PDA

View Full Version : A poll for Warhammer players: Have you tried Warhammer CE yet?



Seelenhaendler
03-06-2016, 17:06
Warhammer CE (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans) is a fan made ruleset that is based on 6th Ed army lists and 7th Ed core rules with a lot of improvements like reworked magic, streamlined charge movement and revised army lists with an innovative point system that give players almost complete freedom in army list creation while retaining a tight balance which guarantees tactically challenging games that are won by the tactics used on the tabletop, not by the list brought to the game!

The project has come a long way since it was started in 2012 and currently supports all 16 army lists with Kislev and Norsca in beta testing and Dogs of War and more to come in the future. Currently the group behind the project is collecting feedback for the upcoming half year update that will further improve the ruleset.

Warhammer CE caters to the WFB veterans from the "Golden Age" of Warhammer that prefer the classic gameplay of 6th/7th to newer editions with "modernized" rulesets.
I was wondering if those WFB veterans still visit Warseer and if there is any new blood interested in gaming like in the "good old days"?

Thanks for voting!

Keep the Old World alive by playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles (no matter what rulesets you prefer)!

2DSick
04-06-2016, 00:35
I tried it with one friend from back home (a few hundred miles away) and loved it but where I live, it's either KoW or 9th age and there's no real need there for anyone to try any other new fan-made sysytem (even though this was one of the 1st after AoS dropped, I think).

It's not that it isnt good. Its more that other options have more widespread suport making them more accessible.

Geep
04-06-2016, 02:50
I haven't kept up with the updates, but I like the idea. One day I intend to devise a few modifications to 6th/7th ed that I will share.

Finding opponents is a problem- my local area had few players to begin with, and now almost all of them play KoW or have disappeared from tabletop gaming altogether.

Teurastaja
04-06-2016, 07:10
My community already plays 9th Age and some KoW. We're not looking for another system.

Arrahed
04-06-2016, 07:30
I have very fond memories of the 6th and 7th edition. I would definitively be willing to give it a try but I am not sure I would be able to find an opponent.

logan054
04-06-2016, 09:09
Sadly it hasn't fixed my pet hate, being able to kill juggers from under my lord. Until that's fixed not worth my trying. I do liked the lists.

theunwantedbeing
04-06-2016, 11:44
Oh cannons wound automatically, well I'm sold on not playing it. :shifty:
(I do hate that change, but it's not a dealbreaker)
More seriously though.....

Layout needs work, dual columns is a huge chore to read through, also there's clearly been zero effort to prevent splitting of sections across pages or columns. However, it does give an aesthetic of the really old rulesets which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Bolding the titles for things does work fine though within those giant blocks of rules, as does having large lists of magical item options for characters.

Finding specific rules is a little tricky as well as the contents section isn't as intuitively labelled as it could be.
Cannons and the like are in the equipment section, surely calling it the Armoury would make more sense or at least having the sub-section titles visible from the contents page?

Is there a section on army composition? All I see are blank spaces for the non-chaos stuff and nothing anywhere that states how to deal with core/special/rare units.

It's interesting but it doesn't seem all that complete.

Seelenhaendler
05-06-2016, 08:59
Sadly it hasn't fixed my pet hate, being able to kill juggers from under my lord. Until that's fixed not worth my trying. I do liked the lists.

Fair point and I know where you are coming from as I like to field great stags. ;) But in the case of juggers, T5 with a 4+AS is pretty tough in an environment where S3/S4 is the norm.
The problem with "small" monstrous mounts is that they are hard to balance. Combined profiles either make them into just slightly better (normal) mounts or they grant huge bonuses to the rider and mess with the point system for equipment.
I know that it is not ideal, but I wont change a rule unless the new rule is objectively better and improves the game overall.

Thanks for taking a look at the rule set! I will give you a heads up when I find a better way to describe these units in the game.
Also ideas are always welcome!


