PDA

View Full Version : Rules from previous editions that should make a return



Vulgarsty
02-08-2014, 21:26
This thought was inspired by a recent thread in the 40k section.

Three I can think of

-1 to shoot single models (not just skirmishers - bizarre that a single model isn't harder to hit but a group of spaced out models is)

+1 to shoot large targets (not just the cannot benefit from cover and increased inspiring presence range) - this rule allows rule #1 to operate elegantly whilst effectively keeping status quo for monsters)

+1 to CR for winning the previous round of combat (this disappeared before 6th) Momentum is important surely.

Obviously some rules have changed effect, like fear has, rather than been removed altogether but I would be intrigued by what anybody else remembers, wants back.

Mr_Rose
02-08-2014, 22:00
I'd like to see drive-backs return (for those who don't know; in olden days the loser of a combat round, assuming they didn't break and flee of course, was "driven back" a number of inches equal to the amount they lost by and the winning unit advanced with them to maintain combat) as it makes combat an even more important strategic decision, since it can disrupt both sides' battle lines even without a decisive end.

Vulgarsty
02-08-2014, 22:27
Yes, i remember that, third wasnt it? That could work against you though. How about "a unit that has won a round of combat can choose to push back the losing enemy unit by upto a maximimum of as many inches as they won the combat by. Does not apply to steadfast or unbreakable enemies"

bigbiggles
03-08-2014, 06:45
But sometimes my weak troops lose by 15 or so now not like the 3 or 4 back when that was around. So there would probably need a chart with this

Saldiven
04-08-2014, 13:21
I'd like to see the old manner of determining Irresistible Force and Miscast return, with the same rule that a Miscast trumped IF.

One of the big complaints about 8th edition is the propensity for just chucking six dice at a spell you want to cast and hoping for the double six. Going back to the previous rules for IF/Miscast would discourage throwing max dice at a spell because there would be a slightly more statistically likely occurrence of a Miscast over IF.

Montegue
04-08-2014, 14:18
The new Psychic rules for 40k are a little stronger, I think, for a frame for magic going forward. Having perils be an increasing threat and *only* a problem as you add more dice is nice.

Mr_Rose
04-08-2014, 14:21
Or you could make the damage from the Miscast table wise the more dice you miscast with. Like "suck the caster's whole units and the one next to it, into the warp" worse.

Vulgarsty
04-08-2014, 22:17
yes, I think current magic needs fixing, but not buy going back to previous editions. I like this table

Miscast table = D6 + #PD. 3-4 = Detonation, 5-6 = Calamitous Detonation, 7-8 = Magical Feedback, 9-10 Power Drain, 11-12 Dimensional Cascade.

Mr_Rose
04-08-2014, 23:08
I'd rather make it power drain, then feedback, then the detonations, and finally the cascade if you go with that method; the current arrangement is designed with the 2D6 probability curve in mind.

Ramius4
05-08-2014, 03:29
I wouldn't mind seeing charging units get ASF. Especially since you can no longer charge a unit, wipe out the front rank, and nobody attacks back.

Mr_Rose
05-08-2014, 08:04
I wouldn't mind seeing charging units get ASF. Especially since you can no longer charge a unit, wipe out the front rank, and nobody attacks back.

I think that ought to be a weapon rule. For Lances maybe. Spear+Shield should get the Parry rule too. But thats new rules.
For actual old rules, I'd like to see Pikes return as an option.

Avian
05-08-2014, 08:21
Guess range weapons.

Some of my fondest memories are from hilariously bad guesses ("Did I say 26 inches? I meant 36!") and that was the single worst change from 7th to 8th if you ask me.

Alternatively, such weapons should roll to hit, taking into account things like long range and cover.

Vulgarsty
05-08-2014, 21:12
I'd rather make it power drain, then feedback, then the detonations, and finally the cascade if you go with that method; the current arrangement is designed with the 2D6 probability curve in mind.

Surely after being sucked into the warp, power drain is the next worse. Losing 3 levels off my heirophant last week in turn one on a 2D6 miscast stuffed the entire game. a few hits on any expendibles they happen to be in b2b with is hardly a real punishment for deliberately trying to miscast unless its a damsel in a lance of knights.

Mr_Rose
05-08-2014, 23:21
Wait, maybe I got confused. Which is the one that drops PD out if the pool?

Ramius4
05-08-2014, 23:30
Wait, maybe I got confused. Which is the one that drops PD out if the pool?

A few of them do.


a few hits on any expendibles they happen to be in b2b with is hardly a real punishment for deliberately trying to miscast unless its a damsel in a lance of knights.

Or a Slann in the middle of Templeguard.

boli
06-08-2014, 01:38
Guess range weapons.

Some of my fondest memories are from hilariously bad guesses ("Did I say 26 inches? I meant 36!") and that was the single worst change from 7th to 8th if you ask me.

Guessing ranges was badly abused; pre-measuring forearms and using "hidden" marks on the battlefield to plot ranges.

And then there is the abuse of "firing my hand gunners (who are stationed in front of a canon), are they in range, 28", darn.... Now to fire my cannon...

I agree that cannons should use BS values *somehow* but guessing ranges was open to too much abuse.

As for old rules, I want to say flying high ... But that rule was too powerful.

