PDA

View Full Version : lost the will to play?



KalEf
11-06-2014, 04:53
First off! I didn’t show up to the -GW is perfect!!!!- thread to gripe more. SO I don’t want to read about how simple it is for ogres to avoid a purple sun, from people who couldn’t figure out how to use infantry in 7th. OR have people say the game “just plays different” out of one side of their mouth and OMGzorze I would lose every game if I didn’t have such-and-such rule, out the other side! This thread is more for the people who lost interest, and what would be the minimum to bring the game back for them. However, If you do love 8th, I wouldn't mind hearing if you believe something violates the spirit of 8th.

The past few weeks I’ve been thinking about why all of my friends stopped playing individually. As I’ve posted before, 1st turn losses (due to magic) made one of my friends throw in the towel, but I don’t think that was the biggest turn off for me. What turned me off was MR didn’t work against most spells, 5 goblins were scarier than a giant, steadfast made for some ridiculous situations, and terror meant nothing… and I hate TLoS lol (I will totally admit 100 gobbos should not run to 6 chaos knights as much as they did in 7th either though)

So even after watching first turn “blood and glory” losses, or a 6 dice purple sun (turn 2) tear through 1/3 of an army, followed by bjuna and leech sniping, I wasn’t at quit mode. I think what offended me the most was the poor representation of some events for me.
If a 5x4 unit of goblins was engaged from a horde of 30 bloodletters from the front, a unit of 15 from the back, and 15 from the flank… they are stubborn because they “know they outnumber the enemy” lol However, if they were hit in the front by 5x4 of skaven slaves, RUN FOR THE HILLS! – This is gross to me :wtf:
If a 5x4 unit of goblins is charged in the flank by a unit of 8 chaos warriors, they are stubborn and would be dumb to face their enemy- this bothers me :confused:
To a unit of 9 swords men, a unit of 5 goblins it charged in the rear, is SCARIER than a giant that has charged them in the flank! -That makes me angry :mad:
12 chaos warriors kill 18 goblins! There are 15 gobs left, and the goblins kill 0 warriors. The goblins seem to think they can still win this one… even though the warriors are killing more Gobbos a turn, than there are left! A unit of 20 slaves squeaks in 4 kills and the gobbos kill 1 slave… RUN FOR YOU LIVES! :wtf:
I don’t think I really need to explain how MR not working against most magic is frustrating. :eyebrows:

Anyhow! This got me thinking -what's the smallest tweak we could do to the rules to make them playable for us- and then the smallest change to make it fun again… While trying to keep to the spirit of 8th. That maybe, just maybe, my group could enjoy 8th as well!

Just about every player out there has ideas about how the game could be more fun. I have a million lol. but these are what I would consider the least "intrusive" to 8th, that would make the edition playable for my group.

-----------------------------------------------------
Steadfast oriented
1. If disrupted, a flanked unit counts its ranks as files and its files as ranks when establishing steadfast in relation to flanking units. E.G. to be steadfast, when flanked by a unit with +1 rank bonus, you will most likely need a 5x5 block, minimum.

MR ignored
1. If a ward save cannot be taken vs a spell, MR may still be able to assuage the effects. Roll a D6, the spell effects on the unit are ignored on a 6+ with MR1, on a 5+ with MR2, or on a 4+ with MR3. If the spell removes wounds or models (most direct damage or vortexes), roll in the manner you would for a ward save. Otherwise take 1 test per unit (most hexes).

Ignored cover
1. If a stone thrower fires at a unit (center-hole over a model in that unit) with cover in relation to it, and the shot is a “hit”, the shot still scatters 1” if in soft cover and 2” if in hard cover.
2. Models in a unit that has soft cover from a cannon, get a 6++ save vs its shots. Hard cover offers a 5++. Shots resolved at units a cannon has no line of sight to, have a 4++.

Monsters ignored
1. All monsters count as 1 rank automatically.
--------------------------------------------------------

to be honest, these things have always looked like holes to me, and I was hoping would get added like other obvious oversights... such as monstrous beasts not having monstrous support :confused: Even with just this, I don't think anyone would have quit. They may have stayed unhappy but not quit.


To make it fun I think we will add these as well :)
----------------------------------------------
Line of Sight
1. Height Categories are: S- swarms. M- Infantry, war beasts. L- Cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beasts. XL- monstrous cavalry, monsters. XXL- Large targets. To see a unit “over” another unit, at least 1 of the units must be taller than the unit in-between. However, If the unit in-between is the same height or taller than 1 of the units drawing line of sight to each other, the units have “soft cover” in respect to each other.
2. Forests are soft cover for the first 2” and hard cover past 2”
3. A short hill has a height of L, and any model on one has its height improved to XL, (unless already better). A high hill and any model on it has a height of XXL

Psychology
1. If a unit is engaged by a fear causing unit with superior ranks or a terror causing unit, it adds +1 to all leadership rolls. (eg. A roll of an 8 is a 9)

Monsters
1. A “large target” monster counts as having 2 ranks and is entitled to the +1 rank bonus

Miscast
1. When a wizard miscasts, if there are insufficient power dice to cover the power dice lost, the wizard suffers from “Power Drain” as well.

Magic Items
1. Magic standard 45pts- the bearer has +1LD. Also, he and any unit he is in, may elect to reroll results of 2, 3, or 4 on characteristic tests.
2. Magic standard 45pts- the bearer, the bearer’s unit, and models in contact with the bearer or the bearer’s unit may not take a save better than 4+. If a model was entitled to a better save he may take that save at 4+ instead.

