PDA

View Full Version : 8th edition rule modifications



EvanM
05-06-2014, 00:50
army requirements



40% pts minimum spent on core

40% maximum spent on lords or heroes

1 rare unit at armies under 3000 pts

50% maximum spent on special



remove all references to steadfast/ hordes



stubborn remains the same

infantry needs 5 wide for rank bonus, cavalry/war beasts need 4 wide



new combat resolution system



1 pt for flank attack

2 pts for rear attack

maximum 3 pts for doing more wounds of damage than the opponent

1 pt for standard bearer

1 pt for BSB

maximum 3 pts for rank bonus (still removed by flank attack)

1 pts if won challenge

1 pt for more files than opponent



new magic system



channel dice on a 3+ instead of 6

dwarves +2 dispel dice, +2 to dispel

max # of dice per spell is wiz lvl + 2

rolling double 1’s means the spell doesn’t cast (instead of just needing to be 3 or more) even if IF and miscast, miscast effect still occurs.

spells that cause instant death to models allow ward saves from magic resistance



shooting:



shortbows, slings, bows, longbows, crossbows, handguns, etc.: +6” range

fast cav can shoot 360 degrees

fast cav can fire move-or-fire weapons while moving (but not while marching)

pistols: no long range -1

any throwing weapon gets quick to fire

arrow shower: any bow weapon can fire instead with the following profile

S2, range -6” , multiple shots x2, quick to fire



artillery:



can fire at the ground

can aim at friendly models

can fire into combat

cause panic if does any wounds of damage

all misfire results: 1-5 cannot shoot this turn, 6 explodes



bolt throwers:



reroll misses to hit

d2 wounds



cannons:



S10

range 60”

d3 wounds

Heroic Killing Blow



These are some thoughts I came up with to perhaps make the game a little different, changing the competitive gameplay to still be in the spirit of more laid back games.

what do you think?

Ramius4
05-06-2014, 02:01
what do you think?

I think you don't want to play 8th edition Warhammer.

MOMUS
05-06-2014, 02:28
I think, with the greatest respect, that you actually haven't got a clear grasp of the rules as they currently stand. Thus, the above modifications seem a little ill thought out.

HelloKitty
05-06-2014, 03:18
It thinks no.

artisturn
05-06-2014, 03:37
Magic is the only thing that needs tweaking ( number six spells in the main rule book).

Shooting is already pretty strong and your proposed changes will make it worse for those armies that are light on the shooting,as it is having to face a gunline is not an enjoyable experience.

As a Night Goblin player steadfast allows my army to have a decent chance at winning.

GrandmasterWang
05-06-2014, 04:10
A couple of those are ok but on the whole I prefer the current rules.

As an example of something I dont agree with... why should artillery be able to fire at friendly models. That doesnt make fluff/background sense

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

EvanM
05-06-2014, 04:52
what rules do you think i dont know?

okay these are just thoughts, mainly im unhappy with the combat resolution system, 1 pt per wound is silly when you kill a dozen guys a turn, but oh i guess we can ignore getting slaughtered as long as we have more ranks than them... Its also regularly difficult to count up combat res at the end of the combat, especially in huge infantry fights.

i dont care about shooting much, whatever. Id like to see cannons more versatile (why maybe d3 wounds would be better and slight buff against infantry).

horde and steadfast are super weird for basically being buffs based on deployment.

Sexiest_hero
05-06-2014, 05:15
Hey you gave it a good try there is no harm in trying. Sadly I must say NAY.

EvanM
05-06-2014, 05:29
does anyone want to say specifically why they dont like any of the changes, individually? Okay maybe all together it would be crazy...

Sexiest_hero
05-06-2014, 06:48
Well I stopped paying real attention after removing steadfast and hordes. Firing at the ground or at friendlies is just absurd. Nobody would do that with out the survivers mudering them as soon as possible. Wardsaves for instadeat means that chaos wins warhammer. Channiling on a 3 plus means max dice. I actually don't mind the cannon one...too much

GrandmasterWang
05-06-2014, 07:02
Definitely don't like 3+ channelling. You would end up with power dice batteries like 7th which was the worst.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Urgat
05-06-2014, 07:56
I'll be nice and helpful and make a point per point comment:



army requirements



40% pts minimum spent on core - Why not, I don't mind, though I'm not sure what it achieves. Some army have lethal core (WoC), some don't, it's just moving the balance around, it's not fixing anything
40% maximum spent on lords or heroes - Same
1 rare unit at armies under 3000 pts - No. It's fine for those armies that have monstrous rares, but not for those that have weak ones. No duplicates of rares, if you want, that'd be better.
50% maximum spent on special - Haven't played for a few months, but isn't that how it is already?



remove all references to steadfast/ hordes - NO. And I won't argue, there's been dozens of threads about it. For the first time in the history of Warhammer, weak infantry actually has a use, and whatever the constant whinning of the non-steadfast players (almost always the elite infantry players, surprisingly), I've never seen it break a game. I've only heard about slaves causing problems in that regard.



stubborn remains the same - her, yeah.
infantry needs 5 wide for rank bonus, cavalry/war beasts need 4 wide - No. Remove steadfast, 4 knights for a rank huh? Back to 7th ed, but worse? Hell no.



new combat resolution system



1 pt for flank attack - already like that I believe
2 pts for rear attack - sure.
maximum 3 pts for doing more wounds of damage than the opponent - No, coz we keep steadfast.
1 pt for standard bearer - iirc all the following is the same, not commenting
1 pt for BSB
maximum 3 pts for rank bonus (still removed by flank attack)
1 pts if won challenge
1 pt for more files than opponent - there used to be an outnumber bonus, I don't care if it's back, I always outnumber :p



new magic system



channel dice on a 3+ instead of 6 - no.
dwarves +2 dispel dice, +2 to dispel - if you want
max # of dice per spell is wiz lvl + 2 - congregated?
rolling double 1’s means the spell doesn’t cast (instead of just needing to be 3 or more) even if IF and miscast, miscast effect still occurs. - it's exactly the same, or I don't understand what you meant
spells that cause instant death to models allow ward saves from magic resistance - yeah, excepted I'd rather we got rid of instant death altogether



shooting:



shortbows, slings, bows, longbows, crossbows, handguns, etc.: +6” range - Why not, I don't mind
fast cav can shoot 360 degrees - same
fast cav can fire move-or-fire weapons while moving (but not while marching) - I'm not familiar with those, no opinion
pistols: no long range -1 - same
any throwing weapon gets quick to fire - same
arrow shower: any bow weapon can fire instead with the following profile
S2, range -6” , multiple shots x2, quick to fire - Obviously alternative countercharge? Shoot more, but wound less. Pretty pointless if you ask me.



artillery:



can fire at the ground - No. I can imagine all the rule-bending that would bring. "can't see your troops, but oh I'll shout that patch of grass, and with the rebound I'll just happen to hit what's hidden behind the hill"
can aim at friendly models - No. Same as above
can fire into combat - No. Same as above
cause panic if does any wounds of damage - No. Why should one goblin cause the panic of a unit of 50?
all misfire results: 1-5 cannot shoot this turn, 6 explodes - You really, really like your artillery, don't you?



bolt throwers:



reroll misses to hit - Why?
d2 wounds - Iirc, instead of D6? No. My spearchukkas already aren't exactly stellar. You obviously don't care about second rate armies like gobs as all your rules sound designed to hammer them underground, but some do care.



cannons:



S10
range 60”
d3 wounds
Heroic Killing Blow
- why not.


So in short, lot's of no, and lots of pointless, for me. Sorry if my comments get increasingly snarky as it goes, but as you read those suggestions, it becomes pretty obvious what kind of army lists you run, and that you're not happy you can't do the same as in 7th ed. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of me, and why I like 8th ed so much over 7th ed.
I think pretty much everybody (bar the most fanatic cavalry fans) agrees that 8th ed is the most balanced edition so far. Cavarly armies don't run over other armies anymore, monsters/characters don't single-handedly win anymore. There's hardly a fixed type of list that reigns over the other anymore apart maybe MC heavy ones, and I understand it tends to be mitigated as new books are released. I don't care about the whinners, hordes and steadfast don't win games either (horde's usually pointless, steadfast gets activated only when you lose).
There, honest, unaltered opinion.

Clockwork
05-06-2014, 08:20
what rules do you think i dont know?

okay these are just thoughts, mainly im unhappy with the combat resolution system, 1 pt per wound is silly when you kill a dozen guys a turn, but oh i guess we can ignore getting slaughtered as long as we have more ranks than them... Its also regularly difficult to count up combat res at the end of the combat, especially in huge infantry fights.

i dont care about shooting much, whatever. Id like to see cannons more versatile (why maybe d3 wounds would be better and slight buff against infantry).

horde and steadfast are super weird for basically being buffs based on deployment.

Not this again.

Like everything in Warhammer, Steadfast is an abstraction used to represent a unit maintaining its coherence and formation against something which lacks these things. That coherence is still dependent on the units Leadership, which could be excellent (Elves, Dwarfs) or very poor (Goblins, Skaven), so its not as if all infantry have suddenly become super-drilled soldiers - only that they recognise that having a bunch of guys with you to keep the formation together in the face of a giant is a Good Thing.

Hordes have plenty of historical precedents, from the infamous Phalanx to the Line of early modern warfare, and involved elite as well as poor quality units. I don't know why this gets so much hate. The only change that I'd suggest would be that hordes, being large and unwieldy, can't march- but I don't think its that big of a deal. Frankly, any rule which gets more actual infantry onto the table, and less solo characters, Flying Monsters or Monstrous Cav, is a good thing.

Metacarpi
05-06-2014, 08:31
Its also regularly difficult to count up combat res at the end of the combat, especially in huge infantry fights.

Yeah man, that counting thing is a real bitch.

What me and my group do is this:

Gather a load of dice, and Player A puts down a dice for each point of Combat Resolution he earns. Player B then removes a dice for each point he earns. If he removes all the dice, he begins placing them back down.

That way both players can clearly see what is being accounted for, and misunderstandings/errors can be avoided.

BlackPawl
05-06-2014, 08:58
horde and steadfast are super weird for basically being buffs based on deployment.


Yea, deployment / formation was / is an important part of military. If not I don't know why there would be carré, phalanx, lopsided battle order etc. at all.
It's a good rule becuase it can be used by all units / armies.


Should we remove "skirmish" because it's also a form of deployment / formation and gives some units a buff?

HelloKitty
05-06-2014, 13:26
It finds steadfast to be an integral part of why this one likes fantasy. Without steadfast the table looks nothing like what this one thinks a historical styled battle would look like - it looks like a bunch of little cavalry units running everywhere and the only time any creatures would take garbage infantry is if the creatures had a game master that set that scenario up...

olderplayer
05-06-2014, 16:15
I think that the proposed rule mods go too far. I would create some scalability in the game and suggest, assuming GW, does not do it, a war bands version of the game and more minor tweaks instead to address the most common complaints (deathstars and large point denial units exploiting the VP rules and steadfast and OP number six spells that can end the game a nd OP magic). The minor modifications to slightly reduce steadfast and reward movement tactics.

