PDA

View Full Version : GW Improvements.



Mad Doc Grotsnik
11-06-2007, 11:35
This is a slightly odd one folks, but please bare with me for a bit here.

In the present day, a great many people complain and bitch about their army, and how its not what it should be etc...

This thread is my attempt to see what people really wants. Essentially, the idea is your state which army you collect, and which flavour of (Vampire Counts, Lahmia, for example) and then tell us your ONE, (and only ONE) main bugbear with your list, and your suggestion as to how GW could improve. It could be rules, it could be models, as long as you choose your one main issue.

Well, carry on!

Fredrik
11-06-2007, 11:50
Well im going to break your plan of stating something with just my list (sorry). I would like GW to do a more extencive playtesting of all new lists and rules to find the tweaks that do not follow their intent.

By doing this i hope and think they would achieve more balanced lists.

druchii7
11-06-2007, 12:00
one of the main aspects about warhammer is that being able to charge is too important.

to remain this I'd do need a couple of things: countercharge as a new reaction (both charge, simulataneous attacks)

the other big change, completely necesary for infantry, is that "long" weapons (spear, lance, pikes) allow you strike first when recieve a charge from a "short" weapon (hand weapon, two handed weapon...)

Chiron
11-06-2007, 12:08
A change to a D10 system, creating more differences between troop types and making WS actually do something worthwhile

never happen though, ever

Spears should strike first v cavalry, halberds should have +1 strength Armour Piercing giving a reason to field troops other than HW&S types

theunwantedbeing
11-06-2007, 12:08
Chaos:
chaos warriors with 2 attacks as standard(chosen upgrade is only +1 armour save)
Same for knights.
Daemons need command and to be cheaper and have ld9 as standard,some sort of daemonic gift stopping a daemon being the general if he has the highest leadership.
Shaggoth made decent(st6 to6)

Mad Doc Grotsnik
11-06-2007, 12:10
one of the main aspects about warhammer is that being able to charge is too important.

to remain this I'd do need a couple of things: countercharge as a new reaction (both charge, simulataneous attacks)

the other big change, completely necesary for infantry, is that "long" weapons (spear, lance, pikes) allow you strike first when recieve a charge from a "short" weapon (hand weapon, two handed weapon...)

Well, the emphasis is on the manouvering of your army to get the charge.

druchii7
11-06-2007, 12:28
I' prefer if the maneuvre was to manage to get the enemy flank, to avoid his small units to move... but... it gives a too big advantage to those armies which have 8 and 9 inches of movement and flying units

Fredmans
11-06-2007, 13:20
I would actually give GW money to actually start a "patching" system, where tweaks and subtle changes are conducted on a regular basis. Maybe the extremely annoying army book cycle revamp could stop where one has to sit and wait for X years for someone to think things over, only for them to:

Insert new errors
Fix one thing
Break two things
Make a unit a no-brainer
Make another redundant

In an ideal army-book, every unit has a use value that is equal to its points' cost.

If I could wish for one more thing, it would be a Magic Items book, where every item of every race is included, to give them a new chance to make some serious reconsideration concerning the prices of well over 50 % of the items, the ones that never seem to be taken because they are a) too circumstantial or b) just too expensive.

/Fredmans

ekxw
11-06-2007, 13:27
chaos make the clavary and the charriots especial options,
and make all the infantry basic options demons and warriors. but make better rules for the infantry

gortexgunnerson
11-06-2007, 14:25
Dwarfs

Oath stones not being albe to be picked up again; picture of dwarf standing on stone screaming I am the greatest when all enemies have run away. The thing has been carried all the way across the battle field but cant be picked up??

In game play terms combined with the no move or fire thunderers a static army has become even more static. So people are now seeing moving dwarfs = anvil as was reflected in the GT by the thorek clone armies.

Bloodknight
11-06-2007, 14:33
Dogs of War:
I want a book, possibly including a few magic items. The list itself works quite well.

Dwarfs: nerf Thorek. I hate to field an anvil because people always suspect that it is Thorek and they even whine about the normal anvil (possibly because of Thorek :wtf:)

Tomb Kings: nothing. If there ever was a brilliant book, than this. Although...a buffed up Icon bearer would be nice so hed be worthwhile, or horses as mounts for princes.

Sasha
11-06-2007, 15:45
i collect chaos and think there should be plastic daemon boxes as their too expensive to buy regiments of at the moment.

Hxjgare
11-06-2007, 15:48
More and better FAQ:s.
Fix the Shaggoth
Be able to mark Chaos Ogres/more things in the beast list(No reason to use them over Minotaurs now in my opinion)

enyoss
11-06-2007, 15:53
High Elves.

Problem: stubborn on white lions!

Solution: Ditch intrigue at court (I could cope with it if it wasn't for this drawback :)) or simply have white lions stubborn when accompanied by a single chosen character (my prefered solution out of the two).

If that were done I would more or less be completely happy with the book as is (ignoring the Phoenix Guard that is :D).

Cheers,

enyoss

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
11-06-2007, 16:28
i know it's not one but that would take too long to decide (and nobody else is following the rules ;))

dark elves

Give us some figures for our heroes!
it might not be army specific but I'd like skirmishers un marchblockable again. that would make me very happy.
make black guard at most 14 points
make the DR crossbows at most 5 points.
make assassins 110 points at most and give them dance of doom for free.
change the harpies to something that looks cooler (at the moment I refuse to get them because I hate how they look so much)
make a witch elf hero
give us some descent magic banners

Pravus
11-06-2007, 16:28
Beasts of Chaos: one of the following:

More than one marked bestigor unit
Beastherds can take magic standards
MoCU for beastherds but no ability to swap for another mark
Ungors have the option of swapping spears for javelins
Warhounds are fast cavalry

Hordes of Chaos: one of the following:

4+ save standard for chaos warriors
Make MoCU stubborn or at least re-roll break tests as well
Marauder heros

Daemons:

Make master of mortals and unliving icon THE SAME BLOODY COST!!

catbarf
11-06-2007, 18:48
Empire Halberdiers, the most common troop in the Empire... are worthless, because of how much the Halb rules suck.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
11-06-2007, 18:56
I find them useful for flanking units. The S4 and lack of shielding to the side really makes a mess of rank and file. But yeah, they aren't all that great as a Parent unit.

theunwantedbeing
11-06-2007, 18:56
Dark elves
Assasins made to have killing blow,extra hand weapon,poison all as standard at least.
More magic weapons.
Cheaper black guard.
Dark pegasus as a mount for a hero level sorceress.

erm....Repeater bolt throwers made core and multi shot works just like the main shot(only has the rule 6x multiple shots)

Multifarious
11-06-2007, 19:20
I take it that the last one was a joke, and you don't really think that Repeater Bolt Throwers should be core with 6 strength 6 attacks that go through ranks.

For me it would be tinkering with weapon rules, including halberds and spears.
One thing that I did think of was that if they wanted to change them as they went through the army books was to create a new weapon type, with similar rules but slightly more effective. For example, as well as a halberd there would be a poleaxe, with similar, but stronger rules. Then as they went through the rules they could gradually change any units they wanted to have the option for the old weapon to the new weapon.

I would also like some slight changes in heavy infantry, perhaps so that they could have a way of paying slightly less for ranks. One way would be to make rear rankers cheaper, but make the unit as a whole have to pay for expanding the frontage belonging to it past the minimum. For example a unit may pay 14 per front ranker, 9 per back ranker, and pay 20 points for the ability to expand frontage beyond 5. So a unit of this with 6x5 would pay 266, rather than 336. The rules could have the background "These elite warriors have served on many a battlefield, and are used to fighting as a compact hard hitting force, they can fight wider, but it costs them in efficiency".

Red_Lep
11-06-2007, 19:45
High Elves.

Problem: stubborn on white lions!

Solution: Ditch intrigue at court (I could cope with it if it wasn't for this drawback :)) or simply have white lions stubborn when accompanied by a single chosen character (my prefered solution out of the two).

If that were done I would more or less be completely happy with the book as is (ignoring the Phoenix Guard that is :D).

Cheers,

enyoss

I agree, Stubborn and PG are the only problems I have with the book.

The Anarchist
11-06-2007, 19:57
Bretonian; Knight armour! this is a completly heavy cavalry dominated army and nation. so how is it Empire Knights have better armour, it just don't make sense.

Woodelves; Now its realy not goin to happen but wishfull thinking; Glade Riders had same rules for Bows (strength 4 at half range) as Glade Gaurd.

Wickerman71
11-06-2007, 20:32
I play four armies & mostly Im content with how the army books are done as is;

Vampire Counts
Would like to see better point costs in regards to their Magic Items to promote variety.
Would like to see the Bat Swarm usable for 7th edition play.
Would like to see an additional Rare Unit choice added to the army
Would like to see the Bloodlines better defined akin to Wood Elf kindred & then bloodline powers condensed into a single pool.

Skaven
Would like to see Weapon Teams re-envisioned.
Would like to see Rat Ogres that are worth taking
Would like to see Assassins that are worth taking

Ogre Kingdoms
A better selection of Magic Items to choose from
More Units to choose from
To see Bulls more common than Iron Guts

Wood Elves
Units balanced within them selves; say Glade Guard 11pts/Dryads 13pts
Terrain rules defined enough so I dont have to here any more complaints on Treesinging

Lord Anathir
11-06-2007, 20:35
High Elves:

Make a 'cap' for ranks. For example, all infantry more expensive then 9 points only have to pay 9 pts for each subsequent rank after the first 5 models.