Army specific
1 .Beastmen monsters are 20pts cheaper
2. A Knight with knight’s vow is 1 point less, a knight with questing vow is 2 points less, and a knight with grail vow is 4 points less. Hippogryphs are 150pts.
3. Generic daemon signature spell – from Icor to Iron 8+: unit loses daemonic attacks, invulnerability, and instability. The unit gains unbreakable and its scaly skin save improves by 2
----------------------------------------------------

... Maybe nothing can be done, and my group should just add supporting attacks, step-up, and a Modified steadfast to 7th until 9th comes out. But I would like to play again, and i think I would like to get a few more games out of the 3 BRBs for 8th I have lol.

So, If you've stopped playing so much, would this be enough to make the game fun for you again? I am prepared to wait for answers, as I know people who have left the game... probably check these forums a little less lol. Oh, and thanks for reading my overly long post :)

dooms33ker
11-06-2014, 05:36
These threads are sapping my will to read.

Abaraxas
11-06-2014, 06:12
I play Warhammer because I love the miniatures...things like "math hammer" and "meta" etc just turns me right off.

Now I rarely get a game in (and it's 7th edition when I do, because that's what we have) and my army is comprised of Night Goblins, squigs and trolls...I've never won a game actually :)

I just have fun getting them onto the table, having a bash and inflicting as many casualties as I can, focusing on the things I enjoy about playing as opposed to things that annoy me (like facing two cannons and an organ gun)

thesoundofmusica
11-06-2014, 06:21
There seems to be a thread a day of these disguised under a different name...
"Omg everything sucks I dont even..."

Urgat
11-06-2014, 06:53
So even after watching first turn “blood and glory” losses

Doesn't a first turn "blood and glory" loss mean the player just thought "sod it" and just didn't take enough fortitude points? If you know you can have that scenario, but didn't prepare for it, you probably can't really blame the rules. Regardless, I've seen first turn losses every edition, it's not a 8th ed exclusive. I've lost a few time to general's death in 5th ed (I've managed to lose one w/o my opponent ever picking a dice...), I've seen vampire armies crumbling on turn one because of a lucky canon shot every edition, or an army so crippled but a very successful first time shooting round it had no hopes of recovering during 7th ed.
Your example with the bloddletters/chaos warriors etc and the gobs isn't a very good one, because unless the chaos player has absolutly terrible luck, he'll remove steadfast oin one turn. The slaves, on the other hand, probably won't win the combat and the gobs have no reason to run. The 12 warriors against the 18 gobs, well it depends on the ranks, but assuming both are 5 wide, the gobs will just hold the first round of combat, that's it. Of course I can understand you'd want them to run regardless, but well steadfast is all or nothing, there's got to be a breaking point somewhere. I can give you the example of my very first 8th ed game, where I fielded a unit of 50 night gobs, they lost to something (probably CW, incidentaly), were steadfast, but still managhed to fail their rerollable break test with IP nearby. I dodn't take it so bad because when I field something new, it always turns out that way (all my warmachines have killed themselves on their very first shot, for instance, it's got to be a universal rule that they MUST misfire the first time), but it's not really amusing either, especially when you've read for weeks how steadfast isn't fun because it makes your units bsically unbreakable. Sorry for the big paragraph, I know discussing the fine points of steadfast wasn't what you wanted, I just couldn't help it :p

To comply with your requests, of course there's also things I don't like in 8th ed. Some things like MR are useless, I don't like true LoS either, I really hate the way skirmishers work now, some very nasty spells, the way some writters couldn't figure the impact of the new rules on some units (my poor hoppers who waited for 8th ed to finally become cavalry, just when becoming cavalry actually meant a nerf compared to other units). Magic just doesn't scale well enough, and that miscast table that will punish as harshly a guy who plays conservatively as the guy who 6-dice his spells every turn. Many magic items are useless, some are too good (nothing new under the sun though).

There's things I don't miss though. Yep, terror isn't as... terrifying as it used to be, but I won't lie: I really don't miss the terror bomb "tactic", as some dared to name it (you know, you take a terror-causing flying, and just jump it around low Ld units to make them flee w/o any effort, especially effective on the edges of the battle lines where they can't rely on the general's ld).

On steadfast, I really, really like it, but it's also because I don't like the panic/break system. Just as steadfast, it's all or nothing, which isn't very amusing either when your unit runs because you roll 6, but would have been totally fine if you rolled a 7.

Wesser
11-06-2014, 07:11
These posts are universally terrible

I mean.. here you have a list of stuff you'd like to see changed... stuff you think would have kept your group playing (I mostly disagree with all of it).

Now instead of making houserules within your group to match how you wish to play the game... you quit.... well seems obvious that it was the right decision, because Warhammer prolly isn't the game for you and likely never was.


As for the rest of your rant... well 8th could do with changes here and there... but in your case I'll leave the words "Game mechanics" floating in the air...

StygianBeach
11-06-2014, 08:16
... Maybe nothing can be done, and my group should just add supporting attacks, step-up, and a Modified steadfast to 7th until 9th comes out. But I would like to play again, and i think I would like to get a few more games out of the 3 BRBs for 8th I have lol.


House ruling with your group sounds like the best solution to me.

I don't miss the old Terror rules, I would like Fear to be a little stronger (as in +1 combat resolution) but Terror can stay how it is.

