.

Then give them movement bonuses. Small units are easier to manoeuvre in real life than a huge horde of men, Maybe a unit under a certain amount can make quick re-forms without testing, or add double-time where they increase their movement slightly if they march. Add in a larger charge arc to smaller units as they are able to turn and face more quickly than larger formations. Add +1 to the charge and flee distance rolled.

Small units should serve a purpose (IMO they already do). But don't **** on the functionality of the game just because you want some units to be more viable. The changes purposed regarding eliminating stead fast are a huge pendulum swing in the wrong direction. It makes infantry work, and I'm all for large scale battles with huge units. If you aren't, then this isn' t the right game for you.
This is probably the most absurd argument I've seen in a long time, for the simple fact that both rules didn't exist before 8th edition. Are you saying that 7 editions of warhammer simply didn't function?

boli
19-05-2014, 10:49
This is probably the most absurd argument I've seen in a long time, for the simple fact that both rules didn't exist before 8th edition. Are you saying that 7 editions of warhammer simply didn't function?

If you wanted cavalry or a hero on a dragon to crash into unit after unit and win without a scratch then fantasy *did* work; however if you actually want sustained combat with lots of casualties on both sides before one side finally breaks then no, it did not.

Before Step Up and Steadfast if a hero charged into a unit and did 4 kills (and removed the first rank so no-one could attack back) then regardless if the unit size was 10 or 1000 that unit would be checking a breaktest at -1... add in a small unit of cavalry as a bunker or a dragon and you can reduce that to such an extent that a unit 1,000 would almost always auto-fail combat with a single hero in a group of 5 knights charging into their front.

The people who hate steadfast and stepup are people who played a lot of the herohammer and cavalry hammer where it was *all* about the charge if you got the charge you won if you didn't you died. the bigger monsters you could buy, the more cavalry you could get and the more elite your army the better your chances of winning were.

warhammer as a skirmish battle with small MSU units worked before 8th edition; now you fight real battles where numbers count more than +1-+3 to the combat resolution (which if you did not get to fight back it was meaningless)

Fear Ghoul
19-05-2014, 11:37
This is probably the most absurd argument I've seen in a long time, for the simple fact that both rules didn't exist before 8th edition. Are you saying that 7 editions of warhammer simply didn't function?

8th edition is arguably the first edition of Fantasy that works properly since at least 3rd edition, as it is gives a purpose to almost every unit type in the game and is the most balanced.

theunwantedbeing
19-05-2014, 12:00
This is probably the most absurd argument I've seen in a long time, for the simple fact that both rules didn't exist before 8th edition. Are you saying that 7 editions of warhammer simply didn't function?

Seems to be.
Of course everyone seems to be forgetting all the other rules in 7th edition that don't exist now that also helped small, fast & powerful units be so dominant.

ie.
They pursued 3D6" while the infantry unit they just beat fled only 2D6"
The army slot selection process defeated much of the point of bothering with a battle standard bearer
A lack of powerful ballistic skill based shooting

7th ed functioned brilliantly, things only really fell apart when the power creep started getting silly.

English 2000
19-05-2014, 14:27
I haven't played WFB in a long time, so I'm not all that well-placed to comment on 8th ed.'s problems (nor indeed on 7th's), but I'd be wholly in favour of abandoning ranks in favour of standardised unit footprints; it's how both Warmaster and Hail Caesar handle unit sizes, and both are tactically deeper mass battle systems than WFB has ever been.

Hi Hengist,
Could you explain how the systems in Warmasters and Hail Ceasar work and what makes them tactically deeper for you?

One of the things I've found with historical gamers is that they often equate tactical depth with the complexity of the rules. Something that I don't agree with. I think you can have simple rules and tactically interesting games. What level of complexity are the Warmaster and Hail Ceasar rules compared to Warhammer?

How is the balance? I heard back in the day from many people that Warmaster was horribly broken and it all came down to leadership rolls. I never got to try it myself... I was too busy with Warhammer, 40k, Battlefleet Gothic and Blood Bowl to try another system.

I know you said you haven't played warhammer in a long time. 8th edition warhammer has more streamlined rules than previous editions, much better balance between and within armies (yes there are some exceptions, but mostly armies are balanced). In terms of the tactics I'd say it's better than previous editions that relied me heavily on your ability to guess ranges. I think you can reasonably compare the tactical depth of the games you play vs the editions of warhammer it last played without anyone saying "oh but warhammer is soooo tactical now".



Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

Verm1s
19-05-2014, 14:46
the power creep started getting silly.

Looking at steadfast arguments and apology over the last few days, I think that's the real problem. Not so much that cheap infantry is useless without steadfast, but that too much else has gone on a goofy spiral. Despite claims to the contrary it's still a game of herohammer (with added monsterhammer) and absurdly, it's the poor bloody infantry that's become out of place in Warhammer*. Pity they had to use yet another sticking plaster to try to fix a symptom, rather than treat the illness. But then too many players would whine about losing 'character' and 'variety' if their uber-killy monster or unit of doom didn't get a couple dozen special rules and rerolls.

*It is a game of a bunch of heroes and their drinking buddies, Lastavenger. The rules - basically the same skirmish rules focussing on individual minis and their special exceptions since the earliest editions - and the required area, effort and cost of building up 28mm armies (creaking up to 35mm+ and with bigger and bigger monsters, contraptions and hordes, at GW's prices no less) make truly big games prohibitive or at least off-putting for all but GW's devoted hard core. You want a game of 'epic fantasy battles', put aside your Warhammer action figures and play Warmaster.

Knifeparty
19-05-2014, 14:52
This is probably the most absurd argument I've seen in a long time, for the simple fact that both rules didn't exist before 8th edition. Are you saying that 7 editions of warhammer simply didn't function?

Actually, your defence of 7th edition is the most absurd comment i've seen in a long time. See what I did there?

If you think it's absurd then you haven't played a single game of 7th. The only way infantry functioned at all is when they had either 4+ regen, a Ward save/regen/armour save/frenzy/stubborn/poison attacks (Chosen of Chaos), or ASF.

All you had to do was charge with an uber unit into anything and win. You can't do that anymore. Good.

If it functioned brilliantly, then why did nobody take any kind of infantry beyond the obvious Black Guard, Chosen, Grave Guard.

You needed to be stubborn or unbreakable to even stand a chance.

Timathius
19-05-2014, 15:29
I have to agree with Avian's way of dealing with steadfast.

but, to be honest, in the last 15-20 games I have not seen the large unit spam from early edition. Smaller units are back on the rise, without capping (which imo is terrible). I think that people realized that while they put out a ton of damage/ can be steadfast forever they are harder to manuever. There is also artillery and magic to consider as well as being very good deterrents.

all in all, I really believe that horde armies will still make good use of their large units. And they should, as it is the point of their army. But more elite armies are coming back around to smaller units.

Lastavenger
19-05-2014, 15:31
You want a game of 'epic fantasy battles', put aside your Warhammer action figures and play Warmaster. I would if someone near me play WM. Heck I was even thinking about using Ogniem i Mieczem (You may know it under "By Fire and Sword") rules and models and with some tweekings (stats, additional rules, etc.) playing it in WFB universe. Neither to say I didn't ended project because lack of time and attention. I really like how in OiM you can't take elite units unless you play bigger battles and even then they are really limited. There are some list that allow you to take elites in skirmish battle but they are rare and in some cases limited.

Verm1s
19-05-2014, 16:03
I'm not Hengist, but...



One of the things I've found with historical gamers is that they often equate tactical depth with the complexity of the rules. Something that I don't agree with.

Strange, because the thing I find is that they generally don't. Or maybe, while I know there are a few rulesets and old grognards that go in for high granularity and reams of tables, that's not what I look for - and it's falling out of favour in general, AFAIK - and it's not what I've found in Warmaster and the three Warlord Games books that are based on it. In fact, the simplicity is what attracted me away from Warhammer.

On the subject of simplicity and complexity, the best response I've heard was from someone here on Warseer, IIRC: there's a difference between complexity and complication. Or as I heard Epic: Armageddon described: easy to learn (not complicated), hard to master. (complex)
The Warmaster 'family' concentrates on units, of course, and pares stats, mechanics and modifiers down to a degree that, as I mentioned, would probably make the average Warhammer player's blood run cold. But it runs quick and smooth - the swords 'n' shields equivalent of the anecdote of playing a full game of E:A and packing up while a nearby game of 40K Apocalypse was still on it's first turn. The basic statline and some simple USRs take care of almost every aspect of a unit.

At the same time, tactics go beyond listbuilding your general's magic item loadout and trying to pull off a flank charge somewhere. Adjacent units support eachother, or deny an enemy unit's support. Gun units in Pike & Shotte and Black Powder can perform enfilading fire. Disrupted units have limited actions until they can reorder themselves. Formations and terrain mean something other than rank bonuses or coming to life and eating your troops. Leaders lead, issuing orders to units or groups of units; but can blunder those orders, making you think about managing your resources (available commanders and their potential orders) risk vs. reward, and contingency plans. (Though one of my best gaming moments was when I blundered an order in an American Civil War game. The gun crew I tried to command promptly picked up their piece and ran full pelt towards the enemy lines...) It's all relatively simple but allows players to gradually (or quickly) delve into the complexity of the battlefield, rather than be thrown into the deep end of a complicated list of special unit and character rules, etc. ;)

As an example, a historical gaming club I joined had a wee Dark Ages tourney with Warhammer Ancient Battles. I chose Saxons, and built up a small army for the tourney.
Historically, groups of Saxon thegns (thanes, well armoured, trained nobles) would lead ceorls (churls, poorly equipped peasants) from the front. WAB represents this by allowing you to split units of thegns in two, with each half forming the front ranks of a combined unit with ceorls, and lending their Ld to the entire unit while they last. All well and good, but when shot at, hits are randomised, and combat to the front removes thegns first. So try picking back-ranks thegns out of what's essentially the middle of the unit and pushing ceorls up into individual gaps. (especially with the randomly-protruding spears of some manufacturers' minis) What a faff.
Hail Caesar's solution? One of the few special rules in the game. A medium unit of thegns and a medium unit of ceorls combine into one large unit. It fights as thegns until it's shaken, then it fights as ceorls. Simples.


How is the balance? I heard back in the day from many people that Warmaster was horribly broken and it all came down to leadership rolls.

Y'whaa...? I take it you mean blundered orders? The worst complaint I've heard about about the game is that unlimited pursuit moves can take a unit right across the table in one turn, but that's easily houseruled. (And was fixed for Hail Caesar et al.)

