Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 254

Thread: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

  1. #1

    Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    ---------------------------------------------------Warhammer CE---------------------------------------------------

    What is Warhammer CE?
    Warhammer CE is a ‘living’ (continuously supported) rule set for WFB based on 6/7th ed. WFB with the goal to provide a balanced and tactically challenging play environment.

    The Vision
    The vision of the Warhammer CE project is to create a tight rule set that allows for tactical, challenging, competitive play of WFB. This includes a revision of all army lists, which were the core of most problems that were game breaking and caused the most grievance.
    To reflect the feel of Warhammer battles on the tabletop, armies that are built around a core of infantry with support from other units will be the most effective army builds point for point. In this way, restrictions for army lists shouldn’t be necessary for the most part and would give players more freedom in list building, if they are willing to take the hit in competitiveness.
    In the end, games should be won by the tactics used on the tabletop, not by the army list brought to the game.

    Why is it needed?

    The policy of marketing driven game design employed by GW does not provide a balanced and tactically challenging play environment.

    What’s in for me as a player?
    - Game balance driven by math/analytics/metrics and play testing / player feedback, not by the need to shift product.
    - Gameplay based on the core mechanic of Combat Resolution. Thereby making reasonably large blocks of infantry, that provide an economical way of CR, an integral part of the game.
    - Point costs that reflect the ‘true’ battlefield value which provides better balance and, coupled with more options and control in creating army lists, results in more variety and individualisation.
    - More affordable and enjoyable armies
    --- Balanced and varied armies are the most powerful while themed armies are completely legal
    --- Optimum unit sizes are reasonable (e.g. 20-30 for Infantry, 6-7 for Cavalry)
    - The complete rule set is free! Buy some ‘old’ army books for the fluff and spend the money saved on more miniatures!

    Where do I start?
    All you need is the WarhammerCE LRB (see link below) which contains all the rules and army lists you need to play.
    If you like to read more about the ideas behind the project and where it is coming from, have a look at ‘Introduction&GoldenRules’ and ‘Reasoning’.

    How can I contribute?
    Feedback is always welcome. Me and my play group can only play so many games, so the more games are played and the more feedback we get, the better this rule set will become in turn, benefiting all players in the end. That’s the idea of a living rule set after all!

    Questions?
    Feel free to ask!
    I will try to reply and update this project as timely as possible.

    Have fun playing "classic" Warhammer in the Old World!


    Latest Update (May 27, 2017):

    - Added LRB v1.04 and the corresponding changelog.


    Download Links:
    WarhammerCE LRB (all you need on 157 pages!): WarhammerCE LRB v1.04 (May 27, 2017)
    Changelog: Changelog LRB v1.04
    Miscellaneous: Diagrams, FAQ and Maps (Please ignore the terrain rules on the last page, use the updated terrain rules in the LRB instead!)

    Armybuilder:
    ArmyCreator Thanks "Ovaron76" for the awesome armybuilder!

    Battle Reports:
    Last edited by Seelenhaendler; 28-05-2017 at 16:20.
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  2. #2
    Chapter Master StygianBeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rhein Main Gebiet! Germany
    Posts
    1,197

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Cool, I like some things and dislike others.

  3. #3
    Chapter Master Col. Tartleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,419

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    I haven't had time to look through everything. But I thought I'd comment ahead of time so you don't get the impression that almost no one is looking at this.

  4. #4

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Thanks for your interest!

    Take your time, it is a lot of content after all
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  5. #5
    Chapter Master StygianBeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rhein Main Gebiet! Germany
    Posts
    1,197

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Special Rules
    Army wide
    Lead From the Rear: It is how it was in 6th. Grey Seers, Warlock Engineers or Plague Priests should not get this.
    Life is Cheap: Should be: May shoot or cast spells into CC. All successful hits against Enemy Models in the combat will be randomised onto the Skaven unit on a roll of 4+ (Shooting/Casting players choice).
    Live to Fight Another Day: Fine.
    Strength in Numbers: Fine.
    Unreliable: Drop this rule. Just make a General Skaven Misfire Chart. 1-2 Destroyed (with Large Round template). 3-4 Can not shoot this turn. 5-6 Roll Scatter Dice and Shoot/Charge/Move (may move out of combat).

    Life is Cheap should be changed to stop Template Weapons that only hit the Skaven unit from being randomised onto the enemy unit in CC.
    The 4+ randomisation should act the same way as previously with non-template shooting/spells.