True LOS is 8th editions worst offender, but it is not bad enough to give up on the positives of 8th.

Athlan na Dyr
11-06-2014, 10:02
So even after watching first turn “blood and glory” losses, or a 6 dice purple sun (turn 2) tear through 1/3 of an army, followed by bjuna and leech sniping, I wasn’t at quit mode. I think what offended me the most was the poor representation of some events for me. Blood and Glory should very difficult to lose unless you take stuff-all banners and believe that a general and BSB are all you need for fortitude. There isn't really a problem in the scenario so long as you field a 'standard' (hurr hurr) build.
Purple Sun is indeed ridiculous, especially against lower I armies. I don't think too many people would be disappointed if it got nerfed.


If a 5x4 unit of goblins was engaged from a horde of 30 bloodletters from the front, a unit of 15 from the back, and 15 from the flank… they are stubborn because they “know they outnumber the enemy” lol However, if they were hit in the front by 5x4 of skaven slaves, RUN FOR THE HILLS! – This is gross to me :wtf:
If a 5x4 unit of goblins is charged in the flank by a unit of 8 chaos warriors, they are stubborn and would be dumb to face their enemy- this bothers me :confused:
To a unit of 9 swords men, a unit of 5 goblins it charged in the rear, is SCARIER than a giant that has charged them in the flank! -That makes me angry :mad: Is 'Cavalryman Joe and his 4 Merry Men charged my unit of 100 goblins and killed 5 before they could attack. Better leg it!' really that much better? Yes, improvements could be made to the system, through counting aggregate ranks and allowing single model units (i.e monsters and chariots) to count as a single rank, but the steadfast system in general is a huge improvement to combat.

12 chaos warriors kill 18 goblins! There are 15 gobs left, and the goblins kill 0 warriors. The goblins seem to think they can still win this one… even though the warriors are killing more Gobbos a turn, than there are left! A unit of 20 slaves squeaks in 4 kills and the gobbos kill 1 slave… RUN FOR YOU LIVES! :wtf:
I really don't have a problem with the Chaos Warrior example. This is more from a game mechanics perspective, as it allows a tarpit to actually act as a tarpit and still have a role compared to hammer units. Balancing the worth of damage vs. tank is important otherwise the game devolves into 'who can bring the hittiest hammer and get it into combat the most'.
Unless of course you are specifically referring to killing half a unit in a single combat phase should deny steadfast. Whilst that makes more sense, I still wouldn't agree with it because it encourages larger and larger units.

I don’t think I really need to explain how MR not working against most magic is frustrating. :eyebrows:

Anyhow! This got me thinking -what's the smallest tweak we could do to the rules to make them playable for us- and then the smallest change to make it fun again… While trying to keep to the spirit of 8th. That maybe, just maybe, my group could enjoy 8th as well!

Just about every player out there has ideas about how the game could be more fun. I have a million lol. but these are what I would consider the least "intrusive" to 8th, that would make the edition playable for my group.

-----------------------------------------------------
Steadfast oriented
1. If disrupted, a flanked unit counts its ranks as files and its files as ranks when establishing steadfast in relation to flanking units. E.G. to be steadfast, when flanked by a unit with +1 rank bonus, you will most likely need a 5x5 block, minimum.
This would do little to change the current situation, other than making any unit that wants to rely on steadfast into a 10x10 horde. Targetting smaller units that may benefit, but not abuse steadfast isn't going to solve a lot.
Whilst I'll admit to not being the best person to ask about steadfast (I play VC after all), using aggregate ranks, fixing skaven slaves and bringing back partial VP's would eliminate most of the odd interactions with the rule

MR ignored
1. If a ward save cannot be taken vs a spell, MR may still be able to assuage the effects. Roll a D6, the spell effects on the unit are ignored on a 6+ with MR1, on a 5+ with MR2, or on a 4+ with MR3. If the spell removes wounds or models (most direct damage or vortexes), roll in the manner you would for a ward save. Otherwise take 1 test per unit (most hexes).
No. The Deathstar potential this would create is waaaaay too much. Whilst there are ways to control Deathstars in the current game (chaff and deny), encouraging that style of army with the point denial it brings is bad. Altering the way MR works (reverting to how it worked in 7th, for example) would be a lot better and allow it to be used against any debuff/ killing spells.

Ignored cover
1. If a stone thrower fires at a unit (center-hole over a model in that unit) with cover in relation to it, and the shot is a “hit”, the shot still scatters 1” if in soft cover and 2” if in hard cover.
2. Models in a unit that has soft cover from a cannon, get a 6++ save vs its shots. Hard cover offers a 5++. Shots resolved at units a cannon has no line of sight to, have a 4++.
Again, VC player, so I don't really have much experience using artillery, just facing it. I do like these changes

Monsters ignored
1. All monsters count as 1 rank automatically.
Agree completely

--------------------------------------------------------

to be honest, these things have always looked like holes to me, and I was hoping would get added like other obvious oversights... such as monstrous beasts not having monstrous support :confused: Even with just this, I don't think anyone would have quit. They may have stayed unhappy but not quit.