Baron Von Rotten
11-06-2007, 22:10
VC
I would like to see wights have a higher WS. The Banner of the Barrows is nice, but you can only use it on one unit.

I would also like to see them have a GW option. Kinda like the Drakenhof guard from Sylvania. Str6 with 4+ Armor Save due to platemail, would bring them up to speed with the other army's Elite infantry.

They would be "Undead Greatswords" on Steroids! Cool!!!!

A fella can alway dream, right?

BVR

Arhuta
11-06-2007, 22:37
What happened to the "ONE problem with your army"? :p

Playing O&G I feel some point values could deserve some second tought, especially Goblins. I actually like the current "cheap and hardy" orc we have now, it really fits the background of the game.

skavenguy13
11-06-2007, 23:07
Skaven. I have loads of them. The 6th edition range is for the most part ugly. I want better models, or make the old ones available.

Orcs & night goblins, I have a good bunch of them. The main problem is cavalry. I haven't played much with them, but it seems overpriced now and the models are just too costy anyway.

Ogres (with loads of gnoblars): well, um... almost everything really. But I guess the main part would be "have more plastic BODIES". The rest of the sprues are great, but fielding 30 ogres, of which 25 have the same body, just seems horrible to me.

Finnigan2004
12-06-2007, 00:05
I'm going to go with an overall game change, but make subtle changes in the game to make infantry in general, and elite infantry in particular, a more viable choice in armies other than dwarfs.

Lord Inquisitor
12-06-2007, 00:59
Giants. In particular yell and brawl.

It's just annoying. It is essentially a psychological attack - yet it allow the giant to beat everything from Slaaneshi Chosen to Undead and potentially break them or cause wounds.

If they made it "causes a panic test" or similar it would be fine.

dodicula
12-06-2007, 01:46
Up the cost of brettonian knights by 4 points, change the charge to 14", and get rid of the ward save (except maybe for Grail/Questing knights and then only 6+), and give them 1+ armour

Captain Cortez
12-06-2007, 01:55
Ogre Kingdsoms: Ogre bulls need to have some better rules from panicing. Like maybe a LD 8 or can reroll it. Most of the Magic items suck, the banners are useless:mad:

Leadbelchers missfire is wayyy to harsh. Maybe they just take a wound or take d3 wounds. That would be kool if Leadbelchers could get upgrade to different cannons (Morters, Cannons est)

I can see Ogres using Slaves or something, like what Skaven have. Gnoblars are a joke.:rolleyes:

Yhettees should gain an extra attack for having two weopons. These guys seem to always get shot up pretty easily. I always wondered if maybe it would be better if they have something that gives them 1- from shooters or have a toughness of 5. 65 points is little to steep.

Finally add some RHINOX riders. I can't believe they are illegal now (GT, most Tournements) Steam tanks are way more evil:cheese: .

I'm not whinnining I'm complaining;)

Halflingstew
12-06-2007, 03:06
My pet peeve has always been the fear rules. I play O&G's and I can't tell you the number of times a VC player has popped up a couple of Zombies in front of my NG's. I don't care about the Fanatics, but they'll stand there, failing Leadership tests, for several turns. I don't care how stupid, weedy, or cowardly a NG is, he's going to realize that he and 40 of his buddies are going to run over those 5 Zombies! Making something like the "Outnumber 2-to-1" rule cover more situations would help.

The other problem (for me) has always been terrain. Most of the Warhammer games I play seem to be strenuous exercises in avoiding terrain. Using the Compendiums rules on "Loose formations" would be helpful. Still wouldn't hurt Skirmishers, but a regular unit wouldn't get stranded for the entire game.

Lord Inquisitor
12-06-2007, 03:31
Argh - good point about terrain!

That has to be my single biggest issue with Warhammer where Warhammer 40K is actually superior (and that's not often!!)

In both Fantasy and 40K, use of terrain is something that make the game tactical. However, in Fantasy, terrain is simply avoided (by most units) excepting those that simply ignore it. The penalties are so extreme - 1/2 movement and no marching, effectively quartering the unit's move in most cases - that it is tactically completely inviable to put a unit through a wood. While clearly difficult terrain should hamper movement, it's way too much. Allowing units to march while crossing difficult terrain would solve this - moving only your M value when marching would mean that moving through terrain is a viable tactic.

At the other end of the spectrum, skirmishers can ignore terrain. This tends to make running through terrain a no-brainer for them. Terrain should be a hinderance even to a model on his own! Obviously some kind of benefit over a ranked-up unit is in order, but treating difficult terrain as open is silly. I don't see any reason a skirmishing unit should be able to wade through a river any faster than a ranked up unit, for example.

Lord_Byron
12-06-2007, 05:22
Orcs and Goblins

Either get rid of animosity and the ugly miscast table, or drop the cost of most troops. It seems like orcs and goblins used to be cheaper and as a balance were disadvantaged by animosity, and now they are priced more on par with other armies and are just crippled with animosity for no good reason.

Ogres

Get rid of the unit and character restrictions - need a Tyrant to have a Slaughtermaster - must lead the army with a Tyrant or Bruiser - must take a unit of bulls - can only take one unit of gnoblar fighters per unit of bulls - can only take one scraplauncher per unit of gnoblar fighters - can only take one unit of gnoblar trappers unless hunters are included - cannot take yhetees if the greyback pelt is chosen as a magic item - ogres could do well as an army without those silly restrictions.

Xyon
12-06-2007, 06:00
High Elves:

lose I@C, balance the infantry so it doesnt feel like you're being ripped off point-per-model for a unit of seaguard or PG and heaven forbid both in the same army.

It would also be nicer to have a larger range of magical items that help boost units that our unit champions can take.

Kerill
12-06-2007, 06:05
get rid of I@C and I'll be happy for the elves. For chaos bring back some kind of mutation cards (with a good proportion negative) to make it more chaosy.

The game is afoot
12-06-2007, 07:28
Well im going to break your plan of stating something with just my list (sorry). I would like GW to do a more extencive playtesting of all new lists and rules to find the tweaks that do not follow their intent.

By doing this i hope and think they would achieve more balanced lists.

This was the first reply to the thread and I would like to echo this thought.

MORE balance between ALL the armies.

Part of the problem is exemplified in the approach taken by the Mad doctor in this thread.
Pointing to a 'single' problem in a 'single' army is a recipe for disaster.
This is exactly how GW design tackle issues in their game as well.
It doesn't work.
The army lists need to be examined as a 'whole' in regard to each other annd to do that accurately they need a points formula to accurately allocate the points dished out for each element of the stat line and each special ability.

When GW get to this poinbt then... and ONLY then will we see a permanent solution to the imbalances in the army books that have been with us for 2 and a half decades.

Kavu
12-06-2007, 08:37
my main concern is with the close combat. (see one point) Like all things it can be broken down.

Ws is not much of use I mean a Ws 10 warrior and a Ws 1 peasant the the warrior hits on a 3+ the peasant on a 5+ essentially the warrior is only twice as good as the peasant. it becomes worse when you consider elite infantry Ws5/6 against normal infatry Ws3. the elites hit on a 3+ the normal on a 4+. this makes the elites only marginally better.

Initiative is useless. the reason is obvious The game rewards you for breaking the enemy quickly. Meaning in most charges you go with the intention to break your foe. I see only one solution Charging does not give you the ability to strike first. perhaps charging gives you +1 initiative, +2 for cavalry would be much better.

Finally improve on those weapons. I want to see varietyfor infantry & remove 2 handed weapons for mounted models! (how can any creature weild such a cumbersome weapon mounted) And there should be better options than great weapon or hand weapon and sheild for infantry!

Bingo the Fun Monkey
12-06-2007, 08:54
Orcs and Goblins: I played them until very recently (where I started BoC)
Problem: Animosity
Solution: bring back the 6th ed animosity table (I'd rather have my units have a 1/36 chance of attacking a friendly unit in LoS than have a unit not perform how I'd like it 1/3 of the time). With the new choppa rules, I'd be willing to see a price-hike of 1 point on the common orc boy for this (goblins are fine as they are and will be much better if they can keep in line a bit easier).

Problem: Boar Boyz
Solution: Bring back their old points value.

Beasts of Chaos:
I have no problem with them as they are, which is why I switched. There are some units that could use some modification (shaggoths, chaos ogres) but I don't see these inadequacies as grounds for never taking such units (as opposed to, say, phoenix or lothern sea guard).

Stupidity should be an initiative check, not a leadership check.

Assault Cannons: the Hellblaster and Organ Gun should have Rending. ;)

Skyweir
12-06-2007, 11:32
Mine is quite general:

Do something about great weapons.
Most combats are decided in the first round, and the first round of combat will always negate their penalties.
Great weapons are often a very good buy for characters. Often you find yoursef choosing between a 6 pts great weapon or a 50 pts magic weapon, and they will likely have about the same effect in combat.

Tuning them back to always strike last (like in 5th ed.) or upping the point cost might solve this.

Also, more interesting rules for other weapons would also be good.

A neutral shade of black.
12-06-2007, 13:39
Dark elves: give us magic items on par with every other army out there rather than the current crap. Reduce the points cost of a few of our stuff, or make them better (cold ones that are Frenzied rather than Stupid for the same cost or a couple of points more comes to mind; an extra special rule on executioners to make them more survivable; Black Guard at 14 points per model; Witches a point cheaper). That's about it, really; the Druchii are the most balanced army out there and only really suffer because of craptastic magic items and army book creep.