MAGIC:
Scale the power dice based on size of the battle
1. Up to 1000 points 2xD3 power dice and dispel dice are greater of the two D3. No more than 4 dice can be used to attempt to cast a spell.
2. 1000 points up to 1999 points roll 2 D6 dice. The greater number is the first set of power dice and the number of dispel dice and treat the second dice as D3 additional power dice. No more than 5 dice can be used to attempt to cast a spell.
3. 2000 to 2999 as normal.
4. Over 3000, as normal, but channel on a 5+ instead of 6+ and the limit on power and dispel dice is increased to 15.

A miscast is any double 1's and is a failure to cast. Double 6's are only irresistable force but a miscast and irresistable force is a failure to cast and loss of concentration of the wizard (creates more risk for 6 dicing purple sun, dwellers, dreaded 13th). I would consider modifying the existing miscast table structured based on D6 plus the number of dice used to attempt to cast such that dimensional cascade occurs only on a 11+ (if you threw six diceand miscast and then rolled a 5 or 6 on the D6 then you suffer a dimensional cascade, if you threw five dice and rolled a 6 then dimensional cascade) and then scale the consequences down to say 3 or 4 being no consequence beyond losing concentration and failure to cast. [This is sort of like the steam table mishap table concept.] With a miscast being double 1's, as in 7th edition, there is greater risk of failure to cast and loss of concentration to offset the 5 dice and 6 dice casting efforts, so the miscast concequences can be modified a bit.

All hex, direct damage, and vortex spells cast on a unit the case wounds to every model in the unit or require every model in a unit to test (including dwellers below, dreaded 13th, and final tranmutation) shall be treated as template hits and to allow up to two characters or one character and one champion in the unit to take a look out sir and avoid having to take a test, be removed from play, or otherwise suffer a wound. [Basically, ETC rules mod.]

UNIT SIZES, RANKS AND LOOK OUT SIRES;
Under 1000 points:
For ranks and rank bonuses, the following will consistute a rank as well as sufficient for a look our sire:
1. Infantry 4 models wide
2. Cavalry 3 models wide
3. Monstrous cav and monstrous infantry - 2 models wide
Also, the unit size restrictions in the army books are relaxed in the following manner:
1. Infantry -greater of 4 or 50% of the minimum size
2. Cavalry - greater of 3 or 50% of the minimum size
3. Monstrous infantry and monstrous cav - 2 if minimum size is 3, 1 if minimum size is 1.

One unit champion in a core or special infantry or cavalry unit may be promoted to a general with two wounds for an additional 30 points (in additional to the upgrade to champion) and may spend up to 50 points on magic items. In Ogre kingdoms armies, the unit champ in an Ogres or Ironguts core unit may be upgraded to a general and gain an additional wound for 40 points and may spend up to 50 points on magic items. Once a general, the model must be deployed with its original unit but may leave its unit and otherwise act as a character beginning in the first movement phase after deployment.
One unit champion in a core or special infantry or cavalry unit may be upgraded to a BSB with two wounds for 50 points and may spend up to 30 points on magic items or, alternatively, carry a magic banner of up to 50 points. In Ogre kingdoms armies, the unit champ in an Ogres or Ironguts core unit may be upgraded to a BSB for 25 points and may spend up to 30 points on magic items or, alternatively, carry a magic banner of up to 50 points. Once upgraded to a BSB, the model must be deployed with its unit but may otherwise leave it unit and act as a character beginning in the first movement phase after deployment.
Additionally, if the army does not have a mage, then excluding dwarves, one unit champion in a core or special infantry or cavalry unit may be upgraded to a lvl 1 mage with two wounds for 45 points and may spend up to 25 points on arcane magic items but loses any armour it might be normally equipped with.


For 1000 to 1749 points:
1. Infantry model units rank up 5 wide
2. Cavalry units rank up 4 models wide
3. Monstrous cav and monstrous infantry - 3 models wide
Also, the unit size restrictions in the army books are relaxed in the following manner:
1. Infantry -greater of 5 or 50% of the minimum size for the models in the unit set forth in the army book
2. Cavalry - greater of 4 or 50% of the minimum size for the models in the unit set forth in the army book
3. Monstrous infantry and monstrous cav - 3 if minimum size is 3 or more, 1 if minimum size is 1.

For points 1750 to 2499, the standard unit size rules apply except that monstrous infantry and monstrous cav units can provide a standard look out sir (2+ for character of same type in the unit and 4+ for character of same type within 3" of the unit) at if at least 3 or more rank and file models exist in the unit.


Steadfast, Disruption, Flank and Rear issues:
1. The number of ranks counted for being steadfast may be reduced by 50% rounded up for a unit that is disrupted by an opposing unit in contact with its rear or flank.
2. A cavalry unit in the flank or rear of an opposing unit counts its first rank as two ranks for purposes of disruption, meaning one rank of cavarly breaks ranks and disprupts ranks of an opposing unit if in the flank or rear.
3. A unit charging the flank or rear of an opposing unit, counts its initiative as double (up to a max of 10) its normal initiative to reflect the surprise element and the fact that the opposing models must turn to fight in that first round of combat after the successful charge. In addition, if the opposing unit has ASF, the models in the unit charged in the flank or rear count as not having ASF when choosing to attack models that charged its flank or rear in the first round of combat after the charge.

Victory Points Modification:
For all units remaining in play at the end of the battle, count as victory points the greater of the following two options:
1. Count the number of unsaved wounds suffered in the unit by the end of the battle (excluding characters) and substract ten from that number to obtain an "adjusted wounds total". Then divide that "adjusted wounds total" number by the total number of wounds in the unit at the start of the battle (excluding characters) in order to determine the "proportion of unit damage". Award victory points to the opposing player based on the the "proportion of unit damage" times the initial point cost of the rank and file unit (excluding characters). [Note: this rewards smaller units and punished larger units. While a bit more cumbersome to calculate, this eliminates the need for size-based restrictions in ETC and the increased points for adding to size in units in Swedish comp. One is still rewarded for larger units as a result of steadfast rules making such units more resilient, but it reflects the real world context that killing a lot of models and weakening an army should count for something. One might test using five or 6 instead of ten on the "free" wounds number.]
2. For all units and models fleeing at the end of the battle, award 75% of their total points cost if below 25% of the starting wounds in a rank and file unit (not counting characters) and award 30% of their total points cost if not a rank and file unit or if at or above 25% of starting wounds in a rank and file unit.

Additionally, a character in a unit fleeing that is below 25% of its starting wounds may attempt to separately rally on its normal leadership (adjusted for any modifiers in play such as a standard of discipline or doom and darkness) minus 2 instead of attempting to rallying with the unit. If the charactere attempts to separately rally, then it may not contribute its leadership or any leadership benefits such as inspiring presence or hold the line to any rank and file unit attempting to rally in that same movement phase.

EvanM
05-06-2014, 17:30
Well for one thing, I play empire and skaven so this isnt a WoC pity party about hordes.

8th is really good! no arguments here!

I only thought of a few things because of my last game where i rolled double 1's for the winds of magic two turns in a row... then with those two dice, i rolled 2 6's for my spell and blew up 8 halberdiers.

I wanted cannons to be less a long ranged insta kill to monsters/chariots/war machines and to be more versatile at shooting actual troops so d3 wounds instead of d6 seems nicer.

I felt like bolt throwers never hit, tbh. BS3 goblin bolt throwers hit on 4's at short range, 5s at long butttttt my cannon hits dead on every single shot?? yeah whats up with that?

I still dont like CR and how little static CR matters. I mean a stubborn/steadfast unit is nigh unbreakable with general+bsb so you could literally march it up, unsupported, get charged on all 4 sides and still fight them off without caring.

Clockwork
05-06-2014, 18:28
That's a problem with the cannon rules, though - not Bolt Throwers. The advantage of Goblin ones is that they are so cheap you just bring multiples so that something should hit.

HelloKitty
05-06-2014, 19:23
Target #1 - the bsb
Target #2 - the general

suddenly it finds the steadfast units are typically not so bad once this one has dealt with targets 1 & 2

CountUlrich
05-06-2014, 19:44
Horrible rules and absolutelt hamstring/destroy vc armys

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Drachen_Jager
06-06-2014, 03:53
So... basically you want to nerf half the armies out there while making your own stronger?

I have a rule change.

For the OP's cannon's only. +100 points, Nuclear warhead. All enemy models within line of sight of the designated target are removed from play without saves of any kind.

This thread is silly.

Can I make a rule? Whenever my Demon Prince kills something, I'm allowed to physically crush the destroyed model with a hammer.

There.

Done now.

Please think of everyone and not just yourself if you want any rules suggestions to be taken seriously.

Malagor
06-06-2014, 11:47
So... basically you want to nerf half the armies out there while making your own stronger?

A common trait it seems.
There was another rule suggestion thread not too long ago that followed the same pattern, destroyed several armies while making their own stronger.
Needless to say, the community should never be allowed to write rules or even suggest them.

Spiney Norman
06-06-2014, 12:13
what do you think?

I think that if you ever decide to organise a Tournement, remind me not to come.

I actually don't want to imagine putting a vampire count or wood elf army together with 40% core. There are a number of armies that have extremely weak core across the board, that rule is going to hurt them more, which is the last thing they need.

theunwantedbeing
06-06-2014, 12:13
The 1 rare at 0-3000pts is baffling to be honest, why?

Removing Hordes is fine, all the rule really does is encourage deathstars.

The rank change makes sense but it would help to go one further and define monsters as only needing to be 1 model wide to get a rank, this negates a lot of silliness with the steadfast rule. Similarly steadfast causes issues largely due to it's interaction with the General and BSB rules, so those need altering instead.

With combat res I'de change it to a max of +5 for wounds and ranks as that at least allow single high damage models a fair chance at winning combats vs ranked units without making it too silly. At the moment it would be impossible for a single model to win combat vs a ranked unit and just encourage more stubborn character's who basically can't be killed while in combat.

The magic alterations are very minor and don't really solve anything, they do allow battery wizards to exist through a lot of dice channelling though.

Not sure on the point of the shooting changes, it does make outriders quite good though.

Your artillery changes just open up more rule abuses than they solve.


They're not great changes to be honest, and removing steadfast means 99% of people will just hate your changes even if they'de agree with them if they were mentioned on their own.
You have done a good job at crippling single models though.

Engineer
06-06-2014, 12:21
But the idea of limiting combat resolution from wounds to three I think might work. The 2D6 leadership really doesn't work if the combats are not within 1-3 points. So change the 'I win by ten' to a 'I win by two' and steadfast could be dropped.

Gobs vs WoC:
Gobs
- +3 ranks
- +1 banner
- +1 kill - lucky shot
WoC
- +2 ranks
- +1 banner
- +10 kills limited to +3

So gobs lose by two but had they gotten a unit into the flank or rear they could have won. Not that I have a problem with steadfast but supporting attacks and the shear number of attacks units put out now breaks a basic mechanic (LD break tests) of the game.