    There should be a special rule Warpstone Amunition: where rolling 1 requires a further roll or suffer a wound/StrengthX hit as this description appears often.

    Beast Pack Whip Masters should only be shot on a roll of a 6 (or 1), just like Rat Pack.
    Doom Wheel The same except use the General Skaven Misfire Chart. 5-6 Roll Scatter Dice move 3D6 in this direction. Counts as Charge if contacts enemy (no charge reaction). Oh and the Lightning should only have a range = Strength of the roll on the Artilery dice.
    Expendable: Fine
    Hell Pit Abomination: Fine
    Slinking Advance: Drop it and make it Vanguard.
    Tunnelling Team: Fine, but if Tunnel team emerges BtB with Enemy it should count as a Charge.
    Weapon Team: Fine, but why is Poison Wind in the Clan Pestilence grouping? Poison Wind is Clan Skyre.
    Warpstone Token: Fine, but should be limited to 1 Token per spell.

    More later....

  6. #6

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Thanks for your detailed response!
    The Skaven really suffer from a lot of special rules and there is much room for optimisation.

    So let’s have a look at your suggestions:

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Special Rules
    Army wide
    Lead From the Rear: It is how it was in 6th. Grey Seers, Warlock Engineers or Plague Priests should not get this.
    Why should some character models not get this? Is it for fluff reasons?
    My intention was to keep the rule simple, i.e. no exceptions. The disadvantage for the characters you mention is that they no longer have LOS and therefore cannot cast spells that need LOS. So if it is only fluff, I think the current wording of the rules is equal to your version.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Life is Cheap: Should be: May shoot or cast spells into CC. All successful hits against Enemy Models in the combat will be randomised onto the Skaven unit on a roll of 4+ (Shooting/Casting players choice).
    I like it.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Unreliable: Drop this rule. Just make a General Skaven Misfire Chart. 1-2 Destroyed (with Large Round template). 3-4 Can not shoot this turn. 5-6 Roll Scatter Dice and Shoot/Charge/Move (may move out of combat).
    Dropping this rule is not an option as it describes an exception to the main rules.
    But condensing the described Misfire charts into 1 (or my preference 2) should be possible, even though they might suffer a bit (from the fluff perspective) doing so.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Life is Cheap should be changed to stop Template Weapons that only hit the Skaven unit from being randomised onto the enemy unit in CC.
    The 4+ randomisation should act the same way as previously with non-template shooting/spells.
    Good point. I will look into it.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    There should be a special rule Warpstone Amunition: where rolling 1 requires a further roll or suffer a wound/StrengthX hit as this description appears often.
    Very true. I had this idea before but discarded it because of the Warp Lightning spell which uses the to wound roll instead of the to hit roll. But after looking into it again, there are really a lot of weapons with this rule by now. So I think it is a good idea. The way the spell works can still be included in its description.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Beast Pack Whip Masters should only be shot on a roll of a 6 (or 1), just like Rat Pack.
    The idea behind it being different to the Rat Pack was, that the handler to beast ratio (in US) for Rat Ogre units is closer to 1:2 (1:3 to be exact) which translates to 66%, which was used. Also other monster and handler units use this ratio, so the idea was to be consistent.
    If there are no problems with it, then I would keep it as it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Doom Wheel The same except use the General Skaven Misfire Chart. 5-6 Roll Scatter Dice move 3D6 in this direction. Counts as Charge if contacts enemy (no charge reaction). Oh and the Lightning should only have a range = Strength of the roll on the Artilery dice.
    Why would you change it to not grant a charge reaction and why limit the range of the lightning?


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Slinking Advance: Drop it and make it Vanguard.
    This rule set is based on 7th edition. And as far as I know there is no vanguard rule in 7th.
    But you have a point, I could make it into a general special rule that could be used for other armies too.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Tunnelling Team: Fine, but if Tunnel team emerges BtB with Enemy it should count as a Charge.
    It was worded like intentionally for balancing reasons. Why would you change it?


