PDA

View Full Version : There will be no swedish comp for AoS (instead swedish 9th!)



taurus-marstein
04-07-2015, 19:54
I emailed Erik from Swedish comp. This is what he said:


"""
The Swedish comp system group will not touch Age of Sigmar (at least not in its current state). In my opinion that game does not seem to be made for any type of competitive play at all.


Our plan is instead to create our own 9th edition "warhammer".
http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4494
"""



I am excited about this! I can't wait to see what these guys come up with :)

What do you guys think?

MLP
04-07-2015, 20:03
I think this is what I will play instead of AoS

taurus-marstein
04-07-2015, 20:05
Me too. I am sure these guys can come up with something (how can it not be better than a GW released 9th edition?) that will be completely satisfying.

lumor_
12-07-2015, 21:16
Sounds great!
(I hope they implement a rule that gives minus VP for every GW model in army bought after AoS release date.)

Vazalaar
12-07-2015, 21:20
Yes, Keep us updated.:)

SteveW
12-07-2015, 22:31
Swedish comp was so biased towards certain builds before that it was easily abused, I hope they put a bit more time into this idea than they did their previous ventures.

HelloKitty
12-07-2015, 23:08
I wonder how useful a collection of all houserules would be in one place ;) there have got to be over twenty rolling now of either aos comp packets or 8th edition updates.

MrPieChee
12-07-2015, 23:16
We're starting to see a problem here with lots of different groups making new rules: I see one of two things happening; at some point a few will have a large enough base to rapidly grow in popularity; or they'll all stay local to their groups, largely killing WHFB. I really really hope the former happens and the community can all follow one or two systems... (Warhammer CE (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans) looks to be the best one so far, but a tournament scene would really help pull a leader out of the pack)

stortotta
12-07-2015, 23:23
Yes! This is most comforting. Happy!

Shandor
12-07-2015, 23:28
Swedish comp was so biased towards certain builds before that it was easily abused, I hope they put a bit more time into this idea than they did their previous ventures.

Even if they totally **** it up.. its still worth playing more then AoS.. and that by far! :)

SuperHappyTime
13-07-2015, 02:57
What do you guys think?

It'll eventually fade into obscurity with the rest of the Fantasy line when GW decides it doesn't sell and commits entirely to 40K.

No points actually helps organizers like Swedish Comp design a balanced point system. They no longer have to provide a second system of generating points, they can just make ONLY one point system that matters.

It just sounds like they're too lazy.

Hoffa
13-07-2015, 09:05
No points actually helps organizers like Swedish Comp design a balanced point system.

You really have no experience working with comp systems do you?

Shandor
13-07-2015, 09:06
It'll eventually fade into obscurity with the rest of the Fantasy line when GW decides it doesn't sell and commits entirely to 40K.

No points actually helps organizers like Swedish Comp design a balanced point system. They no longer have to provide a second system of generating points, they can just make ONLY one point system that matters.

It just sounds like they're too lazy.

You just cant build a House on Thin Air.

EcceNoHomo
13-07-2015, 12:07
This could be great as long as they keep the charging/step up mechanism from 8th more or less. Hated the death star charges from 7th.

SuperHappyTime
13-07-2015, 12:35
You really have no experience working with comp systems do you?


You just cant build a House on Thin Air.

Good to see the AoS release/panic has stopped everyone from thinking outside the box.

I'm not suggesting a Comp package, I'm literally suggesting to just make a points system. A 3+/4+ may be the same as a 4+/3+, but it's pretty clear a 3+/3+ is better than a 4+/4+.

Kyriakin
13-07-2015, 12:42
It'll eventually fade into obscurity with the rest of the Fantasy line when GW decides it doesn't sell and commits entirely to 40K.

No points actually helps organizers like Swedish Comp design a balanced point system. They no longer have to provide a second system of generating points, they can just make ONLY one point system that matters.

It just sounds like they're too lazy.
Too lazy to balance a 4-page game but willing to do a new edition of the WHFB behemoth?

Doesnt add up. I think they genuinely dont think AoS is worth touching in its current state

T10
13-07-2015, 13:13
We're starting to see a problem here with lots of different groups making new rules: I see one of two things happening; at some point a few will have a large enough base to rapidly grow in popularity; or they'll all stay local to their groups, largely killing WHFB. I really really hope the former happens and the community can all follow one or two systems... (Warhammer CE (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans) looks to be the best one so far, but a tournament scene would really help pull a leader out of the pack)

Reminds me of...

216997

-T10

MrPieChee
13-07-2015, 15:30
Ha! I was thinking of that when I wrote it (or more specifically the eternal Linux distro fight)

Mateobard
13-07-2015, 15:37
Nifty! Here's for hoping that they dont change the game too radically in the name of oldhammer nostalgia

Hoffa
13-07-2015, 16:56
Good to see the AoS release/panic has stopped everyone from thinking outside the box.

I'm not suggesting a Comp package, I'm literally suggesting to just make a points system. A 3+/4+ may be the same as a 4+/3+, but it's pretty clear a 3+/3+ is better than a 4+/4+.

Do you understand how complicated it is to reverse engineer a point system for existing units, this is a much larger task than just writing a comp for a system that already has points in place. We are not stuck inside some old box. We simply have an idea about the size of the task you propose and choose to not do it.

It would be less work to design a new game and new units from scratch.

Mateobard
14-07-2015, 00:02
I think the Swedes will probably come up with a solid community based 9th edition. Nice to see them working on this. They have a long history of working hard to collectively come up with a pretty solid comp pack.

jet_palero
14-07-2015, 06:38
To me, 8th edition is already quite good already. If they can just have flanking negate steadfast and do something about the nastiest of nasty spells (the ones that can just occasionally randomly end a game), I think they'd be set. perhaps rebalance point costs for certain units from some of the army books, although that will be quite subjective.

SteveW
14-07-2015, 07:00
To me, 8th edition is already quite good already. If they can just have flanking negate steadfast and do something about the nastiest of nasty spells (the ones that can just occasionally randomly end a game), I think they'd be set. perhaps rebalance point costs for certain units from some of the army books, although that will be quite subjective.

As you've probably been told before, one of the things you hate about 8th is there to stop the other thing you hate about 8th. Out of the box 8th was by far the best tabletop wargame out there.

Galushi
14-07-2015, 08:11
Always seemed like the Comp System was in place to correct units that were overpowered or underpowered for their costs. If they can just rebalance the points cost, and maybe tweak a few rules, that's all you'd really need.

Evil Hypnotist
14-07-2015, 09:24
This is what I have been waiting for, people to take 8th and make it into a community edition we can still enjoy. WFB isn't dead!

logan054
14-07-2015, 13:41
Could be cool.

Jator
24-07-2015, 22:06
Looks good so far:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BdUboMHSwUrb4NHIqP4OihW7OL03V91gWrF79Ha0_2I/pub#h.fgyxcxtc2nq2 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BdUboMHSwUrb4NHIqP4OihW7OL03V91gWrF79Ha0_2I/pub#h.fgyxcxtc2nq2)

Malagor
24-07-2015, 22:35
Looks quite nice actually for alpha.
Looking forward to seeing how this will turn out.

Deadhorse
24-07-2015, 23:23
I see too much comp and too few rules changes in some of this.

For example terrorgheist 1-0... that's just comp. I'd like to see army book changes where units have balanced rules and none of the 0-1 crutch.

Malagor
24-07-2015, 23:29
Well it's still just Alpha rules, things might change and increasing it's point cost makes it unlikely that you will ever have more then 1 anyway.

MagicAngle
24-07-2015, 23:31
Looking very exciting. Anyone know if there's a plan to rewrite the rules for cannon?

Deadhorse
24-07-2015, 23:32
@Malagor - I hope so, I really like this idea. But honestly I would prefer 9th edition than 8th with comp and small tweaks.

Tokamak
24-07-2015, 23:44
Sounds interesting. The core rules are already great but I would love it if an objective group of dedicated players could equalise all the armies on each other. Wonderful opportunity to do so now you can be sure now the game has been 'closed'.


I see too much comp and too few rules changes in some of this.

For example terrorgheist 1-0... that's just comp. I'd like to see army book changes where units have balanced rules and none of the 0-1 crutch.

Agreed. 0-1 should only apply to unique things in the game. Like the anvil of doom or the casket of souls. To apply it to stuff that is considered just powerful is lazy.

Shandor
24-07-2015, 23:55
Wow looks great so far. Im just a bit sad it will be more then 4 Pages :P

taurus-marstein
25-07-2015, 05:17
GW made everyone's rare monster choices exactly 250 pts or less so that you can buy two in a 2000 pt army. Think about it...

Terrorgheist, steam tank, frostheart, hellpit, etc. All of them are just below 250 and almost all of them are underpriced and honestly should probably be 0-1 for balance reasons.

Malagor
25-07-2015, 08:06
GW made everyone's rare monster choices exactly 250 pts or less so that you can buy two in a 2000 pt army. Think about it...

Terrorgheist, steam tank, frostheart, hellpit, etc. All of them are just below 250 and almost all of them are underpriced and honestly should probably be 0-1 for balance reasons.
Not the beastmen rares who are all 275pts thus unable to have 2 of them in a 2500pts match.
And it's nice to see that this version lowered their points alot.
And let's not forget the big spider for O&G who is probably the most expensive rare.

Wishing
25-07-2015, 08:52
WFB isn't dead!

Not in terms of fans, obviously, but I presume that the intention with this swedish "9th edition" is just to be an epitaph for WHFB as a living system (in terms of new releases), right?

On the gaming boards I read, a "dead game" in a wargame context tends to be used about a game that is no longer supported, i.e. that gets no new model-rule releases. I assume that when AoS is off limits, that means that the WHFB models that exist now are the only WHFB models that will ever exist. If a fan-made 9th edition was a success, there would be no reason to ever write anything about WHFB ever again. GW won't release anything for it, and swedish comp packets will (I assume) not write any new model or army rules for it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

SteveW
25-07-2015, 17:40
GW made everyone's rare monster choices exactly 250 pts or less so that you can buy two in a 2000 pt army. Think about it...



Terrorgheist, steam tank, frostheart, hellpit, etc. All of them are just below 250 and almost all of them are underpriced and honestly should probably be 0-1 for balance reasons.


So a bunch of armies have sub 250 point rares that are really good? Sounds like it is balanced, maybe the few rare choices that don't fit this model are the ones not properly costed.

BorderKing
25-07-2015, 18:01
Any chance they'll add Dogs of War ?

Tyelacoirii
25-07-2015, 18:09
So a bunch of armies have sub 250 point rares that are really good? Sounds like it is balanced, maybe the few rare choices that don't fit this model are the ones not properly costed.

There are certainly questions. It has for instance never been clear why a Terrorgheist is only an eagle (?) more than a Varghulf.