Alltaken
06-06-2014, 13:39
But the idea of limiting combat resolution from wounds to three I think might work. The 2D6 leadership really doesn't work if the combats are not within 1-3 points. So change the 'I win by ten' to a 'I win by two' and steadfast could be dropped.

Gobs vs WoC:
Gobs
- +3 ranks
- +1 banner
- +1 kill - lucky shot
WoC
- +2 ranks
- +1 banner
- +10 kills limited to +3

So gobs lose by two but had they gotten a unit into the flank or rear they could have won. Not that I have a problem with steadfast but supporting attacks and the shear number of attacks units put out now breaks a basic mechanic (LD break tests) of the game.

Dwarfs are never, ever ever going to run with this. Bring great weapon units on your castle lists and grind people to death. No one should make enough res to make your ld 10 with reroll run.

From my servoskull

Urgat
06-06-2014, 14:47
A common trait it seems.
There was another rule suggestion thread not too long ago that followed the same pattern, destroyed several armies while making their own stronger.
Needless to say, the community should never be allowed to write rules or even suggest them.

As long as we can bash GW's rulewriting and let us believe we can do better, who cares if we actually don't? :p

Malagor
06-06-2014, 15:12
As long as we can bash GW's rulewriting and let us believe we can do better, who cares if we actually don't? :p
You never know, GW might start to embrace the community.
I do think the design team lurks these forums because the unbound rules in 40k is something I have seen people suggest for a while now ever since the craziness started with 6e.

HelloKitty
06-06-2014, 16:55
It has heard stories of creatures drinking with design-creatures at pubs and they discuss what is being said in the community and on the internet so it fully thinks that GW is aware of what the filthy posters write about on these forums.

PlasticSwap.Com
06-06-2014, 17:22
As long as we can bash GW's rulewriting and let us believe we can do better, who cares if we actually don't? :p

Sorry OP i'm with everyone else here. Your rules seem like they would "fix" the game for the army you play (or fix the army you play against that you dislike). It would completely destroy other armies, especially those armies that already struggle or have very limited lists.


I have been inspired though, here is my attempt at fixing 8th edition:
1) Remove "irresistibly cast" spells, leave the miscast table
2) If a unit has magic resistance and is targeted by a spell they get to roll an extra dispel dice against that spell for each point of MR.
3) If a unit is attacked in the flank when counting for steadfast it has one less rank (2 less for getting hit in the rear).
4) Flaming attacks against black powder weapons cause them to roll on the misfire table regardless of causing a wound. (let me caveat this one in that i never use black powder weapons so this could be a horrible idea).

CountUlrich
06-06-2014, 17:27
Sorry OP i'm with everyone else here. Your rules seem like they would "fix" the game for the army you play (or fix the army you play against that you dislike). It would completely destroy other armies, especially those armies that already struggle or have very limited lists.


I have been inspired though, here is my attempt at fixing 8th edition:
1) Remove "irresistibly cast" spells, leave the miscast table
2) If a unit has magic resistance and is targeted by a spell they get to roll an extra dispel dice against that spell for each point of MR.
3) If a unit is attacked in the flank when counting for steadfast it has one less rank (2 less for getting hit in the rear).
4) Flaming attacks against black powder weapons cause them to roll on the misfire table regardless of causing a wound. (let me caveat this one in that i never use black powder weapons so this could be a horrible idea).

Your rules are sensible and good other than the black powxer one. Fluffy but overpowered. Also, hills a d trees should block line of sight. Our gaming club and all of our regional GTs play that way, and it is a needed chanve.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

yabbadabba
06-06-2014, 17:34
army requirements



40% pts minimum spent on core

40% maximum spent on lords or heroes

1 rare unit at armies under 3000 pts

50% maximum spent on special
- all these do not necessarily add or subtract from the game, they are just personal choice. That's fine though.


remove all references to steadfast/ hordes
- why? These both add to the game and just need minor tweaking, not dumping. And remember you can the horde rule.


stubborn remains the same - fair enough, why did you need to include this?

infantry needs 5 wide for rank bonus, cavalry/war beasts need 4 wide
I disagree, but I am playtesting some ideas about Heavy Cavalry having a +1 rank bonus on the charge as a generic rule


new combat resolution system



1 pt for flank attack

2 pts for rear attack

maximum 3 pts for doing more wounds of damage than the opponent

1 pt for standard bearer

1 pt for BSB

maximum 3 pts for rank bonus (still removed by flank attack)

1 pts if won challenge

1 pt for more files than opponent
I'll need to know your motivations for this before commenting


new magic system



channel dice on a 3+ instead of 6 - why?

dwarves +2 dispel dice, +2 to dispel -

max # of dice per spell is wiz lvl + 2

rolling double 1’s means the spell doesn’t cast (instead of just needing to be 3 or more) even if IF and miscast, miscast effect still occurs.

spells that cause instant death to models allow ward saves from magic resistance - as long as it is not an add on, but a stand alone, eg MR +1 goves a 6+ ward vs instant death spells.



shooting:



shortbows, slings, bows, longbows, crossbows, handguns, etc.: +6” range

fast cav can shoot 360 degrees

fast cav can fire move-or-fire weapons while moving (but not while marching)

pistols: no long range -1

any throwing weapon gets quick to fire

arrow shower: any bow weapon can fire instead with the following profile

S2, range -6” , multiple shots x2, quick to fire
- what are your motivations for making shooting more powerful but with no counter balance?


artillery:



can fire at the ground - no, it serves no purpose

can aim at friendly models - definitely not. There is an additional tactical and strategic element introduced in not allowing you to target your own troops. Now I can see this as a special rule for some models that are so terrifying that anyone would countenance the idea of killing their own side, but generally? Nope, sorry.

can fire into combat - nope. See above, in addition it made the shooting phase far too complex and slow when it was allowed.

cause panic if does any wounds of damage - dear god no. Troops are trained to accept casualties from missile weapons, and this makes any army but the highest Ld ones an absolute nightmare to play with vs a gunline.

all misfire results: 1-5 cannot shoot this turn, 6 explodes - not sure how this adds to the game



bolt throwers:



reroll misses to hit - why?

d2 wounds - not sure why?



cannons:



S10

range 60”

d3 wounds

Heroic Killing Blow

As long as it was d3 wounds AND HKB - if you get hit by a cannonball there should be only a very small chance that you are not going to be incapacitated.


I am stuck for your motivations for these rule changes, could you explain your observations and experiences please?

HelloKitty
06-06-2014, 17:34
It should read the fire elementals from the Forgeworld monster book. Their presence sets off blackpowder.

yabbadabba
06-06-2014, 17:36
As long as we can bash GW's rulewriting and let us believe we can do better, who cares if we actually don't? :p +1 Like.

There are rules changes that can be made, but the vast majority change the game for no discernible effect. However there are tweaks that can be made that will improve 8ths playability, and there are additional rules that could easily be included for a Veteran/Advanced ruleset. All of these changes can only come from the community.

monkey10120
06-06-2014, 17:40
Sorry OP i'm with everyone else here. Your rules seem like they would "fix" the game for the army you play (or fix the army you play against that you dislike). It would completely destroy other armies, especially those armies that already struggle or have very limited lists.


I have been inspired though, here is my attempt at fixing 8th edition:
1) Remove "irresistibly cast" spells, leave the miscast table
2) If a unit has magic resistance and is targeted by a spell they get to roll an extra dispel dice against that spell for each point of MR.
3) If a unit is attacked in the flank when counting for steadfast it has one less rank (2 less for getting hit in the rear).
4) Flaming attacks against black powder weapons cause them to roll on the misfire table regardless of causing a wound. (let me caveat this one in that i never use black powder weapons so this could be a horrible idea).

I dont mind those rules. GW really only has the magic phase in need of tweaking by making it less random or toning down spells just a little bit. I meant they could even combine some of 40k's new magic rules. Lets say make a wizards lvl be like BS and how its calculated. and thats what you need to get on how every many dice the spell requires. And for power and dispel dice, lets say you get your wizard lvl + D3 and you opponent gets their dispel based of their wizard lvl. It makes it a little less random. Spells would have to definitely be toned down though.

Other than that I only want a way to break stead fast. Not an easy way to break it just some way to break it. 8th is a very balanced game though.

yabbadabba
06-06-2014, 17:46
Other than that I only want a way to break stead fast. Not an easy way to break it just some way to break it. 8th is a very balanced game though. We are playtesting the idea that Combat Resolution bonuses for flank and rear attacks also modify the Ld for a break test of the unit is Steadfast (note, not Stubborn). This puts the emphasis on getting those supporting charges in to break a big unit. Seems to be working ok so far, although Goblins have taken a hell of a pounding on occasions.

monkey10120
06-06-2014, 17:56
We are playtesting the idea that Combat Resolution bonuses for flank and rear attacks also modify the Ld for a break test of the unit is Steadfast (note, not Stubborn). This puts the emphasis on getting those supporting charges in to break a big unit. Seems to be working ok so far, although Goblins have taken a hell of a pounding on occasions.

Even that sounds good but I can see where low ld hordes will get hurt bad. However, what if the unit does not take modifiers if it outnumbers the enemy 2:1. Same 1 infantry and 3 for Monstrous. This would mean the ngiht goblins that usually run in 100 strong would have to be hit by a total of 51 enemy models before modifiers kicked in. It feels more natural because real life strength in numbers. This way Slaves Night gobos, Skellies, Zombies and so on are not getting dominated by combat res as long as it has its numbers.

Just a thought though :)

liddan
06-06-2014, 19:09
I think it would be better if you focused on maybe the top 2-3 rules that you think need changing and come up with a good solution for those that is applicable and balanced across all armies.

Motivate your decisions and describe your thought patterns for a more substantial post that opens up to discussion.

olderplayer
06-06-2014, 21:53
Accepting liddan's suggestion. Taking from my longer post, which included more "fixes" to 8th edition to create scalability, the really fixes I've seen and think have some merit include:

Magic:
All hex, direct damage, and vortex spells cast on a unit the case wounds to every model in the unit or require every model in a unit to test (including dwellers below, dreaded 13th, and final transmutation) shall be treated as template hits and to allow up to two characters or one character and one champion in the unit to take a look out sir and avoid having to take a test, be removed from play, or otherwise suffer a wound. [Basically, ETC rules mod.]

A miscast is any double 1's and is a failure to cast. Double 6's are only irresistible force but a miscast and irresistible force is a failure to cast and loss of concentration of the wizard (creates more risk for 6 dicing purple sun, dwellers, dreaded 13th).

Note: The look out sir mod is becoming almost standard at most events in some variation and solves the autowin outcomes and stupid six dicing big spells problem. The two models max look out sir limits deathstars a bit. I found that the miscast on double 1's and failure to cast on double 1's takes some of the punch out of the stupid six dice dwellers consequences. I'd fix the miscast table as well to have the consequences based on number of dice thrown at the spell plus D6 (more dice means greater risk of bad consequences sort of like a steam tank table) but that requires altering the game too much and is really a suggestion for 9th edition.