Oh cannons wound automatically, well I'm sold on not playing it. :shifty:
(I do hate that change, but it's not a dealbreaker)
It actually is only a minor buff. With S10 you basically wound everything in the game on 2+ anyway, so it skips this additional dice roll (for the first model the cannon ball hits only) as with rolling for range, rolling for bounce and rolling to wound is a lot of dice rolling to see if you hit and wound a target.
If you consider that cannons are less accurate, cause fewer wounds and there is no 'sniping' anymore, cannons are really far from overpowered.
But there is a good chance that the cannon rules will be revised as there are now also ranged weapons in the game that use the cannon special rule but have a lower strength. Also compared to bolt throwers, cannons are a bit less powerful than they should be so there might be a small buff to the damage they can inflict.

More seriously though.....

Layout needs work, dual columns is a huge chore to read through, also there's clearly been zero effort to prevent splitting of sections across pages or columns. However, it does give an aesthetic of the really old rulesets which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
That was the intention. Also without the dual column layout the ruleset would be 3-4 times as thick.

Bolding the titles for things does work fine though within those giant blocks of rules, as does having large lists of magical item options for characters.

Finding specific rules is a little tricky as well as the contents section isn't as intuitively labelled as it could be.
With only a dozen pages of core rules, I didn't think a more detailed content sections to be necessary.
I will look into further improving the layout and might even add an index.

Cannons and the like are in the equipment section, surely calling it the Armoury would make more sense or at least having the sub-section titles visible from the contents page?
All ranged weapons have been streamlined and their rules now comprise stats (like range, strength, etc.) and special rules. In this way cannons are no different to javelins for example which both have a range, strength and a special rule (called 'cannon' and 'thrown weapon' respectively) that describes how to shoot with the weapon. Also with new units like Ironblasters, units with cannons are no longer restricted to the classic 'crew and a cannon'. IMO it is much more intuitive to list these rules under the equipment section as a unit can be equipped with a cannon in the same way a unit of handgunners is equipped with handguns.
But English is not my first language, so renaming the section might not be a bad idea. :)

Is there a section on army composition? All I see are blank spaces for the non-chaos stuff and nothing anywhere that states how to deal with core/special/rare units.
The rules for army composition are listed under "army composition" in the core rules (p.16) and comprise:
- 1 general
- 0-1 BSB
- 0-1 Lord level character
That's all, i.e. there are no restrictions on core, special, rare or characters for that matter.
The 'composition' section in the army lists are placeholders for additional army specific composition rules. For example Tomb Kings may only keep up to 50% of their army in reserve, i.e. they have to set up at least half their army during deployment.
WCE uses points as the primary way to balance units. Therefore all units should be equally point efficient and additional composition rules should not be necessary. This also means that there is no 'Core Tax' or other rules that force players to field specific units. This system works because the core rules favor balanced armies that take part in all phases and incentivises players to field 'core' units (i.e. units that make up the core of the army in the fluff) because these units are effective in the game as well as very point efficient.
The only exception are currently the Chaos lists which have mandatory core units to keep the mixing of chaos lists balanced.
Until it is necessary to introduce further restrictions, the core, special and rare sections are only used to give the lists more structure and make it easier to find units.

It's interesting but it doesn't seem all that complete.
I hope that answers all your questions.
If there are other things that seem to be missing, let me know!


Thanks for your feedback!

logan054
05-06-2016, 12:34
From my games in 6th ed, it wasn't the troops that are a problem, it was usually characters or creatures going for weaker target (especially in challenges).

Monstrous beast beats just aren't good enough to warrant the editional hassle or being targeted separately.

I'd probably just make them single wound mounts like they did in 7th. A pegasus isn't anything more than flying horse.

What's the point in just leaving them as they are now? No one used them in 6th outside the few people who liked the models.

The only other way is to have combined profiles but price them based on how they enhance a model. A jugger on a lord would be worth considerably less than hero.

I guess your other option is to just have them have no T value and just add a wound to the rider. That's probably a lot easier to balance.

Spiney Norman
05-06-2016, 16:15
7th edition definitely had a superior core rules set to 8th, rejigging the army books to eliminate the power creep that KO'd the edition would make a really cool project. There are a few things that 8th improved on, power/dispel dice generation was generally handled better in 8th (sadly the spells themselves were comprehensively mishandled) and the move away from slots to percentages for the force org chart was a big step forward.