The critique that can levelled at Swedish comp is that they have a clear vision of how WHFB should be played and therefore skew the lists so you tend to go down that road. In a sense this isn't too bad - a tournament descends into farce if its just a glorified game of rock, paper, scissors - but it can seem a bit sweeping.

It all depends on how you like your meta.

taurus-marstein
25-07-2015, 19:04
I see this as a great way to play a tournament oriented 8.5 edition. They want to rebalance and fix the BRB and army books. I commend that!

GW won't be releasing more units and rules, but do we really need them? People have been playing mordheim for years with no support, and there are tons of groups playing other games that have no support.

If you're not a tournament player, this ruleset might not be any better than regular 8th, but I think it's really amazing that they are doing this for us for FREE!

Also, beastmen was a 7th ed book before they changed the army list rules. The 9th age seems to really fix how cruddy their monsters were by giving them a massive points reduction. :) very happy about that!

I just hope they reduce the cost of grail knights and questing knights, they are insanely overcosted for 8th ed.

Rudra34
25-07-2015, 20:36
With these changes, beastmen would wreck face.

vintagetcp
25-07-2015, 20:51
Out of the box 8th was by far the best tabletop wargame out there.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

SteveW
25-07-2015, 20:55
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Well I stand corrected.

Care to mention one that was better?

Before you spout any falsehoods, I have played pretty much every war game made and stand by my opinion.

taurus-marstein
25-07-2015, 20:56
No 8th was not the best...

And yes, beastmen will wreck face. But notice how units like bestigors and minotaur have pretty small unit size limits. I believe with this comp will force players to either not have a deathstar unit (but use elites) or having to use core units as your deathstar.

Also, I think it'd be amazing to see beastmen ambushing their whole fricken army. That sounds fun :) beastmen deserve to have their own thing, not to just be a worse version of WoC

Yvain
25-07-2015, 21:21
Hopefully this catches on. This is the best fan group to do a rule set in my opinion. It is still going to be hard to find games, but it is better than nothing.

taurus-marstein
25-07-2015, 21:30
I think it's definitely tournament player oriented but I have no problem with that.

plantagenet
26-07-2015, 04:31
My main criticism is the rules seem to over complicate things.

Killing blow didn't need to be changed to d3 wounds for example.

taurus-marstein
26-07-2015, 04:40
This ruleset is for tournament players. Killing blow is changed to d3 because then there's not a MASSIVE downside to taking characters on foot. Right now, grave guard with a few attacks can execute a 300 pt character with a lucky swing.

Rules changes like this are to balance tournament games. In friendly games, it won't matter, but when people are min/maxing the crud out of their list, some things don't make it because of rules like Killing Blow.

HelloKitty
26-07-2015, 04:48
Be aware (just for the sake of conversation) that tournament play and tournament standard (points, scenarios, common lists) often leak into casual play and become the standard for casual play too.

taurus-marstein
26-07-2015, 05:05
Oh of course they do! Due to the Internet, everyone has to decide what % of a jerk you want to be. You know what the best army/list is.

I was just defending their decisions on certain rules mods, their motivation is for balanced play. I personally believe the only way to achieve balance AND have a game as interesting and complicated as WFB is, is to make complicated rules. AoS is simple and look how that turned out.

So is d3 wounds more complicated than an insta-kill? Yes, but there's a reason for it

Kyriakin
26-07-2015, 07:38
This was always the way to go. These "compers" have an existing credibility and mandate to help a rule-set to gain traction with the community in terms of perceived "officialness".

This would never happen is some random guy did it, not matter how good the rules were...

Hoffa
26-07-2015, 08:35
Be aware (just for the sake of conversation) that tournament play and tournament standard (points, scenarios, common lists) often leak into casual play and become the standard for casual play too.

Yes this happens, to me this shows that there is a demand for balance and that the players that really doesn't care are the minority.

plantagenet
26-07-2015, 12:31
Killing blow worked against characters on horses as well. If there is one unit they have to avoid then not so sure that's an issue. It doesn't really change with d3 wounds either it just means game is more random in this area.

I would also like to see all weapons that use templates to change. So small template weapons cause d6 hits and large 2d6 for example. It would greatly speed up the game and removes the ability to snipe. I would also change all war machines to use bs there fore standardizing the rules and helping to lessen the impact of cannons. Which would now need a 4+ to hit and cause d6 hits to a unit which would eliminate sniping. Against ridden monsters the d6 hits would be randomly distributed between character and mount. Note that cannon would not cause d6 hits and d6 wounds per hit it would just cause 1 wound per hit.

taurus-marstein
26-07-2015, 16:41
Yes, totally agree. Templates have to go. Instead it should just be some random number of hits.

Template sniping is so... ugh. Bad. It needs to stop.

Personally, I think war machines should shoot on 2d6, with a chart to decide if they hit, miss, missfire, or score a direct hit.

So a cannon might be 2-3: missfire, 4-5: miss, 6-10: hit (d6 S10 hits), 11-12: direct hit (d6 S10 hits with d3 wounds) or something like that.

Shandor
26-07-2015, 17:18
Yes, totally agree. Templates have to go. Instead it should just be some random number of hits.

Template sniping is so... ugh. Bad. It needs to stop.

Personally, I think war machines should shoot on 2d6, with a chart to decide if they hit, miss, missfire, or score a direct hit.

So a cannon might be 2-3: missfire, 4-5: miss, 6-10: hit (d6 S10 hits), 11-12: direct hit (d6 S10 hits with d3 wounds) or something like that.

I think that would be still to strong. How i hate it when a 300+ point Dragon got one shot by a Cannon the first turn.
Cannons are the reason why a General on Pagasus is much better then a General on Dragon and is even cheaper.

Urgat
26-07-2015, 17:36
My main criticism is the rules seem to over complicate things.

I agree. What's with all these new spell kinds? It's really unecessary. What's with all these magic rules anyway? Trying to control the magic powers, when they could have adjusted the miscast table to be harsher the more dices you used. No, instead, lotsa special rules, and a simpler (and pretty useless) miscast table?
Not interested.

taurus-marstein
26-07-2015, 17:57
The spell types seem to be so that you can more easily understand what a spell does. Several spells have bubble/aura effects, and each spell in 8th had to copy/paste the rules for it. This ruleset just simplifies that down to one keyword.

The miscast table In this ruleset is very good, it's punishing to high risky (5 dice) spells and low risk for 2 dice spells.

Shandor
26-07-2015, 18:09
I agree. What's with all these new spell kinds? It's really unecessary. What's with all these magic rules anyway? Trying to control the magic powers, when they could have adjusted the miscast table to be harsher the more dices you used. No, instead, lotsa special rules, and a simpler (and pretty useless) miscast table?
Not interested.

In my opinion a harsher miscast table would not fix it. Even if a double 6 makes your Wizard explode after the Spell cast i still would happy sacrefice him if i get an Mindrazor, Purplesun or something like this out in a critical moment. Yeah the mage dies but he makes my Unit killing your 600 point block with General inside.. good deal.

Urgat
26-07-2015, 18:12
I disagree, it just makes stuff more complicated for no apparent reason. Like most other added rules. What's with the defending a wall, standing on it bonus? For real?
It all sounds like a fanboy list of houserules. All power to those who like it, to me it feels it's just a kneejerk reaction to AoS, since everything's simpler in AoS, let's make everything more complicated with that 8th ed... dunno how to call that.

taurus-marstein
26-07-2015, 18:22
Well one thing I agree with you on is that there needs to be some more simplification. Like many of the psychology rules and random army special rules are way too random. I do like how they are replacing "beastmen ambush" with regular ambush, but I want more of that

Yvain
26-07-2015, 19:19
I disagree, it just makes stuff more complicated for no apparent reason. Like most other added rules. What's with the defending a wall, standing on it bonus? For real?
It all sounds like a fanboy list of houserules. All power to those who like it, to me it feels it's just a kneejerk reaction to AoS, since everything's simpler in AoS, let's make everything more complicated with that 8th ed... dunno how to call that.

It is just the first draft though. It will take time to develop and see two things interact with one another. This is nothing to get too excited about yet. Even if they come up with something good, it will have to be widely accepted. At the very least they are talking to people which is a step up from before. It is a good think to keep an eye on.

Skargit Crookfang
27-07-2015, 01:18
I disagree, it just makes stuff more complicated for no apparent reason. Like most other added rules. What's with the defending a wall, standing on it bonus? For real?
It all sounds like a fanboy list of houserules. All power to those who like it, to me it feels it's just a kneejerk reaction to AoS, since everything's simpler in AoS, let's make everything more complicated with that 8th ed... dunno how to call that.

They aren't making anything more complicated. The keywords included in the lores, and the associated rules, are clarification to avoid rules lawyering and confusion. There are obviously some core list changes coming (and already present) but i doubt many will complain about doomfire warlocks being put into the realm of sanity.

SteveW
27-07-2015, 01:40
I disagree, it just makes stuff more complicated for no apparent reason. Like most other added rules. What's with the defending a wall, standing on it bonus? For real?
It all sounds like a fanboy list of houserules. All power to those who like it, to me it feels it's just a kneejerk reaction to AoS, since everything's simpler in AoS, let's make everything more complicated with that 8th ed... dunno how to call that.

Their first draft showed how little creativity they have and how shallow their scope of vision is. "kneejerk" is about the best way to describe most of their houserules/comp.

A better reaction would have been "continue using our last comp system until we have sorted what our next move will be." Even though their comp system was just a poor version of "special weapons cost" in Infinity.

plantagenet
27-07-2015, 02:13
Not going to attack these guys as I think what they are trying to do is great.

I think for the first draft changes should be small so that each change can be weighed.

There should then be another list of more significant changes which should be tested and if they work can be incorporated at a later date. Army books should be dealt with separately to the main rules. To start with I would try To limit changes to just points and would try just gradual increases. For warlocks they added 10 Pts a model and reduced effectiveness at same time that would be a knee jerk reaction in my opinion. Change either points or effectiveness then come back and look at it again a few months later before changing sometHing else.

Tons off additional special rules adds complication and slows game play. So I agree with the change to hydra as while I liked the new rule for regeneration we already had a rule in game to represent that.

Anyway look forward to seeing more updates and seeing where this develops

Skargit Crookfang
27-07-2015, 02:37
@SteveWThat's pretty harsh. You should head over to the forum and let them know, maybe with some details.

SteveW
27-07-2015, 04:17
@SteveWThat's pretty harsh. You should head over to the forum and let them know, maybe with some details.


Detailed criticism of comp systems got me banned there twice. They don't like it when you think their flavor of kool aid isn't the best.