General: fix WS and I (if this happens, executioners don't need a buff). Give us a WS table that goes from 2+ to 6+ or something (not that it's ever going to happen, but it's more likely than calling for the logical thing, i.e. a collapse of WS and S and corresponding collapse of T and Sv). Also make elves strike in initiative order, or something (rather than always strike first *cough*).

KingTut
12-06-2007, 19:46
Tuning them back to always strike last (like in 5th ed.) or upping the point cost might solve this.


:confused: Aren't they strike last now?

skavenguy13
12-06-2007, 23:23
Well, since we can also give 1 change to the system in general:

LANCES!
Lances are cheap, require only 1 hand, thus can be used by BSB and by shield-wielders.

I find it unfair that mounted BSBs can have a lance for just a few points, thus negating the effect of not hitting hard (for lack of good weapons). Plus they already get a better save when mounted!

And the main problem I have with cavalry is that low-strength hits very rarely kills them. So they can ram into a huge spear unit, or frenzy troops, and still go through without a wound. At least the removal of the shield would mean they'd be slightly softer.

So I would like lances to require 2 hands. If you really want both hands, then just take a spear.

Refardeon
13-06-2007, 10:59
Tree major dismays in the rules overall:

1. Remove Saving throw for being cavalry at all. Makes it not so much superior to infantry. Make this or increase points cost for all cavalry.

2. Remove the special armour bonus for using handweapon and shield in cc. Makes other weapons option reliable.

3. Use loose formation rules for difficult terrain or alter terrain rules completely to make it usable for tactics for all armies.

And then make a better army selection rule by bounding different choices together, for example an engineer is needed to field an steamtank. If you don't have minimum choices of special core troops as real core like skaven clanrats, this would be a viable option to bring army selection to background-fitting results without denying the options at all.

Greetz Refardeon

VampireOfKhorne
13-06-2007, 14:50
I'll echo Fredrik and TheGameIsAfoot's post. More balance all around would be nice.

Actual playtesting, game designers who know what there doing (none of this "Lets get a 40K guy who doesnt even play fantasy, to desgin the next army book" $#%#), erratas and FaQs, player involvement, no more change for the sake of change ....

I can't pick just one, even If I just went with 1 of the armies I play and forgot about all the problems with the main rules it would still be impossible, so I'll list a few that are wrong with VC...

- Remove the "If the general dies, you lose" rule. This is stupid. It encourages an all-or-nothing approach (for both players).
If the other guy knows your taking VC he will simply load up on fighty characters on fast steeds, big knight units and missile units, then target everything at your general's unit, if he kills him then he wins.

- More balanced magic items. This concerns all armies, not just VC. Whenever I look through an army book's magic items I always end up thinking "useless, useless, useless, must have, useless, must have, useless...", why the games designers let these abominations through "playtesting" (we'll pretend it does exist...) is beyond me... :rolleyes:
Even a bit of math would help, look at the OK weapon that gives killing blow. It's statistacally worse then an ogre club against allmost everything, for 30 points more then an ogre club....

-Fix bat swarms. As if they werent bad enough in 6th, now I can't find even a single reason to take them. Perhaps a 50 (or so...) point decrease would help. Also, nicer models would be good, the current ones are quite ugly.

- Fix zombie dragosm. Like bat swarms, I cant see a single reason to take them. Either you put your general on him (and then your just asking for him to be shot, and killed) or a master necromancer, who's spells all effect his own troops and have nothing to gain from zipping around on a dragon. Remove the additional hero slot, add an attack, increase the save and let counts ride them.

- Fix the wraith. This is probably more to do with the fact that these days everyone and there grandma is ItP (or frenzied, or LD 9, or has some other wierd rule to ignore psychology). Why take a wraith when you know that in most of your games he will be useless? Also, how did they get the point cost for him? He's a skeleton who causes terror, yet costs 90 points. Let his terror effect everyone, make him a lv1 wizard, or give him a built in cursed book.

Theres more, but thats enough for now...

VampireOfKhorne
13-06-2007, 14:52
Aren't they strike last now?

No. They strike last in rounds of combat that aren't the first, and combat rarely lasts more then 1 round anyway.

Hadhfang
13-06-2007, 16:16
Bretonian; Knight armour! this is a completly heavy cavalry dominated army and nation. so how is it Empire Knights have better armour, it just don't make sense.



It does. Bretonnians are better fighters with a higher WS (Our core knights have WS4) Our horses are faster, we have lance formation and we get a ward save.

Empire have rubbish horses and heavy armour, can't fight in lance formation and don't have ward saves and are worse fighters.

That Guy
13-06-2007, 17:22
Some good points have been made here, but also some really silly ones.

Brets shouldn't get a 1+ armor save. The ward save is quite fluffy...against shooting at least. Personally, I don't think that they should get the ward save in combat and should cost a bit more, but I'm not too upset with them.

Great points about magic items. Look at the O & G army lists posted. How many Orcs ever use anything besides the Akkrit Axe or the Best Basha? Most magic items are no-brainers one way or the other.

Cavalry, both light and heavy, needs to cost more. Period. I like how they get better armor saves, but seriously, Cavalry is overpowered. Maybe not a return to fifth edition prices, but certainly more than now.

I like the rules for terrain, except for the skirmishers moving through without penatly :wtf: Formations NEVER move through woods. The rules reflect this.

Lots of complaining about weapons rules, and I agree. There's no reason for an Empire player to take a parent unit with Halberds. Men-at-Arms suck because they're charged an extra point for a halberd/spear they will never use. There needs to be a reason to take something other than a hand weapon and shield. I hesitate to propose droping the armor bonus, because it's fluffy and the only way infantry can get a save that rivals cavalry. Perhaps a point increase for hand weapon and shield? Having it as the default option and then adding points for other weapons is the problem.

Lances, however, are fine. Lances only require one hand to use. On the charge, they hurt like a bitch. The rules reflect this. Oh, and BSBs can't take them. If your opponant has a lance on his BSB he's cheating....unless it's a magic item that has "lance" in the name but not in the rules for it. But that loophole should be closed.

Orcs: I like animosity, but lots of things in the book make me go, "huh?" The nasty miscast table used to reflect how O&G magic was nasty...but it's not anymore. Only potentially one extra power dice per turn. That doesn't justify the miscast table. Also, if you're going to have animosity, Goblins should be 2 points. Orc Boyz are fine, maybe a little undercosted if anything. Boar Boyz, again, crippled by animosity (with good reason, it's fluffy) but cost too much to make it worth it.

Weapon Skill and initiative should matter.

I like the idea of making "Yell and Brawl" a panic check on a -2 so that units immune to psychology aren't affected.

Chaos: the Shaggoth needs to be as good as a Dragon. Or at least a Treeman. C'mon now. Demons should be less expensive (both points and dollars). Past that, ideas like giving Chaos Warriors a basic 4+ or making MoCU able to reroll break tests are beyond silly. Chaos Warriors only suffer from the drawbacks that all elite infantry suffer from. They shouldn't be changed as long as Black Guard don't get changed.

Elite infantry needs help, but I don't think the back ranks should be cheaper. I think they should get their help from: cavalry being more expensive, and Weapon skill actually counting for something.

Yikes, long post. Just some thoughts.

PS Ogres should get Rhinox riders.

Chiron
13-06-2007, 23:54
It does. Bretonnians are better fighters with a higher WS (Our core knights have WS4) Our horses are faster, we have lance formation and we get a ward save.

Empire have WS4 as well, however Brettonians do have a free character, a ward save vs everything, faster cav, more effective on the charge thanks to a lance

Besides which, the Empire is land of the craftsman and engineers working and able to refine and manufacture excellent quality armour in high volumes

Brettonia is the land of bossing around poor people who live in s***

Shimmergloom
14-06-2007, 11:57
I like the idea of making "Yell and Brawl" a panic check on a -2 so that units immune to psychology aren't affected.


Great Idea. I'm sure everyone would love this, since all units are ItP while in combat.

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
14-06-2007, 16:01
Got another one
I think capturing standards is worth far too much. you could destroy a unit for the same reward. and they're often better for your oponent than you, even though you have to pay for them. People shouldn't not take standards just because they're scared of they're oponent nicking it from them.
I think 50 VP would be far better.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
14-06-2007, 16:04
I've never NOT taken a Standard in a combat block. One, they look spiffy, two, it's a point of basic res thats not going anywhere!

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
14-06-2007, 16:05
well I know some people do. especially for smaller units. making their chances of survival even less.

Lord_Byron
14-06-2007, 18:50
Black Orc Shamans ;)

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
15-06-2007, 16:54
hmm. dont think any black orc would be able to resist the fighting. and it doesn't seem right having a big beefy spell caster.

Hadhfang
15-06-2007, 19:17
Well, since we can also give 1 change to the system in general:

LANCES!
Lances are cheap, require only 1 hand, thus can be used by BSB and by shield-wielders.

I find it unfair that mounted BSBs can have a lance for just a few points, thus negating the effect of not hitting hard (for lack of good weapons). Plus they already get a better save when mounted!


i don't know if every BSB can take one, I know that a lot aren't allowed to take any additional equipment.



And the main problem I have with cavalry is that low-strength hits very rarely kills them. So they can ram into a huge spear unit, or frenzy troops, and still go through without a wound. At least the removal of the shield would mean they'd be slightly softer.