I'd definitely like to give it a go, but the local scene is very resistant to fan-made rules, 9th Age isn't even a thing where I live, we pretty much just play 8th edition wfb.

theunwantedbeing
05-06-2016, 16:32
Thanks for your feedback!
No probs, here's some more!

I think you need to add your reply about army composition to the section of the rules titled army composition as it nicely explains the point of grouping the units into core, special and rare. There's plenty of room and you could even shunt the standard scenario rules entirely onto the right hand column.

With regards to the layout, it's not that I don't like the dual column rules it's the splitting across columns and to a lesser extent pages that causes the issues.
In a lot of places it does look possible to keep everything together.
eg.
Page the template section has the final bullet point on the other side of the page
You could condense the General Abbreviations section into two columns (and add things like inf=infantry) to save the space needed to keep the template rules all together.

It also solves a secondary issue that makes the page look a little more daunting to read than it needs to be by stopping having the text of the rules at the same height as a title part in the other column.
eg.
Page 2 again, The heading General is at the same level as the template rule bullet point, lowering it a line makes it all look easier to read.
Page 5 is a nice example of what I mean by not having the text of the rules at the same height as the title part
Magic Phase on the left is slightly higher up than the spell generation title on the right.
It's a fairly small thing but if you can do it consistently it makes the document that little bit easier to read

The Magic Phase section is basically the nicest looking bit of the entire rules as it doesn't split rules across columns or pages at all and the headings are all at a higher level when on the left hand side. Equally on page 6 the section on the magic phase ends and the section on damage has been given a new column rather than continuing directly on below on the other side of the page even though there clearly is space to do so.


I agree with Logan054 about the monstrous beast rules.
Having them be single wound mounts solves a lot of the awkward issues. Using the highest toughness in those instances also helps, it'll offset the lack of a barding.
I'de give cold ones a second attack as well, because I think they deserve a second attack....white lions get a second attack after all, a cold one has no reason to be so significantly less powerful.
I like that the Draich grants a flat +2 strength using both hands without any ASL, especially as you've not given the elves ASF (as it should be).
One thing I'de change on the layout is to make sure all the bullet points have the same indent, Warlocks and the Repeater Bolt thrower both have bullet point rules but the indents are different which looks a bit weird.

I do like how most characters can ride most ridable units in their respective armies as well.
No Stegadon mounts for either Skink Heroes or Slann which is a shame.

I'de change the wording for Bardings, no need to put the -1 move value in brackets in the statline of the mount.

There are a number of rule that say "does not affect the rider".
I think it would be a good idea to have something in the main special rules section that states that special rules never transfer between parts of a model.
That way you can remove such wording and neaten things up a bit, there's plenty of space in the special rules section to add that info.

stroller
05-06-2016, 23:03
I'm still getting - and enjoying - games playing 8th. While 8th isn't perfect, (what is?), it's still readily accessible in my neck of the woods, so: why change?

Urgat
06-06-2016, 06:41
Nah. I miss neither editions, really. Only thing I like more from back then are the 6th ed 2pts gobs, and the way hoppers work.

Seelenhaendler
11-06-2016, 08:39
Thanks for your comments!

@ Spiney Norman, stroller, Urgat:
Playing with different rule sets is perfectly fine, as long as you keep playing WFB! :)
In my opinion the goal of the WFB community has to be to keep the remaining WFB players from quitting, as with a shrinking community the chances of companies producing suitable model ranges for WFB are getting slimmer and slimmer.
Therefore the different rule sets are actually a boon, as they provide rule sets for different tastes and occasions.


From my games in 6th ed, it wasn't the troops that are a problem, it was usually characters or creatures going for weaker target (especially in challenges).

Monstrous beast beats just aren't good enough to warrant the editional hassle or being targeted separately.

Monstrous mounts are comparatively cheap, therefore beeing counterable by specific units is not a problem in my book.

I'd probably just make them single wound mounts like they did in 7th. A pegasus isn't anything more than flying horse.

What's the point in just leaving them as they are now? No one used them in 6th outside the few people who liked the models.