HurrDurr
27-07-2015, 05:07
I haven't read through it in its entirety but so far it looks very good, it isn't really that much more complicated. The assisted dispel, 5 dice max, the spell changes mostly look good. I have little grievances, I think WE got hit a bit hard(that is my main army to be honest.) I like the killing blow changes, it isn't hard to remember that it causes D3 wounds. Fire attribute is really cool, Enchanted blades seems a lot worse, Okkams nerf welcome.

SteveW
27-07-2015, 05:52
Gotta love the neutering of killing blow. First you need that six to wound, then you still have a 33% chance of it being a normal wound. So even though a unit that has it is still costed as if it has kb, it only has multiple wounds d3.

Short sighted knee jerk reaction.

HurrDurr
27-07-2015, 06:00
Killing blow doesn't destroy characters anymore, it was significantly buffed overall as it affects monstrous targets as well. D3 wounds for the targets that would have normally been killed outright. That is a huge win in my book, killing blow units can push through wounds on demigryphs etc instead of the rule making them very rock paper scissors stylized.

SteveW
27-07-2015, 06:11
What it does is make the already popular cheap hero on regular mounts not have to be deathly afraid of KB anymore. So it made something that could keep that abuse in check less effective so now another comp will be needed to fix the new problems it causes.

Like I said, knee jerk and short sighted.

Overtninja
27-07-2015, 07:03
So, they're going to write a completely new game based on WFB based on how they think the game should work? That's cool, I guess. :S

HurrDurr
27-07-2015, 07:07
That's grasping, no one does or ever did use killing blow as a counter to those heroes unless it was a last resort. I think people dislike the randomness and niche role of killing blow, does every army even have good access to killing blow to begin with? Not really from what I can tell, the rule is almost non existent as is, furthermore no one would turn to lucky 6's as a response to single characters.

Chaos has no easy effective access and plenty of answers otherwise.
Woodies have wardancers which are not even competitive and the rest of the book laughs at lone characters
Empire has witch hunters.......do people even remember what those are? Not a good counter.
Dark elves have executioners that would already chop up a cheap hero and would do so under the same changes.
Bretonnia has Heroic KB and so is almost entirely unaffected. (seems like regeneration now works against killing blow by these rules)

I could go on but my knowledge on what exactly has it gets fuzzy.

Shadeseraph
27-07-2015, 07:21
Killing blow was actually buffed up. With these rules it negates armor saves for everyone rather than being largely useless against anything but cavalry and infantry.

Yowzo
27-07-2015, 09:03
Gotta love the neutering of killing blow. First you need that six to wound, then you still have a 33% chance of it being a normal wound. So even though a unit that has it is still costed as if it has kb, it only has multiple wounds d3.

Short sighted knee jerk reaction.

Except it now negates armour against stuff like demigryphs and skullcrushers. Not to mention 1+ AS pegasus spam.

I now feel I can drop razor standard from my tomb guard, for example.

Shandor
27-07-2015, 12:26
I think Killing blow really needet a Buff.

You have a Unit of Killing blow Minis like Executeners.. where they could actually use it against? Against common Infantry.. They dont need KB here, they have no armor against them anyways. Against Heroes inside an Infantry block.. Ok thats cool. But a Unit of 20+ Execs have a special rule that is useful against one single Model on the field? Really?

SteveW
27-07-2015, 15:05
Except it now negates armour against stuff like demigryphs and skullcrushers. Not to mention 1+ AS pegasus spam.

I now feel I can drop razor standard from my tomb guard, for example.

Lets say it works exactly as you expect it to now, welcome to never facing a hordless army if they can field KB infantry. So now we need a stricter comp on hordes and the snowball just gets bigger and bigger.

Skargit Crookfang
27-07-2015, 16:19
Lets say it works exactly as you expect it to now, welcome to never facing a hordless army if they can field KB infantry. So now we need a stricter comp on hordes and the snowball just gets bigger and bigger.

I can see your trepidation. .. but isn't this all very hyperbolic and assumptive?

Urgat
27-07-2015, 16:20
They aren't making anything more complicated. The keywords included in the lores

Yeah sure. At random, let's take the magic missile. Take its special rules (target in sight, no shooting in melee, etc), and make MORE special rules using them on their own. What for? Did anybody have any problem with the magic missile/vortex/etc distinctions? That's no comp, that's no improvement.

SteveW
27-07-2015, 16:22
I can see your trepidation. .. but isn't this all very hyperbolic and assumptive?


Of course it is. That's why we come here though, to discuss this hobby we all love.

logan054
27-07-2015, 16:25
Sounds interesting. The core rules are already great but I would love it if an objective group of dedicated players could equalise all the armies on each other. Wonderful opportunity to do so now you can be sure now the game has been 'closed'.



Agreed. 0-1 should only apply to unique things in the game. Like the anvil of doom or the casket of souls. To apply it to stuff that is considered just powerful is lazy.

Well this didn't use to be the case, I don't see any issues on limiting things if it's per x thousand points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HurrDurr
27-07-2015, 18:00
I think anybody saying killingblow will force 1+ saves into extinction needs to name 5 or more killing blow units that would suddenly become the standard, but dont already negate or counter armor.

An example of a weak unit that won't suddenly become a thing, wardancers. You'll spend yourself into a losing game before you take enough models, then get into combat where 1/6 wounds stick for 1 damage while some 80-90% still bounce off because you didn't negate armor.

Executioners are the goto example here of this change making them stronger in any significant way, rerolling failed wounds while already wounded on relatively low numbers, now ignoring full armor on 6's and being str 5 or 6 otherwise would make this t3 5+ unit a glass cannon. Not exactly a bad thing.

Can anyone talk about bloodletters (they have KB IIRC.)

logan054
27-07-2015, 21:29
Swedish comp was bad. Glad they aren't contributing to a fun game.

They can sure have fun wasting time on a dead game system no one will play within a year.

I wasn't really all that interested after I read what they intended for the chaos Marks... Yeah, I can see masses of chaos players being willing to accept those changes :rolleyes:

Satan
27-07-2015, 22:00
Swedish comp was bad. Glad they aren't contributing to a fun game.

They can sure have fun wasting time on a dead game system no one will play within a year.

Yeah, it was so bad it was the tournament standard in the country. Really terrible stuff that noone liked or appreciated. But yeah, I'm sure your opinion trumps all those players who partook in those games. Shame on them for enjoying something you don't and vice versa.

Rudra34
27-07-2015, 22:34
Yeah, it was so bad it was the tournament standard in the country. Really terrible stuff that noone liked or appreciated. But yeah, I'm sure your opinion trumps all those players who partook in those games. Shame on them for enjoying something you don't and vice versa.

Well said, Satan.

HurrDurr
27-07-2015, 23:07
I agree the changes to marks seem heavy, i havent checked to see of they are free or chaos warriors were maybe a pip or 2 cheaper, hopefully more than a few for chosen. The guidlines to unit size seem like a good idea but also restrictive, I feel like there is a better way than to restrict unit sizes. For example units with upgrades can't be over 16-20% of your total points.

Personally I like 17%, 340 out of 2000, 408 out of 2400.

logan054
27-07-2015, 23:22
Tbh, as someone who's had a khorne army since 4th, seeing those changes just made me shake my head. The marks certainly did need changing but the suggestions simply are not the way to do it. Choppers light isn't the way to make Khorne attractive. Problem with MoK is after the first rank (and indeed many things) you're simply paying to increase the price of your ranks for little benefit. Like with a horde of marauders. You end up pay 10+ Pts per additional attack on a very squishy unit (as the benefit is caped due to supporting attacks not benefiting from it).

As for percentages 20% on rares should be enough. Going back to limiting certain units like back in 6th would be better for balance. I'm sure it was only removed to drive sales.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HurrDurr
28-07-2015, 03:23
For percentages I was referring to the maximum amount of points you can spend on a single unit regardless of what points pool they are taken from. This would put a cap on elite units as well as horde units like slaves with perhaps a little more parity. It allows you to build faux deathstars as well, they can be horded and 3 ranks deep but only just barely in most cases, basic chaos warriors and high elf elites cost at least 14, that means to have all the upgrades you have around 20-30 models, wounds lost to shooting will count against your offensive output immediately(unless you chose cheap banners, no marks, etc.) Cheaper models get to horde larger and are still more susceptible to number 6's and being weaker overall makes them more of a horde and less of a deathstar.

I've always felt the best would be a balance of multiple medium sized units, goblins and other cheapies usually going larger and elites being more spread out and less deathstar.

SteveW
28-07-2015, 04:14
What Hurrdur seems to want to do is what I see in most comps, remove playstyles he doesn't like.

HurrDurr
28-07-2015, 04:33
What Hurrdur seems to want to do is what I see in most comps, remove playstyles he doesn't like.


Not at all, I was clearly inviting discussion. I can't tell if you are a troll or just have a bad attitude.

SteveW
28-07-2015, 06:00
Not at all, I was clearly inviting discussion. I can't tell if you are a troll or just have a bad attitude.


Neither has to be true to call it like I see it. There's not much of a case you can make for balance being the reason you want to limit units size/ point cost. The only reason to do it is for flavor/style of play you want to see. Otherwise the game has an inbuilt system to govern this.

I do enjoy the good ole cry of troll I get any time I don't agree with everyone.

HurrDurr
28-07-2015, 06:15
Neither has to be true to call it like I see it. There's not much of a case you can make for balance being the reason you want to limit units size/ point cost. The only reason to do it is for flavor/style of play you want to see. Otherwise the game has an inbuilt system to govern this.

I do enjoy the good ole cry of troll I get any time I don't agree with everyone.

First of all you didn't agree or disagree, you just made a snide comment that eluded to me being selfish, and was not even intellectually honest. No contribution and being passive aggressive makes you a troll, not whether you were disagreeing. Same goes for calling my reply crying over you disagreeing when I was talking about you and myself and didn't mention the game at all.

And you stating that unit size limits has no place in balance is just a ludicrous statement, the whole point is to balance the game. Don't like their ideas? Good for you. I can call them like I see them too, your ego is bigger than your brain if you think you get to pick and choose peoples intentions are.

Heres your cookie troll, maybe god was giving you a sign when he smashed your army over and over again, quit the game and delete your warseer account.:D

Urgat
28-07-2015, 06:30
And you stating that unit size limits has no place in balance is just a ludicrous statement

Well, I do agree with him. I have seen zero exception where unit caps didn't favour elite heavily. Some crap like unit cap at 20, unit cap at 20 for elite and, oh, let's be lordly, 40 for chaff as if 40 clanrats versus 20 chaos warriors lasted more than one round of combat. What it does is not limit hordes, it's encourage going to max size for elites, because in this meta, having 20 chaos warriors will ensure you steamroll anything you get your hands on. It encourages not taking chaff.
I loathe unit caps.

ihavetoomuchminis
28-07-2015, 06:39
While i dont agree with stevew and i think that a unit point cap would be great, i too think the last part of your post was not necessary.