T10
06-08-2014, 11:14
I wouldn't mind it if cannons were resolved with a To Hit roll. The effects could be as simple as "the target unit suffers a number of hits equal to its number of ranks if the shot is fired in the unit's forward or rear arc, or it's number of files if the fired in the side arcs".

But I would also like to see cover saves take the place of To Hit modifiers. It's more engaging to combine a reasonable 50% of scoring a hit with a 50% save than just a 25% chance of hitting with no save. :)

Itsacon
06-08-2014, 11:33
Panic tests if the General dies.

Avian
06-08-2014, 12:57
As if having a Goblin general wasn't bad enough to begin with. :D


Regarding cannons, they could easily be implemented as a more powerful variant of bolt throwers, and that would solve a whole host of problems.

Mr_Rose
06-08-2014, 13:06
I wouldn't mind it if cannons were resolved with a To Hit roll. The effects could be as simple as "the target unit suffers a number of hits equal to its number of ranks if the shot is fired in the unit's forward or rear arc, or it's number of files if the fired in the side arcs".

Or keep the bounce rules and roll to hit the chosen target; if you miss, the "bounce point" scatters D6" and you resolve the bounce normally from there unless LOS is blocked by a wall or something, then the shot is wasted.

The problem with getting a hit for every rank regardless is you can aim for a barely-visible corner model and get as many hits as if you could see the whole unit. Also known as the swerving cannonball trick.

Itsacon
06-08-2014, 13:28
Cannons can be fixed by removing the pre-measure rules. When you had to guess your distance, they required player skill to use.

underscore
06-08-2014, 15:17
Nah, you've got to keep something like premeasuring consistent in the game. Otherwise one phase will make all the others redundant.

Itsacon
06-08-2014, 15:34
That's why I say: scratch pre-measuring alltogether.

underscore
06-08-2014, 17:32
Ah, gotcha. I thought you meant to make an exception for cannons.

Itsacon
06-08-2014, 19:08
Nope, just ditch that stupid rule. Cannon/stone thrower guessing, the risk of failed charges, all that stuff made games interesting.

You want to know distances, play a board game.

bigbiggles
07-08-2014, 02:47
Bringing back guess ranges won't really make cannons worse. Especially if you play on the realm of battle boards. Simple trig will get you within an inch or 2. It just takes a lot longer to math it out then just to say 8-10 inches from the back and roll some dice. Some small scatter as well as terrain penalties is all we need

Urgat
07-08-2014, 06:35
Shouldn't this topic be in general?


Guess range weapons.

Some of my fondest memories are from hilariously bad guesses ("Did I say 26 inches? I meant 36!") and that was the single worst change from 7th to 8th if you ask me.
God no, never again. Some of my worst memories involve players trying to guess their range for over two minuts, it gets tedious very fast. Plus there's no reason for the player to do the guessing, he's not aiming arrows or swinging swords around, why should he shoot the warmachines?


You want to know distances, play a board game.
You want to guess distances, play petanque :p


I wouldn't mind it if cannons were resolved with a To Hit roll. The effects could be as simple as "the target unit suffers a number of hits equal to its number of ranks if the shot is fired in the unit's forward or rear arc, or it's number of files if the fired in the side arcs".
They should work like spear chukkas. On a field, the result is the same after all.

Back on topic: I assume you mean general rules only? If so, bring back the way skirmish worked, it's not cool at all now.
If we can bring back AB rules, well, bring back the way hoppers worked in 5th edition. It was way more fun, and it'd be more efficient now than ever before.

tneva82
08-08-2014, 10:14
Cannons can be fixed by removing the pre-measure rules. When you had to guess your distance, they required player skill to use.

Except in practice with little bit of practice everybody was guessing spot on.

Basically that's just "newbie nuisance". Newbies struggle, veterans fire laser-accurate cannons.

Frankly pre-measuring is what adds skills to game. Not whether you are 0.9mm off in your estimation. Also lot more "in-game" feeling. Real generals didn't win or lose battles because their estimation of range was 0.9mm short.

Avian
08-08-2014, 11:52
You seem to be claiming that a general in the ancient / medieval period knowing exactly where everything on the battlefield is more realistic.

Excuse me for a moment while I have a good laugh.

yabbadabba
08-08-2014, 12:00
You seem to be claiming that a general in the ancient / medieval period knowing exactly where everything on the battlefield is more realistic.

Excuse me for a moment while I have a good laugh.Excuse the rest of us for having a good laugh at someone using the "reality" clause in a fantasy game. Again.

Bring back movement penalties for armour.

Avian
08-08-2014, 12:12
Your reading skill failed. :rolleyes:


Real generals didn't win or lose battles because their estimation of range was 0.9mm short.

yabbadabba
08-08-2014, 12:14
Your reading skill failed. :rolleyes:no it didn't, but your argument did.

Avian
08-08-2014, 12:50
*facepalm*

There's a reason why you're on my ignore list, I'm usually spared such nonsense.

Here's my post:

Some of my fondest memories are from hilariously bad guesses ("Did I say 26 inches? I meant 36!") and that was the single worst change from 7th to 8th if you ask me.
Reasoning given: IT'S MORE FUN

And here's someone else's post:

Real generals didn't win or lose battles because their estimation of range was 0.9mm short.
Reasoning given: REALISM


Okay, so in your opinion, was I the one who brought up realism, or was it someone else?

yabbadabba
08-08-2014, 12:59
There is a reason why I enjoy puncturing your ego. Simply put, with no quote, I am entitled to assume your comment stands alone. With the sarcasm it was laden with, it got what it deserved. Of course, you had to get your knickers in a twist as you so often do, you could have just pointed me in the right direction.

As for being on your ignore list, I shall wear it as a badge of honour.

Now we shall we get back to the thread?

Avian
08-08-2014, 13:17
Do you first wish us to laugh at tneva82 for bringing realism into it, or is he not on the list of people you like to troll?

static grass
08-08-2014, 13:30
Apparently on other forums being banned from warseer is a badge of honour.

Avian
08-08-2014, 13:46
Heh!

Regarding bringing back movement penalties, back in 4th / 5th edition they mostly applied to the Empire, since just about everyone else did or could ignore them. High Elves and Dwarfs never suffered them at all, and it didn't apply to Chaos Armour either. Dark Elves had it on Cold One Knights, but they had M8 back in those days, so it evened out. Only Empire knights were left at M6 and Reiksguard foot at a Dwarfish M3. If it were to be brought back it would need to be for everyone or it would just be a punishment for humies.

yabbadabba
08-08-2014, 13:51
Do you first wish us to laugh at tneva82 for bringing realism into it, or is he not on the list of people you like to troll? I am not trolling anyone, but if it helps you handle criticism better, then you carry on calling it that.

Realism in GWs games should only be used as some sort of vague, overarching vision. You cannot apply the rules of our world in a world with dragons and magic, and expect a common sense result, espeically in an abstract rules sytem like WFB. Now people who use the "realism" argument tend not to look into it in any great depth and are mostly reaching for solutions to tactical errors and failures to adapt of their own making. A good one is that a cannon should not be able to pick out a single, non-moving target like a character. Unfortunately the reality is that unlike WFB, no matter how good we are in realism we are all just simply human. So, in a large real battle and individual's prowess is important, but not game changing. It doesn't work like that in WFB. In addition to that, the ratio of important leader figures to troops in armies where cannons were common was so huge, far beyond WFB, that the odds of hitting a single figure is inevitably going to be substantially higher than in WFB where those leader figures are in a far higher ratio. Except possibly Skaven and Goblins. Now factor into that things like ward saves, and the damage that individual, non-real units/characters/monsters can cause, compared to regualr joes armed with a sharp pointy stick, and all of a sudden this comparison, using reality, just becomes pointless and illogical.

Something similar can be said for scatter. The reality is that the variation in accuracy in a cannon comes from the length of the shot, and the bounce, not the scatter from the barrel. The lateral scatter of any cannon is rather less significant than the scatter caused by estimation along a horizontal line, variation in powder, casting quality of the barrel, cannonballs etc. But, saying that, there is again a good argument to say that, if used, if the second scatter dice is not a hit, but an arrow, there should be some chance of a deviation along the true flight path - but not by much. While an unnecessary extra rule, it could cause some challenges for experienced players.

Now your argument about using cannons as essentially bolt throwers has its merits and drawbacks, but at least has a more sound basis because it streamlines the rules, follows an established, tried and tested mechanic. The drawback would the decrease in variety of units but also the interaction between scenery and cannonfire would have to change. Also any kind of buffing could end up in cannons becoming more accurate than before, espeically in open terrain.

My chief complaint about these threads does involve using realism though - the realism of problem analysis. The rules have recently changed and instead of examining those rules changes and assessing the impact, some just want to make more rules changes because of the impact of the rules changes. Logic suggests that by reversing those first, rulebook changes, we would have a far better analysis of how cannons operate in the game as it stands, rather than making more changes which might possibly exaggerate the problem. Simply put, if something stops working, reverse the changes you have made until the point where it was working.

Avian
08-08-2014, 16:24
Now your argument about using cannons as essentially bolt throwers has its merits and drawbacks, but at least has a more sound basis because it streamlines the rules, follows an established, tried and tested mechanic. The drawback would the decrease in variety of units...
You mean variety of mechanics. And it should not be a design goal to have a greater variety of rules mechanisms than you need to. In fact, the opposite is good design - if two things are fairly similar then their rules should work similarly too. That's why we don't have Tomb Kings with a unique magic system anymore, even if they lose a bit of flavour. Cannons and bolt throwers are both direct fire weapons that are more harmful to deep units, ergo they should share the same rules, and because the bolt thrower rules are the most similar to the standard shooting rules that's the ones that should be used.


... but also the interaction between scenery and cannonfire would have to change.
Could you explain what you mean by this?


Also any kind of buffing could end up in cannons becoming more accurate than before, espeically in open terrain.
Yes, any change to the main rules could lead to units becoming more or less effective than they used to be. When 8th edition changed rules for line of sight and removed range guessing, cannons got more effective. This was dealt with in the relevant army books that had cannons, when it came time to update those. Cannons as bolt throwers would make them less effective at shooting at things behind other things, but more effective if you get a way to boost their BS, for example.



... criticism...
Can't possibly be criticism. This is your first post on topic in this thread apart from the comment about wanting movement penalties for armour back. Trolling it is. Heh.

yabbadabba
08-08-2014, 16:29
Trolling it is. Heh. Right I have had enough of your immaturity. Shame, you ruined the rest of your post.

tneva82
08-08-2014, 20:25
You seem to be claiming that a general in the ancient / medieval period knowing exactly where everything on the battlefield is more realistic.

Excuse me for a moment while I have a good laugh.

Your reading skills are really, really, really pathetically low. Pre-measuring isn't realistic. Effect it gives to games is. Rather than battles being won by 0.9mm miscalculating in range(irrelevant in real battles) it's more about who had better strategy/tactic.

Real generals didn't win because they were able to estimate with laser accuracy.

They won because they made better STRATEGIES.

However in game terms those 0.9mm misjudgements have so much effect that with guessing ranges strategy became more of second place.

With that needless stuff out you can actually concentrate on seeing out who's better general. NOT who's got laser point accuracy in range distance.

And top of this: This makes games lot more FUN when game isn't moving at snail's pace as players are concentrating on making sure all ranges are just right.

Laughably bad estimates happens only to newbies. Any player who has played time can make estimates within 2". Longer veterans well within inch. Good ones can nail the range to specific infantry model in the squad(that guy 3rd on left 5th rank? 23,7").

So yeah. Fun for first month of your gaming. Then it becomes dull boredom when game is dragged to snailpace.

It's no accident pretty much every good ruleset in the world at the moment has no range guessing...

theunwantedbeing
08-08-2014, 20:37
I'de like to see...
Randomisation on cannon hits.
Forced Pursuit for models with Hatred.
Terror affecting nearby units.
Magic Cards!
erm....

Probably other stuff.
Guess range can stay gone, hmm...I'll guess 36.5" towards those harpies that are blatantly no more than 8" away. Instead I have appeared to hit your general who I couldn't really see. Sorry.

yabbadabba
08-08-2014, 21:28
Randomisation on cannon hits. So you could be hit by a cannonball, basketball, bowl of flowers sort of thing :angel:

Forced Pursuit for models with Hatred. I had forgotten - yeah why not?

Terror affecting nearby units. Hmm not sure about that. Maybe at the start of the game the entire army could take a terror test, and if an unit fails they cannot move for their first turn?

Magic Cards! As long as it doesn't turn back to Warhammer Magic the Gathering again!

Guess range can stay gone, hmm...I'll guess 36.5" towards those harpies that are blatantly no more than 8" away. Instead I have appeared to hit your general who I couldn't really see. Sorry. Edited that for you ;)

Vulgarsty
08-08-2014, 22:07
Well, I would bring back lone character models (but not monsters or characters mounted on monster can see and charge 360. (6th edition.

I would not bring back guessing - its like deducting marks for poor spelling in a history exam. The game isn't "who is the most skilled at guessing" and worst of all, it would re-validate some divs who had this sort of thing done.....
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1670

Mr_Rose
08-08-2014, 22:07
Oh gee theunwantedbeing, thanks for reminding me of the other problem with guess weapons. I had successfully managed to blank that from my memory. Blergh!

Terror affecting units nearby is okay but I'd rather it only affected units the terrifying unit could definitely charge e.g. in the front arc and within the terrifying unit's movement value. It was too effective at disruption when flying high was a thing.
Oh yeah, bring back flying high, but fixed; more like flying monstrous creatures in 40k i.e. doubles flight movement, makes the unit harder to hit but subject to additional damage if they crash, no charging from high flight.
Also terror tests for chargers.

Avian
08-08-2014, 22:20
Probably other stuff.
Guess range can stay gone, hmm...I'll guess 36.5" towards those harpies that are blatantly no more than 8" away. Instead I have appeared to hit your general who I couldn't really see. Sorry.
In Warmahordes you only get the full Strength hit if you hit the model you were aiming at. That's easy to adapt to FB as well and would avoid this problem.

hwd
08-08-2014, 22:33
Haven't read the whole thread, so I dunno if anyone has said this yet:

Fly High...

T'was awesome

Itsacon
08-08-2014, 22:44
I highly disagree with the Cannons as Boltthrowers idea. There is a reason they're currently different: Cannons don't depend on the ballistic skill of the crew, but can go wrong, ballistas do depend on the ballistic skill, but don't go wrong.

So boltthrowers are generally used by high-BS armies, while cannons aren't.

Using the same mechanic for both will penalize low-BS armies like Dwarfs and Empire, who favour cannons just for that reason.

Imagine the outcry if High elves suddenly had boltthrowers that didn't use their BS 4, but instead could explode...

Ramius4
08-08-2014, 22:49
Haven't read the whole thread, so I dunno if anyone has said this yet:

Fly High...

T'was awesome

Fly High...

T'was poorly implemented and broken in the right hands.

Kirth
08-08-2014, 23:05
I miss lapping around, I'd like to play some 5th/6th edition games to get a taste of what combat used to be like. I missed the combat resolution game of 6th.

I preferred the magic system of 5th. The winds of magic using cards was a lot of fun, especially when your enemy pulled all dispel in his magic phase.

Masque
08-08-2014, 23:10
I miss lapping around, I'd like to play some 5th/6th edition games to get a taste of what combat used to be like. I missed the combat resolution game of 6th.

I'd rather see some virtual lapping round bonus. Actually moving models to lap and then getting flank charged was a huge pain.

Ramius4
09-08-2014, 04:14
I preferred the magic system of 5th. The winds of magic using cards was a lot of fun, especially when your enemy pulled all dispel in his magic phase.

So you prefer an even more imbalanced Magic phase. One that dumb luck often left one side useless all game. Got it.


I'd rather see some virtual lapping round bonus.

You kind of do. It's called a free Combat Reform.

I have zero fondness for lapping around. That rule can go die in a fire.

Kirth
09-08-2014, 05:10
So you prefer an even more imbalanced Magic phase. One that dumb luck often left one side useless all game. Got it.

Over the current magic system, I prefer 5th. If the take away from this is a balanced magic phase, I think 6th was the closest to a fair balance of risk vs. reward.

Urgat
09-08-2014, 07:01
Terror affecting nearby units.

No than k you, I don't miss the terror bomb ****. Now, as it is, I take a gamble when my low Ld troops leave the general's IP (wolf riders, etc). With terror back the way it was, I can shelf it all back, because I'll just see the return of the hopping terror bomb.


That's easy to adapt to FB as well and would avoid this problem.

The problem that it's not the general's damned role to aim and shoot cannons would remain. The only reason I can see someone wanting guessing back is because he was good at it and his opponent was not. If guessing comes back, I want the general to be physically allowed to check if his troops can hit in melee. If my fist connects with the general's face, they hit. Who votes for?


I highly disagree with the Cannons as Boltthrowers idea. There is a reason they're currently different: Cannons don't depend on the ballistic skill of the crew, but can go wrong, ballistas do depend on the ballistic skill, but don't go wrong.

Tell that to my spear chukkas, they can misfire you see.


I'd rather see some virtual lapping round bonus. Actually moving models to lap and then getting flank charged was a huge pain.
That'd pretty much be an additionnal support attack rank. While I like the idea in theory, I'm not sure the units that would mostly benefit from it (elites) would need the extra help.

Flying high...
It'd need to be completely rethought from the ground.


Over the current magic system, I prefer 5th. If the take away from this is a balanced magic phase, I think 6th was the closest to a fair balance of risk vs. reward.
A reworked miscast table is all that is required to rebalance the current system, really (roll as many dice as you used for casting, the higher the result, the worse it is).

Mr_Rose
09-08-2014, 09:01
Skip the extra step: your total casting roll = the miscast table result if it includes a double six.

Avian
09-08-2014, 14:09
The problem that it's not the general's damned role to aim and shoot cannons would remain. The only reason I can see someone wanting guessing back is because he was good at it and his opponent was not. If guessing comes back, I want the general to be physically allowed to check if his troops can hit in melee. If my fist connects with the general's face, they hit. Who votes for?
See here's the thing. Being able to estimate distances is a skill. Once they took that away from guess range weapons they ended up being dependant on neither the player's ability OR the unit's ability. Usually it's one or the other, but shooting a cannon or a stone thrower doesn't depend on the skill of anybody. And that doesn't make much sense, does it?

Night Goblin Fantatics moving randomly around the table doesn't depend on anyone's skill either, but in that case it's meant to be random. If bows and handguns followed the same principles, resolving the shots would only depend on the stats of the weapon and not on the BS of the shooters or how difficult the target would be to hit. Not even 40K has that level of absurdity.

(As an aside, FB like any other wargame has the player doing plenty of things the general wouldn't be doing and knowing plenty of things the general wouldn't know. That's just the way wargames work. How fun would games be if you only issued orders and occasionally fought a round of combat or cast a spell?)

Urgat
09-08-2014, 16:45
Skip the extra step: your total casting roll = the miscast table result if it includes a double six.

Yeah, that's actually what I've been wishlisting for a while, don't know why I added an additionnal roll this time. It'd make you think twice about six-dicing if a result over 18 pretty much assured you a dead wizard plus other nasty things. On the other hand, even if you played conservatively and miscasted on two dice, you wouldn't be quite so worried.


See here's the thing. Being able to estimate distances is a skill

-which has nothing to do with strategy. And... it's gone! So it's fine. That's enough for me, and I never want it back.


Once they took that away from guess range weapons they ended up being dependant on neither the player's ability OR the unit's ability.

I agree it should depend on the unit's ability though. I think the rule for indirect shooting used by catapults should be the core rule for warmachine shooting, and expended from there. Or, somewhat the other way around, a combined BS test followed by a possible scatter. But everybody has read the cannon topics so we might want to steer clear from that kind of arguments this time. Can we agree that warmachine shooting would be best using BS and be friends again? :p


(As an aside, FB like any other wargame has the player doing plenty of things the general wouldn't be doing and knowing plenty of things the general wouldn't know. That's just the way wargames work.

Because there's no other way. You can't simulate a fog of war in any fun or efficient way for instance, the closest we got was the hidden deployement rule (actually, I wonder if it wasn't a houserule we used and if it ever was in any edition :shifty: ). On the other hand, there's certainly other ways to handle warmachines than guessing, proof is, many warmachines work w/o guessing, all these bolt throwers, for instance.


How fun would games be if you only issued orders and occasionally fought a round of combat or cast a spell?)

To be perfectly honest, besides the odd (and relatively rare) thing like random moves, isn't that pretty much the only stuff we do, moving troops, telling them what to shoot/hit, and casting some spells? I can't really think of anything else.