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Weapon Team: Fine, but why is Poison Wind in the Clan Pestilence grouping? Poison Wind is Clan Skyre.
    Good point.
    The thing is, I was looking for themed groupings and there are no Clan Skryre troops (at least no infantry blocks). The poison stuff fitted the pestilence theme best so it went there. If I could move it to the ‘Skryre Clan’ but then there would only be only two groups left (see Weapon Teams special rules) which I would not prefer.
    In the fluff the Skryre Clan sells their inventions to all clans, therefor the groupings could still be justified. But I would definitely have to find a better name for the weapon teams.
    In the same vein, the warp grinder is not a Clan Eshin weapon either.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Warpstone Token: Fine, but should be limited to 1 Token per spell.
    Why?
    I think the risk/reward ratio is fine.
    Do you think it is overpowered?

    Thanks again for your feedback!
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  7. #7
    Chapter Master StygianBeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rhein Main Gebiet! Germany
    Posts
    1,197

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Special Rules
    Army wide
    Lead From the Rear: It is how it was in 6th. Grey Seers, Warlock Engineers or Plague Priests should not get this.
    The reasoning that Lead from the Rear should be combat Characters only is due to funtionality. Grey Seers/Engineers can do everything better than Warlords. So why choose a Warlord? With this rule on a normal Combat Hero, you could have the Hero unit hopping to buff Leadership. The Hero would actually have a use. Plus for Fluff reasons the combat Heroes should be able to lead the Skaven blocks in combat better than the non-combat characters.

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Unreliable: Drop this rule. Just make a General Skaven Misfire Chart. 1-2 Destroyed (with Large Round template). 3-4 Can not shoot this turn. 5-6 Roll Scatter Dice and Shoot/Charge/Move (may move out of combat).
    My reasoning for suggesting a General Skaven Misfire chart is because every War Machine in the Skaven book has a different chart, and it is annoying to have to look for it with every misfire. If all charts followed a General rule, this would make gaming with Skaven Warmachines easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Beast Pack Whip Masters should only be shot on a roll of a 6 (or 1), just like Rat Pack.
    I only suggested this for consistency between Rat and Beast Packs. Both should be 5+ or 6+, they should just require the same roll for the same of simplicity. I just prefer that it would be a 6+.

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Doom Wheel The same except use the General Skaven Misfire Chart. 5-6 Roll Scatter Dice move 3D6 in this direction. Counts as Charge if contacts enemy (no charge reaction). Oh and the Lightning should only have a range = Strength of the roll on the Artilery dice.
    The suggested changes are to make the Doom Wheel more consistent with the Warp Lightning Cannon (Strength and Distance travelled = Artilery Dice). It was also a reference to the 5th ed Doom Wheel (3D6 range). Also, I think with the Reduced range of the Lightning the Lightning could inflict D6 wounds, like the Warp Cannon. This would mean that funtionally the Doom Wheel would have to move close to the Enemy in order to have any effect, which I think is how a Doom Wheel should behave. The 'no charge reaction' was only in reference to the Misfire result, as I think your suggested Random movement rules are better than the current rules in 8th.

    This brings me to another suggestion, Special rule Random Movement (XD6): so that it does not have to be witten more than once.
    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    Tunnelling Team: Fine, but if Tunnel team emerges BtB with Enemy it should count as a Charge.
    In my experience getting the Tunnel Team in position at the right place and right time is seriously difficult. I just think there should be some reward (or fun) for the investment.

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach;6796461
    [b
    Warpstone Token:[/b] Fine, but should be limited to 1 Token per spell
    One of the complaints of 7th ed was all the ways Spellcasters could generate extra spell dice. It created overwhealming magic phases, where you either went 'all in' or did nothing at all. If you are serious about balancing 7th then I would hope you would attempt to address this. It is with the bigger picture in mind that I suggest 1 token per spell.

    Good Luck with finishing.

  8. #8

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    The reasoning that Lead from the Rear should be combat Characters only is due to funtionality. Grey Seers/Engineers can do everything better than Warlords. So why choose a Warlord? With this rule on a normal Combat Hero, you could have the Hero unit hopping to buff Leadership. The Hero would actually have a use. Plus for Fluff reasons the combat Heroes should be able to lead the Skaven blocks in combat better than the non-combat characters.
    In WFB CE combat characters do have a better Leadership than their spell-casting equivalents. So I think we share the same view here. For the moment I will not make any changes but if this turns out to be problematic, it is easy to fix.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    My reasoning for suggesting a General Skaven Misfire chart is because every War Machine in the Skaven book has a different chart, and it is annoying to have to look for it with every misfire. If all charts followed a General rule, this would make gaming with Skaven Warmachines easier.
    I am going to streamline the misfire tables but before that I need to strike a balance between playability and character/background/fluff of the units.