Victory Points Modification to Deal with Deathstars and Point Denial Units:
For all units remaining in play at the end of the battle, count as victory points the greater of the following two options:
1. Count the number of unsaved wounds suffered in the unit by the end of the battle (excluding characters) and subtract ten (or five or six) from that number to obtain an "adjusted wounds total". Then divide that "adjusted wounds total" number by the total number of wounds in the unit at the start of the battle (excluding characters) in order to determine the "proportion of unit damage". Award victory points to the opposing player based on the the "proportion of unit damage" times the initial point cost of the rank and file unit (excluding characters). [Note: this rewards smaller units and punished larger units. While a bit more cumbersome to calculate, this eliminates the need for size-based restrictions in ETC and the increased points for adding to size in units in Swedish comp. One is still rewarded for larger units as a result of steadfast rules making such units more resilient, but it reflects the real world context that killing a lot of models and weakening an army should count for something. One might test using five or 6 instead of ten on the "free" wounds number.]
Alternatively, and more simply, award 25% or 30% VPs for causing 50%+ wounds to the rank and file unit as a percentage of starting wounds and/or 50% or 60% VPs for causing 75%+ unsaved wounds to the rank and file unit as a percentage of its starting wounds (excluding characters).
2. For all units and models fleeing at the end of the battle, award 50% or 60% of their total points cost if below 25% of the starting wounds in a rank and file unit (not counting characters) and award 25% or 30% of their total points cost if not a rank and file unit or if at or above 25% of starting wounds in a rank and file unit.

Note: I have seen both used and used both VP mods in the context of scenarios at tournaments and in three round one day events and liked the effect each had on the game. Both work well and solve the deathstar and horde problem and seem to balance the game without eseentially changing the game. They also eliminated the need for the ETC line limits on points costs and models in units and the Swedish comp increasing penalties structure for adding additional additiional models to larger units.

Additionally, a character in a unit fleeing that is below 25% of its starting wounds may attempt to separately rally on its normal leadership (adjusted for any modifiers in play such as a standard of discipline or doom and darkness) minus 2 instead of attempting to rallying with the unit. If the character attempts to separately rally, then it may not contribute its leadership or any leadership benefits such as inspiring presence or hold the line to any rank and file unit attempting to rally in that same movement phase.

Note: this fix is designed to allow one to "save" characters and not be afraid to put characters in small units into combat or into situations where they might fail panic tests. It also takes away some of the concentrtion of multiple dwellers and similar spell tricks with war machines to reduce a unit below 25% and try to panic a unit with a character into being unable to rally in lower LD armies (such as skaven and nigth goblins and skinks).

Line of Sight and Cannons and such:
Alternatives:
1. Revert to 7th edition line of sight rules for forests. [This has been used at some events but will likely be abused too much by Wood Elves too much to be fair]
2. Revert to 7th edition line of sight rules for hills. [Hills block line of sight to all models behind but not on the hill itself. Seems to severe.]
3. Leave true line of sight in place but add a cover save concept to all non-BS shooting consistent with the BS shooting penalties. A cannonball shot through a forest hits a tree while in flight on a 5+ or hits a tree on a 5+ on the bounce if aimed at a model in or behind a forest. A cannonball shot past the crest of a hill hits the hill and ether stops or bounces harmlessly into the air on a 5+. [Note: this is a compromise on the first two fixes where dwarf armies can be really nerfed as happened at US Masters this year due to everything blocking line of sight.]
3. Cannonballs cannot be aimed at points on the ground to hit models not within line of sight.
4. The point that the cannonball aims at scatters D3" like a stone thrower (instead of always hitting on artillery dice forward of the aiming point) and then resolve the bounce as normal. [Note: limits ability to deliberately "overshoot" into the truly intended target and limits ability to pick out smaller lone models or models in units with no look out sir. Does require a separate misfire roll.]


Steadfast and Flank and Rear charge issues:
Alternatives wrt to priority in combat:
1. Units charged in the rear or flank lose ASF if they have ASF.
2. Units charged in the rear or flank lose half their I rounded up if that choose to target opposing models that charged that turn in the flank or rear.
3. Units charging the rear or flank get to re-roll to hit on the turn that they charge.
Note: the purpose is to reflect on the benefits of charging flanks and rear to add some of the 7th edition movement tactics back into the game. Kings of War gives additional attacks as an alternative but I think the concept of being outmaneuvered and surprised, losing some combat priority, is more rewarding.

Non-exclusive Alternatives wrt Steadfast and rank bonuses:
1. Cavalry units, maybe chariots, and monsters count as +1 Ranks on the turn they charge in the flanks or rear both for purposes of disrupting ranks and calculating whether a unit remains steadfast.
2. Skirmishers count as ranking up but count their ranks as half rounded up when in combat. [For example, skirmishers in three ranks would count as two ranks for steadfast and distupting ranks purposes and only provide +1 to CR for additional ranks. The intent is to allow for skirmishers to be more viable in the game,]
3. A unit in the flank that disrupts ranks reduces the ranks of an opposing unit for purposes of determining steadfast by -1 or -2; a unit in the rear that disrupts ranks reduces the ranks of an opposing unit for purposes to determining steadfast by -2 or -3; or, alternatively a unit with its ranks disrupted counts as only half of its normal ranks rounded up for purposes of determining steadfast. [I prefer the half rounded up as consistent with GW rules.]

Note: The above suggestions still reward larger units of cheap infantry like night goblins, skaven slaves and clanrats, and brett and empire infantry but also allow for more movement tactics and benefit to hitting the flanks and rear of units. I think MMU infantry has a role in the game and should be allowed to break ranks and reduce steadfast in units.

My sense is that the 8th edition game is fairly balanced except for the existence of large point denial hordes and deathstar units, certain OP magic spells, and cannons too easily killing monsters and lone characters due to the absence of guess ranges in the 8th edition game. The idea is to eliminate the need for the ETC unit size limits and the Swedish comp bias against larger units through more modest rules tweaks.

Urgat
06-06-2014, 21:54
Sorry OP i'm with everyone else here. Your rules seem like they would "fix" the game for the army you play (or fix the army you play against that you dislike). It would completely destroy other armies, especially those armies that already struggle or have very limited lists.


I have been inspired though, here is my attempt at fixing 8th edition:
1) Remove "irresistibly cast" spells, leave the miscast table
2) If a unit has magic resistance and is targeted by a spell they get to roll an extra dispel dice against that spell for each point of MR.
3) If a unit is attacked in the flank when counting for steadfast it has one less rank (2 less for getting hit in the rear).
4) Flaming attacks against black powder weapons cause them to roll on the misfire table regardless of causing a wound. (let me caveat this one in that i never use black powder weapons so this could be a horrible idea).

The 4th one is actually an excellent idea, never even thought about that. The only problem is I'm not sure it is really justified balance-wise, but fluff-wise, it's great.

Allow me to post my own 8th ed modification that, I think, most people would agree with:
Miscast happens on a double 1, IF on double 6, as it used to be. If you get both in the same casting, it works like now, IF+miscast at the same time.
When you miscast, you do not roll additionnal dice: you keep the result you got with your casting throw. That result you apply to the new miscast table. The table goes from 2 where nothing
really happens, to 18 where you got the worst of the worst (dimensionnal cascade, or, why not, even worse).
So if you miscast, the more dice you have, the worse it gets, which is how it should be, really if you pay any attention to the fluff at all, and in any logical balance philosophy. If you six-dice every time like the very subtle player you are, well if you miscast, you got 50% chance of a dimensionnal cascade, which seems fair. High reward, high risk. Aiming at the IF+miscast on purpose like some people do now is a perversion of the rules. People should want to avoid miscasts, not aim for them.

EvanM
07-06-2014, 03:09
Well lets just all agree on a few things:

1) ultra killy death spells are really wacked out right now. Hitting "every model in the unit" and insta killing them on a 4+ or 5+ is really really really stupid. This leads people to 6 dice these spells (accepting whatever happens during the miscast).

2) deathstars kinda suck too. Itd be nice if you didnt put your whole army in a single unit now and again, oh but at least we have uber spells to kill uber units. No to both.

3) steadfast, general's LD, BSB reroll, all combined are kind of wacked out too. So skaven slaves have rerollable LD 10? yeah so do my hammerers but shouldnt they be different? anyway.
I like Combat Res subtracting from LD but you cant expect that metric to work when tarpit units lose 15 models a turn.

In addition, does anyone else realize how little flanking/rear charging does?? you can charge a unit from all four sides at once, outnumber them 2 to 1 (say 4 units of 20 men) but since they have just 1 more rank they are basically unbreakable, or even if they dont have steadfast, they still only get -1 CR per flank, -2 for the rear.. which is nothing compared to the dozens of points scored from kills.

4) the rules dont scale well. Perfect at 2500 pts but 1000 is weird and 5000 or so is also weird (magic doesnt scale like at all). One way to fix this may be to just play allies at this high pts value, having 2 generals, 2 bsbs, 2 different turns per each side. (and two different magic phases)

HelloKitty
07-06-2014, 03:41
To deal with 1)
Miscast on double 1
Allow magic-resistance to work on these

2) puts a cap on unit size in either points or models

3) kills the general and the bsb - problem becomes ok for this one.

4) it hasn't noticed bad times with higher point games. but it realizes IMMV (Its Mileage May Vary)

Sexiest_hero
07-06-2014, 03:53
I'd allow MR for uber spells but not ward saves, that would Make magic res mean a LOT more and not leave Tzeentch lords and BotWD the over lords of 8th.

EvanM
07-06-2014, 03:53
so maybe i should have just suggested MR against those spells, miscast on double ones, cap on unit size (or number of characters in a unit, or number of LoS rolls), and then no one would be rage quitting?

EvanM
07-06-2014, 03:54
Yeah I meant MR2 means 5++ against dwellers, if you also have a 5++ normally then you get a 3++ against magic missiles but just a 5++ (as opposed to nothing) against uber spells

Urgat
07-06-2014, 09:28
2) puts a cap on unit size in either points or models

On %, if you want. On unit points, it's not scalling, on models, it's not scaling either and it's always, w/o exception, in benefit of elite infantry compared to chaff, like "oh let's cap infantry at 40 so I can still field my 30 chaos warriors but gobs or skavens can't use their big units anymore. Could as well add a "oh and FU horde players" at the end of the suggestion, usually.
I will always be against unit caps unless they're on % of the army.

yabbadabba
07-06-2014, 09:39
so maybe i should have just suggested MR against those spells, miscast on double ones, cap on unit size (or number of characters in a unit, or number of LoS rolls), and then no one would be rage quitting? No one is rage quitting.