Making them single wound mounts would be ok for things like juggers or stags but especially for flying mounts separating the rider and its mount is what keeps those units honest, i.e. they can be countered more easily.
I especially dislike pegasus or eagle riders with high armour and/or ward saves that miraculously also protect the mount.

The only other way is to have combined profiles but price them based on how they enhance a model. A jugger on a lord would be worth considerably less than hero.

I guess your other option is to just have them have no T value and just add a wound to the rider. That's probably a lot easier to balance.

Combined profiles would pretty much turn them into horses with more offensive potential and a large base.
Adding wounds to the model creates balancing issues as point costs of armour and ward saves are correlated to the number of wounds of the model.
Adding a point of T would be an option though. As would creating special unit entries for those models which in the case of Chaos would further inflate the character section considerably though.



No probs, here's some more!

I think you need to add your reply about army composition to the section of the rules titled army composition as it nicely explains the point of grouping the units into core, special and rare. There's plenty of room and you could even shunt the standard scenario rules entirely onto the right hand column.

Yeah, a few more lines explaining the system would not hurt! :)

With regards to the layout, it's not that I don't like the dual column rules it's the splitting across columns and to a lesser extent pages that causes the issues.
In a lot of places it does look possible to keep everything together.
eg.
Page the template section has the final bullet point on the other side of the page
You could condense the General Abbreviations section into two columns (and add things like inf=infantry) to save the space needed to keep the template rules all together.

It also solves a secondary issue that makes the page look a little more daunting to read than it needs to be by stopping having the text of the rules at the same height as a title part in the other column.
eg.
Page 2 again, The heading General is at the same level as the template rule bullet point, lowering it a line makes it all look easier to read.
Page 5 is a nice example of what I mean by not having the text of the rules at the same height as the title part
Magic Phase on the left is slightly higher up than the spell generation title on the right.
It's a fairly small thing but if you can do it consistently it makes the document that little bit easier to read

The Magic Phase section is basically the nicest looking bit of the entire rules as it doesn't split rules across columns or pages at all and the headings are all at a higher level when on the left hand side. Equally on page 6 the section on the magic phase ends and the section on damage has been given a new column rather than continuing directly on below on the other side of the page even though there clearly is space to do so.

The layout could unquestionably be improved.
Currently the primary goal was to minimize the page count. Also with a living rule set, where changes are (at this point in time) rather common, the layout is of lower priority as the invested time is usually better spend elsewhere to improve the rule set.
But I will definitely be looking into it!

I agree with Logan054 about the monstrous beast rules.
Having them be single wound mounts solves a lot of the awkward issues. Using the highest toughness in those instances also helps, it'll offset the lack of a barding.

(see above)

I'de give cold ones a second attack as well, because I think they deserve a second attack....white lions get a second attack after all, a cold one has no reason to be so significantly less powerful.

Towning down cavalry was a primary goal of the rule set, therefore this change would be counterproductive.
Also units like Cold One Knights and Saurus Cavalry are already pretty powerful units as the riders benefit of hatred or 2A respectively.

I like that the Draich grants a flat +2 strength using both hands without any ASL, especially as you've not given the elves ASF (as it should be).
One thing I'de change on the layout is to make sure all the bullet points have the same indent, Warlocks and the Repeater Bolt thrower both have bullet point rules but the indents are different which looks a bit weird.

I do like how most characters can ride most ridable units in their respective armies as well.
No Stegadon mounts for either Skink Heroes or Slann which is a shame.

With skinks beeing so fragilem I didn't think Stegadon mounts to be a viable option.
Maybe with the "Howdah" special rule but they still would be very squishy. ;)

I'de change the wording for Bardings, no need to put the -1 move value in brackets in the statline of the mount.

There are a number of rule that say "does not affect the rider".
I think it would be a good idea to have something in the main special rules section that states that special rules never transfer between parts of a model.
That way you can remove such wording and neaten things up a bit, there's plenty of space in the special rules section to add that info.

Good idea!
There is already a rule like that but I will have to check where these clarifications are redundant and where they are necessary.
Keeping the layout and the rules consistent is no small task, so will take some time.

Thanks again for your extensive feedback! :)