    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    The suggested changes are to make the Doom Wheel more consistent with the Warp Lightning Cannon (Strength and Distance travelled = Artilery Dice). It was also a reference to the 5th ed Doom Wheel (3D6 range). Also, I think with the Reduced range of the Lightning the Lightning could inflict D6 wounds, like the Warp Cannon. This would mean that funtionally the Doom Wheel would have to move close to the Enemy in order to have any effect, which I think is how a Doom Wheel should behave. The 'no charge reaction' was only in reference to the Misfire result, as I think your suggested Random movement rules are better than the current rules in 8th.
    I like the idea of going back to a random range for the DW. Good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    This brings me to another suggestion, Special rule Random Movement (XD6): so that it does not have to be witten more than once.
    True. I will add this rule to the special rules section in the general rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    In my experience getting the Tunnel Team in position at the right place and right time is seriously difficult. I just think there should be some reward (or fun) for the investment.
    At the moment they just lose the charge bonus which for them comes down to striking first. But since they have such a high Initiative, it doesn’t make a difference most of the time. I have to consider if striking first (even vs models with higher Initiative) is appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by StygianBeach View Post
    One of the complaints of 7th ed was all the ways Spellcasters could generate extra spell dice. It created overwhealming magic phases, where you either went 'all in' or did nothing at all. If you are serious about balancing 7th then I would hope you would attempt to address this. It is with the bigger picture in mind that I suggest 1 token per spell.
    You are right, this is a topic that has high priority and is taken seriously.
    But as the tokens are limited to D3 per grey seers, I don’t think there is a problem.
    I will keep an eye on it though.

    Thanks again for the time and effort put into your feedback.
    It is very welcome!
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  9. #9
    Chapter Master Gaargod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK, London
    Posts
    2,365

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    I'm still reading this, but I'd like to offer a suggestion.

    One of the biggest complaints about 7th ed was the 'army dance', where you wanted to be just out of the enemy's charge range. Which is, basically, silly, and was justifiably complained about.
    I came up with a fix a while back which I think pretty much works - it avoids the problems of 8th ed's highly unreliable and non-representative charging (i.e. Dwarves going 15"), whilst avoiding the dance.

    When charging, roll a number of D3s equal to your M stat.

    The average charge, obviously, stays the same at 2xM. But now your maximum and minimum are a) more representative of your actual speed, as you're not suddenly going to go 5 times your top speed (extreme example again), nor will you ever go slower than you would walking, and b) are more reliable, as you get to roll more dice, so outliers are rarer. And because you actually have to roll to determine your speed, it means you can never be 100% sure.

    Edit: You also mention tweaking Terror's 'all-or-nothing' ability, which you then don't actually do. Which is a little bit of a missed opportunity there - something like a -1LD aura would be quite good.
    Last edited by Gaargod; 11-06-2013 at 00:55.
    Quote Originally Posted by HellRaid View Post
    Gaargod... I think you win.
    Quote Originally Posted by theunwantedbeing View Post
    Give the guy a power penknife
    Provided it has sword, maul and hammer attachments he can freely switch in game :P

  10. #10

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaargod View Post
    I'm still reading this, but I'd like to offer a suggestion.

    One of the biggest complaints about 7th ed was the 'army dance', where you wanted to be just out of the enemy's charge range. Which is, basically, silly, and was justifiably complained about.
    I came up with a fix a while back which I think pretty much works - it avoids the problems of 8th ed's highly unreliable and non-representative charging (i.e. Dwarves going 15"), whilst avoiding the dance.

    When charging, roll a number of D3s equal to your M stat.

    The average charge, obviously, stays the same at 2xM. But now your maximum and minimum are a) more representative of your actual speed, as you're not suddenly going to go 5 times your top speed (extreme example again), nor will you ever go slower than you would walking, and b) are more reliable, as you get to roll more dice, so outliers are rarer. And because you actually have to roll to determine your speed, it means you can never be 100% sure.
    First, thanks for your interest in the project and for your feedback!

    I would like to use your first topic as an example of how feedback and new ideas are handled in WFB CE and that is through thorough analysis of the perceived problem and evaluation of possible solutions.