To make it fun I think we will add these as well :)
----------------------------------------------
Line of Sight
1. Height Categories are: S- swarms. M- Infantry, war beasts. L- Cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beasts. XL- monstrous cavalry, monsters. XXL- Large targets. To see a unit “over” another unit, at least 1 of the units must be taller than the unit in-between. However, If the unit in-between is the same height or taller than 1 of the units drawing line of sight to each other, the units have “soft cover” in respect to each other.
2. Forests are soft cover for the first 2” and hard cover past 2”
3. A short hill has a height of L, and any model on one has its height improved to XL, (unless already better). A high hill and any model on it has a height of XXL

Psychology
1. If a unit is engaged by a fear causing unit with superior ranks or a terror causing unit, it adds +1 to all leadership rolls. (eg. A roll of an 8 is a 9)
I like this. Might be biased though :p

Monsters
1. A “large target” monster counts as having 2 ranks and is entitled to the +1 rank bonus
Seems needless tbh. The first rank is definitely important, the second may give rise to the odd situation where a monster is steadfast because it 'outnumbers' the enemy.

Miscast
1. When a wizard miscasts, if there are insufficient power dice to cover the power dice lost, the wizard suffers from “Power Drain” as well.
Miscasting in general needs to be changed. Scalability of result with regard to power dice used would be the dream, although adding rules like this would be good

Magic Items
1. Magic standard 45pts- the bearer has +1LD. Also, he and any unit he is in, may elect to reroll results of 2, 3, or 4 on characteristic tests.
2. Magic standard 45pts- the bearer, the bearer’s unit, and models in contact with the bearer or the bearer’s unit may not take a save better than 4+. If a model was entitled to a better save he may take that save at 4+ instead.
No. These are just encouraging deathstars. I get that its crappy to see PSoX steamroll through an army, but shouldn't the fix be nerfing PSoX rather than altering the game around that spell? Test or die should really be based on a standard roll (like Transmutation) rather than a stat that has huge variance between armies. So I agree that adding resilience against spells like PSoX, Dwellers and Pit would be a good idea, but I disagree that the way to do that is to allow one unit to just about ignore them.

Army specific
1 .Beastmen monsters are 20pts cheaper
2. A Knight with knight’s vow is 1 point less, a knight with questing vow is 2 points less, and a knight with grail vow is 4 points less. Hippogryphs are 150pts.
3. Generic daemon signature spell – from Icor to Iron 8+: unit loses daemonic attacks, invulnerability, and instability. The unit gains unbreakable and its scaly skin save improves by 2
----------------------------------------------------

... Maybe nothing can be done, and my group should just add supporting attacks, step-up, and a Modified steadfast to 7th until 9th comes out. But I would like to play again, and i think I would like to get a few more games out of the 3 BRBs for 8th I have lol.

So, If you've stopped playing so much, would this be enough to make the game fun for you again? I am prepared to wait for answers, as I know people who have left the game... probably check these forums a little less lol. Oh, and thanks for reading my overly long post

So unfortunately I've messed up your lovely formatting and don't really qualify for whom you are looking to get responses from. But hey, so long as I'm in the thread I may as well reply. I agree that 8th isn't perfect and agree that adding back the importance of psychology, modifying steadfast, altering how artillery works and lessening the power of the Magic Phase would all be good things for 9th to implement.
That said, most of your suggestions really seem to favour huge units whilst removing/ adding immunity to most of the natural counters. Personally, I prefer playing with and against more of a MMU type of army than 3 mega hordes + chaff.

Still, props to you for not hijacking the positivity thread. Stay classy :):yes:

Spiney Norman
11-06-2014, 10:30
Doesn't a first turn "blood and glory" loss mean the player just thought "sod it" and just didn't take enough fortitude points?

I do sympathise with this one, the problem with the blood and glory scenario is that it really penalises some armies whilst not being a problem for others at all. My empire, tomb king and greenskin armies almost never leave home without at least 3-4 banners, and my empire & greenskin army always takes a BSB as well. My wood elves on the other hand never want to take standards, before their new book there was only one unit in the book that ever wanted a banner (eternal guard) and it was so weak for its points that taking a unit of them almost amounted to conceding the game.

Under the old wood elf book I literally used to show up with no banners, and immediately concede the game if B&G was rolled before asking "so would you like another game?"

Even under the new WE book the scenario is still a massive headache as I usually only have two banners (eternal guard and wild wood rangers) and that still makes my fortitude perilously low at 4).

ewar
11-06-2014, 13:06
First off! I didn’t show up to the -GW is perfect!!!!- thread to gripe more.

FYI it's perfectly possible to have a fun game and not think GW is perfect. I find it odd that so many gamers actually care what an international corporation does. The computer you work on was probably built by some downtrodden factory drone in eastern China, working 70 hours a week. Your clothes were probably made by kids in Bangladesh and the lights are kept on by stealing mineral rights all over the world.

GW changes Dire Avengers from 10 in a set to 5 and they get treated like they were dumping nuclear waste onto kittens.


I do sympathise with this one, the problem with the blood and glory scenario is that it really penalises some armies whilst not being a problem for others at all. My empire, tomb king and greenskin armies almost never leave home without at least 3-4 banners, and my empire & greenskin army always takes a BSB as well. My wood elves on the other hand never want to take standards, before their new book there was only one unit in the book that ever wanted a banner (eternal guard) and it was so weak for its points that taking a unit of them almost amounted to conceding the game.

Under the old wood elf book I literally used to show up with no banners, and immediately concede the game if B&G was rolled before asking "so would you like another game?"

Even under the new WE book the scenario is still a massive headache as I usually only have two banners (eternal guard and wild wood rangers) and that still makes my fortitude perilously low at 4).

Not sure I agree with this - it just means all armies have to bring some banners for actual units and punishes the extreme lists which don't bring many/any banners (like core chariots WOC). The new WE book has plenty of viable units to bring banners, if you only have a fortitude of 4 and then lose then that's kind of your choice.

Urgat
11-06-2014, 13:55
I do sympathise with this one, the problem with the blood and glory scenario is that it really penalises some armies whilst not being a problem for others at all. My empire, tomb king and greenskin armies almost never leave home without at least 3-4 banners, and my empire & greenskin army always takes a BSB as well. My wood elves on the other hand never want to take standards, before their new book there was only one unit in the book that ever wanted a banner (eternal guard) and it was so weak for its points that taking a unit of them almost amounted to conceding the game.

You've got a point. I could easily tell you that, well, doesn't matter if you want them or not, take the banners because you'll need them for B&G; actually, that wouldn't be such an invalid statment, because that's what B&G is for, but I do understand why it's not satisfying at all, because B&G's point is to cull deathstars, not to hamstring unusual lists. I feel that 9th ed should bring a couple more ways to get fortitude points, but these need to be careful thought out, because (imho - the only idea I got was granting fortitude points for infantry units that are not cut down to less than half of their initial strength, but I'm sure someone will find a flaw in that one right away, I really didn't think it through) B&G's point is to force people to take a reasonable amount of banners and, by doing so, force you to scatter your points in more units (so less deathstars). I understand it fails (or used to, I didn't keep track) with units like gutstars that are/were so immovable that it just didn't matter, but the premise behind the scenario, at least, is sound. I think it's B&G that suffers from some armies' anomalities, kindda like steadfast's bad press comes from only one justified example (slaves - I've played enough games with my gobs to know that those who complain about steadfast gobs supposedly breaking the game are just full of it, most of my steadfast units lose enough numbers by the end of the game to be eligible for regular break tests. Plus some guys are just smart enough to target the BSB and generals, that are rarely stellar nor hidden in a greenskin army).
So yeah. I'd like B&G to stay, but the fortitude points themselves probably need more thinking.


GW changes Dire Avengers from 10 in a set to 5 and they get treated like they were dumping nuclear waste onto kittens.
Well you gotta admit that's as evil as it gets :p


Not sure I agree with this - it just means all armies have to bring some banners for actual units and punishes the extreme lists which don't bring many/any banners (like core chariots WOC). The new WE book has plenty of viable units to bring banners, if you only have a fortitude of 4 and then lose then that's kind of your choice.
I honestly don't know about the WE, but some armies, like OK, can make some nasty builds with minimum fortitude amounts and just not care at all, which shouldn't happen. Honestly, let's say Spiney Norman is right about WE (I got no reason to believe otherwise anyway, he's a WE player, he knows better than me, that's for sure), and the units that can field banners are somewhat lacklustre. Yet he bites it and fields his army with 6 or 7 FP to be on the safe size. And here comes Golg-fan, with his minimum amount of FP, waltzing happily through the WE with his tough as nails-list, knowing perfectly well that there's a tough chance the WE can make him lose a single FP, and so making his optimal netlist while the WE player needed to make serious concessions. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere.
But yeah, a guy would come with a WoC chariot circus, roll B&G and autolose, big fat chance I'd feel sorry for him.

CountUlrich
11-06-2014, 14:09
The tweaks used in all gts and tournaments in our region, as well as all games in my local meta:

MR/ward saves work on the killer spells

Trees and hills block line of sight

Just those two and the game is great. For next edition I would like a tweak to steadfast as well, IF to go away, and a tweak to miscasts to punish wa ton 6 dicing. Otherwise the game is great.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

DeathlessDraich
11-06-2014, 14:24
and what would be the minimum to bring the game back for them. :)

:) Stick with this sentiment - "minimal changes are needed".
Too many changes is unfair to those who are very conversant with the rules and know how to handle them.

Bearing that in mind, only 3 changes (maybe 4 are needed) IMHO

1) TLOS - Abandon this. Players roll off to state which scenery blocks LOS completely or partially.
Players could also roll off for the LOS over interposing units and to or from their back ranks etc for the whole battle i.e. whether back ranks get LOS or not (but shooting rules still hold).
- There must of course be a willingness to be fair otherwise arbitration might be necessary.
I prefer the old front-rank-arc of sight as LOS and the old Large rules.


2) Limiting spells - all game changing spells should be limited e.g. Dwellers, PSun, Okram etc
- Either they cannot be cast in rounds 1 and 2.
Or
- Any of those spells can only be cast succesfully once per game by an army (my preference)

3) CR and Breaking - Very small units cannot break units which are far bigger e.g. 1 Ogrecharges and breaks 100 Slaves/Goblins /Spearmen etc
- Introduce a house rule e.g. a unit cannot break any unit which is bigger by 4 times or more, in the first round (or first 2 rounds) of combat. An exception maybefor Monsters who however cannot overrun?

4) Charging distances - I would like to see the element of chance removed from charge distances but I can live with the present rules.