Kingrick
19-05-2014, 16:10
Coz every such thread gets the two or three ideas against steadfast when steadfast is not an offender. The same ideas repeated again and again years after years. You'd get abrasive too if someone repeated year after years that, dunno, your elite should be all capped at 1 attack each because more makes them remove other troops too fast.
I'm not for half VP either: it is just as unfair to get no point for killing 29 gobs in a unit of 60. I'm for point for point VP. If you kill 17 marauders and the champion in a unit of 30 marauders, you get their points (as in AB point cost) as VP. So whatever you kill, you get points for. Of course, non-kill VP need to be adjusted accordingly.

Oh, another of those "but why are you so abrasive?!?" posts, courtesy of Urgat, incoming after the brea-her, quote:

"Hello, I've reintroduced unit caps. I get 20 chaos warriors, you get 30 gobs. Deal?"

I do like the VP for what you kill idea, I doubt GW would implement it, but it would be better. They seem to like to keep things as simple as possible, like we can't do math or something.

You catch more flies with honey..... but you would probably catch even more with manure... so fling away my friend

Kingrick
19-05-2014, 16:17
Mea Culpa, I was indeed too abrasive in my previous posts ... to explain that a bit, I have a very painfull physical wound in my nether region, and in the mornings before ointments and painkillers, it affects my mood ... sorry about that :p

Remember that in the current rules, "dead or fled" is there, so an unit fleeing in the last turn of the game does give it's Victory Points.

I totally agree about half-VPs for half-destroyed units, even if it would mean that I would lose even more games (my Daemons and Night Goblins tend to suffer horribly against my usual opponents, Dwarves and Warriors of Chaos).

Steadfast could, maybe, benefit from a few tweaks, yes, but it's currently the only incentive to take mediocre infantry in a meta full of Monstrous Cavalry, ultra-hitty elite infantry and Blender/Unkillable Lords ... and keep in mind that said Steadfast mediocre infantry won't usually kill something on their own, they need another "hammer" unit to come to their help.

And that promotes a mixed, MSU-hammers with Horde-anvils, approach to the game ... WFB was always about armies fighting as a whole, even in the days were you had comparatively few models on the table ... mega-horde-deathstars don't play in a void, there are counters to them (nasty magic, redirectors, swamping them in loads of mediocre troops, etc), and if they don't kill at least their worth in points, they're not usefull ...


Thanks mate, hopefully you have a speedy recovery.

I truly don't believe that steadfast and step up are bad things, and I agree with your points that it gives mediocre units a purpose. I do agree that the death stars can be risky, which is why I typically don't field them, that and it isn't fun to move up a couple of units all game and just hope you wreck every.

tenebre
19-05-2014, 16:17
we routinely play 3k-4k sized games and we never have too many models or units. We simply take "better" and more expensive units that cant fit into the small 2k games. Even with hordes the "better" units tend to mow through them like knife on butter. Now we always play theme lists and none of us partake in the mathhammer philosophy, but i haven't seen any problems with steadfast. Higher point also allows for devastating attacks against those "run away" armies because you can afford both solid troops and backup plans.

boli
19-05-2014, 17:27
The reason I love 8th is this little simple maths

a humble clanrat is 5 points with spear and shield
a haughty high elf spearman is 9 points.

by rights the HE unit shoudl kill just over two clanrats before he falls.

3+ to hit rerollable = 88% hit rate
4+ to hit = 50% hit rate

OK, so far the clanrat has the edge... but lets deploy them both in horde formation: (50HE, 90SK - exactly the same points cost)

with 5 HE ranks attacking = 4.44 hits
with 4 SK ranks attacking = 2 hits

without Step Up and steadfast the Skaven would flee after never getting to strike - with it they strike back and this becomes a much closer fight (although edging with the HEs in the end)... its still not truely balanced but its a lot closer than it used to be; and even (when) the HEs win... they'll be severely mauled to such an extent that they will not be able to be a credible threat on the battlefield after - unlike in previous editions they would take no wounds.

I know which edition I would prefer... and whlist those are large units sizes they are just an example of combat being "fairer" and "bloodier"

Katastrophe
19-05-2014, 19:52
The reason I love 8th is this little simple maths

a humble clanrat is 5 points with spear and shield
a haughty high elf spearman is 9 points.

by rights the HE unit shoudl kill just over two clanrats before he falls.

3+ to hit rerollable = 88% hit rate
4+ to hit = 50% hit rate

OK, so far the clanrat has the edge... but lets deploy them both in horde formation: (50HE, 90SK - exactly the same points cost)

with 5 HE ranks attacking = 4.44 hits
with 4 SK ranks attacking = 2 hits

without Step Up and steadfast the Skaven would flee after never getting to strike - with it they strike back and this becomes a much closer fight (although edging with the HEs in the end)... its still not truely balanced but its a lot closer than it used to be; and even (when) the HEs win... they'll be severely mauled to such an extent that they will not be able to be a credible threat on the battlefield after - unlike in previous editions they would take no wounds.

I know which edition I would prefer... and whlist those are large units sizes they are just an example of combat being "fairer" and "bloodier"

So in order for your example to work and you needed to make the HE build a unit in a form they never should. A 450 point HE spear unit even in a 2500 point army is nonsensical. Thats the problem with the edition and the advent of step up, horde and steadfast; none of those rules work to make the game more tactical.

If steadfast was limited to a units unmodified leadership, it would actually make much more sense. If there is a character in the unit putting himself at risk and keeping the unit from running, that makes far more sense that inspiring presence creating a tarpit from a unit that should be broken and running rather than dying to the man (I'm looking at you Skaven Slaves). If they had to test on the low leadership, it'd mean they were unreliable as a tarpit, which is what they are supposed to be, unreliable troops that create a speed bump for the enemy not a unit that can hold them up indefinitely. Steadfast also needs to have the same disruption rules as ranks. The whole idea of flank and rear attacks wasn't to necessary overwhelm the enemy but to break their formation. Feels bad when you are facing one way and someone is cutting down your buddies from another. Breaking units and having them run was fundamental the game for 7 editions, not just the ability to kill as many members of the unit as possible.

as for step up, it totally destroyed the efficacy of glass cannon units far more than it did knight units. You can still use knights, you just have to make the units bigger (which is a waste, but whatever). Elite good attack units now die to steadfast stepping up troops because they always get hit back. If stepping up was limited to 2 ranks it would at least be more palatable in that most units won't kill the first two ranks even if they thin out the first.

Horde, I've no real issue with but I did not think it was a necessary change. Had the old rules for wheeling and charging still existed, the Horde would be perfect as it would be sacrificing maneuverability for extra attacks. As it stands, there is no real sacrifice for taking that formation (particularly since you will likely steadfast as well).

baransiege
19-05-2014, 20:09
Breaking units and having them run was fundamental the game for 7 editions, not just the ability to kill as many members of the unit as possible.


Most the combat enders in my group come from running the enemy down, just as in 7th. Just watched a Dark Elf player yesterday use small elite units to roll up an army of huge units of Skaven.

Alltaken
19-05-2014, 21:12
I havent read half of the thread after so many "I love 7th charge = win" undercover posts, and the "I cant deal with stead fast tarpits" posts.
Steadfast and step up gave infantry a role again! They're really good solutions. Steadfast needs to be disruptible crearly and we all know it and have spoken so before.
Posible small changes include heavy cav with a rank disrupting, steadfast working only when you have 2 more ranks than the oponent, first rank never counts, etc. All of the valid, and really considerable after extensive play test from various players.

Whats making my mind bussy now is the concept of attacks and units to try to balance things out.
Crearly the problem with infantry is damage out put and quality level. The smaller you get the more useless core infantry gets, and the more elite infantry shine.
Hordes bring about the extra rank attack which seems to be redeeming quality for horde armies, but in the end it isnt actually I pretty much helps that hit hard so you can wound more.
So the problem is the amount of attacks cheap units get.
A posible unpolished idea is:
-fight in 2 ranks allways.
-4 ranks fight with an extra rank (3 ranks fight).
-6 ranks fight with an extra rank (4 ranks fight).

The purpose is to allow for cheapers to fight back through numbers, variations like 1/3 of the unit can attack (allways 2 ranks regardless of the 1/3), I dont think 1/2 because that again favours elites.

I think a combination of allowing buses to work better, nefing slightly Steadfast (the unmodified unit ld and other ideas like bonuses are interesting ideas to toy with) are the way to go to get sort of smaller units with out throwing out the great aditions of stead fast and step up.

Also víctory points for half a unit is a must. I would prefer point for point, but I rather not play account Hammer too. Half a unit (round down) is still good for me. And units currently running away by turn 6

From my servoskull

Urgat
19-05-2014, 21:48
If steadfast was limited to a units unmodified leadership, it would actually make much more sense.

That again. Sorry, I'll make it short.
1) steadfast is there for low Ld units to stick around even after a beating (seems you don't see it that way, but heh). Even with reroll, Ld5 gobs won't stick around if they have to test, they'll run.
2) steadfast is not something you choose, it's something that happens. 10 warriors can be steadfast just as easily as 100.
3) in short, forced steadfast + no Inspiring Presence = all cheap, low ld troops shelfed because they're punished the moment they outrank anything and take one wound too much. So people can just happily bring back the lone blenders and knight units and just play tag with every other enemy units in the game, coz they only need to win by 1 and the unit will autopop. Marvelous.



I would prefer point for point, but I rather not play account Hammer too.

That's what we do where I play (so to be honest I don't really care if they ever implement it or not), it's really trivial compared to list writing, usually it's just a matter of taking the armylists and counting stuff.

Charistoph
20-05-2014, 04:44
Also víctory points for half a unit is a must. I would prefer point for point, but I rather not play account Hammer too. Half a unit (round down) is still good for me. And units currently running away by turn 6

Sadly, this would encourage larger units, rather than smaller. After all, which is harder to get to half, 20 or 60?

On the other hand, allowing larger units to be easier to hit from range, especially for Volley Fire, could be a consideration. Large units are already easily hit by war machines and charges, this just adds to it. Is it perfect? No, but it's a start.

Steadfast also needs to be addressed, but not as severely as some seem to think. Disruption should have an affect, but it should require a larger unit, proportionally, than basic Disruption.

Sexiest_hero
20-05-2014, 05:31
I love big units, of everything, why do people feel the need to limit that. I feel that cannons are over the top I like big monsters but I just have to do what I can. Hordes can be rough to deal with but so can warmachines, 6th spells and what ever else WAAC players think of. The issue is not the game. Don't think of fixes for the system when the issue is the players. As soon as you fix one rule they will bend another. We strive for perfect balance in our games but not our gamers. The real issue of steadfast isn't on the table, it's in the mirror.

dalezzz
20-05-2014, 08:06
On the other hand, allowing larger units to be easier to hit from range, especially for Volley Fire, could be a consideration. Large units are already easily hit by war machines and charges, this just adds to it. Is it perfect? No, but it's a start.