    Perceived problem of ‘army dance’ (I will call it standoff hereafter)
    In my experience the problems of true standoffs rarely occur and are almost always not a problem because of one important fact: they don’t happen in a vacuum.
    While in theory two opposing units could keep their distance from each other because they fear a devastating charge, in reality there are other units and effects (like shooting, magic, other units moving into better positions etc.) that prevent this situation from being a stalemate situation.
    Also, units creating a zone that discourages opposing units to enter (board control) are in and of itself not a problem but rather an important part of the game.

    But whether this is in fact a problem or not, WFB CE currently addresses this issue in the following ways:

    1) In WFB CE static combat resolution plays a major role and hard hitting units have been rebalanced. Therefore getting the charge is usually not decisive, i.e. it does not matter if you charge or not; there are other factors that have a major impact on the outcome of combats.
    This creates a fine balance between charging and defending:
    Advantages of charging:
    - Who fights whom
    - Charge bonuses
    - Secondary effects (panic, overruns etc.)
    - Timed magic buffs
    Advantages of defending:
    - Decide the position of the fight and the orientation of the enemy unit which is important for potential countercharges
    - Decide the direction of overruns/pursuits
    - More turns to shoot/magic the charging unit
    This makes the issue only relevant for units that either rely on the charge (e.g. chariots, cavalry) or that are hard hitting and fragile at the same time. The problem that could arise from this category of units should be covered by the next point.

    2) WFB CE encourages balanced armies. Getting units into close combat is an important part of the game but not the only option. As discussed above, not having units in close combat benefits other parts of a balanced army (e.g. ranged units) and denying opposing units specific areas of the board allows your units to get into better positions.
    In the end, this is only an issue for one dimensional armies and therefore further benefits balanced forces, which is a good thing.


    Ok, now that we had a look at how WFB CE addresses this topic, let’s have a look at random charges.
    Honestly, I do not see how it would fix this issue.

    If you want to stay out of charge ranges you would do so by staying out of the maximum charge range of units (or as close as you would be comfortable with). Whether the distance is random or not, would have no effect on this decision imo.

    Let’s compare the two mechanics:
    Classic charges (non-random, guessed):
    There is an area up to which the target is clearly in range, then there is a ‘grey’ area of about 1-2” (depending on the ability of the player to guess the distance) and finally an area that is clearly out of range. This creates a largely black and white situation with a small grey area and therefore small variance.
    Random charges:
    In comparison to the classic charges, the grey area is a lot larger which results in a larger variance, i.e. the actual charge distance is a lot harder to estimate.

    In the case both players like to get the charge this means that in the case of classic charges the player that makes a mistake gets charged while in the case of random charges the player that gets lucky gets the charge.
    So in one situation the player can blame the dice while in the other situation he can only blame himself for making a mistake. I understand that not every player likes this kind of self-exposure to criticism but this rule set is not for everybody. On the other hand the control and predictability the classic charges add to the game is an important factor for a tactically challenging game and imo the better game mechanic for this rule set.

    Another negative effect of random charges is that combo charges get increasingly unlikely by the number of units trying to charge at the same time. This not only discourages good tactical play but also benefits ‘deathstars’ that only rely on one charge and always provide the full combat potential.

    Summary:
    There is a perceived problem that gets addressed by multiple changes of the WFB CE rule set and which could turn out to be not a problem at all.
    While the proposed solution is a nice mechanic for a game with random movements, it does not fix the perceived problem per se but introduces a game mechanic with negative effects on the intended game play for WFB CE.

    Resolution:
    No changes for now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gaargod View Post
    Edit: You also mention tweaking Terror's 'all-or-nothing' ability, which you then don't actually do. Which is a little bit of a missed opportunity there - something like a -1LD aura would be quite good.
    It is no longer an 'all-or-nothing' ability because units could have to take multiple terror test in a single game. But I can see where you are coming from as its effect on the game is still rather black and white.
    The idea of adding a -1LD aura was removed from this version of the rule set because I didn’t want to make too many changes at once. Also the increasing number of terror causing creatures that armies have access to, influenced the decision.
    If terror causers are not adequately represented in the game, this idea could end up as a special rule for (specific) terror causers.

    I hope I could get my points across and thanks again for your feedback!
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  11. #11

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Quick Update:
    Dark Elves list is no available! (see first post)

    Whats next?
    - Revision of the Skaven special rules and the wording for how warmachines function.
    - Lizardmen and Orcs&Goblins are next. Then probably Chaos.

    Have fun!
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  12. #12

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Quick Update:
    - Orcs&Goblins list is no available!
    - Revision of all lists

    Whats next?
    - Lizardmen then Chaos.