But their lack of ranks and not being outnumbered means that they rely on breaking the enemy on a charge, if they don't they will probably get beaten on the next turn. They need to choose their combats carefully so that they don't get bogged down.




So I would like lances to require 2 hands. If you really want both hands, then just take a spear.

Lances are designed so that they don't need 2 hands Both in fantasy universes and the real world. They only get the bonus on the charge and they need that bonus because otherwise heavy cavalry will be pretty useless.

I think heavy cavalry and lances are fine as they are, the are meant to hit hard and break on the charge. It's liek saying you don't like tans in 40k because you need high strength weapons to kill them IMO

Cpt_NinjaPants
15-06-2007, 21:28
Give woodies a 6+ ward save on everything, or at the very least when there within 6"-12" inches of wood give all of them some kind of wardsave.

zak
15-06-2007, 22:26
If I had to say just one thing then it would have to be elite infantry. They are very rarely worth there points in any army other than dwarves. I don't think it is a matter of cheaper rear ranks as this would then make normal infantry a lot less attractive. I think that a complete change in the game system would be required to ensure that WS has a larger effect upon the outcome of battles than it currently does. The fact that if your a lower WS by 2 points than your opponent then you should need a 5 and 3 points or more requires a 6. This idea was just off the top of my head and will probably be shot down, but would atleast make WS 5 or more troops viable as at the moment the WS makes little overall effect.

Oh....Boarboys. Why the hike in price when they weren't the best, most game breaking unit by a long way. Please re think this and make my boarboys a usable choice again!!!!

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
16-06-2007, 13:16
arhh, boar boyz *sniff sniff*
The thing is I've never seen them in real life. Nobody uses them which is real shame because I think they'd add a great feeling to an orc army. What they are the orc army is missing at the moment. shame they only just got updated.

silashand
16-06-2007, 16:03
- Remove the "If the general dies, you lose" rule. This is stupid. It encourages an all-or-nothing approach (for both players).

Agreed, though I think it should be there in some context. Perhaps simply have it be that all units take a leadership test once and that the character in the army that has the next highest leadership automatically assumes the role of general (but not for purposes of VPs). Only if all characters are dead would the entire army start to crumble.

It's either that or make vampires even harder than they are now. They need to be survivable if they are the weak link in the army. As it stands now there are numerous ways to kill them relatively easily. Tomb Kings don't seem to have that problem since they have separated the general/fighty character who needs to be in combat from the liche priest who raises his army.


- More balanced magic items. This concerns all armies, not just VC. Whenever I look through an army book's magic items I always end up thinking "useless, useless, useless, must have, useless, must have, useless...", why the games designers let these abominations through "playtesting" (we'll pretend it does exist...) is beyond me... :rolleyes:
Even a bit of math would help, look at the OK weapon that gives killing blow. It's statistacally worse then an ogre club against allmost everything, for 30 points more then an ogre club....

I agree in principle, but some items will always be preferable to others IMO. Ones that ignore armour saves for example are always quite popular, expecially if you know you're facing heavily armoured enemies. However, that said I will say that some I think are just a bit too much. When a Black Orc character can end up with 10 S10 attacks due to the presence of enemy characters, there's something wrong. Even Dwarfs who can customize their items (which I like) can't even come close to something like that.


bat swarms. As if they werent bad enough in 6th, now I can't find even a single reason to take them. Perhaps a 50 (or so...) point decrease would help. Also, nicer models would be good, the current ones are quite ugly.

I don't mind the models (the metals anyway), but they do suck under the current rules. I have a feeling the designers know this and will probably fix them in the new book next year (hopefully).


- Fix zombie dragons. Remove the additional hero slot, add an attack, increase the save and let counts ride them.

Agreed. They are such a cool idea it's a pity no one uses them because they suck so bad. While I like the above ideas, I'd prefer a simple rule that says they are immune to extra wounds caused by multi-wound weapons (I mean really, they're dead so who cares if a cannon ball blows out their spleen?). It would make them a lot more survivable and attractive as a mount. Granted they're still dead so shouldn't be as combat effective as a live one, but their main purpose should be as a mount I would think.

Cheers, Gary

Shimmergloom
16-06-2007, 21:43
Give woodies a 6+ ward save on everything, or at the very least when there within 6"-12" inches of wood give all of them some kind of wardsave.


Because that's what wood elves need. More ott special rules.

Hadhfang
16-06-2007, 22:12
Their current rules aren't OTT. And I fail to see how a tree merits a ward save by any streach of the imagination. Maybe give some armour to a few units but they don't need saves across the board. Especially ward ones.

aenarion67
22-06-2007, 12:42
high elf spearmen being 11pts while an empire swordsman is 6pts and the stats are quite litteraly the same and swordsman are better you could almost get 2 swordsmen 4 the price of a high elf spearman. roll the dice you'll see what i mean. either give spearmen heavy armour or something good.

theunwantedbeing
22-06-2007, 13:28
High elves need to be made less powerful.
Thankfully they are getting re-done soon so we shall soon see an end to their powergaming ways ^_^

Seriously though....empire swordsmen need to be a 20+ unit,as opposed to a 10+ unit.
Then HE players will quit comparing their HE guys to the cheaper things.

Finnigan2004
22-06-2007, 13:38
I'm not a high elf player (yet), but I have to say that it's entirely fair to compare high elves to less expensive units when the less expensive units have a virtually identical stat line. It demonstrates something that's out of whack, and hopefully the designers will take notice so that they can fix it. That said, I am hopeful that the high elf redux will fix the glaring problems with the list.

The Dark One
22-06-2007, 13:43
sorry but i couldn't pick one

make new gnoblars that are more multi part, like other regiments

or

make the gnoblar army list legal

either one of these would make me happy

Heretic Burner
23-06-2007, 17:51
high elf spearmen being 11pts while an empire swordsman is 6pts and the stats are quite litteraly the same and swordsman are better you could almost get 2 swordsmen 4 the price of a high elf spearman. roll the dice you'll see what i mean. either give spearmen heavy armour or something good.

Uh, their stats aren't remotely similar. You are completely neglecting to include the two most important stats in the game in your calculations. As elves have a marked improvement over humans in those stats there is no surprise at all they are more expensive. They should be.

Finnigan2004
23-06-2007, 18:26
Um, which are the two most important stats in the game? If one of them is movement, you're right, but high elves infantry are still mediocre in terms of movement because of the proliferation of cavalry in the game.

Mawchild
23-06-2007, 18:44
Ogres

I've a number of ideas but since they all come under the heading of making the rules better reflect the fluff, I guess I'm just bending the one thing rule rather than breaking it.

1. I've said it before and I'll say it again, leadbelchers should follow the same rules as cannons firing grapeshot/canister. This would be far more reflective of the weapons shotgun nature and make units less prone to extremes of performance. They should also follow the normal misfire rules for cannons or have their own table (1 leadbelcher destroyed, 2/3 d3 auto-wounds, 4/5 can fire next turn as normal, 6 launches gnoblar like a strength 4 cannon ball).

2. Rhinox cav must be included in the next codex. Also the possibility of Rhinox mounts for heroes should definitely be considered/re-evaluated.

3. Hunters have to be given a move and shoot option if not with the harpoon than with the spears/javalins they come packaged with. It just doesn't make sense to give the model a weapon it can't use and to suggest that a hunter wouldn't be able to move and shoot with something is a nonsense. It's also really annoying that arguably the best looking model is the least effective for its points cost and this would go some way to rectifying that.

4. Some form of tribal differentiation with appropriate pros and cons. Wilder tribes get rhinox riders as two special slots but leadbelchers as rare choices for instance. There are plenty of tribes described and rules for them and similar would be cool and far from complicated. The deliniation could be one of attitude and follow the same sort of set up as VC bloodlines ie. Wild/Savage Ogres, Maw Fanatics, "Civilised", Standard.

5. Gut plates should count as light armour.

6. Gorger packs of 1-3 with champion available. Possible only as an option with certain tribes.

7. The slaughtermaster/butcher restrictions removed as mentioned in an above post (possibly again only for certain tribes)

8. Some form of pit fighters be it as a unit or hero.

I don't think anything there contradicts the fluff or flavour of the Ogre Kingdoms in fact I think they better reflect them and would not alter the way they play in any radical way other than to make a little more sense and provide a little more variation.

theunwantedbeing
23-06-2007, 18:49
High elves have 2 for 1 great eagles which means they can march block all enemy cavalry,which means their movement 5 makes them the fastest troops in the battle.

mv8 cavalry(well mv7 for barding) is slower than mv5 troops that CAN march.
10 > 8
10 > 7

See,movement is important.

Woudschim
23-06-2007, 19:03
Make the models in 10mm scale, and redesign the game-mechanics so that they use the command of leaders to move around the battlefield...;)

Finnigan2004
23-06-2007, 19:21
I totally agree that great eagles are wonderful, but I'm not sure about an argument that says that having great eagles makes high elf spearmen worth 11 points. The great eagles are fast, not the spearmen. I do feel better now that I know that having chaos furies in my army makes my bloodletters the second fastest unit in the game though.

dabiggrotsboss
23-06-2007, 19:31
Here are my armies and what I would like to see:

Vampire Counts - new horses for the Black Knights. I am actually, genuinely happy with the entirety of the rest of the army.

Savage Orcs - new models all the way around. Sure, they are useable, but they aren't my favourite sculpts.