Avian
09-08-2014, 19:30
If you just want to be the general, then something like Warmaster is the best option where you do the large scale ordering and you're not concerned about the little stuff. Warhammer has you deciding who exactly every grunt on the battlefield is going to attempt to knife.

Urgat
09-08-2014, 21:32
Why? Warhammer does exactly what I want right now ;)

Avian
09-08-2014, 22:36
Then you are happy doing non-generaly stuff and can't use "generals wouldn't do that" as an argument. :p

Urgat
10-08-2014, 07:09
Not really. The general could have told "Lord Smackalot, I order you to slay the vile count Dirtysocks during this battle". A courier could also come relaying the same order during the battle. Or a magical necromantic impulse, some kind of telepathy, a pigeon w/o a bomb, etc. Lord Smackalot then proceeds to do it, thought dice, not through some unrelated player skill; the general doesn't walk up to him giving him counsel on how he should move his sword. That's what happens when the player guesses, for me. The general walks up to the warmachine, shoves the crew aside and tells them he's going to show them how it's done, and I hate it.
You're just not seeing the game as I do, but it's ok, I don't blame you :p

Mc1gamer
10-08-2014, 07:16
Line of sight. If you are on the opposite side of a forest, you are not visible. Hills are HILLS, not little dust mounds. Kick Tlos to the curb. Carry on....

Kirth
10-08-2014, 07:31
Line of sight. If you are on the opposite side of a forest, you are not visible. Hills are HILLS, not little dust mounds. Kick Tlos to the curb. Carry on....

Agreed.

I miss fear being bigger factor in games. Back in the day 'beaten in combat and outnumbered by a fear causing enemy' was just so nasty. Now if we combined the rules of fear back then with the BSB rules of now, allowing those psychology re-rolls I think it'd be a nice balance.

How I'm looking at all this is given the current set of rules, what would I cherry pick to bring to the current edition. Makes me want to read the old editions again.

yabbadabba
10-08-2014, 07:42
Line of sight. If you are on the opposite side of a forest, you are not visible. Hills are HILLS, not little dust mounds. Kick Tlos to the curb. Carry on....you can still do that and use TLOS.

Urgat
10-08-2014, 12:44
I miss fear being bigger factor in games. Back in the day 'beaten in combat and outnumbered by a fear causing enemy' was just so nasty. Now if we combined the rules of fear back then with the BSB rules of now, allowing those psychology re-rolls I think it'd be a nice balance.

BSB or not, autoflee is autoflee :p

Mc1gamer
10-08-2014, 13:25
you can still do that and use TLOS.

Nope, I wish. Everyone plays forests as little thinned out tree lines where you can see thru with only light cover. And with TLOS, you need huge hills for terrain to actually block stuff. Things on the other side of most modelled hills can be shot all the live long day. I say they should be representations of hills and auto block los, but that's not Tlos. Nothing here is in full proportions, but Tlos forced that component into a game where it doesn't need it. Sigh.....we can only hope.

yabbadabba
10-08-2014, 13:33
Nope, I wish. Everyone plays forests as little thinned out tree lines where you can see thru with only light cover. And with TLOS, you need huge hills for terrain to actually block stuff. Things on the other side of most modelled hills can be shot all the live long day. I say they should be representations of hills and auto block los, but that's not Tlos. Nothing here is in full proportions, but Tlos forced that component into a game where it doesn't need it. Sigh.....we can only hope. I disagree. So much of WFB is representative that you can simply declare that a hill or wood blocks TLOS. The problem lies really with some players being unable, for whatever reason, to adapt. My friend has an approximately 6" diameter piece of hardboard with a single tree on it. Every time we have declared it as a TLOS blocker we have had no problems. In fact it's easier to use than a forest that is modelled to block it. It's really not that difficult, it just comes down to choice and communication.

Avian
10-08-2014, 17:08
Not really. The general could have told "Lord Smackalot, I order you to slay the vile count Dirtysocks during this battle".
And your story will stop sounding like a sorry excuse when you're able to convince me that he delivers similar orders to each and every unwashed goblin/skavenslave/chaos spawn in his army. :p

Mr_Rose
10-08-2014, 18:20
What? Of course the general you,don't deliver orders! That's what runners are for. And Drum Majors.

Urgat
10-08-2014, 20:36
And your story will stop sounding like a sorry excuse when you're able to convince me that he delivers similar orders to each and every unwashed goblin/skavenslave/chaos spawn in his army. :p
Why do you think this happens? The only occasion when RnF target something specific is when they target a character, and that's the unit boss who tells them to, according to the warboss? That's kindda the role of a unit leader, you know ;)

Itsacon
11-08-2014, 07:44
I disagree. So much of WFB is representative that you can simply declare that a hill or wood blocks TLOS. The problem lies really with some players being unable, for whatever reason, to adapt. My friend has an approximately 6" diameter piece of hardboard with a single tree on it. Every time we have declared it as a TLOS blocker we have had no problems. In fact it's easier to use than a forest that is modelled to block it. It's really not that difficult, it just comes down to choice and communication.

But this is exactly why TLOS is just stupid. 5th/6th simply said you could see 2" into forest terrain, and could see 2" out of it. Beyond that, no LOS. Now you have to go over each piece of terrain and argue whether or not it blocks.

I play Dwarves, so against most armies TLOS is in my advantage (more targets for my war machines), but I still hate it.

Josfer
11-08-2014, 11:52
So much of WFB is representative that you can simply declare that a hill or wood blocks TLOS.
Well...technically not, because otherwise it's only LOS and not TLOS...


Why do you think this happens? The only occasion when RnF target something specific is when they target a character, and that's the unit boss who tells them to, according to the warboss? That's kindda the role of a unit leader, you know ;)
Not only a character, but if you have two different units in base contact and/or a unit champion too.

And having fought battles in life action roleplay I know a unit leader isn't really able to do this, I doubt in a life death situation this would drastically improve ;) So for a unit leader it's nearly impossible, not even starting from a generals perspective.

yabbadabba
11-08-2014, 11:59
But this is exactly why TLOS is just stupid. 5th/6th simply said you could see 2" into forest terrain, and could see 2" out of it. Beyond that, no LOS. Now you have to go over each piece of terrain and argue whether or not it blocks. again, not if you follow the rules exactly, but if you want to be more accomadating and, IMO, use more common sense it takes no more than a few seconds to extend the social contract between you and your opponent, and it makes for more face to face communication.

Well...technically not, because otherwise it's only LOS and not TLOS.... well, technically and philosophically yes. Philosophically because Truth is subjective anyway. Technically because the only difference between a wood which does block TLOS and a wood that is declared to block TLOs is your finances and your imagination. And as we are playing a game based on imagination, I don't see why finance should prevent someone deciding whether an object blocks TLOS or not.

But still, the answer is there, it is up to players to decide if they want to use it or not.

Josfer
11-08-2014, 12:28
And as we are playing a game based on imagination, I don't see why finance should prevent someone deciding whether an object blocks TLOS or not.
Because the point of TLOS is that you don't use your imagination but actually look with your own eyes. It's the same as with measuring your movement or bases touching etc.
It's ok to say TLOS is stupid (and I personally say this), just use LOS, but it's useless to use LOS and call it TLOS.

yabbadabba
11-08-2014, 12:32
Because the point of TLOS is that you don't use your imagination but actually look with your own eyes. It's the same as with measuring your movement or bases touching etc.
It's ok to say TLOS is stupid (and I personally say this), just use LOS, but it's useless to use LOS and call it TLOS. So when you apply the TLOS rules to some pieces of terrain and something else (because it is not LOS) to other oieces ... what would you call it?

Avian
11-08-2014, 12:38
LOS system variant #84c.

yabbadabba
11-08-2014, 12:46
Or TLOS variant 9z14

Geep
11-08-2014, 13:29
I'd like to see all of the super #6 spells disappear. Sure there used to be some horribly broken things in older magic systems, but for some reason they never struck me as not being fun back then the way the current spells do.

I liked Fly High, and guessing artillery ranges, but don't think they should return. Too abusable, and it detracted from any skill possessed by those models. Current rules need a fix, but this is not the way.

I'd like to see Mysterious Terrain die a horrible death. Have options for different terrain types, like the forest variants, sure- but don't make it random for the hell of it. Terrain also needs to have more impact, with difficult terrain stopping marches or something similar (suddenly discovering that calm stream was, in fact, a raging torrent is the wrong kind of impact).

TLoS is awful. I'd like to go back to a more abstract version (the entire game is very abstract- to have true line of sight' slapped on top is just weird).

I'd prefer no pre-measuring. I still don't pre-measure now.

Unlike what some previous posters want, I never, ever, want to see the horrendous current 40k psyker system become the Fantasy magic system, and never want terrain to lead to cover saves rather than to-hit modifiers (at least not without significant changes from the 40k system).

Edit: I'd also like to see Skirmishers return to their old rules, not be pseudo-ranked weirdness.

Avian
11-08-2014, 16:25
Why do you think this happens? The only occasion when RnF target something specific is when they target a character, and that's the unit boss who tells them to, according to the warboss? That's kindda the role of a unit leader, you know ;)

*twirls moustache*
I see you have fallen into my clever trap. You have just stated that you're fine doing something that's the task of a junior officer acting on the orders of the general, instead of just the tasks that the general himself would directly deal with.

Ergo, your excuse about not wanting to deal with guess range weapons because that's not something that the general would handle directly has just been rendered null and void.

Hence the conclusion must be that you don't like to guess ranges because you hit less often than when you just get to place the template and let pure chance decide.

I rest my case. :D

Urgat
11-08-2014, 17:43
*twirls moustache*
I see you have fallen into my clever trap. You have just stated that you're fine doing something that's the task of a junior officer acting on the orders of the general, instead of just the tasks that the general himself would directly deal with.
[...]
I rest my case. :D

Moving the units, allocating attacks, picking targets and so on just represents the chain of commands, that's the role of the player. He's not the general either, the general's the little guy on the table. It's really not the same for me, so I rest on mine ;)


Hence the conclusion must be that you don't like to guess ranges because you hit less often than when you just get to place the template and let pure chance decide.

Not gonna lie, I wasn't too good at that (bar doomdiver, the correction was virtualy always sufficient to correct a bad guess), but I'm also particularly unlucky with my warmachines anyway, I always roll misfires, so I still don't take them much, even w/o having to guess anymore :p But let's say, for the sake of arguing with you, that I'm glad it's gone only because I was bad at it. Well, that's a valid enough reason, I'm playing a wargame so I can figure out clever (haha right) tactics, and guessing where the shots of my catapults should land is not a skill that should be needed for that. Anyway, I lose by default, because I bet you this is never coming back ;)
But I'll be honest with you, the current way isn't much satisfying to me either. So I'm curious since you did not reply before: wouldn't you agree that it would be better if all template warmachines were dealt with through crew BS rather than either guessing or just placing the template wherever we want?

Avian
11-08-2014, 18:37
Yes, I think cannons should work like up-amped bolt throwers and stone throwers should roll to hit using BS, scattering 2D6" if they miss (no HIT result on the scatter). And as in Warmahordes, scatter should be limited to max half the distance to the target.

Misfires should happen on a roll of 1 to hit, in which case you take a Ld test. If passed nothing further happens. If you fail but don't roll a double on the test you take a wound and can't fire next turn. If you fail and roll a double the machine is destroyed (for blackpowder weapons, other units within 2D6" take D6 S6 hits).

Or something like that. ;)

Urgat
11-08-2014, 19:05
Well I never thought about it that far (the misfires, etc), but that's also pretty much how I'd see them work (BT for cannons, BS or scatter for catapults). I feel kindda stupid to have argued so much when in fact we want the same thing :shifty:
Honestly, I'm surprised GW didn't do that already, they could get rid of the artillery dice that way, and it seems to me they want to have as many tests as possible resolved with a D6.

Josfer
11-08-2014, 22:59
Or TLOS variant 9z14
Why would you do that? There are no other variants (while LOS has already lots in a lot of games and even in warhammer) but "there is a line of sight where you actually have one with your eyes". If at all, call it TLOS variant #1, but why do a variant in the first place if LOS already has many AND it just happens that the name is contradicting the rules used for that variant.

Itsacon
12-08-2014, 05:56
So I'm curious since you did not reply before: wouldn't you agree that it would be better if all template warmachines were dealt with through crew BS rather than either guessing or just placing the template wherever we want?

Once again: No. There's a reason Elves favour boltthrowers, and BS3 armies like Empire and Dwarves favour cannons. The ability to point an arrow has little to do with the calculations required to aim a cannon, mortar or stonethrower.

To do that, you'd need to add a new stat: ES, Engineering Skill.

yabbadabba
12-08-2014, 06:11
Funny how you responded to that post.

Urgat
12-08-2014, 07:03
Once again: No. There's a reason Elves favour boltthrowers, and BS3 armies like Empire and Dwarves favour cannons. The ability to point an arrow has little to do with the calculations required to aim a cannon, mortar or stonethrower.

To do that, you'd need to add a new stat: ES, Engineering Skill.

Her... I'm sorry to say that the difference between shooting a cannon and a bolt thrower is lesser than that of an elf shooting a bow or a pack of snotlings throwing handfulls of dung, and yet the later two use BS, so... yeah, but no, cannons aren't so special.

Itsacon
12-08-2014, 08:03
Her... I'm sorry to say that the difference between shooting a cannon and a bolt thrower is lesser than that of an elf shooting a bow or a pack of snotlings throwing handfulls of dung, and yet the later two use BS, so... yeah, but no, cannons aren't so special.

For cannons and mortars: Gunpowder usage.
For stone-throwers and mortars: Indirect fire calculations.



But let's turn it around: Let's make bolt-throwers use the cannon rules. See how the Elf players like it.

theunwantedbeing
12-08-2014, 11:39
But let's turn it around: Let's make bolt-throwers use the cannon rules. See how the Elf players like it.

The only real downside would be all the other armies who have access to cheaper bolt throwers.

No more lowering strength going through ranks.
Able to pick out characters in units.
Vastly superior damage against enemies in buildings.
Able to hit both rider&mount from a single hit.
No worry about to hit modifiers.

Urgat
12-08-2014, 12:43
But let's turn it around: Let's make bolt-throwers use the cannon rules. See how the Elf players like it.

I don't know about elves, but my spear chukkas would certainly gain a massive boost out of it. I'm not sure I see what point you wanted to make there, though.

yabbadabba
12-08-2014, 12:49
There are countless threads about cannons, can't we take that discussion elsewhere?

I'd like a more in-depth version of the current siege rules. I have both the previous siege books, and while it doesn't need a book the current rules are far too shallow.

ezz
12-08-2014, 13:42
But let's turn it around: Let's make bolt-throwers use the cannon rules. See how the Elf players like it.

Sorry to bring logic in this discussion but... have you ever seen a bolt bounce of the ground if fired at ground level? I certainly haven't
But I would love using the cannon rules, for the same reasons thenwantedbeing gave

Geep
13-08-2014, 01:52
The 'bounce' doesn't have to represent actual bouncing, but also- yes, I have seen arrows bounce off the ground, it usually happens when fired at a flat trajectory. They don't bounce high, but would still be a threat to feet :p

Vulgarsty
13-08-2014, 21:31
I used to see inconsistency between sniper cannons and bolthrowers, but comparing cannons with stonethrowers makes me think that perhaps the boltthrower comparison is a false one.