Other pts you brought up
- Steadfast is a feature of 8th ed and not a problem; as are Terror and MR
- Scenarios - easy just modify the scenario rules after a mutual agreement
:)

williamsond
11-06-2014, 15:40
Why not get the kings of war rules for free (yes free from the company not pirated from the interwebz) and try using them with your whfb armies (most of the generic races are covered) I did and loved the system. Its not perfect by a long way, but there's a lot less what I would call GW rules Shinanigans and like I said it will cost you nothing to try.

olderplayer
11-06-2014, 18:12
Rash of these threads of late? I heard a lot of this locally from long-time players who eventually rage quit because 8th edition nerfed their armies or favorite tactics (wood elf and high elf players especially). Our campaign group went from consistently having a group of 8 to 12 per year (one campaign per year; total of maybe 16 to 20 players over a 5 year period) with some joining and leaving each season through the first few years of 8th ed to now only 3 of us regularly playing and most not showing up for the monthly meetings (some not even playing their monthly challenge battles) to record results, invade territories, choose events, and issue challenges in the last campaign we had. So, I well know the issues. Some of it was burn-out, some was GW raising the prices for new models combined with a new army book requiring a revamp and new investment in one's existing army, some was due to the change in play style that some 6th and 7th edition players have struggled with for some reason as well as the number of rjules and complexity of the rules and time required to relearn new rules in 8th ed, some was new game systems (including the online interactive games now available), and some was due to rules issues (steadfast, OP magic spells, etc.) or not being very competitive.

Two of our old campaign members are now regularly playing casual Kings of War games and love it, so that is one solution which someone recommended. They admit that is is a bit of a simpler game but the mechanics are a lot easier to learn, they can use their existing models, they don't have to pay to buy all the army books and rules, and the games are closer and more fault tolerant (less likely to have a turn one or turn two issue with magic, more grinding battles).

I prefer the complexity of the game and love the rank and file army look and feel from a play perspective (and have two sons at home able to play and some friends still playing plus a lot of regional GTs to play in), so I stick with WHFB. Instead of making up some rules, why not adopt some of the more proven ETC restrictions and fixes or look at commonly posted GT (Grand Tournament) army restrictions and house rules? Go on the warhammer forum and consider using the ETC rules or a limited version of them; some people don't like them but they are proven and tested and adopted by a wider international gaming community.
1. Cap unit sizes based on points and/or wounds of rank and files models or use a partial VPs construct for units partially reduced or fleeing to limit unit sizes.
2. The uber no save spells are needed to counter the oversized deathstar/point denial unit, but provide a look out sir for all characters in units by treating all direct damage, hex, and similar hit all model spells as through they are template hits or alternatively switch to causing D3 wounds to characters, allowing characters to fail only on a 6, rolling separately for each wound on the model in the unit for characteristic tests. One thought for the pit of shade, purple sun and other characteristic tests with no armour save or no save at all is to limit the risk of failing to being no worse than 50%
3. Consider a 5 dice limit to casting spells and/or make miscasts on double 1's autofail to cast to reduce the 6 dice dwellers, purple sun, mindrazor, dreaded 13th non-sense.

Frankly, the step up and steadfast rules makes a lot of sense conceptually and really balances the game, but some tweaks to it (ways to reduce the ranks counted for steadfast or break steadfast) might be considered in house rules. Allowing people to measure distances and not guess range is actually benefiicial to newer players and those that struggled with guess range, but, perhaps, has made cannnons a bit too deadly in 8th edition and really limited the ability to run monsters and solo characters, but that can be easily dealt with by using full 8th edition terrain and modifying terrain rules (some hills block line of sight, some forests block line of sight, put some impassible terrain and obstacles on the table, or create a "cover save" comcept for shooting non-BS war machines through forests and past hills). Many of us that have adapted well to 8th edition and put in a few house rules to fix 8th edition at little bit at most local and regional events really don't want to go back to 7th edition (guess range, ASF of charges, no step up) but try to limit the potential for abuses in 8th edition. I remember in 7th edition when certain VC and DoC army builds virtually ran over the field at uncomped GTs and were so overpowered that they were restricted or punished with bad sports and comp scores at events.

The biggest issue with 8th edition is scalability. The game plays well in the 2400 to 2800 points levels but some armies have huge advantages (winds of magic with better access to chearp options for spells or cheaper character and unit options) at one goes down in points, especially below 1500 points. Our campaign group looked at modifying the old warbands rules that GW had posted to attempt to address this issue and scaled down winds of magic rolls and unit size limits, etc. to partially address this.

Icarus81
11-06-2014, 18:20
First off! I didn’t show up to the -GW is perfect!!!!- thread to gripe more

Your mindset is apparent, because there is no such thread.

HelloKitty
11-06-2014, 18:25
This one tried Kings of War - this one was not impressed with it to switch over. this one finds the great divide being players happy and players not-happy is simply a matter of how to approach the game (being whfb or wh40k). Game for fun - happy. game for competition - not happy.

Then the ones say "competition is fun" which this one does not disagree with but when it says game for fun that means to this one that playing the game is more important than who wins the game, and game for competition means winning the game is more important than playing the game. This does not mean that both are not important or matter, this means one has a greater meaning to it than another.

Just a side-observation. Its own group is bitterly divided by the same things.

Verm1s
11-06-2014, 21:40
This thread is more for the people who lost interest, and what would be the minimum to bring the game back for them.

Minimum? Heh. Rewrite Warhammer so extensively for 9th (or 10th) ed that you could just as easily call it Warmaster 2nd ed. And use sane prices for mass-produced plastic minis.

KalEf
11-06-2014, 23:43
Um first THANKS!!!! this has been already (for the most part) been very productive and civil. I appreciate that.