Night Goblins - love everything about this army. Can't say I win very often, but they are entertaining

Forest Goblins - new goblins in the spirit of the forest goblin spider riders would be my one wish.

Brettonians - unadorned helmets for the knights

Chaos Dwarfs - Even though I have a big hat army, if they aren't going to make new models, at least make the axemen available, and the characters available, again.

Heretic Burner
24-06-2007, 05:18
Um, which are the two most important stats in the game? If one of them is movement, you're right, but high elves infantry are still mediocre in terms of movement because of the proliferation of cavalry in the game.

Movement and leadership of course.

Saying HE movement is poor with respect to cavalry in no way, shape, or form indicates a problem is with HE movement. Rather the problem lies with cavalry. Naturally, HE benefit from some of the fastest moving cavalry in the game so lets not be silly and use that as a measuring stick of the infantry.

So yes, HE infantry have a large improvement over Empire troops in the two most important areas of the game. They have higher costs because they are much more powerful units in the game. There is simply no comparison at all between Empire and HE statlines, the HE stats are far more powerful.

BodhiTree
24-06-2007, 05:24
I hope Saurus Cavalry will be visited by the Armour Save gods someday.

Rioghan Murchadha
24-06-2007, 09:11
High elves have 2 for 1 great eagles which means they can march block all enemy cavalry,which means their movement 5 makes them the fastest troops in the battle.

mv8 cavalry(well mv7 for barding) is slower than mv5 troops that CAN march.
10 > 8
10 > 7

See,movement is important.

Ok, so when it comes time to declare that all important charge, tell me,
is 10 now > 14 or 16?

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
24-06-2007, 14:12
I just remembered another one
I like to scrap the HW & shield rule. making spears worse than swords yet are supposed to be better.
it generally makes it anoying and unrealistic. (ranged troops having better armour save than warriors.)

Finnigan2004
24-06-2007, 14:33
Thanks heretic burner, leadership, I must have had a brain freeze for a moment. I have to disagree with you that high elf infantry are "much more powerful" than empire infantry. We can't take these two stats in a vacuum, and say that they determine the cost of a unit-- if so, I want ogre bulls to be 11 points because they have one higher movement and one lower leadership. The point that I was making was that their stats, while better, don't merit as much of a point increase as they suffer. Simply put, their effect on the game is not that much different from comparable (but cheaper units) in other lists, making them overcosted.

On a side note, I think that it is fair to analyze the metagame, and realizing that both units are far more likely to be charged than to charge anything to assign points values on their actual utility in games. It is very obvious that the value of movement is not linear. There is a big difference between movement 6 and movement 8 (I have some ogres), but not terribly much between movement 5 and movement 4. Bluntly, that difference is charging or being charged. The reason that people don't take expensive infantry is that they aren't useful enough for the points. I have seen far more cheap infantry in competitive armies on the other hand, which probably indicates something.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-06-2007, 14:50
Do Empire infantry fight three ranks deep, with I5 and Ld8?

Of course they don't. Thats why Swordsmen are 6 points a pop, and High Elf spearmen are 11 points a pop. Yes, High Elves do need some work, just as well they are getting a shiny new book for you all to whinge about really!

Finnigan2004
24-06-2007, 15:20
If you're saying that the totality of a unit's abilities and it's actual usefulness in a game should be used to determine points value, then I'm glad that we're standing shoulder to shoulder Mad Doc. ;)

P.S. I don't have high elves, if this helps you to see my point.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-06-2007, 15:36
Exactly. At the end of the day, High Elves are a more reliable unit than Empire Swordsmen.

The Empire Swordsmen have the advantage of a better save, but only kick out 6 attacks when deployed in ranks of 5.

High Elves however, belt out an incredibly impressive 16 attacks in the same formation.

So, lets assume they've been charged by, say, Orcs have charged either unit, armed with Choppa and Shield. The Orcs kick out 6 attacks, causing on average two wounds on either unit. Empire are more likely to save one, lose one, and the High Elves will probably take both as a casualties. But now we see the inherent hardness of the Elf unit, as it responds with 14 attacks, compared to the Empires 5...thats almost triple the response...... and if the combat continues, the Elves will simply slaughter the Orcs.

Now, don't get me wrong, High Elf stuff is generally overpriced, especially the Archers, but the spearmen are rock! It's just a shame your points are pissed up the wall on ranged stuff for you, limiting their numbers somewhat. Heavy Armour would be nice, but is hardly a necessity.

zak
24-06-2007, 17:36
I agree. The HE army does not need Heavy armour to improve the spearmen. I think the problem lies in there 'elite' infantry and archers which are rarely used due to being overpriced and seriously under performing.

arkle
24-06-2007, 19:27
Address the internal balance within the Orc and Goblin book, such a interesting and variable army until units are compare to one another. Basic list Black Orc Warboss, Black Orc with Mork's Totem, night goblin with staff of sneaky stealing, lots of large units of orcs with hand weapons and shields and either wolf riders or spider riders for the flanks. So little opportunity for variety with animosity affecting magic so much, to name but one problem.

For all armies encourage, less of a scroll caddy or 8 power levels approach, with a happy medium being viable.

Shimmergloom
25-06-2007, 03:23
I was really hoping that 7th edition would have a new common magic item or 2. Especially some sort of dispel stone, which could be a tailsman and add +1 dispel dice to your pool, to help replace the caddy crutch.

I realize that they left points values out cause they wanted each army book to have points values differently for the common items, but it would not have hurt them to include temporary points values for the items that would be superceded by whatever your army book said at a later date.

wallacer
25-06-2007, 04:52
Army: Chaos Dwarfs
What I want: an Army Book

dabiggrotsboss
25-06-2007, 05:05
Army: Chaos Dwarfs
What I want: an Army Book

Absolutely!

My big hats need an update!

benonator
08-07-2007, 19:37
i think vc need more new units

Death3965
08-07-2007, 20:21
well this has always angered me a high elf archer and maruder has ws 4 but my ogre ironguts have ws 3 its stupid and i hate it im paying 48 points where chaos pays 5 and is better so just give me ws 4 guts so they can hit something

Rioghan Murchadha
08-07-2007, 22:01
If hitting something on a 4+ is such a problem, might I suggest switching from rolling D4s to D6s?

theunwantedbeing
08-07-2007, 22:10
hahaha.....Rioghan deserves a cookie for that.

As for the whole ogres having a lower weaponskill than a HE archer....well an ogre isnt exactly a skilled swordsman,nor iis he particularly agile and his large size does work against him when trying to avoid blows stuck against him.
The elf doesnt really have any of these problems.

Chiron
08-07-2007, 22:56
well this has always angered me a high elf archer and maruder has ws 4 but my ogre ironguts have ws 3 its stupid and i hate it im paying 48 points where chaos pays 5 and is better so just give me ws 4 guts so they can hit something

Erm, your ogres also have 3 wounds, cause fear and have a higher strength and toughness...

and for the record, Arf @ Rioghan :p

stonehorse
09-07-2007, 00:51
One thing that has always got me puzzled in Warhammer is the way combat is worked out.

Not just the Stupid WS&I, and weapon rules fiasco, but rather how when 2 units clash together they remain so static through out the combat.

Combats should be a swirling chaos where the units move into each other, people at the back of the units as it is now just stand around until they get to the front ranks.The +3 for having 3 ranks doesn't do justice to large blocks of infantry.

If a combat is fought out for 5 turns I often wonder what those troops at the back of the units are doing for those 5 turns... showing family pictures to the warrior stood next to them.

To fix this the Lap around rule should be brought back.

LotR also has a very good way of doing it, I play Easterlings, so I oftern use Phalanxs. During a combat the nice 'square Phalanx' is now jagged, as some troops have been pushed back while others have held their ground. It looks more cinematic and real, then in next turns troops from the back move forward into the enemy, while Spear/Pikes stay behind to help provide support to the main thrust.

Other than that the whole S&T needs reworking. If a creature with the toughness of a skink(2) is hit by a Cannonball(10) why is there i) a chance it could fail to wound, ii) the smae chances of wounding something with toughness 6 :wtf:

Longbows should be strength 6... if in doubt read about the battle of Agincourt. (they where the Machine gun of the Medieval age.

The game is not a fantasy game, but rather a Pseudo steam punk game using Napoleonic unit formations, with some tolkien fantasy elements nailed on. In other word its a mess.

Lundi
09-07-2007, 03:11
Army: Chaos Dwarfs
What I want: an Army Book

Quoted for truth.

Any requests beyond that would require a whole new system and a whole new company to make it.

FlameKnight
09-07-2007, 04:54
Empire.
I want a cheaper griffon. Compare to a wyvern: griffon has 1 more attack, but wyvern has 1 more wound and strength, has a 4+ armour save and poisoned attacks. And a griffon generally has a dude on top who is much easier to kill.

WhiteDwarf1000
09-07-2007, 05:00
Hello Everyone,
I think the best thing GW could do would be to follow other games like Warmachine/Hordes,Infinity,and I beleive FoW and create all the lists or at least a vast majority of them into one large book. That way if a new edition comes around ALL The lists can be changed/updated/tweaked to make the new editions rules. Instead of waiting a year or two to get an update while many rules under this new edition my greatly affect your army play style.

Now of course this would cut down on some sales since you would only need to own one book. GW could still produce Army Books to fill with great artwork,fluff,and still put all your factions rules into it. I think most people would still pick up the seperate Army Book for all the other reasons to own it.

Just my 2 cents but what do you guys think?:)

Ward.
09-07-2007, 05:14
All army's
Boxes of ranked infantry to come in the optimal amount needed, things like chaos marauders use pretty much the exact same amount of materials and the box weighs the same, yet you only get 16 marauders. It would certainly make it easier to get friends to join the hobby if they didn't need to buy two boxes to make one unit, or three for two.

No strength 6 longbows, I like a bit of realism as much as the next person but gunline's are a far to common army build as it is, and we all know they'd end up being abused.

Putty
20-08-2007, 09:22
All army's
Boxes of ranked infantry to come in the optimal amount needed, things like chaos marauders use pretty much the exact same amount of materials and the box weighs the same, yet you only get 16 marauders. It would certainly make it easier to get friends to join the hobby if they didn't need to buy two boxes to make one unit, or three for two.

i concur. it think it is plain silly to spend almost $100 (SGD) just to field 1 regiment of maruaders or warriors. Package them in boxes of 20 models and have them cost around USD $35 each.

Alot of models need a price revamp also, either make them plastic and reprice them cheaper, esp those metal daemon models (some which are core!)

anyways for rules...

1) Woodelves: Change Waywatchers to special instead of rare.

2) all woodelves gain +1 S to bow shots at short range, not just glade guards.

3) let Waywatchers choose between multi-shot or lethal shot during shooting phrase, instead of just having lethal shot kill.

4) Chaos: Warriors. Unbreakable? Immune to psychology?

5) MoCU: reroll of any psychological test (if not unbreakable)

6) Lower pointage of Warriors to 11 if they aren't receiving any of the above upgrades.

7) Better halberd rules (2nd rank able to fight also)

8) Chosen get better saves and maybe a +5 ward save but no +1 A

Dayhan
20-08-2007, 11:29
I think Chaos warriors should be immune to Fear and stubborn. Considering the fluff GWS write about chaos and all the horrors in it. I can't believe a chaos warrior would be scared of a Ogre. To be truthfully if you have seen a char like the Great Unclean one and didn't need new underwear. Even a giant isn't going to worrier you. And stubborn really for the same reason. A Choas warrior is a fighting machine, created and mutated for one reason alone. TO FIGHT. Why would it bother them if there out numbered or 5 of there fellow warriors fell in combat. Once again the fluff says " if chaos troops fail there god they face a punishment worse than death". Wouldn't you rather fight and die than face that lol ?

Bolt throwers rule about hitting in the flank. Its like the JFK magic bullet idea. If it 100% side on OK. But if not GWS is expecting use to believe it can hit the flank of one man. And instead of going in a straight line and maybe hitting one more. It turns on the spot and can hit all ranks ROFLMAO. We won't use this rule in our club as its that pathetic.

Lord Darkblade
20-08-2007, 14:26
I haven't read all the comments on this thread yet and will likely post more later, however the idea of counter charge is slightly intriguing.

Perhaps modifying the charge reactions:

Stand and shoot:
--- Charger moves from over half their move, gets 1 volley at -1 to hit

Flee:
--- Flee!

Stand:
--- Stand, if armed with a long weapon automatically counts as braced

Brace:
--- Units with long weapons only, if the unit moved last turn and the opponent is charging from over half range the unit becomes braced.

Counter charge:
--- If the opponent is over half range you move forwards your normal movement, then continue the charge. Models which die in combat may strike even if dead before their initiative unless armed with a long weapon. If the opponent is not over half range an additional rank of the enemy may fight (unless armed with long weapons).

Braced will become a special state allowing long weapons to take a charge better, setting spears etc. Counter charge is essentially what you see in the movies, a huge number of people running into each others lines and hacking (allowing dead to strike is basically the ranks running forwards), if you misjudge it though it becomes a bonus to the enemy as you have broken your lines to fight.

Any thoughts?

King Thurgun
20-08-2007, 14:40
Bretonnians

What I Want: For people to stop whining about my army being broken

Suggested Course of Action: Make all knights 3-4 pt.s more expensive a pop and require 1 peasant unit per bretonnian knight core choice. this will limit the annoying 6-man-lance double charge that many of my compatriots use to irritating effect. Also, give pegasus knights 1 wound each for the Lady's sake (with a points reduction).

Hopeful result: Watch in pride as i still slaughter all before me because i use big lances and lots of peasants anyway

Tzeentch Loyalist
20-08-2007, 15:01
I would prevent Gav Thrope from writing any more army books. Lets take a look at what he has written. Dark Elves, Beast of Chaos, Hordes of Chaos, and the new Chaos Marines codex. In each army book there are one or two decent majic itmes and the rest are crap. Weak or overpriced units, very little options For Beast. Evey army that has been written by him has disappointed me and others. Let him continue to write the fluff, but please no more army books from him.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 15:09
Brets just need to have the blessing changed a bit. Against shooting, fair enough, but somehow I doubt the watery bint is likely to be bothered enough if a Knight bites off more than he can chew in a combat and gets his head stoved in off a Vampire!

Seriously, it's hella annoying, and doesn't really have any fluff justification.

Sureshot05
20-08-2007, 15:16
A friendly (ish) good thread.

Empire - Engineer reduced by 5pts? I'm struggling as I really like the current Empire book.

Night goblins - All gobbos either down by 1pt or all upgrades to be bought in bulk (i.e. Spears for the unit for 20 pt). Orcs are fine.

Lord Darkblade
20-08-2007, 15:51
Human Spearman:
3 points base (stats)
+1pt (detachment rule)
+1pt (Shield)
+1pt (Spear)
----
6pts (iirc this is the empire spearman cost?, might be LA as well for 7).

High Elf Spearman:
11 Pts
-01 pt spear
-01 pt light armour
----
9 Pts base for stats + 3 ranks.

High Elf Archer:
12 Pts base
- 6pts (BS4 longbow)
=> High Elf troops come in around 6pts base.

Now I know Avian did a unit designer thing and produced a create your own magic item thing whereby he did assign points, fundamentally theory hammer is quite useful in a static analysis of units (modified by army rules, support and position within army of course).

Now looking at the stats, consider a "full" stat to be 0.5pts/pt to improve it, double / utilities to be 1pt/pt and other stats to be somewhere in that range. Assigning points I see something like:

M......0.5 pts/pt ...... generically useful
WS....0.25pts/pt ..... Limited table compared to S, BS etc
BS.... Free ............. Included in ranged weapon costs.
S..... 1 pt / pt ........ Generic use, double effect (asm, s vs t table)
T..... 0.5-1pt/pt ..... Tougher troops gain a lot, especially crossing 3->4, 4->5 and 7->8
W.... 2-5pts/pt ...... Straight improves the survival of your troop, very valuable
I..... 0.25-0.5pt/pt .. Ignored on charge
A.... (S-3)*2pt/pt ... More High S attacks are better.
LD... 1pt /pt ........... Full stat, however utility usage.

So a High Elf would be in the range of 5.25 -5.75 points, probably indicating a slight overcost on each basic elf troop.

Von Wibble
20-08-2007, 16:16
That same unit generator has the cost of a bolt thrower at 30 pts and high elves (and dark elves) paying 65pts for multiple shots! Therefore for starters either charge 65pts for RBT or let multiple shots ignore armour (like they used to - and back then they were balanced vs cannon).

Ignoring other high elf aspects since the new ab looks like it will cover them

General - Shield only gives a +1 bonus. Ever. This makes halberds and spears actually sensible choices on models, and slightly weakens clanrats and dwarf warriors - the most overpowered (for points costs) core units. (If this happened then my argument for goblins being costed as they are wouldn't apply so reduce them by 1pt)

Empire- Engineer allowed magic items, and reduced in cost by 10pts. Also allowed to use his special ability with a war machine AND shoot in a phase (assuming he survived!). Steam Tanks 0-1 per Engineer.

Rules for Knightly Orders- the ones in the WD a good starting point.

VHS only used in one round but reduced to 20pts.

Wood Elves - Scouts carry Glade Guard longbows.

Dryads increased to 14pts

Treeman stubborn conditional on being within 6" of a wood/ jungle.

Tonb Kings - A beautifully balanced list imo. Only thing I'd want is for MR on single units to only protect them from the Casket of Souls and not the whole army.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 16:50
Nope. None to me. And what the hell is a Mandem?

I know what getting shanked is, but as a Shank is a Prison made bladed object, I don't think I'm too worried, not being in Prison. But a Mandem? Sounds like something 'those batting for the other team' might find group fun in.

theunwantedbeing
20-08-2007, 16:59
Hmmm lets have a go at this...

It would be easier if there was a formula for making new stats.
The development team dont use a formula,they just guess.
This causes balance issues.
Assuming there was a formula and we were allowed to see it we could use it to create our own units.

That seems to be the revelvant bits of it converted to something half understandable.

Lord Darkblade
20-08-2007, 17:29
All of dis makin new stats **** would be much easier if we had a formula innit.

The Dev's aint using no formula, they donin it gangsta style lol. 2 Much guess work leads to unbalance and ting. If we had like a formula like, we could make our own unitz SICK!


Translation:
Making new unit **excrement** statistics would be easier if there was a published "baseline" formula for stats.

The GW game developers don't use a formula however (despite getting consistent results for magic items and weapon costs) and prefer to pick a points cost in the region of where they feel is appropriate. If we had access to a formula to make basic units we could create our own overpowered units for armies, **vomit**.

(not really sure what the two bits in ** ** add to the topic but hey, am just translating)

There is obviously an underlying mathematical basis to unit construction, of course there would need to be modifiers for certain armies (chaos getting missile weapons, high elves getting toughness 4+ etc) and army special rules messing with it (undead for example being excellent on cheap troops and worse on more expensive ones). I think Avian's rules are probably a good start (or my very rough approximation above) to this sort of project, work out what is wrong or imbalanced and try and make a suitable fix that can be shown to be appropriate.

Simon_Nufti
20-08-2007, 17:44
Hmmm lets have a go at this...

It would be easier if there was a formula for making new stats.
The development team dont use a formula,they just guess.
This causes balance issues.
Assuming there was a formula and we were allowed to see it we could use it to create our own units.

That seems to be the revelvant bits of it converted to something half understandable.

That iz precisely my point!

Not only would it allow us too make our own units, but it wud make it much easier for the dev's to make Codex's and ArmyBooks, which meanss they can be relesed quicker. Less playtestin' wud be needed to check there stats are right and they cane devote there time to other tings that need changing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 18:20
And thats the stickler.

IF it could be rendered down to a single value for everything, it would have been by now, surely?

But you have to consider the value to the army style. Take Dark Eldar. Incredibly fragile, so their tanks are cheap. If they suddenly got a Monolith equivalent, it would cost more than a Necron one, as it's changing the armies style.

Simon_Nufti
20-08-2007, 19:18
@ Netpixie: You do not need to consider the context of the army in which the unit is to be used. GW have got it wrong as it is. Why does a Heavy Bolter cost 5 points in a tactical squad but 15 points in a Devastator squad? Is a Heavy Bolter in a Devastator squad "3 times more valuable then one in a Tac squad" because thats what their implying. It's nonsense, a Heavy Bolter is a Heavy Bolter is a Heavy Bolter. It should be 15 points across the board for Space Marine armies.

@ Mad Doc Grotsnik: You dont have to consider the value to the army style. I mean how can one consider a mathematical value for something as abstract as a 'style' anyhow? If you made a monolith equivalent for Dark Eldar it would cost exactly the same as the Necron monolith. Both are capable of the same thing so why should they cost different amounts of points? And how do you determine how many extra points to add to the Dark Eldar version. Another blind guess would be right up GW's ally eh.

Im sure we can all come to the conclusion that at the moment Games Workshop's games are not balanced. Their overwhelmed with Special rules for starters, and the baseline stats, the most basic building blocks are flawed due to their lack of a formula.

p.s. Is that enough of a spell check for ya ;-) ?

Urgat
20-08-2007, 19:21
Well, I'll pick three things (sorry)
Army: O&G
1) Bring back the old animosity table that pops up on a 1. I'll sacrify happily the 1 out of 6 chance to move 1D6 so my army keeps a bit more in line
2) Change the fiasco table so it either -is the basic one - is the same as the one we currently have, but hurts enemy mages as well (Waaagh! energy power surge over the whole battlefield).
3) The Waaagh! rule needs to be changed. A small chance of getting a movement of 1D6 is not a reward for 1 out of 6 changes of getting 1D6 wounds. Change the wounds to 1D6 hits of the toughness of the unit, WITH saves allowed ( or give me gobs that can dish 1D6 S5 hits w/o save to the enemy :rolleyes: ), and a better move bonus (I'm not asking for 2D6, but 1D6 is pretty useless anyway).

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 20:00
However, I would like to see someone try to balance a game like Warhammer. With 12+ armies out there, and the number of possible combinations within each, you have pretty much infinite variety. Such a thing cannot possibly be balanced.

I trust the games designers to get it right most of the time. Hell, at least I know that I'll get a good run for my money in 2,000 points!

And another point on balance....Tomb Kings pay a premium on their troops due to Fear, and their ability to raise them. My Helstorm can obliterate a unit a turn (with a bit of luck) leaving them a big hole to try to fill. However, they cannot fix a unit once it is lost completely. Thus, it could be argued my Helstorm is a better choice against them, and when fielded thus, should cost more.....

Simon_Nufti
20-08-2007, 20:16
However, I would like to see someone try to balance a game like Warhammer. With 12+ armies out there, and the number of possible combinations within each, you have pretty much infinite variety. Such a thing cannot possibly be balanced.

I trust the games designers to get it right most of the time. Hell, at least I know that I'll get a good run for my money in 2,000 points!

And another point on balance....Tomb Kings pay a premium on their troops due to Fear, and their ability to raise them. My Helstorm can obliterate a unit a turn (with a bit of luck) leaving them a big hole to try to fill. However, they cannot fix a unit once it is lost completely. Thus, it could be argued my Helstorm is a better choice against them, and when fielded thus, should cost more.....

But such a thing CAN be balanced. It would just mean a massive overhaul. If you went back and assigned value's to the baseline of stats that every unit in the game uses then you'll at least have the basic building blocks needed to assure units are accurately costed. It is impossible to be 100% balanced sure, but dis will at least go towards making the game more balanced.

Your Helstorm may be a better weapon against Tomb Kings but making it cost more when facing Tomb Kings and then less against Chaos for example is impractical and unneccesary. Just cost it to the best of its ability and everything else to the best of its ability. Yes there will be times when your fear causing unitz are less effective (say against Dwarves for example) but then again those Dwarves have to pay for the stats that make them more resistant to fear in the first place!

W0lf
20-08-2007, 22:21
Chaos:

Warriors need fixing. Pick one from A + one from B:

A
Give them a 4+ save standard
Give them 2 attacks base

B
Make them immune to fear
Make them have a special rule that ignores the enemy combat res fro outnumber
make them stubbourn

Done.

Oh and make chosen unlimited but chosen warriors become special in mortal armies and rare in beast/daemon armies.

StormCrow
21-08-2007, 03:38
Well my 2 armies are:

Tomb Kings; Perfect, i hope they never change ever...except get rid of that stupid serpent staff

Orcs & Goblins; I understand that the goblins were overpowered in their last incarnation, but in some respects they are too weak now. The goblin chariot should have remained a 2 for 1 special (maybe with a 0-1 limit), keep the rule if you take all night goblin shamans (where you can take an additional big boss per 1000 points),

and a house rule me and my friends play with sometimes: if your O&G general is a goblin one goblin unit can have a banner worth up to 50 points.
As it stands the banners that are classified 'goblins only' and mostly useless, except for the raggedy red banner.

Ganymede
21-08-2007, 06:07
This is what I'd like changed about the ogre book.

Ogre Kingdoms Special Rules

Bellowers: All ogre units and characters always benefit as if they are accompanied by a musician.

Commentary – The current Bellowers special rule is not special by any means. It is simply a note reminding us that the bellower upgrade simply counts as a musician upgrade. This change is meant to actually add a special quality to the rule itself, as well as to the ogre army at large. The bonus here represents the special place for bellowing and hollering within ogre culture, and shows that each and every ogre is a bellower in some fashion.

Lords

Tyrants: Gains heavy armor at no cost.

Commentary – This change merely reflects the heavily armored nature of the tyrant and bruiser models, and minimizes overall bookwork. It also reflects the trend shown in the Dwarf army book for removing armor options for characters. The tyrant is largely fine as he is and little tweaking is required.

Slaughtermasters: May be taken without a Tyrant, but may not be general.

Commentary – The slaughtermaster, an interesting option in the ogre book, is simply unused in the vast majority of games. He can not even be deployed in games smaller than 3,000 points. This change allows the slaughtermaster to be fielded in a reasonable sized army. Note that he may not be the army’s general, so a bruiser is still required to lead the army. The mandatory bruiser prevents the selection of four spell casters.

Heroes

Bruisers: Gains heavy armor at no cost. Ballistic Skill increased to 4.

Commentary – The change to the armor option is done in the same vein as the tyrant’s change. The ballistic skill is increased in order to reflect their bestiary option. It was also changed to reflect the fact that they would reasonably be just as skilled with missile weapons as maneaters.

Hunters: Cost lowered to 130. Loses Harpoon Crossbow but may be purchased back for 20 points. Gains access to great weapons (8 points) and additional hand weapons (8 points). May be accompanied by sword gnoblars and luck gnoblars.

Commentary – The hunter, for some reason, is devoid of equipment options. He is almost like a pre-made special character. These changes allow for more freedom of customizability, and allow him to be more effective overall. The lowered cost reflects the trend of providing point breaks to characters that are normally fielded on their own, such as the dragon slayer. The optional nature of the new harpoon crossbow allows army designers to decide a specific role for their hunter: fire support or close combat support.

Core

Bulls: Cost lowered to 32 points. May purchase an additional ogre club for 4 points or an ironfist for 3 points.

Commentary – An analysis of the original bull price reveals that they are approximately three points more expensive than an identically equipped chaos ogre. While this three point premium is probably there to compensate for the added advantages of the bull charge and the ogre club, it does not reflect the fact that most army wide special rules are not factored into the unit cost. Instead, they are often made up for by limitations within the list itself, such as the ogre’s inability to take cavalry, heavy shooting, or meaningful static combat resolution.

Ironguts: Cost lowered to 45 points.

Commentary – Ironguts receive the same price break as the bulls, as they too are charged a three point premium for army wide rules.

Gnoblar Trappers: Cost lowered to 5 points. Loses the entourage rule.

Commentary – Due to this unit’s limited numbers, fractious and fragile nature, and lack of meaningful ranged weapon, they have been discounted one point. They are unable to inflict the amount of damage that other similar scouting units are capable of.

The entourage rule is an example of rule bloat. This particular rule adds little to a game besides complications, and has been removed.

Special

Leadbelchers: Gains heavy armor at no cost.

Commentary – As opposed to giving leadbelchers the same price breaks that the core ogres received, I decided to make them a bit more special. Their heavy armor and improved cannon diversify the battlefield role of these new brutes. They are now a well rounded and unique support unit, as opposed to being simply ogre bulls with cannons.

Yhettes: Lowered to 60 points. Gains additional hand weapons at no cost. Loses both magical attacks and the additional hand weapons when struck by a flaming attack.

Commentary – while these guys are quite unique, they still suffer from a slightly inflated price. A five point break fixes the problem. The inclusion of additional hand weapons into the Ice weapons rule makes the ability a bit more meaningful. Now the rule is a substantial advantage, and getting hit with a fire attack is a substantial blow.

Scraplauncher: Lowered to 150 points. Gains Largely Insignificant special rule.

Commentary – This weapon of war is capable of many different feats, but suffers from too many limitations. It is essentially an empire mortar strapped to the back of a slow and unreliable, yet solid chariot. It suffers from a low leadership, frenzied nature, tendency to panic nearby units, and catastrophic misfires. The fifteen point price break and the additional rule help to make this chariot less of a liability for something that is effectively a pile of garbage atop a rhinox calf.

Rare

Gorger: Attacks lowered to 3. Loses Ravenous special rule. Gains Frenzy special rule, and can never lose frenzy.

Commentary – The gorger special rules are over complicated. These changes drastically streamline the current rules while maintaining an almost identical end result. They still have four attacks and must continue to charge and pursue if they can.

Maneater: Gains heavy armor at no cost. Also gains a great weapon at no cost, and may swap it for a cathayan longsword, an ironfist, or a brace of handguns.

Commentary – Maneaters suffer from the exact same pricing premium that the core ogres endure, and the effective ten point price break is a way to mitigate the high cost. The only other change of note is the addition of the ironfist to their list of available armaments. This change is to reflect the maneater models themselves, some of which are armed with ironfists.

Slavegiant: Gains immunity to panic from fleeing, broken, or destroyed friendly non-giants.

Commentary – This is a simple change that streamlines one of their original rules.

Equipment

Ogre Clubs: Attacks with an ogre club benefit from the armor piercing special rule. Otherwise, an ogre club counts as a hand weapon in all respects, so can be combined with an ironfist or an additional ogre club as normal.

Commentary – Not only does this change streamline the current rules for ogre clubs, it also allows a club wielder to maintain the advantage of using the club when paired with an ironfist or additional hand weapon. Primarily, this change encourages the purchase of the relatively expensive bull upgrades, upgrades which would ordinarily be outclassed by a plain ole ogre club.

Cathayan Longsword - The longsword requires two hands to use. When used in melee combat, the wielder benefits from +1 WS, +1 S, and +1 I.


Even powered up in this manner, the cathayan longsword still doesn't outclass the other weapon options. Even in some of the best of situations, the longsword still can't inflict the amount of damage that a greatweapon can (the only time the longsword is better than the greatweapon at killing is against WS 6, T 4 models), thelongsword is better is against , but with the improved chance to hit and the newly gained greater chance to wound, the difference in damage output narrows. Combine the newly improved ability to kill with the defensive bonuses of the longsword, and you have a weapon that can compete with the greatweapon on practically all levels.

Harpoon Crossbow: Loses strength test rule. Gains Move and Fire rule.

Commentary – This is another change which seeks to streamline complicated rules that add little to the overall army. The ability to inflict an additional wound on a separate roll of a six does not contribute to the hunter in any meaningful way. The ability to move and fire with this weapon reflects the ability to do the same with ogre handguns, and provides a motivation to take the hunter over a bruiser. This extra shooting mobility is mitigated by a five point increase.

Leadbelcher Cannon: May reload as long as the only movement that turn was a reform, including the free reform during a successful rally. Counts as a flail in melee combat.

Commentary – The ability to reload on a reform move improves the continuity of the old rules, which allow you to reload on the reform after a rally attempt. With this change, you can now reload with any reform. The ability to count as a flail in combat better reflects the back story behind these weapons and also serves to make the leadbelcher a more unique unit choice.

Ironfist: Ironfists count as shields in all respects.

Commentary – While a cool concept, ironfists are largely redundant when compared to additional hand weapons. This change simplifies their rules while giving them a clearly different role than other upgrade options. Note that tyrants and bruisers would be able to purchase these at a slightly cheaper cost due to the fact that they are basically a shield and no longer a specialized weapon.

Brace of Handguns: Loses the prepared shot special rule.

Commentary – This change reflects the similar removal from the empire handgun and also simplifies the rules a bit.

Sword Gnoblar: 15 points. A model with a sword gnoblar may re-roll a single failed roll to hit or wound in melee combat. One use only. One per tyrant/bruiser/hunter.

Tooth Gnoblar: 15 points. A model with a tooth gnoblar may re-roll a single casting die (may not cause irresistible force or cancel a miscast) or may re-roll the result on the miscast chart. One use only. One per butcher/slaughtermaster.

Luck Gnoblar: 20 points. A model with a luck gnoblar ignores the first hit he suffers. One use only. One per army.

Commentary – Unnecessary yet fun changes.

mistformsquirrel
21-08-2007, 07:31
Hmm...

Hmmm....

Toughie honestly, since I"m reallllllly new here...

But - I'm gonna say one of the two following things:

Either A) Give Tzeentch-marked Heroes/Lords the ability to choose any one spell on their list (as a substitution for one of the rolled spells that is) rather than merely the first spell on the list, or B) A slight point break on said lords/heroes. Yeah - they can do all sorts of crazy stuff; but... egads... pricey!

Then again I'm a noob so my opinion is about as useful as a wet noodle against a Bloodthirster <,<

Ward.
21-08-2007, 07:44
The ogre kingdoms book was pretty close to balanced, but I like the idea of a few of those suggested changes.


@Simon_Nufti: Style has a lot do with how units are priced, a monolith for example shouldn't be the same price in a dark eldar army because of how it would be used.
Example, the reaver/ravager shield tactic, when you purposefully get one shot down then use it to hide the rest of your units behind . Now imagine trying to break that when it's flux arch'n you.

Urgat
21-08-2007, 10:45
Ganymede:
I like a lot your ideas, just:



Ogre Clubs: Attacks with an ogre club benefit from the armor piercing special rule. Otherwise, an ogre club counts as a hand weapon in all respects, so can be combined with an ironfist or an additional ogre club as normal.

Commentary – Not only does this change streamline the current rules for ogre clubs, it also allows a club wielder to maintain the advantage of using the club when paired with an ironfist or additional hand weapon. Primarily, this change encourages the purchase of the relatively expensive bull upgrades, upgrades which would ordinarily be outclassed by a plain ole ogre club.

Considering the current choppa rules, I'm willing to bet that it's gonna happen anyway.


Ironfist: Ironfists count as shields in all respects.

Commentary – While a cool concept, ironfists are largely redundant when compared to additional hand weapons. This change simplifies their rules while giving them a clearly different role than other upgrade options. Note that tyrants and bruisers would be able to purchase these at a slightly cheaper cost due to the fact that they are basically a shield and no longer a specialized weapon.

No >< There's already few gear options for the ogres, don't take one that IS useful, and not any more complicated than something like the Armed to da teeth rule.

Welf VIII.
21-08-2007, 11:34
I think there are too many special army rules. They should tone this down but at the moment they're doing the opposite.

Instead they should take a look at weapon rules.

Spear: In history spearmen were very effective in combat with riders. The rules don't reflect it. Okay, it's fantasy, but I see a lot of gamers, who don't field spearmen anymore because they are not very effective.

some rule suggestions:

spear

1. Fight in two ranks when they did not move the previous turn or aren't attacked from side or rear.

2. Always attack first in the first round of combat when facing other weapons than spear, pike or lance.

3. Initiative -2 in consecutive combat rounds, spears are often too clumsy in close combat.

4. Spears receive a strength bonus of +1 against cavalry.

pike

1. Always fight in two ranks if not attacked from side or rear.

2. Always attack first in first round against all weapons except other pikes.

3. Initiative -4 in consecutive combat turns.

4. Pikes receive a strength bonus of +2 against cavalry.

5. May not use shield

helbard

1. Attack first in first round against hand weapons

2. Strength +1

3. Armour breaking -1

4. May not use shield

scratchbuilt
21-08-2007, 14:36
But such a thing CAN be balanced. It would just mean a massive overhaul. If you went back and assigned value's to the baseline of stats that every unit in the game uses then you'll at least have the basic building blocks needed to assure units are accurately costed. It is impossible to be 100% balanced sure, but dis will at least go towards making the game more balanced.

Your Helstorm may be a better weapon against Tomb Kings but making it cost more when facing Tomb Kings and then less against Chaos for example is impractical and unneccesary. Just cost it to the best of its ability and everything else to the best of its ability. Yes there will be times when your fear causing unitz are less effective (say against Dwarves for example) but then again those Dwarves have to pay for the stats that make them more resistant to fear in the first place!

Annoying typing aside I agree absolutely. The maths involved would actually be quiet simple if you got some dedicated mathematicians involved.

That aside, bring back the old skeleton plastics, much better than the new ones. Good plastic skeletons are an asset to nearly every army if you like converting.