.

this sounds like a nice little boost to ranged shooting , I like it , quite a lot :)

Urgat
20-05-2014, 09:03
Yeah, large units being easier to shoot izs a good idea, but how? Most ideas that come to me are either a pain to use or awkward. Well I got plenty of reasons to want unit strength back, that would be one more.

Verm1s
20-05-2014, 09:29
The issue is not the game. Don't think of fixes for the system when the issue is the players. As soon as you fix one rule they will bend another. We strive for perfect balance in our games but not our gamers. The real issue of steadfast isn't on the table, it's in the mirror.

Man.

I'll just say: who's bending what? Players just use what GW offers them in spades.

Urgat
20-05-2014, 11:03
Ah, the good old "it's not the gun that kills, it's the people using them" :p

dalezzz
20-05-2014, 11:12
Yeah, large units being easier to shoot izs a good idea, but how? Most ideas that come to me are either a pain to use or awkward. Well I got plenty of reasons to want unit strength back, that would be one more.


Yeah , can't actually think of a good easy method of implementing it right now :) sure someone will come up with something

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2014, 11:34
Yeah, large units being easier to shoot izs a good idea, but how? Most ideas that come to me are either a pain to use or awkward.

+1 bonus to hit hordes when shooting using ballistic skill.

Unit strength can be much like it used to be.
Infantry = 1
Cavalry = 2
MI/MC = 3
Monsters = however many wounds they have +1 if they have one or more riders

Highest unit strength unit is steadfast.

Avian
20-05-2014, 12:03
Yeah, large units being easier to shoot izs a good idea, but how?
Units in horde formation can't benefit from cover.

Urgat
20-05-2014, 12:52
+1 bonus to hit hordes when shooting using ballistic skill.

Units in horde formation can't benefit from cover.

But why only horde? You can have pretty small hordes, I can have giganormous goblin busses that would deserve the malus more.

Avian
20-05-2014, 12:59
"Deserve" me here and "deserve" me there. You can't make rules for everything and if my suggestion for Steadfast was adopted, that Goblin bus wouldn't be so great to begin with. And at SOME point, the cost you sink into Goblins have to be worth it, and that point certainly isn't with smaller units.

My "shoot at hordes" suggestions works all right and is easily implementable - that beats any ten high-flying ideas you can think of. :p

Urgat
20-05-2014, 13:51
Didn't you just suggest rank bonus up to 5+ or something?
Anyway, I'd bring back US and say any unit above US30 suffers +1 to hit. Pretty simple.
I'd also use US for a whole load of other things.

Avian
20-05-2014, 14:12
Didn't you just suggest rank bonus up to 5+ or something?
Rank bonus up to +5 max. You're Steadfast if your rank bonus is higher than all your enemies'. If it's equal or lower then you're not.

So if the Gobbos have 10 ranks and you have 6, nobody's Steadfast.




Anyway, I'd bring back US and say any unit above US30 suffers +1 to hit. Pretty simple.
Oh, come on. It's not at all simple to add a classification to ALL units in this game. And what exactly would you be using it for?

boli
20-05-2014, 14:48
Rank bonus up to +5 max. You're Steadfast if your rank bonus is higher than all your enemies'. If it's equal or lower then you're not.

So if the Gobbos have 10 ranks and you have 6, nobody's Steadfast.

That would just encourage "buses" say you take a unit of 40 white lions (in 5x8) and you crash it into anything.. .as long as you take less than 11 casualties you can pretty much autobreak any unit on the table.

8th moved away from autobreaking which is a GOOD THING. there is a reason the power creep happened in the first place - as for years the more elite a unit was - the better it was on the battlefield; so each subsequent book gave better and more powerful units. 8th brought home the numbers game where you *can* overwhelm a smaller elite force with manpower.

Ramius4
20-05-2014, 14:58
That would just encourage "buses" say you take a unit of 40 white lions (in 5x8) and you crash it into anything.. .as long as you take less than 11 casualties you can pretty much autobreak any unit on the table.

He said 'rank bonus', not 'ranks'. There's a difference.

Urgat
20-05-2014, 15:02
Oh, come on. It's not at all simple to add a classification to ALL units in this game. And what exactly would you be using it for?

It's simple? infantry was 1, cavalry 2, MI 3, monsters were their wounds iirc, etc etc. It was very simple. You can use it for a variety of things, like, dunno, hey! Steadfast: US superior to opponent? Steadfast (no more 5 gobs steadfast against a BT?)! Want to disrupt? if you're half the US of the target, you can. Building's possible accomodation? US! Contested corner? Higher US wins! I had plenty other examples at some point, but that was a while ago.

Btw, I don't get your exemple. If the gobbos have 10 ranks and I have 6, the gobbos have 4 more ranks, why aren't they steadfast?

biccat
20-05-2014, 15:18
He said 'rank bonus', not 'ranks'. There's a difference.

A rank bonus of +5 means you need 30 models. If I take 40 White Lions, then until I lose 11 models I have a rank bonus of +5, and no one would ever be steadfast against them.

Good luck killing 11 White Lions before they reach your lines unless you significantly improve BS shooting and tone down Ward Saves.

Avian
20-05-2014, 15:39
Flank them and take away their rank bonus. Suddenly every foe with a rank bonus is Steadfast.

Spiney Norman
20-05-2014, 15:44
Second post only for this specifically : as a Night Goblin player, units of 20 without any Command or Netters are only a Fanatics delivery system, and Fanatics ARE NOT the biggest threat in the Warhammer World ... you really need at least 40 gobboes in a combat block to reach the enemy lines, and against a hard hitting gunline like the one I fought this afternoon, 80+ would have allowed me to cross the median line of the table (yes, I was massacred in three turns, Animosity wrecked my Horde of Squigs, my Manglers were shot to bits by Organ Guns, and my big unit of 45 gobboes lost 20 members from the first shot of a Grudge Thrower, then fled with my General, BSB and L4 Great Shaman in it).

I still suggest you are thinking with a current-edition mindset and not a potential-edition mindset. The game quite clearly can work with units of 30 night goblins, I played all the way through 7th edition with units that size and they worked fine. Something that does need to be done across the board is dialling back the damage that war machines, particularly templates, can dish out, and the same goes for spells like PSX and dwellers below that can cause mass carnage with a single casting.

They also need to find a way for cover to actually matter to non-BS shooting, cannons and stone throwers glibly ignoring almost every terrain feature in their path is a major logical disconnect currently.

EvanM
20-05-2014, 15:44
Flanking/disrupting does not remove steadfast. Idk if thats what you meant but even if you attack in flank (remove rank bonus) the unit still has ranks. Its in the errata.

I think if they went back to smaller units then people would play it, whatever, but i think 8th edition is really fun too and some people might just keep playing 8th edition anyway.

Avian
20-05-2014, 17:15
We're talking about hypothetical changes to the rules. ;)

Katastrophe
20-05-2014, 17:17
That again. Sorry, I'll make it short.
1) steadfast is there for low Ld units to stick around even after a beating (seems you don't see it that way, but heh). Even with reroll, Ld5 gobs won't stick around if they have to test, they'll run.
2) steadfast is not something you choose, it's something that happens. 10 warriors can be steadfast just as easily as 100.
3) in short, forced steadfast + no Inspiring Presence = all cheap, low ld troops shelfed because they're punished the moment they outrank anything and take one wound too much. So people can just happily bring back the lone blenders and knight units and just play tag with every other enemy units in the game, coz they only need to win by 1 and the unit will autopop. Marvelous.


We agree to disagree. Cheap infantry is supposed to be speed bump not tarpit. I believe the intent behind steadfast was so that a double 1 was not required for the unit to run off which under most circumstances became the case. As with most rules from GW I have my doubts as to their methods of play testing. It has been my experience, and we have both been playing these games a very long time, that the GW staff and play testers play under the friendly assumption. They don't tend to optimize nor min/max in their testing (which is a design concept issue). But with that in mind, they likely never thought about the situation where people would bring 100 slaves that are basically unkillable to a man in a 6 turn game and that can take the opponents best infantry or cav units effectively out of the game. I suspect when faced with that issue they would likely just say "that's not very sporting" rather than recognizing that this was an unintended consequence of the rule, particularly since it would only really apply to two armies that can truly exploit it in a way no other can.

As I said, if a character was in the unit and raised the leadership and putting himself at risk, that would make it more palatable.

One thing you seem to forget and that I really believes invalidates your argument is that it is ok for the elite unit to lose by 1 or 2 and break and run but it isn't ok for the cheap speed bump to do so. Under your logic, why don't we just remove negatives from break tests and allow combat resolution to only determine the winner. Allow all units to test at their modified leadership to see whether they break and run (of course your statement 3 presumes that cheap troops will never win combat).

Even under the previous editions with infantry having "no place" as many of you have stated, infantry was used often and to great effect both in competitive play and in casual games.

Funny this is - as long as Ive been playing this game, Ive never worried about blender lords and knight units destroying my infantry in and of themselves. What I've had a problem with is that GW never instituted some of the simple fixes like limiting the number of characters you can place in a unit so that you don't have busses and stars that are just wound counters for the character models. As with many things GW, most editions have worked pretty well and instead of just look at the exploits and fix them, GW re-writes the rules and creates other exploits (goes back to lack of real play testing or smart play testing).

biccat
20-05-2014, 18:24
Flank them and take away their rank bonus. Suddenly every foe with a rank bonus is Steadfast.

You can't flank charge the turn they charge you.

Lorcryst
20-05-2014, 18:36
I still suggest you are thinking with a current-edition mindset and not a potential-edition mindset. The game quite clearly can work with units of 30 night goblins, I played all the way through 7th edition with units that size and they worked fine. Something that does need to be done across the board is dialling back the damage that war machines, particularly templates, can dish out, and the same goes for spells like PSX and dwellers below that can cause mass carnage with a single casting.

They also need to find a way for cover to actually matter to non-BS shooting, cannons and stone throwers glibly ignoring almost every terrain feature in their path is a major logical disconnect currently.

I've been playing my Night Goblins since the start of 6th Edition ... granted, I'm a casual player that prefers friendly games, make thematic armies and is a rather bad General (my theory is sound, but I fail at applying it on the battle field).