Malagor
07-06-2014, 11:51
Well lets just all agree on a few things:

1) ultra killy death spells are really wacked out right now. Hitting "every model in the unit" and insta killing them on a 4+ or 5+ is really really really stupid. This leads people to 6 dice these spells (accepting whatever happens during the miscast).
Don't agree. Yes they are powerful but in the overal scheme of things, it's rare that they get used. People rather throw buffs, debuffs and minor direct damage spells since it offers less risk to the mage.
Overall they are a good balance towards the deathstars.


2) deathstars kinda suck too. Itd be nice if you didnt put your whole army in a single unit now and again, oh but at least we have uber spells to kill uber units. No to both.
Deathstars aren't that common either. It's a risky thing to do since while that unit will be strong, you are putting all your eggs in one basket. I did it once with Taurox and 9 minotaurs and while I did ok, I didn't butcher the competition, infact it sucked losing the match in round 2 which did happen due to spells and shooting. But it offers choice to the list building which is good and there are counters to it. Balanced armies do better tho.


3) steadfast, general's LD, BSB reroll, all combined are kind of wacked out too. So skaven slaves have rerollable LD 10? yeah so do my hammerers but shouldnt they be different? anyway.
I like Combat Res subtracting from LD but you cant expect that metric to work when tarpit units lose 15 models a turn.
Your hammerers will butcher the slaves in every round. Yes it will take a few rounds to grind them down but if you read the fluff, that's what the slaves are there for. And even then, lore of death, spirit leech. Most Mages will take out the character that is with the slaves without even breaking a sweat and then they will be LD5 that will probably explode in 1 round of CC. But Slaves are a different beast. If you want to remove steadfast to nerf 1 unit then you have no business suggesting rules.


In addition, does anyone else realize how little flanking/rear charging does?? you can charge a unit from all four sides at once, outnumber them 2 to 1 (say 4 units of 20 men) but since they have just 1 more rank they are basically unbreakable, or even if they dont have steadfast, they still only get -1 CR per flank, -2 for the rear.. which is nothing compared to the dozens of points scored from kills.
Again, you are thinking about slaves. Flanking and Charging is very important especially if you come up against Undead. You can destroy a 50 skeleton block in 1 round with a good multi-charge. So don't dismiss them.


4) the rules dont scale well. Perfect at 2500 pts but 1000 is weird and 5000 or so is also weird (magic doesnt scale like at all). One way to fix this may be to just play allies at this high pts value, having 2 generals, 2 bsbs, 2 different turns per each side. (and two different magic phases)
Rules work perfectly fine at 1000pts.

yabbadabba
07-06-2014, 12:48
Well lets just all agree on a few things: Let's just see, shall we.

1) ultra killy death spells are really wacked out right now. Hitting "every model in the unit" and insta killing them on a 4+ or 5+ is really really really stupid. This leads people to 6 dice these spells (accepting whatever happens during the miscast). I don't think they are out of whack - what I think is more important is players' inability to adapt to change, adapt tactics and army lists, and to accept the consequences of their actions.

2) deathstars kinda suck too. Itd be nice if you didnt put your whole army in a single unit now and again, oh but at least we have uber spells to kill uber units. No to both. I don't know anyone who takes Deathsatrs. Once you know what to do, they can be beaten, and if you are playing a proper scenario you can avoid them all day long. Then all you have to do is drop some war machines and big spells and *poof* Deathstar becomes a liability. Their greatest impact comes from seducing the opponent into thinkign that they have to be dealt with head o..

3) steadfast, general's LD, BSB reroll, all combined are kind of wacked out too. So skaven slaves have rerollable LD 10? yeah so do my hammerers but shouldnt they be different? anyway.
I like Combat Res subtracting from LD but you cant expect that metric to work when tarpit units lose 15 models a turn. It actually works fine, because the number of deaths are not important, only the adjustment to the Ld and that you win said combat. It needs a tweak, but not a rewrite.

In addition, does anyone else realize how little flanking/rear charging does?? you can charge a unit from all four sides at once, outnumber them 2 to 1 (say 4 units of 20 men) but since they have just 1 more rank they are basically unbreakable, or even if they dont have steadfast, they still only get -1 CR per flank, -2 for the rear.. which is nothing compared to the dozens of points scored from kills. Can we refrain from the exaggeration? Thank you. This is why I advocate that flank and rear charges can adjust the Ld test. I also like the idea of Steadfast being based on accumulative rank bonuses. Again just minor tweaks.

4) the rules dont scale well. Perfect at 2500 pts but 1000 is weird and 5000 or so is also weird (magic doesnt scale like at all). One way to fix this may be to just play allies at this high pts value, having 2 generals, 2 bsbs, 2 different turns per each side. (and two different magic phases) Try playing Storm of Magic. My friend and I have been playing 6000pts with little issues. The only adjustment we want to make in regards to the size of games is to bring in Brigade rules to make manoveur and Command/Control more smooth.

theunwantedbeing
07-06-2014, 12:55
1) ultra killy death spells are really wacked out right now.
2) deathstars kinda suck too.
3) steadfast, general's LD, BSB reroll, all combined are kind of wacked out too.
4) the rules dont scale well.

1,2 & 3 I definitely agree on.
Largely because whenever there is a complaint about something it invariably involves one or more of those 3 things. (the exception being the Daemon Prince and similar monsters)

Rule scaling doesn't bother me.
Most of my games are between 2-3k and I expect most of the gaming community is in a similar situation.

As for solutions.
1. Just get rid of the uber spells.
2. Remove the Horde rule, disallow character's from joining/deploying with units with a full first rank.
3. Steadfast is based on all ranks after the first, or we allow chariots&monsters to only need a single model per rank.
You get either the Generals leadership, or the unit's steadfast leadership (only both if they're the same unit).
The BsB doesn't allow re-rolls, it instead adds +1 combat res to all unit's in range, +d3 to the one it's part of.
4. ??? somebody else can solve that

Malagor
07-06-2014, 13:15
Oh hell no, Beastmen need the horde rule.

theunwantedbeing
07-06-2014, 13:45
Oh hell no, Beastmen need the horde rule.

You'll have to explain why.

Malagor
07-06-2014, 14:54
Makes our Gors actually worth a damn.
With horde formation we might get 6-7 more attacks down which might make them draw a combat rather then lose it. With a beast banner along with then they might actually win a combat.
Gors die by the truckloads regardless so they need the extra boost.
And your nr.2 suggestion would just destroy undead armies as well that rely quite a bit on having their characters on the front rank, again to less the blow from the crumble or even win the fight.

I do wonder, do people actually see WoC players use horde formation or any of the Elven armies ? I don't, only ones that use horde formation are beastmen, orcs and sometimes undead. So the idea that removing the horde formation is very alien and seems like a very short-sighted solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Ramius4
07-06-2014, 15:12
I do wonder, do people actually see WoC players use horde formation or any of the Elven armies ?

Yes sometimes. More often with Elves, depending on the unit.

theunwantedbeing
07-06-2014, 15:13
Makes our Gors actually worth a damn.
Try using other parts of the army, the gors are there to provide ranks and be steadfast.


And your nr.2 suggestion would just destroy undead armies as well that rely quite a bit on having their characters on the front rank, again to less the blow from the crumble or even win the fight.
I think you misread what I said.


I do wonder, do people actually see WoC players use horde formation or any of the Elven armies ? I don't, only ones that use horde formation are beastmen, orcs and sometimes undead. So the idea that removing the horde formation is very alien and seems like a very short-sighted solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Elite infantry in a horde will delete a unit they encounter, your fodder unit's will die even faster to an opposing horde.
So yes, we do see things like WoC and Elven armies using the horde formation to the detriment of everyone else.

Malagor
07-06-2014, 15:16
Then I feel bad for those that have encountered it.
WoC and Elven armies are 90% of the cases here MSU so no point in going horde.
And before someone puts in, they often win our local tournaments as well.

HelloKitty
07-06-2014, 15:26
On %, if you want. On unit points, it's not scalling, on models, it's not scaling either and it's always, w/o exception, in benefit of elite infantry compared to chaff, like "oh let's cap infantry at 40 so I can still field my 30 chaos warriors but gobs or skavens can't use their big units anymore. Could as well add a "oh and FU horde players" at the end of the suggestion, usually.
I will always be against unit caps unless they're on % of the army.

Yes cap %. This one has seen systems where creatures cannot pound in more than 25% of their force into one unit without characters and 50% of their force into one unit with charaters. It likes that one.

Mozzamanx
07-06-2014, 15:32
I have absolutely no issues with rewarding players for building their units wide or deep. While the execution of Steadfast could be improved, as a concept I find it entirely reasonable and the only thing keeping cheap infantry on the table. Similarly I find the advantages of Hordes to be downright tame compared with the massive footprint and added cost for every rank to make it worthwhile.
The Horde and Steadfast rules are absolutely no issue to me at all and I would keep them in 9th Edition without any problems. To me, they are always going to be balanced by the power of spells and so any advantage that a player gains in Stubborn/attacks has to be weighed against the increased risk of Dwellers, Transmute, Sun etc. This is then the balance between MSU and brick play; bricks are mechanically better and geared to be unstoppable, while also suffering much more from the big spells. Conversely MSU play does not get 'freebie' rule bonuses, but they are also far less at risk from magic.

The execution of Steadfast could be made more involved than yes/no, and the spells don't need to ruin characters as efficiently as they currently do. But as a concept I think it entirely appropriate and would much rather refine the trinity than to cut them entirely.

Steadfast- Sticks about, lacks killing power
Hordes- Kills lots, lacks ranks
Both Horde & Steadfast- Kills everything, vulnerable to magic

Sexiest_hero
07-06-2014, 15:35
I usuallt see chariot Woc armies with a Nurgle DP and chimerie HE with frostie the birds and Botwd on a cave unit. Also the Ogre death star Iron Gut unit. Each of those armies rule the roost, and non of them use the so called OP 6th spells or Horde steadfast rules much Helves run the much more dangerous mind razor (IMHO). You know what works good aganst WOC chariot spam? Having 150 TK skeletons take the charge and have my destroyer king end them. You know what works against 150 skeletons? unberspells and flanking that big unwieldy unit. that same 6th spell ends the gut-star as well. Before you complain about my Big block would you rather face my 150 skeletions/goblins or the WoC/Ogre build?

Urgat
07-06-2014, 16:35
Try using other parts of the army, the gors are there to provide ranks and be steadfast.

I believe that would be ungors?


I think you misread what I said.

Gotta admit I have no idea what you meant then.

On a side note, I don't believe WoC players are the ones who complain about steadfast. At least my friend doesn't. I threw a 100 strong (10x10) goblin horde at him a couple times. He front charged it with his unit of 21 warriors with additionnal weapons(7x3. Don't ask) with some chaos warrior hero. The only thing that saved the gobs what that he did that late in the game and it ended just one turn before steadfast turned into snake eyes. 100 goblins. Took 3 combat rounds to whistle them down to nothing. Also of note is that the front rank, in the first round, was occupied by a big boss, a champion and three sneaky skewers, which means he wasted most of his attacks on 6 wounds. He still nearly got them with a mere 21 guys.