I'm glad to read a lot of people's tournaments are already doing something close to the basic suggestions. TBH if GW would have put that in the errata and didn't leave the actual rules set without it... I think a lot less people would be "rage quitting"

I agree with a lot of the posts I'm reading. Also just to clarify, I am not saying I think the best representation for steadfast is orienting it to the actual units in combat. I think it is the bast way to remove some of the more ridiculous situations, while changing the rules the least. TBH Steadfast IMO would look like "a unit uses it's unmodified LD if it has 5 ranks of 5 or more. If the unit also has more total ranks than total ranks engaged with it, the unit may use any unmodified LD available to it" to represent the description given of it... And probably a 100 cap on units, 50 cap on cavalry, and a 36 cap on monstrous units.

Just Tony
12-06-2014, 00:35
I don't know that I've lost the will to play. I've lost the DRIVE to play at all, and it takes a lot of effort to get me to drag out the minis I have. What I HAVE lost is the will to repurchase an entire set of rules and army books YET AGAIN. Now I finally get why there are so many "Oldhammer" players.

KalEf
12-06-2014, 14:34
I play Warhammer because I love the miniatures...things like "math hammer" and "meta" etc just turns me right off.

Now I rarely get a game in (and it's 7th edition when I do, because that's what we have) and my army is comprised of Night Goblins, squigs and trolls...I've never won a game actually :)

I just have fun getting them onto the table, having a bash and inflicting as many casualties as I can, focusing on the things I enjoy about playing as opposed to things that annoy me (like facing two cannons and an organ gun)

Sir... I hate to say it. But you need 8th edition and I would give you 1 of my BRBs if you lived in the states. No joke.



To comply with your requests, of course there's also things I don't like in 8th ed. Some things like MR are useless, I don't like true LoS either, I really hate the way skirmishers work now, some very nasty spells, the way some writters couldn't figure the impact of the new rules on some units (my poor hoppers who waited for 8th ed to finally become cavalry, just when becoming cavalry actually meant a nerf compared to other units). Magic just doesn't scale well enough, and that miscast table that will punish as harshly a guy who plays conservatively as the guy who 6-dice his spells every turn. Many magic items are useless, some are too good (nothing new under the sun though).

There's things I don't miss though. Yep, terror isn't as.

On steadfast, I really, really like it, but it's also because I don't like the panic/break system. Just as steadfast, it's all or nothing, which isn't very amusing either when your unit runs because you roll 6, but would have been totally fine if you rolled a 7.

I very much agree, how often big blocks ran in 6th-7th was ridiculous as well. You had to finesse the living hell out of your infantry in those editions... well other than Ironbreakers lol. Most of my scenarios were a complaint of how steadfast needs to be more dynamic to accurately represent what it describes. I think we have more common ground than I would have assumed before



House ruling with your group sounds like the best solution to me.

I don't miss the old Terror rules, I would like Fear to be a little stronger (as in +1 combat resolution) but Terror can stay how it is.

True LOS is 8th editions worst offender, but it is not bad enough to give up on the positives of 8th.

On the positive side most of the long "conversations" we had about who could see who, turned into "conversations" about how much we hated TLoS and why they couldn't have given us rules for what can be seen in this giant RULE BOOK we each purchased. lol These "conversations" then bled into sarcasm for every phase. "no I clearly wounded him, look how big my guy's arm is and how waif thin your model is!" "but you rolled a 1?" "clear cut rules are for losers! I can clearly see I should be winning this combat. Take a break test. Don't bother, you should run... your guys would run, they look wimpy."

Just Tony
12-06-2014, 14:54
I live in the states, just sayin'...

KalEf
13-06-2014, 00:53
So unfortunately I've messed up your lovely formatting and don't really qualify for whom you are looking to get responses from. But hey, so long as I'm in the thread I may as well reply. I agree that 8th isn't perfect and agree that adding back the importance of psychology, modifying steadfast, altering how artillery works and lessening the power of the Magic Phase would all be good things for 9th to implement.
That said, most of your suggestions really seem to favour huge units whilst removing/ adding immunity to most of the natural counters. Personally, I prefer playing with and against more of a MMU type of army than 3 mega hordes + chaff.

Still, props to you for not hijacking the positivity thread. Stay classy :):yes:

First off, you are way too apologetic for someone who (for the most part) agreed with most of the post. The answers of "sure, but i'd do it a little different" "yes" "yes" and "no because I'm terrified of deathstars" are not offensive to me. I will have to put us at the agree to disagree point on the spells though. And I would say there are at least as many people terrified of the Big spells, as there are people terrified of deathstars... just to clarify. 1 of those banners is because 3+ ward saves on models with 1+ armor... are ridiculous. TBH I would like a rule that no one could have more than 1 save better than 4+, and the other would not be able to make any spell weaker that a 5+ auto death. oh and (in my mind) 1 giant can out number 9 goblins in the same manner 6 ogres do.


The tweaks used in all gts and tournaments in our region, as well as all games in my local meta:

MR/ward saves work on the killer spells

Trees and hills block line of sight

Just those two and the game is great. For next edition I would like a tweak to steadfast as well, IF to go away, and a tweak to miscasts to punish wa ton 6 dicing. Otherwise the game is great.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk




:) Stick with this sentiment - "minimal changes are needed".
Too many changes is unfair to those who are very conversant with the rules and know how to handle them.