    Have fun!
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  13. #13
    Commander draccan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    734

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Interesting project, but I have to say that 6th and 7th are my least favorite editions of Warhammer since 3rd. Any other editions would have been preferable. 6th was an unbalanced mess that favored fast-moving, skirmishing and flying units and death stars over large blocks of infantry. It was very un-fun to play Orcs or Empire. 8th finally got rid of all that mess.

    Anyways good luck with it!
    Currently venturing into:
    | Warmaster | By Fire and Sword | Lion Rampant | Saga | Dux Bellorum | Ol' School Fantasy (8th) | Epic Armageddon 4th. ed. | Flames of War | Blood Bowl | Necromunda | Mordheim | Dropzone Commander | Dropfleet Commander | Kings of War |

  14. #14
    Chaplain 8bitMummies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    175

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    I don't have anything to offer in the way of critique or playtesting but I want to give you a virtual high-five for undertaking such a creative project.
    Just downloaded the full pack, and the layout is clear and professional. I wasn't around during 6th-7th edition and this still looks like a blast to play. I'm anxious to give it a try in the future.
    Good luck with this, and as things develop further it'd be great to read some battle reports! Looking forward to a Beasts of Chaos list.
    "Mature manhood: that means to have rediscovered the seriousness one had as a child at play." - Nietzsche

  15. #15

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Latest Update:

    - Added Magic Cards for all army lists


    Quote Originally Posted by draccan View Post
    Interesting project, but I have to say that 6th and 7th are my least favorite editions of Warhammer since 3rd. Any other editions would have been preferable. 6th was an unbalanced mess that favored fast-moving, skirmishing and flying units and death stars over large blocks of infantry. It was very un-fun to play Orcs or Empire. 8th finally got rid of all that mess.

    Anyways good luck with it!
    8th got rid of deathstars?
    I am aware of the problems of 6th and 7th (see second part of 'Reasoning') and that is the reasons why this project exists in the first place.
    I can assure you that the problems you have highlighted have been taken into account and one way they have been addressed is by a more sophisticated point cost system that assesses point values much closer to the ingame value of a unit.


    Quote Originally Posted by 8bitMummies View Post
    I don't have anything to offer in the way of critique or playtesting but I want to give you a virtual high-five for undertaking such a creative project.
    Just downloaded the full pack, and the layout is clear and professional. I wasn't around during 6th-7th edition and this still looks like a blast to play. I'm anxious to give it a try in the future.
    Good luck with this, and as things develop further it'd be great to read some battle reports! Looking forward to a Beasts of Chaos list.
    Thanks for the kind words!
    As to your request: I will see what I can do
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  16. #16
    Commander draccan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    734

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Quote Originally Posted by Seelenhaendler View Post
    8th got rid of deathstars?
    I am aware of the problems of 6th and 7th (see second part of 'Reasoning') and that is the reasons why this project exists in the first place.
    I can assure you that the problems you have highlighted have been taken into account and one way they have been addressed is by a more sophisticated point cost system that assesses point values much closer to the ingame value of a unit.
    I never said death stars is not present in 8th, but they don't dominate. 6th ed. WFB was so filled with problems for horde armies that I just hated it and ended up selling my Orc and Empire out of frustration. Orcs really lacked proper counters against death stars.
    Examples and points:
    1. 8th ed. introduced the old percentage system back again. That is an immense adv. over a system where 1 orc or goblin lord could be fielded for 1 Vampire Lord.
    2. Infantry meant nothing as often fights were situational, that meant a few models fought in a large block. 8th ed. really made infantry matter and not just a huge blob of nothing never hitting back.
    3. Since infantry can really fight they can take down fliers, monsters and death stars if lucky. Before that a group of 20-40 orcs could hardly pinch a Vampire Lord.
    4. Magic is now very potent and can severely take down huge points sink like death stars. That mean a player will think twice before putting an über lord on an über beast and just charge on. They have to use them wisely and carefully.
    5. Magic in 6th could not counter balance the aforementioned deathstars or über lords.

    Those changes alone brought balance back into Warhammer and made it the best edition I have ever played. If I were to make a veterans edition I would mould it after that or possibly 4th or even 3rd. Never 6th which was tailored around making death stars viable and infantry suck.