Yes cap %. This one has seen systems where creatures cannot pound in more than 25% of their force into one unit without characters and 50% of their force into one unit with charaters. It likes that one.

I'm quite glad it's happy then, it's a pet peeve of mine, that unit cap garbage.

EvanM
07-06-2014, 16:42
there really is nothing WRONG with the rules, the game is just a little more Rock - paper - scissors now though, basically you bring a few rocks, some paper and scissors to battle and hope you get good match ups.

In the new edition, this will probably continue, but maybe not. Maybe spells wont be so game changing, maybe there wont be uber units, maybe steadfast and horde will work differently, who knows.

this discussion has put me a little more at ease with the rules.
The ONLY thing i still dont like is combat resolution (the 1 pt per kill, when we get 15 or so kills means that its steadfast or flee for a lot of units).


and hordes... i dont LOVE the idea of 3 ranks fighting for no reason but any army that has cheap enough infantry to deploy them 10 wide deserves a little boost in taking on elite infantry.
I dont expect many people to have hordes of phoenix guard/chaos warriors/hammerers etc.

so for gors, orcs, goblins, clanrats, state troops, and basically any infantry unit thats less than about 10 pts, I say go ahead and horde up. Bring it on. Its more fun when more models die to swords than from "magic hands that come out of the ground and drag 1/3 or 1/2 of the unit to its DOOM".

btw, quick question, if you drop a units strength with a hex then cast dwellers (strength test) does that mean they test on the modified strength???

Urgat
07-06-2014, 16:58
btw, quick question, if you drop a units strength with a hex then cast dwellers (strength test) does that mean they test on the modified strength???

It depends on what provokes the test, I believe.

EvanM
07-06-2014, 17:03
so enfeebled foe on say ogre kingdoms irongut deathstar, drop their strength to 1, 6 dice dwellers, they roll 2+ to die.

Urgat
07-06-2014, 17:07
I don't have my books handy so I prefer not to say anything wrong, I'll let someone else confirm or deny this specific case. But I at least know that some other similar cases work like that, yes. There's some combos you can do with magic that are just atrocious.

Malagor
07-06-2014, 17:17
I do believe the combo would work yes.
Of course Ogres got very good magic defense so if a ogre player does run that list then you can be certain that he will have magic protection.

EvanM
08-06-2014, 00:35
magic protection like what? a lvl 4 just to balance out on the dispel? a dispel scroll? one use only. Magic resistance? oh wait! that doesnt work on dwellers..... so yeah lets go kill 5/6 of an ogre unit in one turn

Malagor
08-06-2014, 01:15
They will no doubt have the Rune Maw banner, 2+ and the magic will go to someone else or just go away.

beerbeard
10-06-2014, 00:02
I think steadfast works fine. I would make one change, one that would bring Cavalry back but not make it OP. Lances break Steadfast on the Charge. To make it fair, say each Knight removes 1 point of steadfast ranks, up to 10. So, 10 Dragon Princes charging in to 100 Night Goblins breaks steadfast on that turn. To me, that seems fair.

Comments? Rip it apart if need be.

ewar
10-06-2014, 00:16
magic protection like what? a lvl 4 just to balance out on the dispel? a dispel scroll? one use only. Magic resistance? oh wait! that doesnt work on dwellers..... so yeah lets go kill 5/6 of an ogre unit in one turn

Have you ever seen this done though? Me neither. It means investing in a level 4 of Shadow and Life, which will set an army back the best part of 500 points and only elves and empire can pull this off (and Lizardmen but then it would cost >600pts). You then need the power dice to cast both spells and have neither dispelled or moved away by the rune maw.

In the wonderful world of theoryhammer there are some crazy combinations. However, don't build a game winning strategy around them because you'll only get enough dice etc in 1 in 50 games.

Although I did manage to combo Doom and Darkness with Light of Death last game, and blast a Frost Phoenix off the table before it had even moved, that was pretty sweet :)


I think steadfast works fine. I would make one change, one that would bring Cavalry back but not make it OP. Lances break Steadfast on the Charge. To make it fair, say each Knight removes 1 point of steadfast ranks, up to 10. So, 10 Dragon Princes charging in to 100 Night Goblins breaks steadfast on that turn. To me, that seems fair.

Comments? Rip it apart if need be.

Okaaaay... and if that is the case what purpose does the Steadfast rule play then? Because if knights can just go back to blowing through infantry like they're not even there then the whole rule is pointless. The only way this would work is if there was no cap on rank bonus, so the goblins could have +10 ranks. Even then they would probably lose by enough to make their leadership test unlikely.

I personally think Steadfast is perfect as is - it's just the odd Army Book unit which screws it.

Ramius4
10-06-2014, 00:42
I think steadfast works fine.

Me too.


I would make one change, one that would bring Cavalry back but not make it OP.

Hmmm.. Cavalry works fine as far as I'm aware (Bretonnia being one of my main armies).


To make it fair, say each Knight removes 1 point of steadfast ranks, up to 10. So, 10 Dragon Princes charging in to 100 Night Goblins breaks steadfast on that turn. To me, that seems fair.

Wait what?

SteveW
10-06-2014, 01:36
The OP starts off seeming decent with the force organization reshuffle until I realize not everyone plays bretonnians. These suggestions are absolute garbage when you just take a casual look at how they would kick some armies in the teeth while leaving Evans in tact and now super powered.

Sent from my lumina 925 using ninja's

EvanM
10-06-2014, 06:43
you dont know what my army is unless youve been stalking me.

Athlan na Dyr
10-06-2014, 07:35
you dont know what my army is unless youve been stalking me.

Well for one thing, I play empire and skaven so this isnt a WoC pity party about hordes.
Just going to leave that here :shifty:

Anyway, I think Evan is getting a bit too much flak here. He has identified something he doesn't like in the rules (lack of worth for static CR), buffed it (through a different CR system) and then nerfed what made units that rely on static CR valuable already (Steadfast). The process is pretty reasonable.
That said, the other rules changes seem a bit... odd. Sorry man.
Regardless, its good for people to post ideas about how to alter the game. There is no need to insult him for doing so.

With regards to the changes to CR, I prefer the current system. It seems odd that one player could gain a flank and front charge and tell the other player to roll under a five for losing combat regardless of whether the charged unit does 5 wounds or 50 with your (EvanM's) system. Similarly, Cavalryman Joe and his 3 Merry Men making most infantry units do the same doesn't feel right to me.
The main problems with Steadfast are Slaves and point denial. Changing the Skaven Army Book and the Victory Point system fixes what is a pretty decent rule.


I think steadfast works fine. I would make one change, one that would bring Cavalry back but not make it OP. Lances break Steadfast on the Charge. To make it fair, say each Knight removes 1 point of steadfast ranks, up to 10. So, 10 Dragon Princes charging in to 100 Night Goblins breaks steadfast on that turn. To me, that seems fair.

Comments? Rip it apart if need be.

The good point is that it stops the choice of a GW or a lance being GW by default. The bad is pretty much everything else. A Knightly Horde, or indeed a medium unit of any Heavy Cavalry with minor character support would steamroll over everything bar a unit that was unbreakable/stubborn with a metric f-ton of wounds. This is before you start breaking out the super heavy cavalry like Blood Knights.
I realise I'm being a bit hypocritical after what I said about posting ideas earlier in the post (in my defence, you asked for it), but that change would break a lot more than it would fix.

Mozzamanx
10-06-2014, 08:02
There is also the entirely obvious fact that if the Dragon Princes are outnumbered 10-1, the Goblin horde isn't going to feel much incentive to flee either. A unit of 100 is supposed to be a big thing to remove, because that is a ******** massive number of Goblins. The idea that a unit of 10 should be able to waltz in and break them in one swing is absurd to me. The Princes would almost certainly win the first round and likely break them if the General isn't around to confer IP, but otherwise it is a sea of Goblins and running straight into them seems like something that should be suicide for the Princes.

As I said I have no problem with making Steadfast a sliding bonus rather than a binary yes/no thing. For example, every rank allows you to remove a point of combat resolution from the final pool. Eg- Our Goblin unit with 10 ranks loses by a large amount even after counting Banners, Ranks etc, but can remove 10 points of resolution before making the Break check. If a truly epic effort means they lose combat by more than 10, even Steadfast is limited and any resolution over 10 remains effective.

Urgat
10-06-2014, 10:29
So, 10 Dragon Princes charging in to 100 Night Goblins breaks steadfast on that turn. To me, that seems fair.

Not to me. 10 guys that just point and click and are pretty much assured to win that round and make the 100 gobs run. (Heavy) Cavalry need to KILL a lot on the charge. But anything that just brings back the "I win, you run" 7th ed way is just bad. I'm all for cav stomping, having impact hits or whatever you want on the charge, but the autorun crap that has run rampant in all the previous edtions? Good riddance.

To be honest, cavalry is fine for me; I do agree that spears/lances are no go if you got access to anything else at all though (chaos rune sword, great weapon, two hand weapons for SOBB, etc).
My opinion on lances/spears on cavalry: I think they should allow a rule that is akin to bolt throwers. Say the bretonnian dude or the orc boar boy sitting tight in his unit kills his target. Mmh, the orc example is a bad choice because he's S5 too on the charge. Whatever. Anyway, he kills his dude, and so do two other knights/boar boyz. Well they can now attack again, but at S4, as if they were piercing through the unit (I know it doesn't work that way in reality, but in fantasy, it totally does). Only two manage to kill their target this time. They can strike again at S3. And so on.
I think that would make lances/spears very interesting, not really overpowered (it's just on the charge after all, compared to GW that are always +2S), etc etc. And it's quite simple, for a change.
Of course that would make cavalry units with spears extremely lethal for small units, that's an obvious problem (but then again I'd like for small infantry units (<20) to have a sort of reverse steadfast bonus, like they can evade better or something along these lines).

olderplayer
10-06-2014, 18:38
I've posted a lot before on this thread, but really the steadfast concept works quite well in practice. It really does balance the game a lot, especially now that most of the army books have been rewritten. In the ideal world, if time and difficulty making the calculation were not an issue, I'd probably prefer conceptually something like unit size, rather than ranks, possibly with some adjustment for relative damage be taken into account and some ability to reduce steadfast potential with units in the flank or rear of a unit be the basis for steadfast, but the practical consequences of having to count unit size (7th edition concept, like 1 for infantry, 2 for cav, 3 for monstrous infantry and cav, and 5 to 10 for monsters and special units) would add a very time consuming element to the game.

Maybe allow a monster to count as a rank and the first rank of cav unit to count as two ranks for steadfast purposes and breaking ranks. A unit in the rear reduces ranks for steadfast purposes by 2 and unit(s) in the flank reduce ranks for steadfast purposes by 1. Also, since skirmishers rank up in combat, allow them to break ranks and count toward breaking steadfast (maybe minus one rank) would make sense.