Edit: urgat, i think he was talking about a unit cap based on percentages.

HurrDurr
28-07-2015, 07:10
Well, I do agree with him. I have seen zero exception where unit caps didn't favour elite heavily. Some crap like unit cap at 20, unit cap at 20 for elite and, oh, let's be lordly, 40 for chaff as if 40 clanrats versus 20 chaos warriors lasted more than one round of combat. What it does is not limit hordes, it's encourage going to max size for elites, because in this meta, having 20 chaos warriors will ensure you steamroll anything you get your hands on. It encourages not taking chaff.
I loathe unit caps.

I don't like flat number caps except maybe in rare cases, I was talking about my personal taste for a 17ish% cap including banner/champ/etc.

2400 x .17 = 408 points max take off 10 points for compulsory musician and you have 398 points to spend, elites are hurt much more by continue to inflate stats via banners etc. Still plenty of room for you to horde your goblins, you can take units of over 200 slaves, but basic chaos warriors with MON and GW could barely fit 20 models. This strictly hurts elite units I think, but as the game size increases so do unit caps.

Holier Than Thou
28-07-2015, 08:41
Heres your cookie troll, maybe god was giving you a sign when he smashed your army over and over again, quit the game and delete your warseer account.:D

Whoa, I've disagreed with a lot of SteveW's opinions but there was absolutely no need for this.

Urgat
28-07-2015, 09:30
Edit: urgat, i think he was talking about a unit cap based on percentages.


I don't like flat number caps except maybe in rare cases, I was talking about my personal taste for a 17ish% cap including banner/champ/etc.

Ah, sorry, I'm fine with that indeed. That's what in that 9th ed thing? I can't find the link anymore.

Captain Idaho
28-07-2015, 09:51
Too many changes. Since we're not "official", any changes should be minimal so people's army books aren't obsolete.

In fact, the only changes should be in the main rules and which don't affect the army books at all.

We shouldn't be "comping" things. We should just be refining things. As an example, my Frost Heart Phoenix is going to cost an extra 35pts? Screw you, man! My High Elves are already expensive T3 models with paper armour.

SteveW
28-07-2015, 15:24
First of all you didn't agree or disagree, you just made a snide comment that eluded to me being selfish, and was not even intellectually honest. No contribution and being passive aggressive makes you a troll, not whether you were disagreeing. Same goes for calling my reply crying over you disagreeing when I was talking about you and myself and didn't mention the game at all. It was clear as day I was disagreeing with you and even said what I didn't like about your idea and comp in general. There was nothing passive aggressive about it.


And you stating that unit size limits has no place in balance is just a ludicrous statement, the whole point is to balance the game. Don't like their ideas? Good for you. I can call them like I see them too, your ego is bigger than your brain if you think you get to pick and choose peoples intentions are. It doesn't have any place in warhammer. The comping system is the unit category percentages and the cost of the models in points. Your idea does nothing but invalidate every style of play you don't like, it unbalances just about every army and is short sighted and knee jerk.


Heres your cookie troll, maybe god was giving you a sign when he smashed your army over and over again, quit the game and delete your warseer account.:D I actually have the day off today and have been reassembling them at a decent pace. The overwhelming positive feedback in my other thread has really helped change my mind on doing it again.

As for ego, it's easy to mistake honesty and bluntness for it given there's no vocal inflections in text. It isn't there though, a decade of doing Jiu-jitsu has robbed me of any ego I used to have.

Holier Than Thou
28-07-2015, 15:58
I actually have the day off today and have been reassembling them at a decent pace. The overwhelming positive feedback in my other thread has really helped change my mind on doing it again.

Good on you.

Urgat
28-07-2015, 17:16
I actually have the day off today and have been reassembling them at a decent pace. The overwhelming positive feedback in my other thread has really helped change my mind on doing it again.

Cheers for you, would have been kind of a waste if you still enjoy the game, really.

itcamefromthedeep
28-07-2015, 22:52
Too many changes. Since we're not "official", any changes should be minimal so people's army books aren't obsolete.

In fact, the only changes should be in the main rules and which don't affect the army books at all.

We shouldn't be "comping" things. We should just be refining things. As an example, my Frost Heart Phoenix is going to cost an extra 35pts? Screw you, man! My High Elves are already expensive T3 models with paper armour.If your iinfantry are too expensive, then they should be cheaper.

I, for instance, have 15k of High Elves that haven't had a new model added in about ten years. Is my collection supposed to be ineffective so that you can keep the too-effective toys?

I'd be up for just putting better points values on everything, and otherwise leaving army books alone.

HurrDurr
29-07-2015, 02:41
It was clear as day I was disagreeing with you and even said what I didn't like about your idea and comp in general. There was nothing passive aggressive about it.

It doesn't have any place in warhammer. The comping system is the unit category percentages and the cost of the models in points. Your idea does nothing but invalidate every style of play you don't like, it unbalances just about every army and is short sighted and knee jerk.

I actually have the day off today and have been reassembling them at a decent pace. The overwhelming positive feedback in my other thread has really helped change my mind on doing it again.

As for ego, it's easy to mistake honesty and bluntness for it given there's no vocal inflections in text. It isn't there though, a decade of doing Jiu-jitsu has robbed me of any ego I used to have.


It was clear you were disagreeing except for how it was unclear? I was reffering to your original snide comment when I said you offered no discussion, THEN you put your personal opinion which you spun as fact. Something I've yet to do which is ironic when you say I'm the one trying to force play styles in and out of the game.

"It doesn't have any place in warhammer and points limits and army size are the comp placed by GW"
Says you, says you, and says you. But in all seriousness GW's comp is considered by most to have some pretty big flaws, it's almost a fact. I'd also appreciate if you didn't call it my idea, it isn't my idea, I only criticized unit caps admitting it can be okay in very rare cases like the anvil or casket. If you feel that the idea of unit caps are bad try saying why, don't assume you have some authority and you are taken on your word. And if that IS the case you've said as much as you're going to say.

Glad to hear it is honesty and bluntness and not dismissive contempt, I invite you to explain in more detail why unit caps are bad, I prefer % based caps but entertain the idea of flat ones if they are still liberal, personally believe that making the 1000-3k range healthier at the expense of the ultra large battles (where unit caps penalize the most) is a good idea.

Also good to know a bret army isn't going to waste, now if it was high elves...

itcamefromthedeep
29-07-2015, 03:43
Unit caps are bad. If a model is priced fairly then having more of it won't be a problem (and preventing a player from brining their second one is arbitrary and capricious). If it's not expensive enough then limiting it to 0-1 won't make it less good for its price.

I don't have a Phoenix. If High Elves are only fair relative to other armies if you assume that they all bring their Phoenix, then my High Elf army is disenfranchised from the game.

HurrDurr
29-07-2015, 04:20
Unit caps are bad. If a model is priced fairly then having more of it won't be a problem (and preventing a player from brining their second one is arbitrary and capricious). If it's not expensive enough then limiting it to 0-1 won't make it less good for its price.

I don't have a Phoenix. If High Elves are only fair relative to other armies if you assume that they all bring their Phoenix, then my High Elf army is disenfranchised from the game.

Unit diversity and synergy is a different problem entirely, I have no sympathy for empire players who don't put warrior priests in their halberd hordes or armies that don't take wizards. The problem is half of a book being significantly worse and unplayable. If people read the comp pack closely and considered that it was a rough first draft, you would see that bret units got cheaper, including man-at-arms etc. Part of the goal is to make unit diversity a more viable choice, because if you ask the competitive scene, no wizard and no phoenix makes your army disenfranchised.

The banner that makes all your magical attacks mundane and all you mundane attacks magical is pretty cool though.

Deadhorse
29-07-2015, 12:41
Well, the problem is a tough one.

0-1 unit caps, as well as the core/special/rare/hero/lord limits, reflect a core imbalance present in the game.

In a well designed game, all of the above should be countered by points values and also synergies and counters between units. Which you can see to a large extent in warmachine - there is a lot more freedom in what you can take (mostly the limit is points), but spamming units is typically not more effective than a balanced force, because different units are needed to deal with a variety of challenges and roles (you need some anti-stealth, anti-hordes, anti-high def and so on)

Warhammer has always had this problem of unit A doing the same thing that unit B does, only better. Once you get very mobile cannons that are good in combat (such as the DoC cannon), then obviously the most point effective strategy is to take 16 of these and maybe some mages. Hence they need to be limited.

So the question is: how far are the Swedes willing to rewrite rules? The 0-1 caps (or the ETC choice pool, or the Swedish comp system) are a quick and dirty fix that allows you to keep using existing GW rules. You could create a much better game by rewriting the unit rules, but that would have to be really thought through. Basically you'd need to create different roles that players need to fill in order for an army to be effective. In warhammer there is one example of such a clear role: you need mages at least to counter the enemy magic and take advantage of your power dice, so armies with no mages are usually not as effective. But you don't have to max on mages.
Examples of roles that could be introduced to warhammer:
- units that have huge bonuses versus specific unit types (such as cav/monstrous cav), but are weak versus other unit types.
- units that have inferior statlines, but provide passive buffs for other units in proximity or de-buff enemy units

So, to balance the terrorgheist you can profile it. For example - in the shooting phase, terrorgheist can target one enemy unit within 8". Roll 2D6, add terrorgheist's wounds, subtract the target's leadership - thats the number of wounds A SINGLE MODEL in the target unit takes. The ability is now good against lone characters and monsters. It is somewhat effective against expensive monstrous cav. It is next to useless against normal infantry and cavalry. By taking many terrorgheists, you will do very well against armies that are based on few expensive models (so strong in the current meta), but you will do very little to armies that rely on numbers.

EagleWarrior
29-07-2015, 14:29
I'd love to see a fully fleshed out fan made 9th ed gain popularity. :)

In Dark Trees
29-07-2015, 15:13
I'm stoked to have a 150-point Jabberslythe. This is a happy day!

SteveW
29-07-2015, 15:28
It was clear you were disagreeing except for how it was unclear? I was reffering to your original snide comment when I said you offered no discussion, THEN you put your personal opinion which you spun as fact. Something I've yet to do which is ironic when you say I'm the one trying to force play styles in and out of the game. I think you're reading too much into the comments made. Try not attaching your own biases to my comments and just read what's there and you'll stand a better chance of not getting so offended when you read them.


"It doesn't have any place in warhammer and points limits and army size are the comp placed by GW" You quoted what I wrote, then went on to write this as if I did. A bit confusing because it isn't what I wrote nor what I meant by what I wrote. Are you genuinely confused or are you intentionally being dishonest here?

Says you, says you, and says you. But in all seriousness GW's comp is considered by most to have some pretty big flaws, it's almost a fact. I'd also appreciate if you didn't call it my idea, it isn't my idea, I only criticized unit caps admitting it can be okay in very rare cases like the anvil or casket. If you feel that the idea of unit caps are bad try saying why, don't assume you have some authority and you are taken on your word. And if that IS the case you've said as much as you're going to say. Hard to know what to reply to here because I didn't author the straw man you were responding to.


Glad to hear it is honesty and bluntness and not dismissive contempt, I invite you to explain in more detail why unit caps are bad, I prefer % based caps but entertain the idea of flat ones if they are still liberal, personally believe that making the 1000-3k range healthier at the expense of the ultra large battles (where unit caps penalize the most) is a good idea. People project their own intentions in comments they read, if you're seeing contempt, trolling, and people thinking their opinions are facts it's probably not the person you're responding to that thinks that way. So before you get all offended try detaching your own emotions from what you're reading and just react to what was written.


Also good to know a bret army isn't going to waste, now if it was high elves... Funny thing is I just sold my high elves, lovely army and all but I like an uphill battle and playing them always felt like I was kicking kittens.

logan054
29-07-2015, 16:37
For percentages I was referring to the maximum amount of points you can spend on a single unit regardless of what points pool they are taken from. This would put a cap on elite units as well as horde units like slaves with perhaps a little more parity. It allows you to build faux deathstars as well, they can be horded and 3 ranks deep but only just barely in most cases, basic chaos warriors and high elf elites cost at least 14, that means to have all the upgrades you have around 20-30 models, wounds lost to shooting will count against your offensive output immediately(unless you chose cheap banners, no marks, etc.) Cheaper models get to horde larger and are still more susceptible to number 6's and being weaker overall makes them more of a horde and less of a deathstar.

I've always felt the best would be a balance of multiple medium sized units, goblins and other cheapies usually going larger and elites being more spread out and less deathstar.

I do think this could be easiest way to balance units, of course you still need to look at the costs of each unit because part of the issue with unit's like slaves are just too good for the points, any point cap on unit simply wouldn't work until the rest of game is properly balanced. At the moment it seems like they are only going to tweak certain things when the books need a massive overhaul, anything else will simply lead to new imbalances being created. I'd probably limit the horde rule to certain units rather than unit can have it, it's current format is just an excuse for the rather silly spells in the game.

taurus-marstein
29-07-2015, 16:49
How do you balance the game without pissing off the players? Especially players of superior/broken armies?

Like what you said about the terrorgheist, I actually think your idea is brilliant for changing the unit into something that is both good and bad, but how would you convince undead players to adopt such a system?

Or the marks of chaos, especially nurgle, are OP but how would you change them without making all chaos players rage quit?

Yvain
29-07-2015, 17:57
How do you balance the game without pissing off the players? Especially players of superior/broken armies?

Like what you said about the terrorgheist, I actually think your idea is brilliant for changing the unit into something that is both good and bad, but how would you convince undead players to adopt such a system?

Or the marks of chaos, especially nurgle, are OP but how would you change them without making all chaos players rage quit?

By making the rules as balanced as possible. The people that are going to play this are the people that want to keep playing WFB, but are pissed off at the poor internal and external balance of the books. I would wager that most of the people would rather see stuff nerfed in their codex books if it meant that all of the units in the book were viable for competitive play. Eliminating mono build armies would go a log way in making the game more attractive to players. Anyone who is against the changes can just play regular 8th. The only other option is to quit the game.

It is also worth noting the specialist games that have gone the fan ruleset route are pretty solidly balanced. (at least in my experience) And if it does get bigger and picked up on a whole, there is still the option to house rule stuff for non competitive play.

logan054
29-07-2015, 18:18
How do you balance the game without pissing off the players? Especially players of superior/broken armies?

Like what you said about the terrorgheist, I actually think your idea is brilliant for changing the unit into something that is both good and bad, but how would you convince undead players to adopt such a system?

Or the marks of chaos, especially nurgle, are OP but how would you change them without making all chaos players rage quit?

I don't think any Chaos player would be against seeing changes to the MoN and MoS. MoT would probably get the biggest mix of response, MoK certainly needs making better, I don't believe I have ever seen anyone really calling for frenzy to be changed, I think pretty much anyone who uses the MoK want's to see some kind of magic protection, most wouldn't mind hatred over frenzy, I can't imagine anyone who actually uses Khorne armies would be thrilled about what was suggested in here. Most people agree that marauders need buffing in some way, again the result of GW sledgehammer approach of fixing balance issues.

If you wanted to change the MoT then you need to redesign it completely, the mark has change so much over the years and the latest incarnation has resulted in nothing but balance issues since 8th ed hit. I wasn't such an issue with 7th because WoC didn't have access to proper wardsaves of a 4+.

Deadhorse
29-07-2015, 19:07
How do you balance the game without pissing off the players? Especially players of superior/broken armies?

I assume most people will understand you're trying to make a balanced game and will accept the changes, just as the accepted the 0-1 comp in the past.

And the best way to balance is to make everything situationally broken. Create some broad categories of targets such as infantry, cavalry, single models, monstrous inf/cav, monsters, characters... And then give units rules that make them very good against one category, like the terrorgheist example. Make regiments of dragon slayers that can bait a monster into charging them if they get close enough and then hack the monster to pieces. Or, give units rules that make them very good when they're flank charging, or just charging. That way, while some units may be generally better "deals" than others, it will be possible to use all minis for effect.

Then cut shooting a bit down and you're done.

Urgat
29-07-2015, 19:09
I would wager that most of the people would rather see stuff nerfed in their codex books if it meant that all of the units in the book were viable for competitive play.


I don't think any Chaos player would be against seeing changes to the MoN and MoS.


I assume most people will understand you're trying to make a balanced game and will accept the changes, just as the accepted the 0-1 comp in the past.

You are a very optimistic (naive?) bunch, all things considered :p

Deadhorse
29-07-2015, 19:11
You are a very optimistic (naive?) bunch, all things considered :p

It's how the ETC works and indeed all comp scores work. It's not for everyone.

Yvain
29-07-2015, 19:18
You are a very optimistic (naive?) bunch, all things considered :p

Like I said the only other option is not to play, people really aren't really going to be given much choice. Eventually tournaments are going to grab hold of something to keep the game moving forward or it will disappear. The Swed Comp rules are decent far better than anything GW has put out and probably better then the smaller individual efforts that are going to crop up.

Also there is the advantage of a living constantly updating system. It may still fail and without something to hold on to the game may mostly die and be played only in smaller pocket of gaming groups. We will just have to wait and see.

logan054
29-07-2015, 19:28
You are a very optimistic (naive?) bunch, all things considered :p

Well it would depend on what the suggested changes. I can't see anyone being happy with the changes they suggested for the 9th age. I've been playing khorne since 4th and watched as it's been nerfed from edition to edition and I wouldn't use that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Urgat
29-07-2015, 19:29
Like I said the only other option is not to play

Really? I'm going to keep playing happily while totally ignoring that swedish comp abomination. Isn't that the most obvious option?

SteveW
29-07-2015, 20:31
Like I said the only other option is not to play, .

That is flat out not true. You can play 8th edition as long as you have an army to field and an opponent to play with.

Yvain
29-07-2015, 22:39
Really? I'm going to keep playing happily while totally ignoring that swedish comp abomination. Isn't that the most obvious option?


That is flat out not true. You can play 8th edition as long as you have an army to field and an opponent to play with.

Read the post I made a few above that one. I am saying that if you don't like fan 9th or don't want to play 8th then the only option is to quit. The comment is referring to GW abandoning the system. If you are a person that wants updates its a fan comp or nothing.

Urgat
29-07-2015, 23:02
Read the post I made a few above that one. I am saying that if you don't like fan 9th or don't want to play 8th then the only option is to quit. The comment is referring to GW abandoning the system. If you are a person that wants updates its a fan comp or nothing.

Ah... you're focusing on tourney only, right? I don't care about that, so I also have the obvious one: I can make my own houserules. Like I've done up till now, actually. I don't need some strangers to tell me how to play.

taurus-marstein
30-07-2015, 01:03
You can play any edition or houserule mod of an edition or even KoW or player written rules as long as you have a willing opponent.

What I think this comp intends to do is to reconfigure the 8th ed tournament scene, and that's fine. It sounds fun.

So just as a quick side note, how would mark of khorne be made better? Gaining MR1 and frenzy?

My big problem with marks is the characters getting 3+ wards, -1 to hit stacking with MoN, and how useless Mark of slaanesh is.

Just ITP? Like wtf... What else could it add to be interesting? Maybe some kind of an alluring ability where enemies are tempted/distracted by their beauty? Haha

swordofglass
30-07-2015, 01:16
AP and ITP would be very nice and would make it a serious choice alongside the others.

As for the proposed rules, there are way too many changes for my liking which cause a lot of clutter and unnecessary confusion. Changing the other Marks is unnecessary imo and only Slaanesh needed a change. Then writing new spells (!) and magic items, changing how things like KB work, it's just too much of a shopping list of changes. I could stomach one page of amendments, clarifications, and a very small new rule here and there, even re-balancing the points for some egregious errors such as the Beastmen Rares and the Skullcannon, but 50 pages of notes and rules is too much. You might as well re-write the game from the ground up.

taurus-marstein
30-07-2015, 01:18
Yeah i'm actually surprised that they aren't re-writing the game from the ground up, I am. It's not all that hard. I have 60 pages of the BRB done already.

HurrDurr
30-07-2015, 03:17
Well, the problem is a tough one.

0-1 unit caps, as well as the core/special/rare/hero/lord limits, reflect a core imbalance present in the game.

In a well designed game, all of the above should be countered by points values and also synergies and counters between units. Which you can see to a large extent in warmachine - there is a lot more freedom in what you can take (mostly the limit is points), but spamming units is typically not more effective than a balanced force, because different units are needed to deal with a variety of challenges and roles (you need some anti-stealth, anti-hordes, anti-high def and so on)

Warhammer has always had this problem of unit A doing the same thing that unit B does, only better. Once you get very mobile cannons that are good in combat (such as the DoC cannon), then obviously the most point effective strategy is to take 16 of these and maybe some mages. Hence they need to be limited.

So the question is: how far are the Swedes willing to rewrite rules? The 0-1 caps (or the ETC choice pool, or the Swedish comp system) are a quick and dirty fix that allows you to keep using existing GW rules. You could create a much better game by rewriting the unit rules, but that would have to be really thought through. Basically you'd need to create different roles that players need to fill in order for an army to be effective. In warhammer there is one example of such a clear role: you need mages at least to counter the enemy magic and take advantage of your power dice, so armies with no mages are usually not as effective. But you don't have to max on mages.
Examples of roles that could be introduced to warhammer:
- units that have huge bonuses versus specific unit types (such as cav/monstrous cav), but are weak versus other unit types.
- units that have inferior statlines, but provide passive buffs for other units in proximity or de-buff enemy units

So, to balance the terrorgheist you can profile it. For example - in the shooting phase, terrorgheist can target one enemy unit within 8". Roll 2D6, add terrorgheist's wounds, subtract the target's leadership - thats the number of wounds A SINGLE MODEL in the target unit takes. The ability is now good against lone characters and monsters. It is somewhat effective against expensive monstrous cav. It is next to useless against normal infantry and cavalry. By taking many terrorgheists, you will do very well against armies that are based on few expensive models (so strong in the current meta), but you will do very little to armies that rely on numbers.

One thing people seem to have forgotten (not directed at quote) is that 8th edition already uses unit caps on special and rare units, they usually don't matter because people just fill out the units they CAN take without penalty.

Almost all 0-1 choices are based on fluff iirc, but there are cases like empire inner circle knights who are 0-1. There are so few of them I don't think they have enough influence to reflect core imbalance.
I strongly disagree that having special/rare/etc limits makes the game inherently flawed. This is because units still resemble rock paper scissors but don't mimic it entirely, something I think is very healthy for the game. In your example a terrorgheist is borderline useless against infantry but one shots heroes on demand, of course that's just an exaggerated point. It does put into perspective the issue with making the game more rock paper scissors, less choice. When you need to have 33% X 33% Y 33% Z to have a balanced force sure it might be better than the current 90% X 10% Y 0% Z, but you still trade one problem for another. Most armies require big blobs to function, a lvl 4 wizard, etc etc. A RPS model means now you have more diversity but less choice and fewer strategies. The swedish comp also seems to be steering the game AWAY from huge bonuses which reinforces the RPS system, KB working on all targets is a great example that I think helps streamline the rule.

I love the idea of units that have inferior stats but strong synergies, the hurricanum/lexithingy/lizardmen turtle thingies/mortis engine/chaos warshrine. Those are all great additions to the game they just don't always make the cut, I blame the emphasis of whos horde is better and who gets more 6 dice IRF, too many eggs in one basket.

I think a soft RPS is unavoidable and the best solution.

HurrDurr
30-07-2015, 03:19
Ah... you're focusing on tourney only, right? I don't care about that, so I also have the obvious one: I can make my own houserules. Like I've done up till now, actually. I don't need some strangers to tell me how to play.

The obvious problem with this is that people want some security knowing they can go somewhere else and have people playing the same rulesets, because otherwise you just play the same person(s) over and over again and the community just gets smaller.

Yvain
30-07-2015, 05:42
Once Bitten 360 made an interesting video about Fantasy situation and he sums up the pros of The 9th Age pretty well:

https://youtu.be/7LRodZjiBzM?t=8m16s


Its worth a watch I think.

Urgat
30-07-2015, 06:26
The obvious problem with this is that people want some security knowing they can go somewhere else and have people playing the same rulesets, because otherwise you just play the same person(s) over and over again and the community just gets smaller.

But the vast majority of players is exactly that, guys who play Warhammer with their closest friends in their bedroom or garage. Nothing would change.

taurus-marstein
30-07-2015, 06:30
Yeah. Most people play the same 5 people. So if you adopt a ruleset, that ruleset literally impacts 100% of your games.

Rise99
30-07-2015, 06:55
Once Bitten 360 made an interesting video about Fantasy situation and he sums up the pros of The 9th Age pretty well:

https://youtu.be/7LRodZjiBzM?t=8m16s


Its worth a watch I think.

I really liked this video. I thought the creator touched on a lot of key points. I have been playing Warhammer for the past 15-20 years or so, and like most, find the new Age of Sigmar rules to be a bit unsettling. However, maybe not for the same reasons. I think the switch over to round bases and a skirmish/40k style of play is a good thing to be honest. It makes the cost of admission (likely) easier to swallow and will bring in new players...but at the cost of old players if nothing changes.

The point I want to touch on is the idea mentioned in the video of a "living game". I am disappointing with GW like most, but it may be a blessing in disguise for those who love the models and the IP. They have given the community a chance to create a game system of their own. I have been reading posts, ideas, concerns, rants, etc. from all over the interwebs and have looked over the "9th age" stuff ETC and SCS are attempting to create and a variety of other homemade rule systems. I love all the enthusiasm and applaud their efforts as I think this a wonderful direction to go. I think everyone (myself included) would love an alternate game system that could be widely accepted by many and could find people to play say game/rules with. That said, My concern with all of them is as previously mentioned is: their ability to be a living game.

By living game, I mean a game with new models, rules, updates, FAQs, etc. as mentioned in the youtube video. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but most of these new systems are not compatible with AOS. By compatible, I mean can continue to grow and evolve as GW puts out models and content. For a game system to survive (in my opinion), it must do so. Hence, to create a new system that can thrive, a few things must be accepted: (1) The new models that GW creates must be compatible with a new rules system, which leads to (2) The new system must be skirmish or circle-base friendly. Either in the form of a skirmish/40k system or a movement tray system when new models fit into circular slots (or re-based). None of the new systems currently (again I could be wrong) take this into account. They essentially say: "we liked 7th/8th well enough, screw everything remotely related to AOS." I do not think that attitude can survive a broad audience.

Looking at the chiefiest of chief complaints: (1) Lore is not as immersive as before. Hopefully GW does a better job of this as new content is released. (2) Models do not interact with each other. I.e. no strength vs toughness, ws vs ws, etc., and (3) No points/balance system. I feel the best way to create a widely accepted rule set for Warhammer 9th/AOS v2 would be to create such a system addressing the aforementioned shortcomings, while leaving the skirmish and streamlined style of AOS intact. This allows for something of a "middle ground" between warhammer 8th and AOS. It also allows for people to be liberal with their base styles and sizes, as well as be inclusive of new things released by GW, which I think is crucial.

I gather that was kind of long, but what are your thoughts on the above?

logan054
30-07-2015, 09:44
You can play any edition or houserule mod of an edition or even KoW or player written rules as long as you have a willing opponent.

What I think this comp intends to do is to reconfigure the 8th ed tournament scene, and that's fine. It sounds fun.

So just as a quick side note, how would mark of khorne be made better? Gaining MR1 and frenzy?

My big problem with marks is the characters getting 3+ wards, -1 to hit stacking with MoN, and how useless Mark of slaanesh is.

Just ITP? Like wtf... What else could it add to be interesting? Maybe some kind of an alluring ability where enemies are tempted/distracted by their beauty? Haha

Well the problem with MR1 is that MR1 in the current rules just isn't worth it, I mean, having a 6+ wardsave isn't going to start making people buy masses of Khorne models. If you wanted to keep it as frenzy then you would have to set it the price of the mark at per unit. The most popular alternative is hatred and ITP. If you wanted to add MR then the rule would need to change to something like it was in earlier additions (adding a free dispel dice). The new version of the MoK with the 9th age but without ITP it's still a nerf, not being able to flee makes a lot of sense, ITP covers this while giving them an advantage.

When I redid the chaos book ages ago most people seemed to like the idea of slaanesh being +1I and ap

Nurgle was a hard one, Regen, scaly skin, poison attacks, fear, +T and -1I all got thrown around, all in various different combos, things like allure of slaanesh should either be gifts or magic items.

With Tzeentch going back to heroes and lords being a wizard could possibly be a good option, units would need something else. This way it's good and changes the mark in away that it doesn't look like a a really bad version of the old mark.

Captain Idaho
30-07-2015, 12:40
Little core rules changes. Things like "wards saves can be taken against things that allow no saves", "ASF adds to the user's WS when striking and being attacked equal to the difference of initiative if already striking first" and "monsters ridden by characters count as a single model for the purpose of damage calculation, using the highest model's toughness and the highest armour save".

Little things like that don't change our army books and magic cards WE bought yet also allow us to have a fine tuned ruleset.

Screw it, I'm going to do it myself.

logan054
30-07-2015, 14:06
Might be the best idea. Start a topic and get done discussion going on it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SteveW
30-07-2015, 14:29
I always thought MR should work for all magic attacks, even close combat attacks made with magic weapons.

logan054
30-07-2015, 15:36
While sounds good on paper could you imagine a BT with MR2 against anything with magical attacks! I think +1dd was always the more balanced


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SteveW
30-07-2015, 15:59
A BT is a glass cannon right now though, if any of the greater daemons need a little help its him.

logan054
30-07-2015, 16:11
Well it wouldn't help him with cannons which is more the issue. I think they dropped the wounds too low from 6th. Especially with the increased number of attacks per unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SteveW
30-07-2015, 16:19
And allowing any strength to wound any toughness

logan054
30-07-2015, 16:27
Well that was more to nerf the steam tank that was then nerfed lol. But yeah. Lots of changes. BT should of remained W7, not W5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

employed
30-07-2015, 16:44
It would be so awesome if succeeds and became acknowledge by the community. Think of the possibilities. =)

It would be great with an app for your smartphone or tablet with all the rules and armybooks that could be updated on regular basis, say once every year or directly if something is critical, like erratas or faqs.

logan054
30-07-2015, 18:19
It certainly would be. But looking at the marks, how many chaos players will actually accept those changes? Like with the MoK, they haven't actually why it isn't taken as much and just gone in GW style with a sledge hammer. Beastmen players I'm sure will love the MoK on minotaurs and beast herds. WoC? Outside of the maxes using Skullcrushers, probably not.

It might take on with who's left at the tournaments, I think most will move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Captain Idaho
30-07-2015, 20:16
I'd fix Frenzy by paying homage to the old rules (remember double attacks?). No one wants to have it like that (well maybe the Khorne players) but instead of a piddly 1 attack, you get extra attacks equal to the unit's rank bonus.

I'd change Steadfast to instead of Stubborn, for each rank you have more than the opponent you can negate one point you lost combat by on your leadership test.

Step up would be limited to replacing the models in the fighting ranks once. Supporting attacks are never lost however.

In addition, a model making supporting attacks can make up to 3 attacks to bring them into line with other troop types.

What's my thinking here? Big units and hordes still get supporting attacks but smaller units can still be useful against a bus of Skaven Slaves.

Chaos Warriors can be reduced in attacks if hit by enough attacks, but because they get supporting attacks at up to 3, they are still dangerous even to an enemy able to kill 2 ranks of them!

Rise99
31-07-2015, 07:12
Once Bitten 360 made an interesting video about Fantasy situation and he sums up the pros of The 9th Age pretty well:

https://youtu.be/7LRodZjiBzM?t=8m16s


Its worth a watch I think.

I really liked this video. I thought the creator touched on a lot of key points. I have been playing Warhammer for the past 15-20 years or so, and like most, find the new Age of Sigmar rules to be a bit unsettling. However, maybe not for the same reasons. I think the switch over to round bases and a skirmish/40k style of play is a good thing to be honest. It makes the cost of admission (likely) easier to swallow and will bring in new players...but at the cost of old players if nothing changes.

The point I want to touch on is the idea mentioned in the video of a "living game". I am disappointing with GW like most, but it may be a blessing in disguise for those who love the models and the IP. They have given the community a chance to create a game system of their own. I have been reading posts, ideas, concerns, rants, etc. from all over the interwebs and have looked over the "9th age" stuff ETC and SCS are attempting to create and a variety of other homemade rule systems. I love all the enthusiasm and applaud their efforts as I think this a wonderful direction to go. I think everyone (myself included) would love an alternate game system that could be widely accepted by many and could find people to play say game/rules with. That said, My concern with all of them is as previously mentioned is: their ability to be a living game.

By living game, I mean a game with new models, rules, updates, FAQs, etc. as mentioned in the youtube video. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but most of these new systems are not compatible with AOS. By compatible, I mean can continue to grow and evolve as GW puts out models and content. For a game system to survive (in my opinion), it must do so. Hence, to create a new system that can thrive, a few things must be accepted: (1) The new models that GW creates must be compatible with a new rules system, which leads to (2) The new system must be skirmish or circle-base friendly. Either in the form of a skirmish/40k system or a movement tray system when new models fit into circular slots (or re-based). None of the new systems currently (again I could be wrong) take this into account. They essentially say: "we liked 7th/8th well enough, screw everything remotely related to AOS." I do not think that attitude can survive a broad audience.

Looking at the chiefiest of chief complaints: (1) Lore is not as immersive as before. Hopefully GW does a better job of this as new content is released. (2) Models do not interact with each other. I.e. no strength vs toughness, ws vs ws, etc., and (3) No points/balance system. I feel the best way to create a widely accepted rule set for Warhammer 9th/AOS v2 would be to create such a system addressing the aforementioned shortcomings, while leaving the skirmish and streamlined style of AOS intact. This allows for something of a "middle ground" between warhammer 8th and AOS. It also allows for people to be liberal with their base styles and sizes, as well as be inclusive of new things released by GW, which I think is crucial.

I gather that was kind of long, but what are your thoughts on the above?

logan054
31-07-2015, 12:49
Frenzy - Think the main issue with it is forced overruns, if units could test to restrain like they can restrain from charges it would greatly help with the rule. I don't see a massive issue with it giving +1 attack, double attacks back in the day was horrid and I cam remember when I was using chaos warriors with the banner of rage and additional hand weapons

I don't think steadfast is massive issue, it would be nice if flanking and rear charges count for more, something like units in the flank cancel out ranks equal to it's rank bonus when calculating steadfast.

I think it's easier to have supporting attacks as models may make supporting attacks equal to half the models attacks (rounded up). This means that most units will only be making 2 supporting attacks, only those with a lot of attacks will be able to make 3. Some units would need to be rebalanced to take these changes into account (such as savage orcs and witch elves)

MR reowrking, the old +1DD was far more useful.

Skirmishers need changing

Mounted characters on things like chariots, dragons need adjusting so they are more like MC.

taurus-marstein
31-07-2015, 17:06
Does anyone like the way skirmishers used to be? In 6th? Like you could be in a loose formation and you just group up when in close combat

logan054
31-07-2015, 19:36
I prefer the old rules to the current ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Captain Idaho
31-07-2015, 20:34
Frenzy - Think the main issue with it is forced overruns, if units could test to restrain like they can restrain from charges it would greatly help with the rule. I don't see a massive issue with it giving +1 attack, double attacks back in the day was horrid and I cam remember when I was using chaos warriors with the banner of rage and additional hand weapons

I don't think steadfast is massive issue, it would be nice if flanking and rear charges count for more, something like units in the flank cancel out ranks equal to it's rank bonus when calculating steadfast.

I think it's easier to have supporting attacks as models may make supporting attacks equal to half the models attacks (rounded up). This means that most units will only be making 2 supporting attacks, only those with a lot of attacks will be able to make 3. Some units would need to be rebalanced to take these changes into account (such as savage orcs and witch elves)

MR reowrking, the old +1DD was far more useful.

Skirmishers need changing

Mounted characters on things like chariots, dragons need adjusting so they are more like MC.

Yeah I agree with your counter proposal ;)

Half the supporting attacks rounding up sounds fair to me.

Though I prefer my amendments to Steadfast since I think Steadfast slows the game down too much and allows for too much grind.

Happy medium?

Frenzy should be powerful and still encourage large units, that was my thinking on my suggestion.

On that note, I considered another possibility - only 1st rank fights but each model in said rank unit gets an additional attack equal to the rank bonus. Characters do not benefit from this ability. This would make Martial Prowess a little too powerful (2 ranks of models hitting at +3?) but then that's easily fixed - only the front rank can gain this ability - done now the 2nd rank don't get the bonus attacks.

of course, this was just an idea so would be potentially dangerous ;)

GuyFawkes
31-07-2015, 21:41
Been following this thread awhile. I had to create an account to ask a simple question.

Why support a dead game?

It won't add new players. It will just be the Old Guard. Is there no other mass fantasy battle game the Swedes can throw their support behind? I know that was 2 questions.

Skargit Crookfang
31-07-2015, 21:46
Been following this thread awhile. I had to create an account to ask a simple question.

Why support a dead game?

It won't add new players. It will just be the Old Guard. Is there no other mass fantasy battle game the Swedes can throw their support behind? I know that was 2 questions.

Bloodbowl, Mordheim, Epic...the list goes on.

Oncebitten360 brought up a great point in his latest video: who says it's dead? It's dead when the community stops supporting it. If the 9th age turns out well and, though all may not love it, I've been playing games with the updates as they come, and am very much a fan. And I'm not the only one.

The market for generic fantasy models is already pretty wide: AoW, eBay'd GW, Mantic etc. etc... not that hard to get into the game.

It's only dead with regards to GW support and, minus the End Times, what support were they really giving?
FAQs? no.
Updated armies? Brett, Beastmen, Skaven and, in my mind, O&G, would laugh at that notion. Hell, WE's had an update...what.. a year before the end, and were suffering for 5 yearsish before that?
Updated models? Still using the same 'ol goblins and wolfriders.
Campaigns? Hah..sure... but then retcon'd.

It's not like GW tried all that hard to support WHFB, anyways.

Kyriakin
31-07-2015, 21:48
I'm just returning but internal balance seems to have been pretty horrible too...

Kyriakin
31-07-2015, 21:51
Been following this thread awhile. I had to create an account to ask a simple question.

Why support a dead game?

It won't add new players. It will just be the Old Guard. Is there no other mass fantasy battle game the Swedes can throw their support behind? I know that was 2 questions.
If you can't support a dead game, your entire hobby is continually at the mercy of a few bean-counting MBAs in suits... They could literally hit the red button at any moment and - rumours aside - you would have zero warning, because that's the way this wretched company now chooses to conduct itself.

Skargit Crookfang
31-07-2015, 21:55
I'm just returning but internal balance seems to have been pretty horrible too...
Oh, some of it is pitiful.

Case in point, I was playing a game a few months ago, when a young'un (probably 16ish) came up to the table at the FLGS and started looking at my goblins. He asked:
"How many fanatics do you have?" - none
"Where are your manglers?" - I don't use them
"I don't see any net models... you can't have nets without the models!"

It was at this point, I had to explain to the lad that I play Common Goblins, only. Always have, always will. His reply essentially was that NGs are better in every way (fanatics, nets, NG Shaman 'shroom dice, squigs etc. etc.). I knew this was the case (always have), I just love my common goblins. It's a fun army, incredibly challenging and I just love the flavour of the army.

This has two implications:
1- Most army books have auto-includes and auto-subtracts. Why take a 3 point CG when I can take a 3 point NG and get access to the goodies? (I know why I do...which leads me to the second point)
2- The lack of internal balance makes for some really, across the board, netlisting. Lower sales among certain kits, and some models that rarely, if ever, see the table (bloodwrack medusa, I'm looking in your direction).

the beardless dwarf
31-07-2015, 21:56
The game will be dead when the community says so.

GW has never supported this game. No FAQs, updates of army books was always shity and late, rules were always badly written and armies were always quite unbalanced.

But now these idiots stoped supporting the game so the community finaly feels the need and has zeal to take matters into its hands and breath some life and balance into this game.

mhsellwood
31-07-2015, 23:45
It would be so awesome if succeeds and became acknowledge by the community. Think of the possibilities. =)

It would be great with an app for your smartphone or tablet with all the rules and armybooks that could be updated on regular basis, say once every year or directly if something is critical, like erratas or faqs.

Yeah, I wish Games Workshop would release an app (http://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-The-App-Android) like that. You know, one that is free, has all the core rules, and all the unit rules. Still, never happen right?

Skargit Crookfang
01-08-2015, 00:02
Yeah, I wish Games Workshop would release an app (http://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-The-App-Android) like that. You know, one that is free, has all the core rules, and all the unit rules. Still, never happen right?

I think the difference is what game it has been done for.

Had it been done with WHFB, I'd have been impressed and maybe, just maybe, GW would have bought some consumer credit with me.

But... for AoS... no dice, for me personally, anyways.

logan054
01-08-2015, 00:28
Yeah I agree with your counter proposal ;)

Half the supporting attacks rounding up sounds fair to me.

Though I prefer my amendments to Steadfast since I think Steadfast slows the game down too much and allows for too much grind.

Happy medium?

Frenzy should be powerful and still encourage large units, that was my thinking on my suggestion.

On that note, I considered another possibility - only 1st rank fights but each model in said rank unit gets an additional attack equal to the rank bonus. Characters do not benefit from this ability. This would make Martial Prowess a little too powerful (2 ranks of models hitting at +3?) but then that's easily fixed - only the front rank can gain this ability - done now the 2nd rank don't get the bonus attacks.

of course, this was just an idea so would be potentially dangerous ;)

Haha, good, glad you liked it :) Something to bear in mind, changing the supporting attack rule actually does a pretty good job at making larger frenzied units more attractive. Frenzy still has the issue of forced overruns which is very easily exploited.

I can see the benefit of how you want steadfast to work, to make that more viable (with the increased attacks) I would probably change CR based on models to the ratio of model killed. So say you killed 2 guys and I killed 10, the kills would be worth 5 CR. This should help to make more static CR based units more viable.

I don't think you really need to give models in the front rank additional attacks based on rank bonus, I think the supporting attack rule is fine (once changed). This will only lead to bus type units.

taurus-marstein
01-08-2015, 00:32
Anyone like the idea of splitting up CR scores and leadership modifiers into 2 things?

So, whoever has the higher CR wins combat, sure. But when you make that break check you don't just take leadership minus CR differential, or just take flat leadership (stubborn or steadfast), but you have a different set of break check penalties?

Like fear causes -1 lead, getting flanked causes -1 lead, being outnumbered causes -1 lead, etc.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 12:33
Haha, good, glad you liked it :) Something to bear in mind, changing the supporting attack rule actually does a pretty good job at making larger frenzied units more attractive. Frenzy still has the issue of forced overruns which is very easily exploited.
8
I can see the benefit of how you want steadfast to work, to make that more viable (with the increased attacks) I would probably change CR based on models to the ratio of model killed. So say you killed 2 guys and I killed 10, the kills would be worth 5 CR. This should help to make more static CR based units more viable.

I don't think you really need to give models in the front rank additional attacks based on rank bonus, I think the supporting attack rule is fine (once changed). This will only lead to bus type units.


Yeah I'm probably making it too complicated with regard to the supporting attacks. Never cut too deeply about Games Development changes.

Urgat
01-08-2015, 12:43
GW has never supported this game.

But now these idiots stoped supporting the game

:eyebrows:
Words for the god of words.


Haha, good, glad you liked it :) Something to bear in mind, changing the supporting attack rule actually does a pretty good job at making larger frenzied units more attractive. Frenzy still has the issue of forced overruns which is very easily exploited.

Isn't that the logic behind frenzy, being hitty but hard to control?

logan054
01-08-2015, 12:53
Apparently according to Swedish comp no one takes it. In fact it's so bad as it they felt the need to totally change the mark to something that makes no sense at all!

I'd argue that when the enemy unit flees it makes you can't stop them chasing after them. If they've wiped them out, not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Niall78
01-08-2015, 13:02
Swedish 9th should grab this rewrite by the balls and dump the D6 system and add something with a bit of granularity like a 2D6 bell curve system or a D10 percentage system. D6 works fine in small games with limited amounts of difference between units. In a game like WFB it is very limiting.

One of the great lost opportunities with AoS was it sticking with a D6 system. If you are going to change things up why stay with such an outdated rolling mechanic with so little granularity?

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 13:23
The important thing to make a wide ranging success of any fan made product is to ensure it is a fully inclusive product. The less our existing products are cut, the more likely we can back it.

Think about it this way; I have bought the magic cards and the army books of a new army, so I want to use it ; )

logan054
01-08-2015, 13:32
The important thing to make a wide ranging success of any fan made product is to ensure it is a fully inclusive product. The less our existing products are cut, the more likely we can back it.

Think about it this way; I have bought the magic cards and the army books of a new army, so I want to use it ; )

I completely agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

taurus-marstein
01-08-2015, 21:28
Which is one reason why I don't think many people wanna go back to 6th or 7th ed, there's no rules for their new fun toys.

logan054
01-08-2015, 22:17
I also think it's important to respect what came before and not just throw it out the window because you want to put your own personal stamp on it. That went really well for AoS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TsukeFox
02-08-2015, 00:59
i hope they just get rid of total power and insert auto fail if one rolls up multiple 1s on the dice. simple way to correct the system.


the miscast table all though scary as crap now, still allows for the exchange of a wizard and the bunker for a game winning spell to be cast.

without total power, all of the dispell scrolls actually can be useful

logan054
02-08-2015, 13:13
I wouldn't hold my breathe on that. I'm just curious, out the chaos players. Who actually likes the changes they suggest to mark who doesn't collect slaanesh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daemon Primarch Lorgar
05-08-2015, 15:26
I wouldn't hold my breathe on that. I'm just curious, out the chaos players. Who actually likes the changes they suggest to mark who doesn't collect slaanesh?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I play Nurgle WoC and I could get behind those changes :). Our mark is probably considered one of the best, but that's not how it should be imho. However, I think it would be wise of them to do 2 seperate projects. The first one focusing solely on the BRB, updating and clarifying the core mechanics of the game (toning down magic etc). After that a rewamp of the army books could be made. Hopefully they have the required support by then and thus minimize the risk of splitting the community. Also that would make it easier for the casual players to simply ignore the second part of the changes if they prefer to use their old army books instead of having to constantly cross check them with some web based document :).

logan054
05-08-2015, 15:58
I play Nurgle WoC and I could get behind those changes

Can't say I can, Khorne army with chopper rule, erm.... no. Can't see the need for the nerf, the game has plenty of other rules that are more fitting. But each to his own.

Daemon Primarch Lorgar
05-08-2015, 16:05
Can't say I can, Khorne army with chopper rule, erm.... no. Can't see the need for the nerf, the game has plenty of other rules that are more fitting. But each to his own.

I think the idea behind that change was that the forced overrun with frenzy was too much of a disadvantage for a Khorne army. But I can see your point, having +1 attack is way more fun than +1 strength! The change to Mark of Nurgle isn't exactly my favorite change either, but it's not even close to a deal breaker for me. I mainly care that magic and steadfast are tweaked and the movement rules clarified. The rest of the balancing changes are just gravy for me :).

logan054
05-08-2015, 16:12
Well it's more I read the fluff and look at the rules and I'm not really seeing how they translate into +1 strength. From a rules perspective, if forced overrun's is an issue, then perhaps rather than saying "na frenzy is fine" the frenzy rule should be looked at and tweaked. I personally prefer the ITP and not being able to flee, that a lot more Khorne. Then of course it's the only mark that doesn't constantly effect the unit, and for many units +1S when they are already S5 just isn't need, AP is going to be far more useful as it will still be affecting the unit after the first round of combat.

Hatred, Killing blow, frenzy, these all seem rules that reflect Khorne. But I'm just a casual player, what would I know.

Snargle
05-08-2015, 16:18
Which is one reason why I don't think many people wanna go back to 6th or 7th ed, there's no rules for their new fun toys.

You could always adapt the 8th ed army books to work with 7th ed rules.

AFnord
05-08-2015, 16:36
Been following this thread awhile. I had to create an account to ask a simple question.

Why support a dead game?

It won't add new players. It will just be the Old Guard. Is there no other mass fantasy battle game the Swedes can throw their support behind? I know that was 2 questions.

You're right, it's quite likely that a few years down the line, there will only be a handful of players left. There will be no fresh blood coming in, and thus the game will slowly die. That is unless they can really find some way to reach out to the wider masses (I don't really see how though).
Is there any other game that the Swedish tournament scene could get behind? Not really. People already have their Warhammer models, moving over to another system would require you to buy a brand new set of models (a few might carry over, but the possible competitors seem to follow other size-standards, making WHFB models ill-suited for play). Try to convince people to abandon their models and pick up a new system en-masse. It's going to be very very hard.

Daemon Primarch Lorgar
05-08-2015, 19:23
Well it's more I read the fluff and look at the rules and I'm not really seeing how they translate into +1 strength. From a rules perspective, if forced overrun's is an issue, then perhaps rather than saying "na frenzy is fine" the frenzy rule should be looked at and tweaked. I personally prefer the ITP and not being able to flee, that a lot more Khorne. Then of course it's the only mark that doesn't constantly effect the unit, and for many units +1S when they are already S5 just isn't need, AP is going to be far more useful as it will still be affecting the unit after the first round of combat.

Hatred, Killing blow, frenzy, these all seem rules that reflect Khorne. But I'm just a casual player, what would I know.

Oh I think you're probably a way more experienced player than I am and even if you are not, I still think the opinion of casual players (myself included) are just as valid as any others. I agree with you that frenzy feels more in line with Khorne's fluff and if the forced overrun for frenzy is as inhibiting as some players have asserted, it should perhaps be given a second thought. My point is just that the mark system isn't what's going to make or brake the 9th age for me. There are changes that in my opinion are far more important for its success and issues that if solved would make me willing to accept almost any changes to the USRs. Your experience and thoughts regarding what's important in the game might vary of course, but I think it's important to note that most of us are not going to like all changes made in any new edition and writing something off in advance due to minor disagreements might be a mistake :).

Captain Idaho
05-08-2015, 19:31
If there are substantial downsides to frenzy there should be substantial positives to frenzy. Unless you drop points costs.

Urgat
05-08-2015, 19:38
+1 attack is a rather substential benefit if you ask me.

logan054
05-08-2015, 19:44
Oh I think you're probably a way more experienced player than I am and even if you are not, I still think the opinion of casual players (myself included) are just as valid as any others. I agree with you that frenzy feels more in line with Khorne's fluff and if the forced overrun for frenzy is as inhibiting as some players have asserted, it should perhaps be given a second thought. My point is just that the mark system isn't what's going to make or brake the 9th age for me. There are changes that in my opinion are far more important for its success and issues that if solved would make me willing to accept almost any changes to the USRs. Your experience and thoughts regarding what's important in the game might vary of course, but I think it's important to note that most of us are not going to like all changes made in any new edition and writing something off in advance due to minor disagreements might be a mistake :).

Ahh sorry, that wasn't a dig at you. I'm just a guy who likes he's army of crazy northern nutters. I totally agree the mark system won't break the game, but it does make you question just how much of the fluff will be ignored to streamline things.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daemon Primarch Lorgar
05-08-2015, 20:13
Well then I think I understand your view and I'm glad to say I think we might even be of the same opinion ;)! I agree with you that the fluff and flavor needs to be protected, even at the expense of some balance I dare say. For example, I was sad to see Sivejir's Hex scroll go. I don't think anyone ever considered it a strong choice and so it seams it was removed just because no one ever used it in a tournament setting, which is sad since I think it had a lot of flavor. But I'm willing to accept it (and much worse) if the people behind this project manage to resolve some of the core issues with 8th that has made my gaming group reluctant to play the game for the last couple of years :).

logan054
05-08-2015, 20:47
I think GW did a good enough job removing all the character from the warrior list ;) I don't really agree with fluff being an excuse for imbalance, it is nice however when you can see a connection between the text describing something and how it acts on the table.

I hadn't noticed that tbh :( I did notice some rather odd items which seem like a rather hefty tax to afford the issues the BotW dragon causes.

This 5+ parry save on everyone seems a little extreme!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dokushin
05-08-2015, 21:16
Swedish 9th should grab this rewrite by the balls and dump the D6 system and add something with a bit of granularity like a 2D6 bell curve system or a D10 percentage system. D6 works fine in small games with limited amounts of difference between units. In a game like WFB it is very limiting.

One of the great lost opportunities with AoS was it sticking with a D6 system. If you are going to change things up why stay with such an outdated rolling mechanic with so little granularity?

Let me break it down for you. I attack with a block of Saurus and get 30 attacks.

8th: I pick up and roll 30 dice. I pick up the ones that hit and roll them to see if they wound.

Your way: I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Then I roll 2d6. Ok, sweet, that's hits, time to roll for wounds-- oh, crap, it's tomorrow already?