    Other thoughts about my preferences:
    I for one (and I know many disagree) really don't think not having to roll dices for charges is in any way less challenging or tactical. In fact I think 8th is more tactical. Rolling dices means it is a game of averages, rather than just using superior skills in understanding distances (by using your eye vision or knowing terrain). Making it a game of averages and chances means you have to move much more closely without getting a sure charge or counter charge, that means preparing for all eventualities and is a MUCH improved gameplay. Dice rolling is not per se less tactical.

    8th ed. has brought a lot of good stuff. I just really want to get rid of a few OP spells, get rid of true line of sight and maybe a different rule than using templates (prefer dice rolling) and then I think they could close it forever and just balance army lists and create new cool units for armies and whole new armies.

    Good luck though!

    I also like
    Currently venturing into:
    | Warmaster | By Fire and Sword | Lion Rampant | Saga | Dux Bellorum | Ol' School Fantasy (8th) | Epic Armageddon 4th. ed. | Flames of War | Blood Bowl | Necromunda | Mordheim | Dropzone Commander | Dropfleet Commander | Kings of War |

  17. #17
    Chapter Master logan054's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Camden Town, London, uk
    Posts
    8,683

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Quote Originally Posted by draccan View Post
    If I were to make a veterans edition I would mould it after that or possibly 4th or even 3rd. Never 6th which was tailored around making death stars viable and infantry suck.
    I have to agree with this, I like what your trying to do with the project but I think you could benefit a lot from more ideas from 3rd ed, I've been reading it recently and it has so many cool rules that I think would really add some depth to the game. The way combat works with pushing you opponent back and getting bonuses for winning is very nice, frenzy that has to be activated by actually entering combat, a WS chart that provides more a defensive bonus for having a higher WS, this is a slightly tweaked version of the chart to give you more of a idea of what I mean.


    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    1 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
    2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6
    3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6
    4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6
    5 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
    6 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
    7 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5
    8 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5
    9 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
    10 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4


    Then with this in mind if you charge your get +1 to hit for charging or +1 to hit for pushing your opponent back (winning combat but not breaking them), back in 3rd you pushed the unit back 2" and had a option to follow up or not. Another cool thing I liked what that rather than wiping out a unit when they flee you get a free hit on on them and then again if you catch them, sounds pretty cool, back then it was a auto hit but I think rolling to hit would be more fair (maybe at +1/2). On a side note I would change the MoN with this all in mind, it's stupid.

    After reading many posts on warseer I'm starting to think rules like ASF and ASL should be replaced, I would replace ASF with a rule like Agility? basically if you model has higher I then it gets +1 to hit and a 6+ dodge (kinda like FNP in 40k), I would replace ASL with a rule like Cumbersome? attacks made with the weapon are at -1/2I

    I like what you've done with KB, you expand it to HKB doing D3 wounds as well, poisoned attacks is cool and the same as 3rd ed, it would be cool if it didn't work on models that are not alive as well.

    With random charges I prefer random charges than a fixed distance, I don't like how they did it in 8th, the D3 per M value seems like a nice idea.

    Something worth looking at is the weapons from 3rd, I like them far more to any other edition I have played! spears are very nice +1I first wound of combat, +2 if charged by cavalry, great weapons being +1S, AP and -1 I, halberds +1S and when against Cav +1I. You have lots of other things like most ranged weapons have AP at short range, handguns have ap1 7-12" and ap2 when within 6" (armour works differently in 3rd, thats how I would translate it into 8th advanced). Lances provided +2I, +2S and AP on the charge, spears get +1 to hit when mounted but on the charge also give +1S and I. Even hand weapons when mounted provide a +1 to hit which is very nice.

    The challenge rules seem much better, basically big things can fight more than one opponent in challenge, basically if my daemon prince charges into a unit of temple guard with a couple of heros, both heroes would be able to step forward and the unit could still attack him, the basic idea is if some big scary guy marches into a unit, the hero is still going to get some help rather than his mates standing about watching as he is butchered.

    I really had no idea just how badly they had dumped down warhammer over the years, so many of the rules would make the game so much more interesting!
    Last edited by logan054; 17-12-2013 at 23:29.

  18. #18

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    Thanks for your replies!

    @draccan:
    Each edition had its pros and cons. Usually each new edition added more things I liked than not but for me (and a lot of other players) this stopped with 8th ed.
    Don't get me wrong, 8th is a perfectly fine game. It is just not my cup of tea.
    In the end there is no right or wrong, there is just preference.