The real issue being raised is points denial units that are oversized. That is really an issue with the VP system, as a few recent points have noted. GW never really thought about its VP system in writing 8th edition, as evidenced by the immediate errata when the book came out. I like to see scenarios that reward partial victory points like: (1) VPs for each model in a rank and file unit removed from play in a unit beyond the first ten wounds worth of models rounded down (3 wound models would ignore the first 3 models killed in the unit, 4 wound models would ignore the first 2 models killed in the unit) but gain no points for command or banners unless the entire unit is destroyed; (2) 25% to 40% VPs for rank and file units with 50% or fewer of their starting models; and then 50% to 60% VPs for rank and file units with 75% or fewer of their starting wounds or models; and 25% to 50% VPs for units and models fleeing at the end of the battle and 75% VPs for rank and file units fleeing at the end of the battle that are below 25% of their starting models (most likely would have fled off table if given enough time).

Sexiest_hero
10-06-2014, 19:37
You know I don't even mind my monster not counting as a rank these days, as I usually want him to stay in combat till the enemie's turn so he doesn't catch a cannon to the face. He pins a unit in place and avoids getting shot, those are both big wins in my book. A simple mounted charge fix for me would be that a shock charge from the flank has the rule "Shock charge" Musicians champion ld and the unit banner can't be used this turn (Or until the unit reforms if the former is too weak).

ewar
10-06-2014, 22:08
The real issue being raised is points denial units that are oversized. That is really an issue with the VP system, as a few recent points have noted. GW never really thought about its VP system in writing 8th edition, as evidenced by the immediate errata when the book came out. I like to see scenarios that reward partial victory points like: (1) VPs for each model in a rank and file unit removed from play in a unit beyond the first ten wounds worth of models rounded down (3 wound models would ignore the first 3 models killed in the unit, 4 wound models would ignore the first 2 models killed in the unit) but gain no points for command or banners unless the entire unit is destroyed; (2) 25% to 40% VPs for rank and file units with 50% or fewer of their starting models; and then 50% to 60% VPs for rank and file units with 75% or fewer of their starting wounds or models; and 25% to 50% VPs for units and models fleeing at the end of the battle and 75% VPs for rank and file units fleeing at the end of the battle that are below 25% of their starting models (most likely would have fled off table if given enough time).

Just reading this made me go cross-eyed. I honestly don't see how that is a material improvement on half the unit killed = 50% VPs.

On the steadfast argument - people say it drives deathstars, but which deathstar worth it's name ever loses a combat to even take a steadfast test? The real culprit in this regard is the Crown of Command, without that the Gutstar etc would be much more vulnerable. Other deathstars (white lions, temple guard) are all innately stubborn and are generally too expensive to have sufficient ranks to be steadfast.

That's why it's such a great rule as it is in the BRB - it means crap units don't just get rolled by a single monster they can't wound back and they might just last longer than one round of blows against one of the aforementioned deathstars.

Urgat
12-06-2014, 08:03
Been thinking hard about the "all or nothing" nature of break, panic, terror tests. The necessity of steadfast, the importance of BSB, IP, etc, all stems from that aspect of Warhammer. It's something I don't really like. It's too much of a swing, well, it can be illustrated in one sentence: your unit will stay or run just by running 1 less than expected.
Maybe that's what GW should look into most with 9th ed?
I've had quite a few ideas, but most are too complicated. The simplest I got was to use crumbling instead, it works fine for gobs and so on. Doesn't feel right for stuff like chaos warriors though, and won't work with lone models.

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 09:40
I think steadfast works fine. I would make one change, one that would bring Cavalry back but not make it OP. Lances break Steadfast on the Charge. To make it fair, say each Knight removes 1 point of steadfast ranks, up to 10. So, 10 Dragon Princes charging in to 100 Night Goblins breaks steadfast on that turn. To me, that seems fair.

Comments? Rip it apart if need be.

My only comment would be that anyone who says "....X would bring cavalry back" shouldn't be fiddling with WHFB game design ;)

Harsh but true, because cavalry is alive and well.

HelloKitty
12-06-2014, 16:51
It agrees with the snake creature. Cavalry is fine. Cavalry is more than fine. Cavalry does not need to be busting giant blocks of infantry in one turn like it used to do. Thats not its role.

olderplayer
12-06-2014, 19:52
Just reading this made me go cross-eyed. I honestly don't see how that is a material improvement on half the unit killed = 50% VPs.

On the steadfast argument - people say it drives deathstars, but which deathstar worth it's name ever loses a combat to even take a steadfast test? The real culprit in this regard is the Crown of Command, without that the Gutstar etc would be much more vulnerable. Other deathstars (white lions, temple guard) are all innately stubborn and are generally too expensive to have sufficient ranks to be steadfast.

That's why it's such a great rule as it is in the BRB - it means crap units don't just get rolled by a single monster they can't wound back and they might just last longer than one round of blows against one of the aforementioned deathstars.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The 50% Vps for 50%+ of starting wounds or models killed is simple and was in the past rules. I was trying to add something a bit more nuanced. I did try the idea that you gained VPs for every R&F model killed in a unit above 5 or 10 or wounds in scenarios at events. We actually set it up based on per model in the unit and wounds per model-Count models removed above 6 models for single wound model units; 3 models for 2 wound model units; 2 models for 3 wound model units; and 1 model for 4 wound model units. It actually was not that hard to calculate. It rewarded a bit MMU and MSU units and made you do some serious damage to a unit before you get anything. It did not award any points for banners and command models unless the unit is destroyed. It seemed to be a reasonable balance and alternative to the whole Swedish comp penalty system where the penalty increases marginally as one adds models to rank and file units beyond an initial level.

The problem with the 50%+ = 50% VPs is that even though it is simple it is not scalable to reflect the quantum of damage done. We've tried 50% for 50%+ models removed and 75% for 75%+ models removed or simply 50% VPs for 75%+ models removed as partial alternatives. Those simpler solutions work well with the combo of 50% VPs for multimodel units that have suffered 50% of more wound or are fleeing and below 25% of starting models (unlikely to rally) at the end of the battle.

Your point about deathstars and crown of command and stubborn is valid, but going to a partial VPs system would at least reduce the size by some amount of deathstars and rewards points when one does a lot of damge to them but cannot destroy or break in within a time limited game. The ETC solution of strick max points and max models/wounds unit size is one solution to that issue but it seems a bit harsh in some contexts (limiting the ability to run a horde unit with elite special models) where an army should be able to run something really large because the models can die pretty easily. [White lions are kind of an exceptional example because of the unique combination of a 3+ AS to non-magical shooting, the unit being innately stubborn, and the ability to take BOTWD and the way BOTWD was written. By contrast, gutstars have some significant vulnerabilities and I've never seemed to have difficulties dealing with them playing different armies, even if the game is often close until the 4th or 5th turn.] The benefits of steadfast and stubborn in terms of keeping a unit alive longer and tying up the opposing unit is a part of the game and an important part of 8th ed tactics [How does one keep one's killy but smaller unit from getting tied up in combat with something for an extended period of time and avoid getting it worn down when you want it to be able to hit and break stuff quickly to max its utility? How do you tarpit threatening units long enough to divided and conquer the opponent?] The issue to fix is the single large deathstar/uber unit with min core (if the deathstar is a special unit) or min other units. The High Elf max archer unit with BOTWD and eagles and crown of command character in a bunker (or folding fortress) and tries to win with magic and shooting and has only two eagles outside the unit was the ultimate example of abusing the system in 8th edition (and led to many GTs banning or restricting folding fortress and building rules to something line max 30 infantry models or equivalent or 10 per floor with max of 3 floors).

EvanM
12-06-2014, 20:00
oh my god, a deathstar in the folding fortress with CoC and BotWD?????????????????? ****.................

cant you shoot the building with a cannon and just blow it up?

olderplayer
12-06-2014, 20:25
oh my god, a deathstar in the folding fortress with CoC and BotWD?????????????????? ****.................

cant you shoot the building with a cannon and just blow it up?

No. You only do D6 hits on any unit in a building with a template hit, including a cannon.

This was an unfortunate army build that was seen at some "Ard Boyz events and quickly got banned at GTs and local events in 8th edition.

The worst part about building rules is that if you assault a building: you only get 10 regular infantry models in combat as the assault team (3 monstrous characters instead) and the opponent responds in kind with his ten archers (no characters would be put at risk); then, if you don't break the unit garrisoning the building (whcih is stubborn, LD10 and usually with a re-roll on break test), the assaulting unit must disengage from combat, move back one inch from the building, and then sit there and get shot at and suffer magic attacks in the High Elf player's magic and shooting phases while not being able to do any damage to the garrisoning unit in combat. We sometimes had a house rule that if the assaulting unit won combat, it remained engaged in combat with the garrisoning unit (even if countercharged) and did not have to suffer shooting and magic attacks from the unit in the building just because of the non-sense building rules. Some people even play that buildings are impassible terrain and cannot be garrisoned in some games or instances.

Skaven had an answer in the "Crack's Call" spell that would destroy the buiding but then they had to actually fight and kill some characters or the unit to win and that was not that easy to do. Dwellers could pick off some characters if you got it off but usually they had the ability to respond in kind with lore of life as a common choice on a lvl 4 mage lore (or on Teclis).

yabbadabba
12-06-2014, 20:32
The building rules were obviously a stop gap designed to stop players aceing the watchtower scenario with a huge horde of elite troops. The follow up siege rules are also a stop gap, or I hope they are, and are similarly "right in feel, wrong in execution". Our group have rewritten the building a siege rules a couple of times, and I think we need to revise a couple of times more before we are happy.

HelloKitty
12-06-2014, 20:34
This one's group caps folding fortresses to holding 20 infantry or 10 monstrous infantry, as a watch tower.

It praises dog for this as the above filthy build belongs on fire in a **** swamp.

Urgat
12-06-2014, 21:20
Yeah, I know what you mean. The 50% Vps for 50%+ of starting wounds or models killed is simple and was in the past rules. I was trying to add something a bit more nuanced. I did try the idea that you gained VPs for every R&F model killed in a unit above 5 or 10 or wounds in scenarios at events. We actually set it up based on per model in the unit and wounds per model-Count models removed above 6 models for single wound model units; 3 models for 2 wound model units; 2 models for 3 wound model units; and 1 model for 4 wound model units. It actually was not that hard to calculate. It rewarded a bit MMU and MSU units and made you do some serious damage to a unit before you get anything. It did not award any points for banners and command models unless the unit is destroyed. It seemed to be a reasonable balance and alternative to the whole Swedish comp penalty system where the penalty increases marginally as one adds models to rank and file units beyond an initial level.

Hargh, can't you just use the units cost as VP? In my group we've been doing that for ages, it works perfectly. I killed 130pts of WoC, I get 130VP. We also kept 250VP for table quarters, stuff like that. We never had to complain about VP once. No half unit business, no complex calculation, everything you need to know is already written on your army list.

olderplayer
12-06-2014, 23:09
Hargh, can't you just use the units cost as VP? In my group we've been doing that for ages, it works perfectly. I killed 130pts of WoC, I get 130VP. We also kept 250VP for table quarters, stuff like that. We never had to complain about VP once. No half unit business, no complex calculation, everything you need to know is already written on your army list.

I think you are missing the point. The issue is very large point denial and deathstar units that are stubborn and/or kept steadfast that are very hard to kill off entirely in 6 turns, especially with redirectors and chaff in the way. The high elf archer unit with BOTWD and characters in was a notable extreme example. One solution is partial VPs for killing a significant portion of a unit. This is an alternative to the Swedish Comp point system bias which punishes larger rank and file units and the ETC strict limit on models and point costs for a unit, with a number of simple to more complex possible considerations. What was being suggested were some creative ways to avoid using a comp system and to allow people to take larger units to take advantage of the horde and steadfast rules but still allow people to be rewarded for killing a lot of those larger units.

The idea is to reward destroying a unit to the last wound to get the command and banner points but to award a fractional amount that is more scalable and realistic based on the point costs of models removed above some threshold level in order to reflect that you did something to seriously deplete that unit over time in the game.

It is not the hard to do the calculation. For example, a larger unit of 40 infantry models at 12 points per model plus 30 points of full command plus of banner of 15 points is worth = 525 points. The victory points for killing half the models (20 models) would be 12 points per model times (20 models killed minus the 6 base before counting damage for VPs) = 12 times 14 = 168 VPs. In the much simpler system of awarding half VPs for killing at least half the unit, you would get 262.5 points for killing 20 models. If you killed 30 models and 75% of the unit, instead of 20 models and 50% of the unit, you would still get only 262.5 Vps in the half VPs for killing at least half the unit approach, but, using this method, you would receive a total of (30-6)*12 points = 288 points. Some people set the base number of wounds at 10, instead of say 6, for infantry (min size is commonly 10 for RnF core and special infantry). Then, in the example provided 20 wounds would be worth 12*(20-10)= 120 VPs for killing half the unit and 30 wounds would be 12*(30-10) = 240 VPs for killing three-quarters of the unit. It still pays off then to take on a large unit with smaller, elite units in the flank and rear (where they get in more attacks and receive fewer attacks back) and even the front to cause a greater number of wounds on the unit and tie it up for the game. You then end up with some VPs for doing so which is realistic in the real world. In the real world, combat units lose efficiency and lose ability to sustain themselves as they incur losses, so from a battle perspective one would reward depleting the enemy and tying the enemy unit up. The idea is mainly for use in a scenario for an event to breeak up the games and create some balance.


Even Kings of war has the concept of "nerve" that tests units based on cumulative damage (wounds) taken by the unit relative to its size and type and army (fluff) for purposes of testing whether a unit is "steady", "wavering", or destroyed ("rout!"). The nerve concept that has a value for wavering and being routed which is compared with a 2D6 dice roll plus damage taken to determine the unit's functionality in the game.

ewar
13-06-2014, 00:33
There are some, very few, abusive builds which are generally comped out. I think a moderate unit size cap in the BRB would prevent any of this nonsense, such as no non-character unit can be more than 20% or 25% of the value of the game being played. So a 2400 game would not allow any units to be more than 480 or 600pts.

Also, I don't know about you guys, but I never count up VPs when playing with my mates. Literally the only time I do it is in tournaments - we normally just eye-ball the table and can see pretty easily who has won or lost. Knowing you smashed your mate 20-0 doesn't really make either of you feel any better surely?

Ramius4
13-06-2014, 01:58
Also, I don't know about you guys, but I never count up VPs when playing with my mates. Literally the only time I do it is in tournaments - we normally just eye-ball the table and can see pretty easily who has won or lost. Knowing you smashed your mate 20-0 doesn't really make either of you feel any better surely?

We might count VP's maybe once every 30 games or so, but usually only when a battle is so close that we're "just curious".

Urgat
13-06-2014, 11:21
I think you are missing the point.

Nah, I'm not (well I don't think so), I'm just talking about VP count, not any gameplay issues.
The way we do, there can be no point denial. So I killed 5 ogres in that bigass gutstar (regardless of whether the unit is still around or not at the end of the game), well I got the points for the 5 ogres, I got no VP denied, I didn't need to reach 50%, I just automatically got the VP for what I killed. You don't even need to keep track. End of game, you look at the units, you count the casualties for each units, multiply by model cost, add command, etc etc, hop, done. Now that everything "command" is universal 5pts, it's even simpler than before.
It's the simplest way, and the most efficient I've found. We've been using that in my group ever since 5th ed, it's not an idea I just randomly dropped on the net. I know it works great, I know there's never been any complain, I know we're never going to change unless GW thinks up a marvelous way in 9th ed. The current way is just pants, and any way to make it more felxible is just trying fix a sinking boat with duct tape (sometimes you better just build a new ship with the duct tape, google it, it's amazing the things you can do with the stuff!). Well I'll stop preaching now, I'll gain nothing for convincing anybody after all ;)

Metacarpi
13-06-2014, 11:29
Now that everything "command" is universal 5pts, it's even simpler than before.

My Daemons beg to differ! :p

However, I agree with you, my group does this as well, if we ever bother with VP. Normally we just look at how the game went, see what's left and go "Yup, think you won that one"

Urgat
13-06-2014, 11:34
I can't do that, as crazy as it sounds, we're almost always near-drawing, it's rarely clear who has won in my group.

Didn't know demons command wasn't 5pts. To be honest, I dislike that new trend, why should my gobs pay as much as my ogres for their command? Well whatever :p

olderplayer
13-06-2014, 17:23
Nah, I'm not (well I don't think so), I'm just talking about VP count, not any gameplay issues.
The way we do, there can be no point denial. So I killed 5 ogres in that bigass gutstar (regardless of whether the unit is still around or not at the end of the game), well I got the points for the 5 ogres, I got no VP denied, I didn't need to reach 50%, I just automatically got the VP for what I killed. You don't even need to keep track. End of game, you look at the units, you count the casualties for each units, multiply by model cost, add command, etc etc, hop, done. Now that everything "command" is universal 5pts, it's even simpler than before.
It's the simplest way, and the most efficient I've found. We've been using that in my group ever since 5th ed, it's not an idea I just randomly dropped on the net. I know it works great, I know there's never been any complain, I know we're never going to change unless GW thinks up a marvelous way in 9th ed. The current way is just pants, and any way to make it more felxible is just trying fix a sinking boat with duct tape (sometimes you better just build a new ship with the duct tape, google it, it's amazing the things you can do with the stuff!). Well I'll stop preaching now, I'll gain nothing for convincing anybody after all ;)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were advocating 100% Vps for killing a unit or nothing. If you are talking about rewarding for the points cost of each model killed, then that is an even simpler version of what I was discussing. The only difference is I ignore the first 5 to 10 wounds caused to a unit not entirely destroyed in calculating VPs. Your method still allows and rewards steadfast and stubborn deathstars from a tactical perspective (they can tar pit or slow down something) but takes away the point denial concept almost entirely. I kind of like the idea that the proportion of VPs you earn from killing some but not all of a unit should not be exactly proportional to the models killed in a unit (which is why we give the 5 to 10 wounds of models adjustment to the method you are using). You are correct, that the method you use is not that hard to do and it eliminates the need to a lot of the silly stuff in Swedish comp (which is a nightmare to figure out) and the ETC hard caps on unit size (wounds, models or points cost). I would not award the command points or magic banner VPs unless the unit died to keep it simple.

Also, it is true in casual games and in simpler battle points systems based on major win (300+, 500+ or 600+ Vps differential), minor win (100+ or 150+ VPs differential), and draw even at events, we often end up not calculating VPs. But I find in events (including Might Empires campaign battles) that a lot of battles come down to the 5th or 6th turn in 8th edition (a lot closer and more balanced than in 7th edition) and are closer than one thinks and we end up calculating VPs about 2 out of every 5 rounds in GT play. I don't like the 20-0 system where people end up playing to the end even though they are getting slaughtered/tabled because one has to win by 1000 to 1501 VPs or more to max out in the system (+1 point for each 150 points one wins by in some tournaments and at least 100 VPs difference per battle score in others). It creates a wide spread in results for deteremining winners and losers in competitive events but it can be a beat down and unfair if a game is close to the end and a few bad breaks lead to a loss by a massacre and is unfair to armies that struggle to table opponents reliably and tend to win by smaller margins. Also, we tend to create objective points based on scenarios that balance the game and give someone losing badly something to play for in some games (rather than playing watchtower, play something king of the hill or center of the table for +4 battle points or something similar because of the poorly written building rules, although that scenario hurts armies built around gunlines or that lack stout units able to hold ground like Dwarves and Wood Elves).

ZT Strike
14-06-2014, 00:20
40% pts minimum spent on core
Fine, same applies for Zero.

40% maximum spent on lords or heroes
Try 20

1 rare unit at armies under 3000 pts
Why?

50% maximum spent on special
That is the current rule...

remove all references to steadfast/ hordes
stubborn remains the same
infantry needs 5 wide for rank bonus, cavalry/war beasts need 4 wide
Go back to playing 7th ed?

new combat resolution system
1 pt for flank attack
2 pts for rear attack
maximum 3 pts for doing more wounds of damage than the opponent
1 pt for standard bearer
1 pt for BSB
maximum 3 pts for rank bonus (still removed by flank attack)
1 pts if won challenge
1 pt for more files than opponent
It sounds ok in theory...

new magic system
channel dice on a 3+ instead of 6
dwarves +2 dispel dice, +2 to dispel
max # of dice per spell is wiz lvl + 2
rolling double 1’s means the spell doesn’t cast (instead of just needing to be 3 or more) even if IF and miscast, miscast effect still occurs.
spells that cause instant death to models allow ward saves from magic resistance
So Magic using armies haven't been nerfed enough?

shooting:
shortbows, slings, bows, longbows, crossbows, handguns, etc.: +6” range
fast cav can shoot 360 degrees
fast cav can fire move-or-fire weapons while moving (but not while marching)
pistols: no long range -1
any throwing weapon gets quick to fire
arrow shower: any bow weapon can fire instead with the following profile
S2, range -6” , multiple shots x2, quick to fire
artillery:
can fire at the ground
can aim at friendly models
can fire into combat
cause panic if does any wounds of damage
all misfire results: 1-5 cannot shoot this turn, 6 explodes
bolt throwers:
reroll misses to hit
d2 wounds
cannons:
S10
range 60”
d3 wounds
Heroic Killing Blow
One giant case of nope! Shooting is already strong, it doesn't need favors.

These are some thoughts I came up with to perhaps make the game a little different, changing the competitive gameplay to still be in the spirit of more laid back games.
what do you think?
Some of these are ok ideas, others not so much. Honestly, with all of these things brought up I wouldn't be surprised if you are someone how has had a hand in some was with the Zero Project. Many of these things have been on our boards, however most have been removed out of bad-balance or was unfavorable for the project.