Bearing that in mind, only 3 changes (maybe 4 are needed) IMHO

1) TLOS - Abandon this. Players roll off to state which scenery blocks LOS completely or partially.
Players could also roll off for the LOS over interposing units and to or from their back ranks etc for the whole battle i.e. whether back ranks get LOS or not (but shooting rules still hold).
- There must of course be a willingness to be fair otherwise arbitration might be necessary.
I prefer the old front-rank-arc of sight as LOS and the old Large rules.


2) Limiting spells - all game changing spells should be limited e.g. Dwellers, PSun, Okram etc
- Either they cannot be cast in rounds 1 and 2.
Or
- Any of those spells can only be cast succesfully once per game by an army (my preference)

3) CR and Breaking - Very small units cannot break units which are far bigger e.g. 1 Ogrecharges and breaks 100 Slaves/Goblins /Spearmen etc
- Introduce a house rule e.g. a unit cannot break any unit which is bigger by 4 times or more, in the first round (or first 2 rounds) of combat. An exception maybefor Monsters who however cannot overrun?

4) Charging distances - I would like to see the element of chance removed from charge distances but I can live with the present rules.


Other pts you brought up
- Steadfast is a feature of 8th ed and not a problem; as are Terror and MR
- Scenarios - easy just modify the scenario rules after a mutual agreement
:)

good options, and I think having the winds of magic start at 2d3, then 2d3 rerollable then 2d6 at the start of turn 2 is fun Idea!... however, a minimalist approach would probably frown on the change tbh. Orienting steadfast, filling in the MR & cover holes, and completing the the size progression, still feels like moving the least away from 8th. Orienting steadfast could be even simpler (as has been suggested) by making it vs total ranks engaged (cumulative amongst the largest ranking unit engaged on any side with all other sides, to be specific)... but I really like there to be weight to flanking, and don't want to "add" rules.

And on TLoS... just read my last post

Waagh Rider
13-06-2014, 22:21
I've lost the will to play because the only way i'll get a game is to let rabid tournament players use me for 'practice'

KalEf
14-06-2014, 00:16
My wood elves on the other hand never want to take standards, before their new book there was only one unit in the book that ever wanted a banner (eternal guard) and it was so weak for its points that taking a unit of them almost amounted to conceding the game.

Under the old wood elf book I literally used to show up with no banners, and immediately concede the game if B&G was rolled before asking "so would you like another game?"

Even under the new WE book the scenario is still a massive headache as I usually only have two banners (eternal guard and wild wood rangers) and that still makes my fortitude perilously low at 4).

not so hot for people who LOVE their slan an unhealthy amount either lol



FYI it's perfectly possible to have a fun game and not think GW is perfect.

GW changes Dire Avengers from 10 in a set to 5 and they get treated like they were dumping nuclear waste onto kittens.


A. sometimes my sarcasm is a little more caustic than a situation calls for and B. that's where the thundercats came from so watch YOUR hating


Rash of these threads of late?
Instead of making up some rules, why not adopt some of the more proven ETC restrictions and fixes or look at commonly posted GT (Grand Tournament) army restrictions and house rules? Go on the warhammer forum and consider using the ETC rules or a limited version of them; some people don't like them but they are proven and tested and adopted by a wider international gaming community.
1. Cap unit sizes based on points and/or wounds of rank and files models or use a partial VPs construct for units partially reduced or fleeing to limit unit sizes.
2. The uber no save spells are needed to counter the oversized deathstar/point denial unit, but provide a look out sir for all characters in units by treating all direct damage, hex, and similar hit all model spells as through they are template hits or alternatively switch to causing D3 wounds to characters, allowing characters to fail only on a 6, rolling separately for each wound on the model in the unit for characteristic tests. One thought for the pit of shade, purple sun and other characteristic tests with no armour save or no save at all is to limit the risk of failing to being no worse than 50%
3. Consider a 5 dice limit to casting spells and/or make miscasts on double 1's autofail to cast to reduce the 6 dice dwellers, purple sun, mindrazor, dreaded 13th non-sense.

Frankly, the step up and steadfast rules makes a lot of sense conceptually and really balances the game, but some tweaks to it (ways to reduce the ranks counted for steadfast or break steadfast) might be considered in house rules.


Thanks, It's sounding like the turnys are doing a similar thing. I think picking out some gt rules that line up with us well, is a great idea!

also if we did go back to 7th, we would be keeping some 8th rules. I may have been a fan of the tactical movement... but 100 goblins running away from 8 kills was a wildly unfair representation of what would happen. step up and some incarnation of steadfast would definitely make it to what ever we ended up playing.

Ramius4
14-06-2014, 01:17
Under the old wood elf book I literally used to show up with no banners, and immediately concede the game if B&G was rolled before asking "so would you like another game?"

What would be really funny, is right after you concede, begin having a discussion with your opponent about what tactics he thinks you could have used to make it a better game (as if you had actually played). Best done with a dead serious expression, and without a hint of sarcasm. :p

KalEf
14-06-2014, 02:14
This one tried Kings of War - this one was not impressed with it to switch over. this one finds the great divide being players happy and players not-happy is simply a matter of how to approach the game (being whfb or wh40k). Game for fun - happy. game for competition - not happy.

I appreciate the info!


I live in the states, just sayin'...



I've lost the will to play because the only way i'll get a game is to let rabid tournament players use me for 'practice'

both funny


What would be really funny, is right after you concede, begin having a discussion with your opponent about what tactics he thinks you could have used to make it a better game (as if you had actually played). Best done with a dead serious expression, and without a hint of sarcasm. :p

pretty sure he wins though... I'm still laughing on that scene