    You compare 8th to 6th/7th but this thread is not about which edition is better, it is about WFB CE
    While 8th addressed a lot of issues, it created many new ones in doing so. WFB CE on the other hand tries to fix the root of the problem.
    Lets take deathstars as an example:
    8th tries to balance deathstars by introducing game-changing spells, which on the one hand can handle deathstars but on the other hand cause a lot of problems on their own.
    WFB CE handles this issue by removing the option to build deathstars in the first place.

    The problem GW has is that they don't want to make changes to already released material which leaves them with limited options to fix things. If you assume that 'balance' is even in the interest of the company
    If you are interested in what is possible when you can make amendments to the core rules and the army lists at the same time then I would like to invite you to give this rule set a look.


    @logan054
    I started with 4th ed, so I am not too familiar with 3rd ed. But there are a lot of great ideas in there and I would love to play a game of 3rd ed some day.

    That said, I am still perfectly happy with basing this project on 6th/7th ed because they are the editions I had the most fun with WFB and it has many advantages:
    - army books for all races are available
    - problems with the core rules and the army books are well known
    - the size of the armies (at 2000p) are perfect for a 4x6' table and are manageable for new players IMO
    - the army composition is a good reflection of the vision of warhammer IMO

    While your ideas are interesting and some of them (like a different to-hit table) had even been considered during the rewrite of the rule set, their impact on the game would be so big that we would have to start form scratch.
    The way close combats worked in 3rd ed reminds me of Warmaster. Changing battle lines is an interesting concept but I don't think it would work with the armies of today, e.g. it would be virtually impossible to destroy some larger units with only a few extra hits when they break from combat. The risk of losing the whole unit is an important balancing point that keeps players from putting 'all eggs in one basket'.
    The weapon rules are very detailed but I am not sure the effect on the game is worth the additional complexity. As far as I can see 3rd ed was more about the individual soldier while the more recent editions put the focus more on units. Therefore I think the current version of this rule set strikes a good balance of detail and streamlining but I might consider some of the rules for future tweaking.

    Again, thanks for your comments!
    If you are interested in experiencing WFB in a new way, have a look at the Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans thread!

    Also check out the WFB CE Battle Report!

  19. #19
    Commander draccan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    734

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    @Seelenhaendler
    I didn't mention only magic, but also army composition (!) and how units get to fight in more ranks, both which is important for armies that suffered in 6th. (incl. Orcs). All the changes working together lessen the impact of a death star.

    That said you are right. This thread is about your project so no more comments on this from my part. Good luck with it!
    Currently venturing into:
    | Warmaster | By Fire and Sword | Lion Rampant | Saga | Dux Bellorum | Ol' School Fantasy (8th) | Epic Armageddon 4th. ed. | Flames of War | Blood Bowl | Necromunda | Mordheim | Dropzone Commander | Dropfleet Commander | Kings of War |

  20. #20
    Chapter Master logan054's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Camden Town, London, uk
    Posts
    8,683

    Re: Warhammer CE: the definitive rule set for WFB veterans

    The problem with basing on 6th is you haven't really addressed one of the main issues with 6th/7th ed, my cavalry charge you unit with its character, my unit wipes out your front rank, your character might kill a model, your break, I catch you, you die. It was never a good system and sadly I don't see you taking the good aspects from 8th, stepup, always fighting in I order, steadfast. While I don't like a lot of changes to 8th, the random charges being to random, steadfast being reliable, 6th is a massive step backwards as a basis of any game. I think the only things when I look back I liked about 6th ed was the HoC book and running and people will what at the time seemed like really cool chaos models, I hated 7th ed once they brought out the WoC book.

    Another good thing 8th ed did was add in the common magic items, it saves a lot of work having all the 4+ 5+ wardsaves in one place rather than having to think of new names for basically the same item.

    I really dislike the deathstars of 8th and I also dislike how the spells work, so what your doing with magic does seem like a improvement bar needing a wizard to dispel, sure, give someone a advantage to casting for having, it doesn't need to be so clear cut. While you remain using the same WS chart your stuck in the problem that has plagued warhammer for along time (I' not saying the one I posted is perfect, I noitced a few errors with WS10), S,T followed by attacks are your most important stats. With 6th ed, no step up ASF becomes a very powerful ability on anything with a high strength value.

    With army composition I don't think they have gotten right, I think 7th + 8th is your best bet (i.em slots +1 percentages), it limits the spamming and stops the min maxing to the same degree we had in both editions.

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •