Invent a Rule!

[The bearded one]

My skinks are sickeningly useful already. My local opponents loathe my skinks a lot more than the horde of templeguard with slann

[TheDungen]

yeah but most skirmishers arent cheap as dirt and have poisoned attacks and are kinda useless now that they no longer can block marching.

[danny1995]

Infantry armed with spears when charge in the front by cavalry gain "Always Strikes First" for the first turn of combat, to represent the horses charging onto the wall of spikes.

[Hoshiyami]

Random table board.

Instead of placing the scenery at will, divide the board (in a 3 x 4 grid for example), pick up one element and random select where to place it (2 dice throws are enough), pick up the next one, etc.

This can result in a not-so-confortable board with hills on the middle of the table, forest on the deploy zone, impassable scenery separating your army and so on.

[Flash Felix]

Another couple of rules;

1. Shooting modifiers:
-Gain +1 to hit for every 15-20 models in a unit (5-6 Monstrous), to a maximum of +3. It should be easier to hit that unit of 50 Skavenslaves than a unit of 5.
-Gain +1 to hit for Large Targets. As it was in 7th Edition. A Furnace should be easier to hit than an individual Skaven

2. Building Combat: Combats do not end after a single turn. Combats continue until a unit breaks or is destroyed, as normal.

3. Line of Sight: Forests and Hills block Line of Sight. The current situation whereby forests are see-through and hills have trouble hiding halflings is due to our terrain generally not keeping up with the new LOS rules. Lets just accept that a forest is more than 3 trees, that the models are indicitive only, and that there are dozens or hundreds of trees. Same with hills; they don't have to be mountains, but let's accept that they're more than 5' high in game terms.

4. Forests and Movement: Non-Skirmish units cannot march through a forest. Individuals might be able to move through a forest at speed, but not formed bodies of troops, not if they want to maintain their formation. I don't want the farce of 7th Edition, where a unit would stumble round in a forest all game (no march, half move....), so a simple 'no march' should be enough to allow forests to have some effect on movement.

[Sh4d0w]

Another couple of rules;

1. Shooting modifiers:
-Gain +1 to hit for every 15-20 models in a unit (5-6 Monstrous), to a maximum of +3. It should be easier to hit that unit of 50 Skavenslaves than a unit of 5.
-Gain +1 to hit for Large Targets. As it was in 7th Edition. A Furnace should be easier to hit than an individual Skaven

2. Building Combat: Combats do not end after a single turn. Combats continue until a unit breaks or is destroyed, as normal.

3. Line of Sight: Forests and Hills block Line of Sight. The current situation whereby forests are see-through and hills have trouble hiding halflings is due to our terrain generally not keeping up with the new LOS rules. Lets just accept that a forest is more than 3 trees, that the models are indicitive only, and that there are dozens or hundreds of trees. Same with hills; they don't have to be mountains, but let's accept that they're more than 5' high in game terms.

4. Forests and Movement: Non-Skirmish units cannot march through a forest. Individuals might be able to move through a forest at speed, but not formed bodies of troops, not if they want to maintain their formation. I don't want the farce of 7th Edition, where a unit would stumble round in a forest all game (no march, half move....), so a simple 'no march' should be enough to allow forests to have some effect on movement.

These have to be the best combined idea's in a single post I have seen. I actually agree with all of this.

[Far2Casual]

Agree with 1-2-4, not with 3.

I have never really understood how anyone could argue that there could be "dozens or hundreds of trees" blocking LoS represented on the table by an area that is like 10"x4". I don't know, maybe it's specific to the forests in Belgium but I don't feel like I can't see anything 30 meters away because there are 2 trees in the way. It hampers shooting and movement, yes, but it would never block LoS to a 40-man unit. At least not "conventional" forests.

[The bearded one]

Agree with 1-2-4, not with 3.

I have never really understood how anyone could argue that there could be "dozens or hundreds of trees" blocking LoS represented on the table by an area that is like 10"x4". I don't know, maybe it's specific to the forests in Belgium but I don't feel like I can't see anything 30 meters away because there are 2 trees in the way. It hampers shooting and movement, yes, but it would never block LoS to a 40-man unit. At least not "conventional" forests.

that's a fair point. I was in the woods the previous week, and visibility into the woods was quite far, several hundred meters easily.

[The Low King]

4. Forests and Movement: Non-Skirmish units cannot march through a forest. Individuals might be able to move through a forest at speed, but not formed bodies of troops, not if they want to maintain their formation. I don't want the farce of 7th Edition, where a unit would stumble round in a forest all game (no march, half move....), so a simple 'no march' should be enough to allow forests to have some effect on movement.

I actually tried that in a game, even my unit of 25 really struggled to get through the forest effectively....moving 3" with my dwarfs? no thanks.

[Urgat]

How about -1D3 to the move? Everything is random already, why not that?

[Duke Ramulots]

that's a fair point. I was in the woods the previous week, and visibility into the woods was quite far, several hundred meters easily.

Try going into a southern california wooded area, you get maybe 50' of visibillity once off the trails.

[Urgat]

Yeah, it depends, people, there's not two forests that are alike :/. There's a small one near my parents place, in some places you can see a full hundred meters easily, and around the edges of the forest, you won't see past a couple meters because all the mess of plants growing. It's actually much thicker on the edges than deep inside. Maybe we just need two kind of forests, dense and... not dense

[The Low King]

Yeah, it depends, people, there's not two forests that are alike :/. There's a small one near my parents place, in some places you can see a full hundred meters easily, and around the edges of the forest, you won't see past a couple meters because all the mess of plants growing. It's actually much thicker on the edges than deep inside. Maybe we just need two kind of forests, dense and... not dense

I guess it depends on scale.

A lot of people seem to feel that one warhammer models represents multiple warriors, others feel its one-one. With the first approach a forest on the table could represent a full forest, complete with the visibility contraints. With the second approach a forest is more just a couple of trees next to each other, a copse or a thicket. Hardly something that fully blocks LOS or slows down a unit much, although it does provide some cover to shooting and messes up formations.

[Duke Ramulots]

Im in the camp of what you see is what you get. If the forest has three trees then it has three trees, if you have a unit of 40 grave guard, its 40, not 400. If you play with the 10 to 1 ratio then how do you use buildings? Is one building a whole village?

[The Low King]

Im in the camp of what you see is what you get. If the forest has three trees then it has three trees, if you have a unit of 40 grave guard, its 40, not 400. If you play with the 10 to 1 ratio then how do you use buildings? Is one building a whole village?

I am as well, thats why i can never understand some of the arguments where people talk about full forests

[DaemonReign]

Random table board.
Instead of placing the scenery at will, divide the board (in a 3 x 4 grid for example), pick up one element and random select where to place it (2 dice throws are enough), pick up the next one, etc.
This can result in a not-so-confortable board with hills on the middle of the table, forest on the deploy zone, impassable scenery separating your army and so on.

- Man I would like to hire you to come to our gaming group and help me against my friends on this issue. I always want to throw the chips in the air when it comes to terrain, while they're standing there going 'Hm.. meh.. no, don't place that forrest there it's just gonna mess with deployment...' - all the while I am standing there grinding my teeth in agony going: 'No you idiot it's supposed to mess with the damn deployment!' *lol*

These have to be the best combined idea's in a single post I have seen. I actually agree with all of this.

Personally I think it's good that Large Targets arn't easier to hit in this edition. It's silly enough that S 2-3 can wound a T6+ Monster so as long as Greater Daemons (for example) don't get more wounds and access to better wardsave I can't favor that idea. The old +1 ToHit from 7th Ed also implied that those medieval shooting weapons were a lot more accurate than they actually were.. Bows and Crossbows fires in very inaccurate archs - in reality you wouldn't even try to fire on a single "model", let alone a flier..

I also don't see what the problem is with making Hills that block Line of Sight. The GW modular hills are a bit "low", yes - why not just make your own. And again, a place where the terrain is a total rollecoaster wouldn't be a likely spot where two medieval armies decided to engage each other.

Try going into a southern california wooded area, you get maybe 50' of visibillity once off the trails.

Right. But such a mangrove would be concidered "impassable terrain" rather than forrest in Warhammer terms I would think.
Nobody in their right mind, regardless of unit-type, would walk into such a bush in the heat of battle.. Would they? I mean: Warhammer games captures a few "minutes" of 'real time'..

Im in the camp of what you see is what you get. If the forest has three trees then it has three trees, if you have a unit of 40 grave guard, its 40, not 400. If you play with the 10 to 1 ratio then how do you use buildings? Is one building a whole village?

And as usual it's just pointless making posts since Ramulots sums up my humble opinions in a nutshell anyway.

[panic_puppet]

Ok, here's one that might spark off a bit of debate... cap the unit size for the Watchtower scenario (hey, its only supposed to be a watchtower, not a fortress). Might make things a bit more balanced, rather than the current race of "who can get their huge unit of 50+ models with general and BSB in there the fastest". That, and/or +1 to FlashFelix's idea that building combats shouldn't end after a single turn. If you set it to a maximum occupancy of, for the sake of argument, 30, then you can actually have a decent scrap over it. I've seen too many games of uber-unit in the watchtower, something charges, can't break it because its always leadership stupid with a re-roll, and then can't grind it down because you have to back off every turn (which normally results in a flank charge from the other side).

[Duke Ramulots]

Just capping the number of models that can occupy any building would be a good change.

[The bearded one]

Just capping the number of models that can occupy any building would be a good change.

isn't it officially something like 5 models per floor?

[DaemonReign]

isn't it officially something like 5 models per floor?

5 models per floor may shoot, yes.

A cap that prevents you from entering more than, say, 20 models per floor would have made sense..