I used units of 20-30 in 6th and 7th, and was routinely massacred by Knights wiping my front rank and then having to test at -waytoomuch on LD 7 max and most logically breaking. Back when we hadn't any Steadfast and Step Up, using my Night Goblin infantry and Squigs themed army was an exercise in futility : the half-inch dance until a charge was guaranteed to hit home, then a minimum of kills needed to wipe the front rank and the ensuing break test and panic tests accross my whole army meant that I lost the games in the "choose your army" phase.

Now, War Machine hurt, yes, but the counter to that was ALWAYS to take bigger units to soak up the two-three turns of heavy shooting coming your way ... IT IS NOT a new thing with 8th Edition !

The thing is, while before taking big units was a point sink to survive artillery barrages, now said big units can also have a role on the field of battle, instead of just looking pretty and hoping that 20ish troops will survive to cross the table.

Please use terrain and scenarios ... the more terrain there is on the table, the harder it will be to maneuvre those big honking hordes ... three big units and a character are a liability in a Blood and Glory scenario ... too many big units in a Watchtower scenario mean you don't have a garrison ... I could go on, but I think you get the point : Steadfast, Step Up and Hordes don't work in a vacuum, but in conjunction with the rest of the ruleset.

Could 9th Edition be better ? I hope so. But working with what we currently have, and having played since 4th Ed, I'm a firm believer that 8th Ed is the best edition (yet).

Everything works quite nicely, it's only when THE PLAYERS seek to bend and break the rules for maximum gain and optimization that problems arise.

I've seen several posts in this thread about playtesting and friendly gaming ... OF COURSE the rules aren't playtested with tournaments in mind, it's right there in the rulebook, black on white : the game is meant as an addition to your collection of miniatures and should be played between gentlemen(women) that enjoy an evening/afternoon with friends, beer and pretzels.

And about tournaments, I've played my first one a couple of weeks ago : not surprisingly, out of the 12 players there were 6 WoC armies, 2 VCs and 2 Skavens ... the other two were an O&G army full of proxies and unpainted models and my Daemons of Nurgle. I lost my three games, badly, scoring 1 point out of 60, but I was there to test myself, have fun, and play my fully painted thematic Plague Host.

Guess what I saw in front of me ?

BfSP spiders undercoated black with a pink drybrush playing at Chaos Warhounds, the Gorebeasts from the new WoC chariot representing Skullcrushers of Khorne, masses of 6th ed starter set orcs undercoated black trying to pass as Black Orcs, hordes of BfSP Night Goblins playing the part of 100-strong buses of Skaven Slaves (ok, that one is at least a bit fluffy, and they were painted), single Nurglings on 40mm bases filled with lichen as the Clanrats of the second Skaven army, each VC army had the three Terrorgheists combo, but none had the actual model, and other such things ... apart from mine, NOT A SINGLE ARLMY had the "right" models, or was fully painted.

But the army choices and the lists were full of filth, and exploited every little bit of the rules to steamroll the opponent. Not a single game went past the third turn, it was "table of be tabled".

Honestly, I enjoyed the banter with the shop owner more than the games, at least between games the players would talk and joke, but during games it was concentration to the max to avoid giving a single victory point while raking the most.
Totally NOT the "spirit of the game" that GW promotes in their rules, army books, White Dwarf, Warhammer Visions and almost every other media published.

I think that if tournaments were removed altogether from the equation, the game would be better, the exploits would be considered (rightly) as filthy and dishonourable things, and we wouldn't have arguments on the IntarTubez about what is broken (when it clearly works nonetheless).

But I'm a dreamer :p

Verm1s
20-05-2014, 18:46
Everything works quite nicely, it's only when THE PLAYERS seek to bend and break the rules for maximum gain and optimization that problems arise.

Again, nobody's breaking or even bending anything. Trying to make out that flaws exposed by listbuilding and minmaxing are the fault of the eebil cheaters and rule-breakers, is not the way to go.

EvanM
20-05-2014, 18:51
Okay seriously if you put more than 3 characters in a single unit then you can go jump up your own butt. Unless its empire/orcs and goblins and those characters are only 50 pts each.

800 points of Ogre characters should not be able to join a unit of 400 points of Ironguts.

Clockwork
20-05-2014, 19:05
Why not?

Words for the Word God.

Urgat
20-05-2014, 19:09
I still suggest you are thinking with a current-edition mindset and not a potential-edition mindset. The game quite clearly can work with units of 30 night goblins, I played all the way through 7th edition with units that size and they worked fine.

He's talking about goblins, and I know exactly what he means: 8th edition is the only edition I've played (started at the end of 4th, beginning of 5th) where goblins can be played the way someone who wants to play goblins would want to play them: in numbers. You say they could work before in small numbers. This is true, but somewhat misleading: goblins (or any such troops) could NOT work in units bigger than that in previous editions. Numbers would mean nothing because there was no steadfast, and static CR was (still is, to be honest) pretty much irrelevant against the usual hammers (used to be cav, now it's MC). If a unit of knights charge a unit of gobs in 7th ed, (from the front, who cares?), it'll wipe the first front, negate all static CR, and make the unit run, regardless of whether they're 20 or 200 (oh yeah, it'd make a difference: one pip of static CR more. 5 gobs dead for a tie, anything more and well, you know gob's Ld).
If I were to have to return to an edition where I have to play my goblins MSU again, I'd just quit the game, really.


We agree to disagree. Cheap infantry is supposed to be speed bump not tarpit. I believe the intent behind steadfast was so that a double 1 was not required for the unit to run off which under most circumstances became the case.
Then I suggest you just re-read the rules p54. They're clear as cristal: steadfast is there to show that some troops are so numerous that they just don't care about losses, I quote for instance, because it's pretty typical of Warhammer: "there's plenty more where they came from". It's written black on white.


One thing you seem to forget and that I really believes invalidates your argument is that it is ok for the elite unit to lose by 1 or 2 and break and run but it isn't ok for the cheap speed bump to do so. Under your logic, why don't we just remove negatives from break tests and allow combat resolution to only determine the winner. Allow all units to test at their modified leadership to see whether they break and run (of course your statement 3 presumes that cheap troops will never win combat).
No, I don't think that, I think you're mistaken in your logic: remember that steadfast is a losing strategy, it comes into account when you lose a combat. Elite troops don't count on numbers to stay around if they lose, but on badassery to win, period. So in a sense, yeah, it seems unfair that if they fail a small elite troop would run more easily than a huge block of crappy fighters, but it's also pretty logical. What purpose is there to a huge crowd of crappy fighters, other than fight? I'm sorry, but nobody would be so nice so as to put free VP like that for you to grab. On the other hand, WFB imagery has, from the begining, pictured skavens or goblins as endless tides of troops pitted against the elites of dwarfs, elves and men. In fluff, that's what happens, they come rolling, not stopping until they're pretty much spent, against the unfaltering, superior enemy. Steadfast renders exactly that.


Even under the previous editions with infantry having "no place" as many of you have stated, infantry was used often and to great effect both in competitive play and in casual games.
A very small selection of superior infantry was used in previous editions, yes.


Funny this is - as long as Ive been playing this game, Ive never worried about blender lords and knight units destroying my infantry in and of themselves. What I've had a problem with is that GW never instituted some of the simple fixes like limiting the number of characters you can place in a unit so that you don't have busses and stars that are just wound counters for the character models. As with many things GW, most editions have worked pretty well and instead of just look at the exploits and fix them, GW re-writes the rules and creates other exploits (goes back to lack of real play testing or smart play testing).
That just depends on your local meta, I guess. I've had my share of overblown chaos lords or vampires.

EvanM
20-05-2014, 19:13
so if it did happen, people would just keep playing 8th edition regardless. It isnt THAT broken.

Sexiest_hero
20-05-2014, 19:15
IDk what the hate on big units is about, I love running things in big units, sometimes I love running a bunch of heroes in the unit. The thing is I don't go for the waac loadouts that seem to be the main issue here/ If you nerfed this rule they would just abuse another rule just like every other edition. I'm going to go ahead and point out the lelphant in the room. The issue is not with the games but the gamers. The first step to solving this issues is to not look at the gameboard or rulebook but in the mirror.

ihavetoomuchminis
20-05-2014, 19:17
And then there comes again the idea of limiting characters in units to max 2 per unit and limiting unit points cost. And say, for those who dont like capping unit sizes through percentages...."you must have, AT LEAST, 3 proper units in you army (6 a grand army). Arent proper units those under 100 points, fast cavalry, monsters, characters and warmachines."

Simple.

EvanM
20-05-2014, 19:19
Its not big units as much as unkillable deathstar units. Im just saying you dont need Annointed (~250 pts), Lvl 4 mage (~250 pts), and a BSB (~120 pts) in a unit of 40 phoenix guard (~700 pts)

Haha you cant base the solution off an honor system hahaha.

Sexiest_hero
20-05-2014, 19:32
I'm not advocating an honor system, I'm saying the issue is with the players. Until we calk about how to curb this behavior, any rules change would just treat the symptoms and not the actual cause.

Avian
20-05-2014, 19:34
You can't flank charge the turn they charge you.
No, but:
1) If you get charged by 40 White Lions in an 8-deep formation, you probably aren't Steadfast in this edition either.
2) Under my suggestion, charging them in the following turn would actually achieve something, unlike now.

Net win.




I'm not advocating an honor system, I'm saying the issue is with the players. Until we calk about how to curb this behavior, any rules change would just treat the symptoms and not the actual cause.
How does chess deal with WAAC players abusing the army selection system? ;)

Ramius4
20-05-2014, 19:34
I'm not advocating an honor system, I'm saying the issue is with the players. Until we calk about how to curb this behavior, any rules change would just treat the symptoms and not the actual cause.

Replace all the human players with robots. Simple. :shifty:

Lorcryst
20-05-2014, 19:41
Again, nobody's breaking or even bending anything. Trying to make out that flaws exposed by listbuilding and minmaxing are the fault of the eebil cheaters and rule-breakers, is not the way to go.

And yet, when you don't try to squeeze every little bit of filth out of überlisting and powergaming, there isn't a single problem ...

I've seen that myself by playing in a tournament and also playing with my friends in casual games ... big units against MSU works, MSU vs MSU works too, but a WoC Daemon prince with 1+ armour, 3+ rerolls 1s ward, tons of attacks, flight, unbreakable and magic weapons can singlehandedly ruin the fun of other players.

Heck, the guy who beat me with 5 units of 5 'spiderhounds', 5 'Gorecrushers of Slaanesh', 2 Chimeras and said powerprince didn't even think about having the "correct" models, just about powerbuilding his list ... his strategy was basic : block marches with hounds, fly the prince and chimeras down a flank, charge with Prince to lock my units, do just enough damage with Gorecrushers and Chimeras to secure the win.

It was not "breaking the rules" per se, but it wasn't sporting, fun, or even nice to play against ... and there was quite a lot of bending the WYSIWYG rules of the tournament too.

Everyone can break, bend and abuse the rules. That's not the point of the game.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Sexiest_hero
20-05-2014, 19:49
Heh even in chess one side gets to go first! You do bring up a point I have struggled with for years. Back in old D&D a net build called warforged paladin because a big deal, I was DMing a Party made up of all that class build. Should I limit them and take away choice till we are just playing chess, or should I let them all run the same thing witch is just playing chess? I used to play MtG and ran into a tourny where everybody ran phyatog decks. It was when MtG was on espn 2 I was an filmschool intern working a camera and it was sad to the the announcers try to make 5 tables of mirror matches seem interesting. My point is no system, rule set, or comp can fix the issue.If gamers wat games to be considered a sport we have to police our members like sports do.

EvanM
20-05-2014, 19:52
Lets just start giving people insane amounts of crap for fielding armies like that!! :D

Avian
20-05-2014, 20:04
My point is no system, rule set, or comp can fix the issue.If gamers wat games to be considered a sport we have to police our members like sports do.
Well, WarmaHordes doesn't have this problem. Sure, it doesn't have perfect balance, but you see a good deal of variety in what people choose in their armies. Playtesting does help. I don't know about Magic or D&D, but there are multiple ways GW could have prevented Daemon Princes from being quite so problematic (MoT only stacking to a max of 4+, no re-roll 1s for Wards item, flight more expensive, stubborn instead of unbreakable, not being allowed magic armour, etc, etc).

Sexiest_hero
20-05-2014, 20:13
Indeed the game could be better playtesting, and My only complaint about warmahordes is that I can't have 150 skeletons running around :P. I'm not a GW fan boy or apologist (I Hate them for the grey knights as they made me walk away from 40k after 15 years). I do belive that rethinking of how gamers treat each other could help cover GW's miscues. In sports you hear the term poor sport and bad form, followed by the boos of the fans. maybe we need a boo section in gaming stores :P.

Alltaken
20-05-2014, 20:17
We need GW focusing on rules as much as minis. Rules make the game succesfull, and a good game makes more people want to buy it

From my servoskull

ihavetoomuchminis
20-05-2014, 20:24
We need GW focusing on rules as much as minis. Rules make the game succesfull, and a good game makes more people want to buy it

From my servoskull

Agreed! Good Rules make the models MORE interesting. If i have fun painting AND playing with them, it's better than if i have fun just painting them. Nowadays, i am just a collector/painter, and i rarely play, and that's only because of the rules. I hate 6th edition 40k ruleset. I like 8th edition WHFB ruleset, but armybooks have too much of OP and unfun units that people tend to field no matter what (Nurgle DP, Dragon banner lions with 2 frostbirds, Light council, savage orc horde with 5!!!!! characters....and so on), even in friendly environments. And that's sad.

Avian
20-05-2014, 20:27
Indeed the game could be better playtesting, and My only complaint about warmahordes is that I can't have 150 skeletons running around :P
I believe a reason for WM/H popularity is NOT having 150 skellies on the table. ;)


I agree that encouraging sportsmanlike behaviour is good, but to be honest I don't find that to be a very interesting thing to discuss and so I'd rather talk about rules alterations instead.

EvanM
20-05-2014, 20:33
well as far as rules go, I say let the tournaments come up with army/unit constrictions. And in fun fair games its up to you. There are competetive limitation rules imposed by certain tournaments that u can find online and abide by.

Avian
20-05-2014, 20:39
Well, yes, I know. ;)

Sexiest_hero
20-05-2014, 20:40
And that's why I like warhammer. I like big units, nay armies, and big ole monsters kicking them around. If you like WM That's great it's just not enough models for me to pretend to be a general and send men better than myself to an early grave.

Urgat
20-05-2014, 20:51
I believe a reason for WM/H popularity is NOT having 150 skellies on the table. ;)


I agree that encouraging sportsmanlike behaviour is good, but to be honest I don't find that to be a very interesting thing to discuss and so I'd rather talk about rules alterations instead.

To be honest, though, I find most of the complaints and suggestions so strange probably because I play with people who just play for fun, and with the stuff they want to play that day. I'm sure many people on Warseer would have shaken their heads if they'd seen the last battle I played, both lists were as far from "Internet wisdom" as could be.
Sure it's not as interesting to discuss, but that's what changes everything.

Alltaken
20-05-2014, 21:02
To be honest, though, I find most of the complaints and suggestions so strange probably because I play with people who just play for fun, and with the stuff they want to play that day. I'm sure many people on Warseer would have shaken their heads if they'd seen the last battle I played, both lists were as far from "Internet wisdom" as could be.
Sure it's not as interesting to discuss, but that's what changes everything.

If brb was improved and army books balanced you would be the norm.. And the game would probably be more fun and have more depth

From my servoskull

Avian
20-05-2014, 21:23
^^ And that is the entire point. You can't change the game to make things worse for the power gamers - the more broken things there are, the happier they'll be. You can certainly change the game to make things worse for everyone else, and the goal of balance is to make it less bad for everyone else.

SteveW
20-05-2014, 21:50
a WoC Daemon prince with 1+ armour, 3+ rerolls 1s ward, tons of attacks, flight, unbreakable and magic weapons can singlehandedly ruin the fun of other players.



If someone were to have that it would be cheating.

SteveW
20-05-2014, 21:53
I believe a reason for WM/H popularity is NOT having 150 skellies on the table. ;)


I agree that encouraging sportsmanlike behaviour is good, but to be honest I don't find that to be a very interesting thing to discuss and so I'd rather talk about rules alterations instead.

I think WM/H popularity is due to it being a unique game of a different genre than any other gaming system out there.

And Satyrs :)

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2014, 22:04
If someone were to have that it would be cheating.

Only if they had no warshrines.

SteveW
20-05-2014, 22:05
Only if they had no warshrines.
You only have yourself to blame for that then. :P

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2014, 22:13
You only have yourself to blame for that then. :P

Sure.
Once you've blamed the writers, the guy who took the combination and finally the dice for not allowing you to stop it from working.

Verm1s
20-05-2014, 23:46
What Avian and Alltaken and Ihavetoomuchminis said.


I'm not advocating an honor system, I'm saying the issue is with the players. Until we calk about how to curb this behavior, any rules change would just treat the symptoms and not the actual cause.

WAACers are the symptom. Badly written and playtested rules are the cause.


And yet, when you don't try to squeeze every little bit of filth out of überlisting and powergaming, there isn't a single problem ...

Which is all well and good, but...


It was not "breaking the rules" per se, but it wasn't sporting, fun, or even nice to play against ... and there was quite a lot of bending the WYSIWYG rules of the tournament too.

Everyone can break, bend and abuse the rules. That's not the point of the game.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Because they can, why shouldn't they?

I'm still not talking about breaking or bending the rules, just the abuse bit. Disregarding the WYSIWYG problems and the bit SteveW mentioned, I'd guess the rest of what that guy used was all above board and legal according to the game rules. Like I just said to Sexiest Hero, how is that guy and his kind 'the problem' when Games Workshop has it all written down in black and white and signed off for them?

Sexiest_hero
21-05-2014, 00:01
You'll never stamp it out, gaming has been around forever. this perfect rules set you are waiting for will never come. at some point we have to quit waiting and be proactive. That's all I'm trying to say. It's like why not try to knock the head off of my sparring partner in a boxing exhibition, why not try to bull rush a guy in a back yard football scrimmage. All those things are legal but not cool. Just because one can do a thing doesn't mean that one always should. When I was a High school jock I could bully other kids and I did, that doesn't mean I should have. If gamers want to be more accepted in society we have to stop acting like such jerks to each other, just because we can.

Alltaken
21-05-2014, 00:28
I play mobas, we have attitude issues and toxic players the solution was to en state encouragement to be a nice guy. If you want to change people you need someone ti control you (aka tournies comp).

On the game tight ruleset is the name of the game. 8th really needs to address little points to be hugely balanced, like really great.
Its up to army books right now, and then its not to hard to change the real main offenders and balance the off points (mix of army book and brb

From my servoskull

Sexiest_hero
21-05-2014, 00:59
I agree and if GW got off thier butts and did small erratas I'd be even more in love with 8th. But until that glorious day we can just not ruin the hobby outside of no holds barred tournies and tourny prep. We alays talk about what can gw do to make the game better, but what can we do to make the issue better as well.

EvanM
21-05-2014, 01:51
Its so satisfying though to beat an army that you know is abusing the way the game was intended to be played (dont fixate on the manner in which i said that).

Whatever gamers do, I know that I feel good when I win and it was a hard fought but well deserved victory. I mean its not like people bet on games of warhammer so in actuality, the rule abuse issue is kind of whatever.

The bearded one
21-05-2014, 02:29
Okay, I haven't read the entire thread (and it seems to have devolved a bit to discussing 'abusing the system') but my thoughts on the matter are that;

- steadfast, fighting in extra ranks, and removing casualties from the back are all excellent rules that should not be removed ever, especially because I didn't really enjoy having my unit of 20-30 guys roll a grand total of 6 dice (assuming the front rank hasn't been slaughtered) and then running away.
- small units (of a size of up to 15-20'ish) should get tangible bonusses, that seem sensible for a small unit, without being overpowered.

To me the benefit of a small battlefield unit would be its flexibility to manoeuvre, where a large blob would be ponderous. Perhaps small units should charge 4d3 instead of 2d6, or get rerolls or +1 to charge distances. Or perhaps small units should be allowed a 2nd free wheel during their charge move (provided they don't charge in a different side than they started their charge in, or charge things that started outside of their arc).

A suggestion I saw earlier on where units would measure their chargedistance from the corner of their unit that was furthest away was also a really good one, as that way the rules would be linked to unit width, the players' use of placement, and the disadvantage of size would be a gradual one rather than be linked to arbitary unitsize distinctions of what constitutes a small unit.

EvanM
21-05-2014, 04:48
exactly what bearded one said in his first point.

in 7th I always rolled my 6 swordsmen attacks, killed one guy, lost the combat by 1, failed LD, and fled and was run down. Its like my army played pattie cake with the enemy.

There needs to be some sort of disruptive ability by flanking or rear charges to break up steadfast. Right now you can get a stubborn elite unit with a healthy number of characters and even if you get attacked from all four sides you can fight to the last man.

Kayosiv
21-05-2014, 07:13
The only thing needed to make units smaller is to just decrease general killyness of things. I take big units because stuff is just super dang deadly. Weak guys need to be taken in 40+ to survive the plethora of death that comes their way. Some nerfs to mega ultra spells and monstrous cavalry would do a pretty good job of mandating less needed bodies to soak up the wounds.

Urgat
21-05-2014, 08:48
exactly what bearded one said in his first point.

in 7th I always rolled my 6 swordsmen attacks, killed one guy, lost the combat by 1, failed LD, and fled and was run down. Its like my army played pattie cake with the enemy.

There needs to be some sort of disruptive ability by flanking or rear charges to break up steadfast. Right now you can get a stubborn elite unit with a healthy number of characters and even if you get attacked from all four sides you can fight to the last man.

Imho, the only change needed is that steadfast should count all the congregated ranks, not just compare unit per unit. A unit with ten ranks charged by 5 knights on each flank shouldn't care. A unit with ten ranks charged on the front by a unit with 5 ranks, on the flanks by two units of two ranks and on the back by another unit with 3 ranks should care.


The only thing needed to make units smaller is to just decrease general killyness of things. I take big units because stuff is just super dang deadly. Weak guys need to be taken in 40+ to survive the plethora of death that comes their way. Some nerfs to mega ultra spells and monstrous cavalry would do a pretty good job of mandating less needed bodies to soak up the wounds.
Don't think that'd change anything for me. I mostly face chaos warriors with additionnal weapons and (would you believe it?) regular chaos knights. People are so blasé by the new units they don't realise some of the old ones still obliterate targets at incredible speed.

Verm1s
21-05-2014, 10:51
Okay, I haven't read the entire thread (and it seems to have devolved a bit to discussing 'abusing the system')

Oh, but it's relevant. ;) People 'abuse' the game with netlists, spam, WAACing, unkillable deathstars etc. because that play style is what the rules of the current and previous editions allow. I would also say they are playing the game as intended, but then that would assume the writers put much thought into it. I don't know why the point doesn't seem to be filtering through. There seems to be some kind of mental block causing this 'playing within the rules = breaking the rules' thing. Unwillingness to admit that Warhammer is badly written?

Solution: overhaul the mechanics for 9th. ;) Or even 10th. Stop some of the desperate flinging of OTT rules and huge goofy kits in the effort to sell more and more toys, and actually sit down to think about balance. (perfect balance may be impossible, but GW's balance could definitely stand to be nudged a bit closer to the impossible ideal anyway) There wouldn't be much need for steadfast and all this bickering if the game became more grounded and based on infantry in the first place, with all the monsters, monstrous cavalry, machines and other killy units neutered and shifted to the sidelines where they belong.

The attitude of taking an optimised army can be problematic in this game, but ostracising it in some grand social engineering pipe dream really is the sticking-plaster fix, aiming at the wrong target, missing the point etc. Rather optimise (balance) all points values, armies, lists, and playstyles, so no one has a huge degree of unfair advantage over another.
Also a pipe dream, given GW's track record, but it's a pipe dream that doesn't require you to form cliques and shun people who use what GW has deemed valid. The attitude that probably needs more fixing is the one that considers Warhammer's rules to be some sacred standard; that addressing the sand-in-your-underwear granularity and out-of-control special rules would spoil it, would make it 'not Warhammer', that that would somehow be a bad thing, and that it's the only game in town.

Lorcryst
21-05-2014, 12:32
DISCLAIMER : my use of "you" in the following post is not a personnal "you", but a generic "you".

According to GW's own publications, they are a miniatures making company first, that also provide a rules system to allow collectors to play with their toy soldiers.

It's written in black on cream in the various rulebooks that it's a gentleman(woman) game, where fun for both players should be paramount, THAT is the way of playing the game as intended.

The playstyle recommended by GW is the relaxed, beer and pretzels one. NOT the übercompetitive cut-throat style of WAACers and tournament players.

There's a difference between "playing within the rules" and "abusing the rules to the maximum for e-peen satisfaction".

Huge goofy kits, Monsters, Monstrous Cavalry, War Machines and killy units are the "high fantasy" element of WFB ... if you want to play infantry armies with very little war machines and no fantasy elements, I think that Napoleonics or Historical wargames should fit the bill better than any GW product.

Ultimately, trying to find players with a casual, for fun only mentality is not a pipe-dream, it's what every article written by Jervis Johnson (head honcho of rules development at GW) is advocating.

The rules were never intended for competitive or tournament play, that's some players way of playing the game ... balance was never really searched for too, because armies should be different, with different power levels, all that because the models come first, and not the rules. The "GW Hobby" (to give it the name the devs use) is a mix of collecting, modelling, painting, storytelling and sometimes playing.

The best example of this is the new Unbound armies for the new edition of 40K, stating, again in black on white : "Use everything that you want to use from your collection of models, FOC and restriction be damned, this is for fun and cinematic battles" (paraphrasing mine based on the last two WDW and a bit of a chat with my local GW manager).

When you take the rules as intended (as in, having fun pushing toy soldiers from your collection) and take some responsibility for your list-building (thematic, not over-the-top "I'll win and rub your face in it") and aim to have fun with friends, you won't have any problems with Steadfast, big units of Deathstars ... "Internet Wisdom" is not very wise, after all the point of "netlists" is to bring the filth and crush your opponents, without a single second spent thinking about fun.

If your definition of fun is "crush your enemies, slay their children and their dogs, and hear the lamentations of their women", I fear that you are not in the right hobby.

WarmacHordes has the opposite point of view : they make rules, and THEN make models to suit those rules. That works for them, and if you like the aesthetic of their models, the very small scale of engagements and "playing with your pair", more power to you, but me personnaly I want to show off my huge collection of models and have some fun rolling dice, shooting the breeze and removing handfulls of minis from the table.

Ramius4
21-05-2014, 12:49
Imho, the only change needed is that steadfast should count all the congregated ranks, not just compare unit per unit. A unit with ten ranks charged by 5 knights on each flank shouldn't care. A unit with ten ranks charged on the front by a unit with 5 ranks, on the flanks by two units of two ranks and on the back by another unit with 3 ranks should care.

I know the aggregate ranks idea pops up a lot, but it doesn't work in practice. Think about it... You quite often end up with situations where say, a 50 man horde unit (5 ranks) is fighting two 25 man units (each of them also in 5 ranks). Essentially the exact same unit, but the two 25 man units are arbitrarily better?


*good post*.

For anyone not listening, I'll sum it up for you.

Winning is merely the objective of the game. Having fun is the point of the game. Don't confuse the two.

Avian
21-05-2014, 13:37
The rules were never intended for competitive or tournament play, that's some players way of playing the game ... balance was never really searched for too, because armies should be different, with different power levels, all that because the models come first, and not the rules. The "GW Hobby" (to give it the name the devs use) is a mix of collecting, modelling, painting, storytelling and sometimes playing.
Well, if they're not searching for balance, why do they keep tweaking points and special rules whenever they redo something? Why not leave the old stuff as-is and add in new things? I think it's clear that at some level they do care about balance, they just don't care a lot. And even if they did care more, it's not a given that they're competent enough to fix most of the problems. At least half the problems we have in the game would be both quick and easy to balance and wouldn't reduce the flavour in any way, shape or form.
(Heck, if they really didn't care about balance, why do we have points values at all?)



When you take the rules as intended (as in, having fun pushing toy soldiers from your collection) and take some responsibility for your list-building (thematic, not over-the-top "I'll win and rub your face in it") and aim to have fun with friends, you won't have any problems with Steadfast, big units of Deathstars ...
Well, you will if the other guy is a WAACer...

I mean, really, if you aim to have a casual good time and you meet a guy who's less concerned with that, and the rules are written so that he couldn't abuse things as much as now - then that would be ... better, right?

Right?

I mean, when I played in a tournament back in 5th edition and my typical O&G army got demolished by two Daemon Princes of Khorne, then my aim was to have fun and I STILL had problems with über characters, because GW hadn't seen the problem with Frenzy doubling a model's Attacks combined with a model with 5 Attacks base. I remember my opponent laughing, so clearly the problem wasn't his - he was having fun.

And that is my point - balance always benefits the casual guy. In fact, with the new Unbound rules (coming to a Fantasy Battle near you in 2015, I am sure) there is no reason NOT to make the rulebook and army books as balanced as possible. There's always Unbound if you want to play Monster Mash or Herohammer or whatever.



WarmacHordes has the opposite point of view : they make rules, and THEN make models to suit those rules.
Can you expand on what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Fear Ghoul
21-05-2014, 13:43
Solution: overhaul the mechanics for 9th. ;) Or even 10th. Stop some of the desperate flinging of OTT rules and huge goofy kits in the effort to sell more and more toys, and actually sit down to think about balance. (perfect balance may be impossible, but GW's balance could definitely stand to be nudged a bit closer to the impossible ideal anyway) There wouldn't be much need for steadfast and all this bickering if the game became more grounded and based on infantry in the first place, with all the monsters, monstrous cavalry, machines and other killy units neutered and shifted to the sidelines where they belong.

So you want to basically turn Fantasy into an historical wargame? To paraphrase yourself, why not just play a different game?

Also, I'm not an expert on business, but I'm pretty sure that if GW were to stop selling toys, they would go bankrupt in short order.

Urgat
21-05-2014, 15:09
I know the aggregate ranks idea pops up a lot, but it doesn't work in practice. Think about it... You quite often end up with situations where say, a 50 man horde unit (3 ranks) is fighting two 25 man units (each of them also in 3 ranks). Essentially the exact same unit, but the two 25 man units are arbitrarily better?
Well, gotta start somewhere, but that's another instance where getting US back would be useful.

HelloKitty
21-05-2014, 15:23
You'll never stamp it out, gaming has been around forever. this perfect rules set you are waiting for will never come. at some point we have to quit waiting and be proactive. That's all I'm trying to say. It's like why not try to knock the head off of my sparring partner in a boxing exhibition, why not try to bull rush a guy in a back yard football scrimmage. All those things are legal but not cool. Just because one can do a thing doesn't mean that one always should. When I was a High school jock I could bully other kids and I did, that doesn't mean I should have. If gamers want to be more accepted in society we have to stop acting like such jerks to each other, just because we can.

It agrees. Every game it plays has this issue without exception.

ihavetoomuchminis
21-05-2014, 15:26
Well, if they're not searching for balance, why do they keep tweaking points and special rules whenever they redo something? Why not leave the old stuff as-is and add in new things? I think it's clear that at some level they do care about balance, they just don't care a lot. And even if they did care more, it's not a given that they're competent enough to fix most of the problems. At least half the problems we have in the game would be both quick and easy to balance and wouldn't reduce the flavour in any way, shape or form.
(Heck, if they really didn't care about balance, why do we have points values at all?)



Well, you will if the other guy is a WAACer...

I mean, really, if you aim to have a casual good time and you meet a guy who's less concerned with that, and the rules are written so that he couldn't abuse things as much as now - then that would be ... better, right?

Right?

I mean, when I played in a tournament back in 5th edition and my typical O&G army got demolished by two Daemon Princes of Khorne, then my aim was to have fun and I STILL had problems with über characters, because GW hadn't seen the problem with Frenzy doubling a model's Attacks combined with a model with 5 Attacks base. I remember my opponent laughing, so clearly the problem wasn't his - he was having fun.

And that is my point - balance always benefits the casual guy. In fact, with the new Unbound rules (coming to a Fantasy Battle near you in 2015, I am sure) there is no reason NOT to make the rulebook and army books as balanced as possible. There's always Unbound if you want to play Monster Mash or Herohammer or whatever.



Can you expand on what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

QFT. I dont know what is so hard to get from the idea of willing for a balanced game just to have fun with everyone at any given time without the need to limit yourself to playing only with those few people that share your view about what is "use" and what is "abuse".

A balanced and tight ruleset makes it easier for everybody to have fun. An unbalanced ruleset is potentially frustrating. Sometimes players dont even think or realise that something is frustrating for his opponent. Even a fluffy casual for fun gamer can come up with a nasty and frustrating combo unintentionally. Balanced rules should prevent that.

Frustration is not fun. And both whfb and 40k are full of potentially frustrating combos. Steadfast is not frustrsting. It was way more frustrating to lose a 40 man unit to 5 knights. A 60 goblin unit is not. 1000 points deathstars can be.

imo....a good ruleset should prevent frustration above all.

HelloKitty
21-05-2014, 15:42
QFT. I dont know what is so hard to get from the idea of willing for a balanced game just to have fun with everyone at any given time without the need to limit yourself to playing only with those few people that share your view about what is "use" and what is "abuse".

It believes that this is because the creatures have no hand in making anything balanced, and only the creatures at GW have this power and that the creatures will not do this thing, so it must find creatures it enjoys playing against until the creatures at GW create balance.

ihavetoomuchminis
21-05-2014, 15:53
It believes that this is because the creatures have no hand in making anything balanced, and only the creatures at GW have this power and that the creatures will not do this thing, so it must find creatures it enjoys playing against until the creatures at GW create balance.
[/COLOR]

Havd you ever read the steam tank rules in the empire book?

Snake1311
21-05-2014, 16:30
Oh, but it's relevant. People 'abuse' the game with netlists, spam, WAACing, unkillable deathstars etc. because that play style is what the rules of the current and previous editions allow. I would also say they are playing the game as intended, but then that would assume the writers put much thought into it.

Netlists have nothing to do with the rules or the game system
Spam , a.k.a. 'themed lists' is also part of the game as intended (is an all-goblin list "spam", or a theme? all-nurgle deamons?)
WAACing means nothing because the terms means different things to different people
unkillable deathstars are probably intended, unfortunately. You seen the scenario in the BRB with the unit of a bazillion skullcrushers, back before they were even a unit?


And that is my point - balance always benefits the casual guy.

True as a statement, but misleading. Balance benefits everyone; arguably, it benefits the competitive player even more so than the casuals - as with better balance, they can play what they enjoy without feeling they are gimping themselves - which lets face it, is a game-breaker for competitive players; rather than being forced into narrow builds and gimmicks by their drive to compete.

Snake1311
21-05-2014, 16:30
Oh, but it's relevant. People 'abuse' the game with netlists, spam, WAACing, unkillable deathstars etc. because that play style is what the rules of the current and previous editions allow. I would also say they are playing the game as intended, but then that would assume the writers put much thought into it.

Netlists have nothing to do with the rules or the game system
Spam , a.k.a. 'themed lists' is also part of the game as intended (is an all-goblin list "spam", or a theme? all-nurgle deamons?)
WAACing means nothing because the terms means different things to different people
unkillable deathstars are probably intended, unfortunately. You seen the scenario in the BRB with the unit of a bazillion skullcrushers, back before they were even a unit?


And that is my point - balance always benefits the casual guy.

True as a statement, but misleading. Balance benefits everyone; arguably, it benefits the competitive player even more so than the casuals - as with better balance, they can play what they enjoy without feeling they are gimping themselves - which lets face it, is a game-breaker for competitive players; rather than being forced into narrow builds and gimmicks by their drive to compete.

Charistoph
21-05-2014, 17:27
I know the aggregate ranks idea pops up a lot, but it doesn't work in practice. Think about it... You quite often end up with situations where say, a 50 man horde unit (3 ranks) is fighting two 25 man units (each of them also in 3 ranks). Essentially the exact same unit, but the two 25 man units are arbitrarily better?

Aggregate Ranks are not aggregate Rank bonuses. A 50 man horde unit counts as 5-6 Ranks (depending on how the Horde rule gets worked) and can easily switch to a 10 Rank unit, while the 2 25 man units are pretty much stuck at 5 Ranks. Where it can run in to problems is 2 units can carry 2 Banners...

Sexiest_hero
21-05-2014, 17:34
I keep hearing this create a balanced rule set. and I agree. GW should look at the game and tweak points every so often. That said things will never be 100% balanced. The sun will be in one teams eye for half the game so to speak. The rules can't stop gamers from being jerks to each other, and that's the point to every "Cannons, 6th spells, horde units suck" thread. But you know what it was daemons Dark elves and charging bs in 7th, and broken heroes before that, and the brittoinan flying circus before that. Unless confronted d bags will always be dbags. If somebody breaks out something op, it's their right, but you also have the right to speak up to them about it.

Ramius4
21-05-2014, 17:34
Aggregate Ranks are not aggregate Rank bonuses.

That's irrelevant to the idea that was being discussed, since it's ranks and not rank bonus that determines Steadfast. Aggregate ranks for those two 25 man units would be a total of 10, while for the large horde it's only 5.

In other words, we weren't talking about rank bonuses at all.

Lorcryst
21-05-2014, 18:53
Can you expand on what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

I don't really know the rules of WarmacHordes, but I've read lots of publications from them, plus spent a couple of hours at my FLGS talking about it and trying a small game, and what I learned is that they design rules for a close combat weapon (for example), check how those rules interact with the rest of the current rules, and then design models that actually have that weapon on them.

The whole process is the exact opposite of GW's, who first design models according to the "rule of cool", and then slap rules on them to make them work (albeit not always flawlessly).

Two opposite design philosophies, and you could say that the ruleset of WM/H is tighter than those of GW, simply because the rules come first for them.

Alltaken
21-05-2014, 18:56
I keep hearing this create a balanced rule set. and I agree. GW should look at the game and tweak points every so often. That said things will never be 100% balanced. The sun will be in one teams eye for half the game so to speak. The rules can't stop gamers from being jerks to each other, and that's the point to every "Cannons, 6th spells, horde units suck" thread. But you know what it was daemons Dark elves and charging bs in 7th, and broken heroes before that, and the brittoinan flying circus before that. Unless confronted d bags will always be dbags. If somebody breaks out something op, it's their right, but you also have the right to speak up to them about it.

100% balance is undoable.

Main offenders: brb - cannons vs monsters / steadfast (not discusing if right or wrong, but this topic appears like once a week) / brb nuke spells.
Army books: frosties, unkilable MC, unkilable daemon prince, bowd, chimeras, steam cannons, light councils, hpa, and an etc that gets repeated quite a lot. So you see the list is more or less clear and generally not that huge.
Bring Power ups to tomb kings, beastmen, options to bretonia, balance to skaven, and presto 8 will be a crown jewel in the history of WH

From my servoskull

Charistoph
21-05-2014, 19:28
That's irrelevant to the idea that was being discussed, since it's ranks and not rank bonus that determines Steadfast. Aggregate ranks for those two 25 man units would be a total of 10, while for the large horde it's only 5.

In other words, we weren't talking about rank bonuses at all.

He wasn't. You may have been. Why else would you list 50 men in to 3 Ranks? Few players would set their Ranks to 16 wide, even in a gunline.

Ramius4
21-05-2014, 19:32
He wasn't. You may have been. Why else would you list 50 men in to 3 Ranks? Few players would set their Ranks to 16 wide, even in a gunline.

It was a typo bud. I meant 5 ranks for each of them (which I just corrected).

Gork or Possibly Mork
21-05-2014, 20:16
Losing Steadfast to flanking would definitely persuade people not to go all eggs in one basket as much. Still doesn't deter deathstars so much though. I guess deployment, mobility, magic, throw away speed bumps and perhaps new terrain rules can work for that. Keep in mind flanking killing steadfast also makes tarpits much less effective against slowing down deathstars.

Not related to smaller units but one thing i think might be interesting is if you could combine/split units of the same type ( equipped the same ) during the movement phase. I.e. 2 night goblin units of 40. One gets whittled down to 20 the other is full strength and they are within movement range of each other. During your movement phase you combine them to a 60 strong unit. Or another time they you split them up so next turn one supports a combat and the other unit goes and does another task warmachine hunting, clearing chaff, speed bumping whatever etc.

One thing they definitely need to fix is making montrous mounts a little more viable. They are too expensive and die way too easily. At the same time it needs to be balanced so Warhammer doesn't turn into monster mash hero hammer.

Avian
21-05-2014, 22:45
I don't really know the rules of WarmacHordes, but I've read lots of publications from them, plus spent a couple of hours at my FLGS talking about it and trying a small game, and what I learned is that they design rules for a close combat weapon (for example), check how those rules interact with the rest of the current rules, and then design models that actually have that weapon on them.
Hmm, I think I understand what you mean, though I'm not convinced it's that black and white (and I don't see how you could start with rules for a weapon and end up with a miniature). Sure, WM/H rules have to be much more closely monitored because everything interacts with so many other things, but there are plenty of ways that could be implemented in a miniature, especially since a lot of things are magical. But at least currently there seems to be a trend for "In this release, you are getting another unit of Type X (say, Argus). Your other Unit Y (say, Reeves) could do with a boost, so we'll design a Type X unit that boosts Y. What sort of Type X creature would that be (a bloodhound!)?"

And it's not as if GW designers are free to design things according to a "rule of cool". For the last five FB army releases, there have been a grand total of three new kits that are brand new inventions (Bastiladon, Phoenix, Skycutter) - everything else is a variant build for an already existing unit and in those cases the designers are not free to design what they wish.

So I think all miniature companies work within a set of constraints that are not that different from each other, but they will vary according to the conditions of each.

SteveW
22-05-2014, 01:01
Hmm, I think I understand what you mean, though I'm not convinced it's that black and white (and I don't see how you could start with rules for a weapon and end up with a miniature). Sure, WM/H rules have to be much more closely monitored because everything interacts with so many other things, but there are plenty of ways that could be implemented in a miniature, especially since a lot of things are magical. But at least currently there seems to be a trend for "In this release, you are getting another unit of Type X (say, Argus). Your other Unit Y (say, Reeves) could do with a boost, so we'll design a Type X unit that boosts Y. What sort of Type X creature would that be (a bloodhound!)?"

And it's not as if GW designers are free to design things according to a "rule of cool". For the last five FB army releases, there have been a grand total of three new kits that are brand new inventions (Bastiladon, Phoenix, Skycutter) - everything else is a variant build for an already existing unit and in those cases the designers are not free to design what they wish.

So I think all miniature companies work within a set of constraints that are not that different from each other, but they will vary according to the conditions of each.

I don't believe him for a second. PP did not sit down and say "Hey, lets make a horn attack and a counter slam" and then come up with a Gnarlhorn Satyr. They made a cool model and then made rules for it just like every other tabletop game.

Urgat
22-05-2014, 09:47
No, but I believe they thought "that faction needs a big smashing creature" and they worked from that. GW doesn't work like that, the designers draw pictures of creatures, and then some are picked and turned into minis. Nobody said "Khorne demons need a cannon-trike, make me one" either, someone (I'd bet Blanche) drew it, and the GW people found it cool. Then they told the guy writing the demon AB "write rules for something that will look like that drawing".

Voss
22-05-2014, 11:19
I don't believe him for a second. PP did not sit down and say "Hey, lets make a horn attack and a counter slam" and then come up with a Gnarlhorn Satyr. They made a cool model and then made rules for it just like every other tabletop game.

Actually, no. They do concept art first, then rules and models off the art. Matt Wilson (the head of PP) is an artist, and a lot of ideas for models start as sketches (many of which they show off in a variety of ways, and many of which date back years- quite a few pieces of concept art for the initial Hordes models actually predate the publication of Warmachine, even though WM came out several years before Hordes). They've even talked about it from time to time. The case that particularly comes to mind is the Woldwarden [edit: Woldguardian. Stupid synonym names], which due to a miscommunication with the sculptor (the scale of the final model was wrong) ended up being entirely rewritten due to the final version of the model, and the original rules (drawn off the initial concept) were abandoned.

We also frankly see it in the release schedule, where models go unpictured for up to a year after their rules are released because the models just aren't done yet. (See Man o War Bombadiers, Retribution Destors, and the Avenger, Demolisher and Sanctifier, which delayed their respective 3in1 Heavy Jack kits for a very long time).

Haravikk
22-05-2014, 16:30
So I keep hearing about 9th ed going back to smaller units, but does anyone have any thoughts on how that could be done?
Personally I'm hoping it's more of a case of giving smaller units their own advantages to overcome the relative strength of Horde and Steadfast, rather than the latter being removed or toned down, as I like how big units play.

Firstly, we need to get back to partial victory points; personally I'd like to see 50%, 75% and 100%, either that or a change to a different form or scoring (more objectives based), as currently smaller units are often just free victory points for your opponent.
Second, I'd like smaller units to emphasis mobility and combined strength, the ways I'd do this would be:

Steadfast - This should be tweaked to count total ranks engaged. Basically you resolve combat for each unit on the losing side individually, comparing its ranks, plus the ranks of any friendly units in base contact, against the total ranks of all winning units in base contact. So if you have a multi-combat with two losing units engaged against four winning ones, then the first losing unit may only be engaged with three of the winning units, in which case it only considers them when working out if it is Steadfast.
Rally - If a unit has a Musician and isn't Disheartened (see below), then upon rallying it make take a second Leadership test, if passed, the unit can act normally (it can even charge back into combat).
Disheartened - A unit will lose Steadfast if it suffers more than 50% casualties, regardless of remaining ranks. After all, there's only so much carnage any sane individual can endure! For smaller units this won't make much difference as they probably didn't get Steadfast anyway, but for bigger ones it means that as long as you're grinding them down quicker than they're doing the same to you, you should break them faster than you would at the moment. The main difference for small units is that while they may break due to a lack of Steadfast, so long as they weren't Disheartened they can rally and return to the combat right away, and with fresh momentum.
Manoeuvrability - Infantry units below a certain (e.g - four ranks and less) can perform a Fast Reform and still march, this should make it a lot easier to move them, but unlike Skirmishers they require a Musician and a Leadership test to do this.
Cavalry Tweaks - It'd be nice to see regular cavalry (not Fast Cavalry) gaining Impact Hits. This will allow them to do some damage before enemies get to strike, and give them a little extra punch, but not too much. Currently the addition of Step Up, and change to always using Initiative Order means that many cavalry units don't get to hit first.
Fear - Not strictly small unit related, but Fear became very unreliable and often very weak in 8th. It should be changed such that when a unit strikes an enemy with Fear that charged that turn, it must take a Leadership test, if passed they strike with -1 Weapon Skill, if failed they strike at Weapon Skill 1. But attacks that can be directed against other enemies are unaffected. Only Terror could potentially apply to the entire unit (regardless of target), and applies in multiple turns. My reasoning for this change is that it would make small, Fear causing units less vulnerable on the charge (and actually more worthy of being feared in terms of prowess), but also because it's something that cavalry could potentially gain that would make sense.

HurrDurr
23-05-2014, 21:43
I think just by looking at more complex and competitive games you can see that perfect balance is impossible, but great balance is very possible. On a scale on 1 to 100 (100 being perfect) no one here is asking for 100, but we can do better than 60.

I also think blaming the player is flawed, where do you draw the line in a non competitive atmosphere for what is acceptable or not for lists. Empire needs cannons for monster killing in a friendly environment as much as an unfriendly one, where is the compromis?. In a competitive environment you play to your fullest to compare yourself to others that present a challenge, holding back is counter- productive to that purpose.

Look at a game like DOTA, in a professional setting, everything the players do is solely for the purpose of winning. What happens when there is an imbalance in the game? They fix it, they make changes (sometimes radical ones), also sometimes they make changes you wouldn't expect. They reduced the time it takes one hero to turn around 180 degrees from .19ish seconds to .09ish seconds for example. It makes the game highly entertaining for those interested in it. The goal is to keep the metagame changing while slowly bringing all the characters closer together in power.

How does this relate to Warhammer past the theory? We've seen various editions and learned the do's and don'ts of those iterations. We know step up and steadfast were fun meaningful changes, they were thrown in without being refined but were better that way than not existing at all. We know that hero-hammer was horrible and that no longer exists like the stories tell, that's proof of the evolution I mentioned. If GWS was a good company then all 9th has to do is place above 60 on that scale of 1-100 and they move forward. They wouldn't have to drastically change up the meta like DOTA, but there is more variety and complexity in the 100ish characters in DOTA than there is in 40k+fantasy.

I got into warhammer because it was a game that looked and played more organically than others, having the army in front of you and not on a screen. That also made it more social than traditional electronic games, which is one of its strong points. I wouldn't spend the time and effort building/painting an army if all it did was sit there and look cool. It's gaming that fuels the hobby for me and plenty of others I'm sure.

TLDR:

This game isn't as balanced as it could be, and for not much more effort. Wanting balance for all levels including competitive gaming is good and healthy for the hobbygame. Anyone who thinks GWS isn't selling a game and is only selling a collectors hobby is kidding themselves or being tricked by marketing (and may be apologizing for GWS because of that.)

Spiney Norman
24-05-2014, 07:18
TLDR:

This game isn't as balanced as it could be, and for not much more effort. Wanting balance for all levels including competitive gaming is good and healthy for the hobbygame. Anyone who thinks GWS isn't selling a game and is only selling a collectors hobby is kidding themselves or being tricked by marketing (and may be apologizing for GWS because of that.)

I'd probably counter that by saying warhammer is a lot more balanced than it could be, and has been in the past. If you look at where the game was at the end of 7th edition, or where 40k is now, 8th edition has actually been pretty great for game balance compared to GWs usual shenanigans. To say that they have release a dozen army books throughout the life of 8th and got them, fairly broadly speaking, quite close in terms of balance is pretty amazing given their track record. Now I know there are a few outliers like Tomb Kings and Daemon princes/Chimeras, but I honestly think the worst book in terms of balance is actually Skaven, which wasn't even designed for this edition.

HurrDurr
24-05-2014, 07:23
I don't think that is much of a counter, it could be insanely bad compared to now, and it would be making less money if it was. That's like saying seatbelts could be more dangerous, so don't complain about the injuries they cause. Yes it is true things could be a lot worse and we should be thankful they aren't, but we are also paying a company to keep it that way. It also supports my theory that they are slowly working out the kinks while making some flavor changes because I would agree that this is the best edition warhammer has ever had, and I say that comfortably having played very little of the others (just the little bits of information you hear is enough to give you the bigger picture, hero/cav hammer eww.)

Edit: I'd like to add that IMO 90% of the problems originate in the BRB not army books.

Colonel Mayhem
24-05-2014, 07:53
A thought occurred to me about the way the battle standard works. The fact it works on all leadership rolls makes it encourage an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach. A huge unit with leadership 8-9 and a re roll is insanely hard to threaten by other means than total destruction, which baring a few spells, is only really achieved through close combat, which is where it wants to be. The standard of discipline adds to this by allowing any army to get decent leadership on their biggest most important unit. If it only worked on break tests marchblocking that huge deathstar would become a much more viable tactic as well as attempts to make it turn tail through 25 % losses leading to more uncertainty in bringing so many points of the army in one unit.

I see the big nasty spells like dwellers as the great equalizers at the moment, they are the only things that seriously threatens such strong units. the problem arises when more and more armies get ways of making that threat void, and this is besides how uncertain the magic phase works in the first place.

Alltaken
24-05-2014, 12:56
I'd probably counter that by saying warhammer is a lot more balanced than it could be, and has been in the past. If you look at where the game was at the end of 7th edition, or where 40k is now, 8th edition has actually been pretty great for game balance compared to GWs usual shenanigans. To say that they have release a dozen army books throughout the life of 8th and got them, fairly broadly speaking, quite close in terms of balance is pretty amazing given their track record. Now I know there are a few outliers like Tomb Kings and Daemon princes/Chimeras, but I honestly think the worst book in terms of balance is actually Skaven, which wasn't even designed for this edition.

Dude your point doesnt make a lot of sense. Its sort of established that 8th is the balance edition. But it still could be better, and many people here at least generally agree on the points of balance

From my servoskull