Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 254

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

  1. #21

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

    Quote Originally Posted by draccan View Post
    @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!
    I didn't want to shut down the conversation. I merely want to move the discussion in the right direction.
    There is no point in talking about the shortcomings of 6th/7th because -although based on 6th/7th- this project made some significant changes to the rules and army lists specifically that should address those problems.
    Therefore I would rather discuss the problems you see with this rule set and what changes you think are going too far / not far enough.

    An excerpt from 'Reasoning' to get you an idea of the thought process the project went through:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reasoning.pdf
    Infantry
    In the vision of Warhammer, infantry units play an integral part and constitute the core of most armies. To do this vision justice, it is important that infantry also plays an important role on the battlefield and is not merely forced upon the player.
    Biggest Complains (BC):
    Compared to other units, infantry usually is not worth it. It is generally slow, does not hit very hard, does not stand up to most things it faces, big units are too expensive for most armies and overall there are normally better things to spend points on.
    Root of the Problem (RP):
    The problem is not that infantry is too weak but that other units are too over the top to render static CR and thereby infantry units useless.
    Fix:
    The most important change that will single-handedly make infantry viable is golden rule 2, i.e. making static CR an integral part of the game again. In addition, the way point costs will be calculated and magic works (more buffs), benefit large units most. The changes to terrain also give infantry units options to maneuver the battlefield quicker. Last but not least, infantry units should be, point for point, the most effective units in the game.

    Gunlines
    BC: Gunlines are not fun to play (against).
    RP: In large numbers shooting gets increasingly more powerful, which is not reflected in the point costs of shooting units.
    Fix: Golden rule 1 should take care of this problem. If not, additional restrictions could be implemented.

    Invincible/overpowered characters/units
    BC: Invincible/overpowered characters/units are not fun to play (against).
    RP: Some armies have access to powerful combinations of equipment, special rules and units.
    Fix: The combination of GR1-3 should fix this problem. The first thing would be to get rid of these combinations if they are game breaking or to price them accordingly to their effects. The toning down of powerful units to make static CR an integral part of the game again, should make this problem a thing of the past.

    Deathstars
    As an extreme form of the 'Invincible/overpowered characters/units', it shares the same complaints and reasons for the problem (see above). But in addition to the fix described above there need to be other steps taken to make such units unappealing. Deathstars usually consist of units that are either unbreakable, stubborn and/or ItP and a group of characters that create a unit that is too powerful to deal with for a balanced army. The way unit costs are calculated (GR1) could in fact aggravate the situation, therefore units that get potentially better with a larger unit size will have to cost more the bigger the unit gets (e.g. fear causers) or need to have a maximum unit size (e.g. unbreakable units). Another way to deal with deathstars without restricting them, is to implement win conditions for scenarios (like making table quarters worth a good chunk of points) that make deathstars detrimental to winning.
    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. #22
    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

    Sadly it doesn't address the main issue of 6th, the charger will usually win and break his opponent because all the defending unit usually has to rely on is its static combat res. This is why pretty much every cav unit was 5/6 guys with hero, a banner and warbanner. The anti-cav rule helps a little but bar Elf spearmen (who will still die, they will just cause causality or two) and pikemen, cavalry will still destroy infantry block. It's not like those units will ever get into combat with a fast moving unit anyway, they will pick the fights they want. I rarely mattered how large the unit was, while your combat system is based on the charger getting such an advantage (striking first), Fast moving armies will usually win because they will get the charge, wipe out the front rank and break the enemy. The change to the pursue rate of Heavy Cavalry does help, it just makes the chance of your unit surviving more random.

    I really do like what your trying to do, 7th was better than 8th in a lot of ways, 8th did get a few things right (or in the right direction), ignoring those and trying to improve them is just a step backwards, with 8th, I think it took a few steps sideways.

  3. #23

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

    Thanks for taking a look at the rules!

    Let me address the points you brought up:

    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    Sadly it doesn't address the main issue of 6th, the charger will usually win and break his opponent because all the defending unit usually has to rely on is its static combat res.
    Ok,what do you mean by 'usually'? Lets take a look at the statistics.
    In the current rule set a unit of good heavy cavalry (WS4+, S5+) will inflict about 5 wounds on the charge to an average unit of infantry (WS3, T3, AS5+). Because of the static combat resolution the infantry block will only lose the combat by 1. Even if the unit has a low Ld of 7 and does not benefit from any command bonuses (e.g. general, BSB), it will only break from combat less than 60% of the time. This IMO is far from reliable and fits the vision of devastating cavalary charges and stoic infantry blocks very well.


    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    This is why pretty much every cav unit was 5/6 guys with hero, a banner and warbanner.
    In this rule set cavalry is comparatively expensive. This means that a unit of 5 heavy cav usually costs as much as a unit of 25-30 infantry. If you add full command, a warbanner and a hero the unit will cost at least twice as much. This should give the player of the infantry unit enough resources to counter the unit.

    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    The anti-cav rule helps a little but bar Elf spearmen (who will still die, they will just cause causality or two) and pikemen, cavalry will still destroy infantry block. It's not like those units will ever get into combat with a fast moving unit anyway, they will pick the fights they want.
    The small buff to spears was not meant as a hard counter to cavalry and is intentionally weak. On average a unit of spearmen will only kill 1 knight if charged but this is enough to draw the combat! Also the potential risk of losing multiple models when charging a unit of spearmen is more important than the actual effect. This also fits the vision of Warhammer IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    It rarely mattered how large the unit was, while your combat system is based on the charger getting such an advantage (striking first),
    In this rule set striking first is not such a huge advantage as it might seem. Because the army lists are based on 6th ed, rank and file models are much weaker than their current equivalents. A rank of models usually only inflicts 1-2 casualties (even Chaos Warriors with halberds inflicts less than 3 casualties on average!). This means that the charger reduces the number of attacks coming back by 1-2, which is a slight (and fitting) advantage but far from game breaking IMO.
    The added advantage of weaker troops is that it makes combat heroes relevant again.

    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    Fast moving armies will usually win because they will get the charge, wipe out the front rank and break the enemy.
    See first point above.
    The goal is to make balanced armies the most competitive/viable. Should fast moving armies dominate the game then there are many ways to further restrict choices that are problematic. Currently the army composition restrictions are very lax and allow for a large variety of lists.

    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    The change to the pursue rate of Heavy Cavalry does help, it just makes the chance of your unit surviving more random.
    This is intentional and makes heavy cav even less reliable in line breaking.


    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    I really do like what your trying to do, 7th was better than 8th in a lot of ways, 8th did get a few things right (or in the right direction), ignoring those and trying to improve them is just a step backwards, with 8th, I think it took a few steps sideways.
    I am not ignoring 8th and I am open to adapt new concepts that improve the game in the right way.
    This project started at the end of 7th and it was doubtful if 8th would be better. I have to admit that I am positively surprised about the power level of 8th ed army books so far but GW still does not address the real problems with the game, namely 1) not releasing army list for all armies at the same time that have been writen in a consitent manner and with the same design philosophy and 2) not making changes should they become necessary.
    So far I am still very happy with the decision to base this rule set on 6th/7th and am pleased with the way this project develops.

    Edit:
    Corrected a "will only break from combat less than 40%" into will only break from combat less than 60%".
    Last edited by Seelenhaendler; 19-12-2013 at 08:33.
    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!

  4. #24
    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 Seelenhaendler View Post
    Ok,what do you mean by 'usually'? Lets take a look at the statistics.
    In the current rule set a unit of good heavy cavalry (WS4+, S5+) will inflict about 5 wounds on the charge to an average unit of infantry (WS3, T3, AS5+). Because of the static combat resolution the infantry block will only lose the combat by 1. Even if the unit has a low Ld of 7 and does not benefit from any command bonuses (e.g. general, BSB), it will only break from combat less than 40% of the time. This IMO is far from reliable and fits the vision of devastating cavalary charges and stoic infantry blocks very well.
    The problem Cavalry in previous editions are not Empire Cavalry or Silver Helms! It was things like dragon princes, Cold one knights, blood Dragons, chaos knights, stuff like that, generally stuff that that could pump out mutiple high strength attacks or hit more reliably (or combination of the two), Brets are another topic because of the lance formation, static combat res hardly ever came into it because it was simply, flank charge, those unit with a character did not usually only win combat by 1.

    In this rule set cavalry is comparatively expensive. This means that a unit of 5 heavy cav usually costs as much as a unit of 25-30 infantry. If you add full command, a warbanner and a hero the unit will cost at least twice as much. This should give the player of the infantry unit enough resources to counter the unit.
    On the flip side to this a warbanner and hero are something that no doubt the other person will be using, so it isn't a case of having more resources, it simply a case of having the resources in a fast moving unit concentrated into a single weaker unit for easy VP with the hope of causing panic. One thing 8th ed has done is removed the chance of cavalry frontal charging and wiping out a unit. Because of how similar this rule set is to 7th I don't think you have done enough to counter this tactic. Pricing isn't the issue, it's how the combat system works. Charger wipes out front rank, charger will generally win, charger overruns and hopes to cause some panic tests disrupting a battle line.

    The small buff to spears was not meant as a hard counter to cavalry and is intentionally weak. On average a unit of spearmen will only kill 1 knight if charged but this is enough to draw the combat! Also the potential risk of losing multiple models when charging a unit of spearmen is more important than the actual effect. This also fits the vision of Warhammer IMO.
    If they only fight in two ranks, the front rank gets wiped, the 2nd rank will more often than not being hitting on a 4+, so with a 5 wide rank that 2.5 hits, thats less than a 50% chance of even scoring a killing blow, honestly, I would say killing one model is very unlikely. This is why the step up rule comes in handy, it does mean a unit does stand a chance of taking a knight or two with them, this would make small units of knights less effective forcing larger units, the knock on effect being taking knights becomes less effective because of the points you need to invest in them. Rather than being a frontal assault unit (bar the obvious ones of course) they become more of a support unit aiming for flanks. Thats how it should be (unless your talking brets of course).

    In this rule set striking first is not such a huge advantage as it might seem. Because the army lists are based on 6th ed, rank and file models are much weaker than their current equivalents. A rank of models usually only inflicts 1-2 casualties (even Chaos Warriors with halberds inflicts less than 3 casualties on average!). This means that the charger reduces the number of attacks coming back by 1-2, which is a slight (and fitting) advantage but far from game breaking IMO.
    The added advantage of weaker troops is that it makes combat heroes relevant again.
    I played a lot of 6th and 7th, I know exactly the advantage it is the only reason rank and file are much weaker than now is because of the horde rule and supporting attacks, the horde rule isn't a good idea, supporting attacks however are a good rule. Dear god, you basing Chaos warriors on the HoC book, I have lost all faith in you now! Might just be I am far to use to using infantry with mutiple attacks in 6th, I can certainly recall wiping out front ranks being a common thing!

    I am not ignoring 8th and I am open to adapt new concepts that improve the game in the right way.
    This project started at the end of 7th and it was doubtful if 8th would be better. I have to admit that I am positively surprised about the power level of 8th ed army books so far but GW still does not address the real problems with the game, namely 1) not releasing army list for all armies at the same time that have been writen in a consitent manner and with the same design philosophy and 2) not making changes should they become necessary.
    So far I am still very happy with the decision to base this rule set on 6th/7th and am pleased with the way this project develops.
    Well to be fair, they haven't got that many books to go now, I'm not a massive fan of 8th, its ok, the books are far better than 7th (like the DE, DoC, VC filth we had), like I said, it does have some good ideas rather than simply ramping up prices.

  5. #25

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

    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    The problem Cavalry in previous editions are not Empire Cavalry or Silver Helms! It was things like dragon princes, Cold one knights, blood Dragons, chaos knights, stuff like that, generally stuff that that could pump out mutiple high strength attacks or hit more reliably (or combination of the two), Brets are another topic because of the lance formation, static combat res hardly ever came into it because it was simply, flank charge, those unit with a character did not usually only win combat by 1.
    I know and that is exactly why this rule set not only makes amendments to the core rules but also -and more importantly- to the army lists.
    Dragon Princes for example no longer have 2A each. They are a perfect example of power creep. They never had 2A before their 7th ed army book which was one of the first army books that broke the game by introducing ASF as an army wide rule IMO. They don't need 2A to work in the game and to be faithful to the fluff.
    I have no problem with Blood Dragons or chaos knights being able to reliably crush a unit of infantry on the charge. That is what they are supposed to do and is true to the fluff. On the other hand they have various disadvantages like high point costs, frenzy and are part of armies that have limited shooting abilities so redirectors can become a problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    On the flip side to this a warbanner and hero are something that no doubt the other person will be using, so it isn't a case of having more resources, it simply a case of having the resources in a fast moving unit concentrated into a single weaker unit for easy VP with the hope of causing panic. One thing 8th ed has done is removed the chance of cavalry frontal charging and wiping out a unit. Because of how similar this rule set is to 7th I don't think you have done enough to counter this tactic. Pricing isn't the issue, it's how the combat system works. Charger wipes out front rank, charger will generally win, charger overruns and hopes to cause some panic tests disrupting a battle line.
    Apart form very few units (see above), there are virtually no units that can reliably break a block of infantry on the charge.
    An additional disadvantage of heavy cav, that has not been mentioned, is that they are no longer able to march. This not only reduces their maneuverability but also gives the opponent more time react or inflict casualties with ranged attacks or spells. Usually a few casualties is all you need to reduce their line breaking ability significantly.


    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    If they only fight in two ranks, the front rank gets wiped, the 2nd rank will more often than not being hitting on a 4+, so with a 5 wide rank that 2.5 hits, thats less than a 50% chance of even scoring a killing blow, honestly, I would say killing one model is very unlikely. This is why the step up rule comes in handy, it does mean a unit does stand a chance of taking a knight or two with them, this would make small units of knights less effective forcing larger units, the knock on effect being taking knights becomes less effective because of the points you need to invest in them. Rather than being a frontal assault unit (bar the obvious ones of course) they become more of a support unit aiming for flanks. Thats how it should be (unless your talking brets of course).
    You are correct that it is more likely than not for the 5 wide unit to not score a killing blow. But that is ok because, as I said before, they are not supposed to be a hard counter. Alternatively the relatively low point costs would allow the spearmen to rank up 6 or even 7 models wide, which would increase their chances to draw the combat considerably. In the end it is all about options as it should be.
    I don't like the step up rule as it neuters a complete category of troops ('glasscannons') and necessitates unnecessary special rules to make armies that rely on high initiative (like elves) viable again.
    I am quite confident that the changes that were made to cavalry in WFB CE promote the play style we both seem to envision for them.


    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    I played a lot of 6th and 7th, I know exactly the advantage it is the only reason rank and file are much weaker than now is because of the horde rule and supporting attacks, the horde rule isn't a good idea, supporting attacks however are a good rule. Dear god, you basing Chaos warriors on the HoC book, I have lost all faith in you now! Might just be I am far to use to using infantry with mutiple attacks in 6th, I can certainly recall wiping out front ranks being a common thing!
    The power level of units is considerably higher. In 7th people thought light armour to be worthless, now even a 4+AS is barely viable. Also cc units that do not possess at least S5+ and have access to rerolls to hit are considered sub par. People always lament that under 7th they lost their front rank when charged but under 8th people are losing whole units even when they get the charge.
    Regarding the chaos warrios: the non-chosen CW only had one attack in 6th. I haven't started on Chaos yet and I don't say it is the right way to go, but the designers at GW thought it to be a good thing at that time. In the end the point cost has to reflect their ingame ability and there needs to be something that differentiates chosen from your 'common' chaos warrior.


    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    Well to be fair, they haven't got that many books to go now, I'm not a massive fan of 8th, its ok, the books are far better than 7th (like the DE, DoC, VC filth we had), like I said, it does have some good ideas rather than simply ramping up prices.
    True but 9th ed is also right around the corner. If 8th ed is anything to go by then the changes to the core rules are likely to break some 8th ed army books.
    But as far as the rumors go, 9th ed might introduce new army lists for all factions. We will see...
    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!

  6. #26

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

    Major Update:
    - Dwarfs list available
    - Lizardmen list available

    Next up:
    - Revison/Udate of Woodelves, Highelves and Empire to include new units and flesh out the lists
    - Revision of all lists to improve balance
    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. #27

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

    Update
    - Revised Wood Elves list available

    Changelog Wood Elves V0.6

    - Special Rules:
    -- Forest Spirits lost their Ward Save
    -- Strangle Roots rewritten
    -- Removal of unnecessary rules and some minor revisions
    - Magic:
    -- Added some new spells
    - New units:
    -- Wildwood Rangers
    -- Sisters of the Thorn
    -- Spearmen
    -- Wild Rider Lord/Hero
    -- Wardancer Lord/Hero
    -- Glamourweave Lord/Hero
    - Unit changes:
    -- Dryads
    --- Gained Scaly Skin (5+)
    --- Initiative 5
    --- Lost Fear
    -- Treekin
    --- WS 3
    --- Scaly Skin (4+)
    --- Reduced cost to 150p+Nx30p
    -- Treeman
    --- Strangle Roots as an option
    --- Lost Wall of Vines
    --- Reduced cost by 25p
    -- Wardancers
    --- Total revision
    -- Wild Riders
    --- Total revision
    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!

  8. #28
    Modinator Lord Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Future
    Posts
    10,209

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

    I have a couple of things I'm confused on:

    -Why are casters so cheap? 55 points for a Lv. 4 Spellsinger seems like a no-brainer.
    -Why does the per-model cost for units get cheaper as the unit gets bigger? Doesn't that just encourage deathstars?

  9. #29
    Chapter Master Shadeseraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,547

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Dan View Post
    -Why are casters so cheap? 55 points for a Lv. 4 Spellsinger seems like a no-brainer.
    I'm guessing because you have to pay for the spells, and those are very expensive (50 to 75 pts each). Furthermore, from reading his houserules, a caster only can use the dice he himself has generated to cast Petty Magic, which is, in theory, worse than battle magic (which has to be cast from a shared and fixed magic roll that is independent from the casters themselves). This means that the actual advantage of a lvl 4 over, say, a lvl 2, is relatively small. Most of the advantages comes from being able to buy more spells and having access to a wider array of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Dan View Post
    -Why does the per-model cost for units get cheaper as the unit gets bigger? Doesn't that just encourage deathstars?
    It's based on 7th, so no steadfast, no step-up, no supporting attacks and no attack by initiative against charges. That means larger units give diminishing returns. That's actually something that makes sense with this ruleset.

    My own, personal problem is that I'm unable to guess ranges. I have a servere sight problem, which means my depth perception is horrible. As in, your 1-2" grey zone is for me easily 4-5". So sorry, but I can't play with this. I tried before with 7th-6th edition, but until 8th edition and premeasuring I was unable to play at any competitive level, and I was only able to play 5th because of flying high and herohammer (and I abandoned it because it was horribly boring and uninteresting).
    Last edited by Shadeseraph; 21-06-2014 at 00:44.

  10. #30

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Dan View Post
    I have a couple of things I'm confused on:

    -Why are casters so cheap? 55 points for a Lv. 4 Spellsinger seems like a no-brainer.
    Just like Shadeseraph explained, you have to add the costs of the spells to the model to get the full picture. In WFB CE wizards have to buy their spells like equipment. In the case of the WE Spellweaver the minimum cost would actually be 175p (base cost + 1 cheap PM spell + 2 cheap BM spells).
    This system allows for better point allocation (you pay for what you get), i.e. balance, and gives the player control over the abilities of his wizards and their effects on his game plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Dan View Post
    -Why does the per-model cost for units get cheaper as the unit gets bigger? Doesn't that just encourage deathstars?
    Let me quote Shadeseraph: “It's based on 7th, so no steadfast, no step-up, no supporting attacks and no attack by initiative against charges. That means larger units give diminishing returns.” (Thanks again!)
    This is very important and the key to why deathstars are not the best way to go. If there is an actual risk to lose a unit if you make a mistake (like getting flanked) at all times and there is no benefit in running huge units (except for more wounds), then fielding deathstars is not the best option. Btw, also the number of characters that can join a single unit is limited to 2.
    There are a few armies, namely Undead and Daemons, that benefit from larger unit sizes because of the way Fear works. Their per-model cost for example does not get cheaper (mostly) and could in theory even increase, should there be a need for it. The beauty of this point system is that it allows for a more differentiated point cost allocation which in turn helps to better reflect the ingame effectiveness of units in their point costs.
    Also IMO the game does not benefit from using only a few but huge (40+ models) units that feel like very expensive wound counters.
    I know that a lot of people are fond of the new traits introduced by 8th: steadfast, supporting attacks and no first strike bonus for charging units. They sound like a good idea at first but are ultimately breaking the game. I don’t want to go into too much detail here, so let me just say this: they work in (and define) 8th but do not support the diverse game play that I like in WFB.
    IMPORTANT: Please remember that the damage output of units is very low (reasonable) compared to the current edition. This means that combats are dominated by static combat resolution (i.e. ranks, outnumber(!) and flanking bonuses) and that (unlike in 8th) wounds caused are usually not the deciding factor. This results in games where the winner is determined by maneuvers not by the luck of the dice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shadeseraph View Post
    … Furthermore, from reading his houserules, a caster only can use the dice he himself has generated to cast Petty Magic, which is, in theory, worse than battle magic (which has to be cast from a shared and fixed magic roll that is independent from the casters themselves). This means that the actual advantage of a lvl 4 over, say, a lvl 2, is relatively small. Most of the advantages comes from being able to buy more spells and having access to a wider array of them.
    The idea behind the differentiation of petty magic (PM) and battle magic (BM) was to restrict the potentially devastating effects of magic to a reasonable level. This was achieved by limiting those spells to BM and therefore the limited power dice available through the winds of magic. PM on the other hand allows a player to expand on spells that manly consist of small buff which do not threaten the balance of the game. PM also allowed to consolidate various (magical) abilities into a common rules mechanism.
    The major advantage of a Lvl 4 wizard, apart from his better access to spells and equipment, is that he is able to cast spells with more dice. In WFB CE the number of dice that a wizard is allowed to use for a single spell is his level+1.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shadeseraph View Post
    My own, personal problem is that I'm unable to guess ranges. I have a servere sight problem, which means my depth perception is horrible. As in, your 1-2" grey zone is for me easily 4-5". So sorry, but I can't play with this. I tried before with 7th-6th edition, but until 8th edition and premeasuring I was unable to play at any competitive level, and I was only able to play 5th because of flying high and herohammer (and I abandoned it because it was horribly boring and uninteresting).
    That is unfortunate. Maybe you could convince your group to play with an aid, like an 8” stick that can be placed anywhere on the table for example, to help even the field.

    I am not a fan of guessing myself but the alternative rules to make premeasuring work, like random charge distances, are even worse in my book.
    So if you have an idea how to fix this, feedback is always appreciated!
    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. #31

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

    Hi there, iīve been reading the thread and i support your project, i think it is a great idea. I started playing at the beginning of 6th with the ravening hordes lists, then played the whole 7th edition and have been playing 8th too, but most people here stopped playing after 8th so i donīt get many games like i used to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seelenhaendler View Post
    I am not a fan of guessing myself but the alternative rules to make premeasuring work, like random charge distances, are even worse in my book.
    So if you have an idea how to fix this, feedback is always appreciated!
    I have some suggestions that you may want to pick up if you like, specially concerning random charge distances and pre-measuring.

    In 6th/7th, a very important part of the game was guessing ranges, but unfortunately many people are not good at it (i also have slight sight problems), so what people ended up doing is measuring their arm or hand, memorising their length and then when nobody is looking put it on the table to help measure. I found this system to be bad design, for several reasons. This was a game that used a tape measure in order to check ranges, but then expected you to guess them. It was inconsistent, you could pretend to move your unit, measure the distance and then say "nah, iīm not moving there". Well you already got the distance, so when it is your turn to shoot you know the range. Stuff like this was all over the place.

    I think 8th edition brought something very interesting with random charge distances. I donīt really like random for the sake of random, but this is important. Warhammer is based around rolling dices, and random charge distances (RCD from now on) arenīt as mindless as you would think. It is a different kind of tactics, you need to calculate averages in order to find out what is the distance to make a safe charge, how much are you willing to risk? This document in pdf explains easily the different distances and their chances of success.

    http://www.ehergert.net/drop_folder/Mathhammer.pdf

    As you can see, RDC work a lot like leadership test, you have safer and riskier values, but nothing is completely guaranteed. RDC also help fast moving troops over slow ones, making charges with elven cavalry much safer than say a charge with chaos knights. This makes one unit that is generally weaker (elven cavalry) have a ingame advantage over another held much more powerful (chaos knights) that is not reflected on the combat stats. I think differences like these are what bring the game alive, as they make other phases of the game besides combat more relevant.

    I however think that 8th edition missed the boat when applying this system, it works quite good with charges (the values could be tweaked, but i think the concept is spot on), but it should have been applied to shooting too! What is the point of allowing measuring, if then i can measure my arquebusiers to you and check if they are in range? Where is the fun in that? In 6th, when i fired the arquebusiers, sometimes they were out of range by a few centimeters (we didnīt have inches here then), and i think it was fine, it made sense from a fluff perspective to see the officer ordering the men to fire, only to find they were out of range.

    To solve this i propose to add random shooting distances, at least for small arms (iīm not sure cannons should be affected by this). I will put one example so it is easier to understand:

    Empire arquebus (current): range 24 inches

    Empire arquebus (modified): range 18 inches + 2d6 inches

    You remove 1/3 of the distance (6 inches) = 18 inches, this is the maximun safe distance
    The first 1/3 of the distance (6 inches) would be short range = point blank shooting, advantages like +1 to hit or +1 armor piercing
    The next 2/3 of the distance (12 inches) would be normal range = no modifiers applied here
    The distance beyond 18 inches (the safe zone) would be long range = penalties like -1 to hit or -1 armor piercing, plus the uncertainty of reaching the target or not (2d6 inches).

    I hope this helped a bit or at least gave you some ideas. I wish you the best of luck with your project!
    Last edited by CrystalSphere; 21-06-2014 at 13:28.

  12. #32
    Chaplain RBLFunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney, N.S.W., Australia
    Posts
    296

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

    For Warhammer Fantasy, what would the implications be of units resolving their attacks against each other simultaneously, but rolling to hit by comparing attacker's Weaponskill to the defender's Initiative?
    So there's no big bonus to charging; fragile high Initiative units are hard to hit; tougher low Initiative units are easier to hit - they all strike at the same time. Is that for some reason untenable?
    I'm considering implementing this system in my version of 40K. I've never played WHFB, but I was wondering if it could be applied there too. Not without a lot of rule re-writing of course, it's not something that could just be tacked on.

  13. #33

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RBLFunk View Post
    For Warhammer Fantasy, what would the implications be of units resolving their attacks against each other simultaneously, but rolling to hit by comparing attacker's Weaponskill to the defender's Initiative?
    So there's no big bonus to charging; fragile high Initiative units are hard to hit; tougher low Initiative units are easier to hit - they all strike at the same time. Is that for some reason untenable?
    I'm considering implementing this system in my version of 40K. I've never played WHFB, but I was wondering if it could be applied there too. Not without a lot of rule re-writing of course, it's not something that could just be tacked on.
    It would simplify the hitting system, and remove the level of depth it currently has. For example going by your system, a Dwarf Lord would be hit on 3+ by almost every other hero or elite troop out there. Skaven Clanrats would also suddenly become better fighters, being hit less often because they have higher I than WS.

    I see your system working in a skirmish environment, a 1v1 fight or close to it. There is plenty of room to dodge, so it makes sense to reward speed by avoiding hits. However WHFB is a game that is based around mass combat formations, similar to pre-gunpowder warfare. There isnīt a lot of room to dodge or parry enemy attacks in a close formation, so most rely on armour and shields to protect themselves.

    I donīt like the idea of removing weapon skill as a defensive tool because it removes some depth in the game. There are characters who are martially skilled and yet are somewhat slow. For example a Dwarf Slayer has very high WS and low I, so your change would nerf him a lot. It forces everyone to be either the "tough and slow brute" or the "weak and fast duelist". Where is the place for characters who are proficient warriors, but because of their race (or fighting style), they arenīt too fast? You condemn these to be hit as easily as any generic rank and file: a skaven clanrat would be hit the same as a dwarf lord.

  14. #34

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

    Thanks for you interest and your comments!

    You have some interesting ideas there but they would result in fundamental changes to the game and would require some serious rewriting/rebalancing.

    Although this rule set takes the liberty of doing radical changes, the game should ultimately stay as close as possible to the classic gameplay. Along the lines of: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!"

    Actually I am quite pleased with the current version of the core rules and the overall balance of the rule set. So any major rule changes from now on have to noticably improve the game in some way. Just doing things differently is not enough and would just move it further away from its roots.
    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!

  15. #35
    Chaplain RBLFunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney, N.S.W., Australia
    Posts
    296

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

    Hi guys,

    The main thing I thought rolling to hit simultaneously with WS vs I would alleviate is the unit that gets to 'strike first' wiping out all or most of the opposing unit's front rank, leaving that unit with little or no opportunity to fight back, and removing the advantage of being the unit that happens to initiate combat. On the contrary CrystalSphere, I think it would increase depth by spreading close combat effectiveness amongst more stats, and I thought it would serve better for large units. I'm not too sure how well it would work for single character vs single character fights, I thought it may result in double KOs a lot.
    One side of a combat getting to resolve all of its attacks before the other side gets to respond is one of the major suspension of disbelief breaking elements of WHFB and 3rd+40K that's put me off playing.

    I had considered dwarves, I figure they're skilled and resilient but slow. They're good at hitting opponents but slow on defence. I hadn't considered skaven, and I can see how big a shift in effectiveness WS vs I would make in their favour. They'd be cheap, crappy but high initiative fighters that are no longer so crappy, particularly good in match-ups against dwarves, orcs and saurus.

    I'm well aware that a change to combat this drastic would have a big effect on the game as a whole, many of them unintended and undesirable. Just curious of what those implications would be.

  16. #36

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RBLFunk View Post
    Hi guys,

    The main thing I thought rolling to hit simultaneously with WS vs I would alleviate is the unit that gets to 'strike first' wiping out all or most of the opposing unit's front rank, leaving that unit with little or no opportunity to fight back, and removing the advantage of being the unit that happens to initiate combat. On the contrary CrystalSphere, I think it would increase depth by spreading close combat effectiveness amongst more stats, and I thought it would serve better for large units. I'm not too sure how well it would work for single character vs single character fights, I thought it may result in double KOs a lot.
    One side of a combat getting to resolve all of its attacks before the other side gets to respond is one of the major suspension of disbelief breaking elements of WHFB and 3rd+40K that's put me off playing.

    I had considered dwarves, I figure they're skilled and resilient but slow. They're good at hitting opponents but slow on defence. I hadn't considered skaven, and I can see how big a shift in effectiveness WS vs I would make in their favour. They'd be cheap, crappy but high initiative fighters that are no longer so crappy, particularly good in match-ups against dwarves, orcs and saurus.

    I'm well aware that a change to combat this drastic would have a big effect on the game as a whole, many of them unintended and undesirable. Just curious of what those implications would be.
    I like the idea of different offensive and defensive stats but for WFB i think it would be unnecessarily complex. If there is the need to give some units a bonus, it can be achieved via a special rule, e.g. see the High Elves army special rule. I know it is not as elegant as a general game mechanism but on the other hand it can be allocated specifically where needed.

    An important factor with the suspension of disbelieve is to accept that WFB is a large scale battle game and that it uses abstract rules to make it playable.
    What I mean by that is that a model with 1 attack does not have exactly one swing per combat round and that models not in base to base contact do not stand around doing nothing.
    If you accept that the stats of models in a unit reflect the average fighting ability of that unit and that everbody is contributing something to the fight (represented by rank bonuses and outnumber), then suddenly it is not "20 guys stand around as their units front rank gets slaughtered by a charging unit of chaos knights" but rather "the unit being under pressure from the impact of the charge, fighting hard not to lose cohesion and having to revert to a defensive stance", i.e. everybody is fighting but for the moment their retaliation is to weak to inflict serious damage because the unit is falling back to retain its formation.
    Also causing no casualties does not mean that the units are not fighting and not doing damage to their opponents but merily that the wounds and disruption caused are not relevant enough for the game to be considered, i.e. removing a model from the unit and getting the combat result bonus.
    In my experience it helps for people to imagine that the actual number of models on the board are only representing 1/10 of the models actually involved, i.e. multiply the number of models in a unit by 10 and you are not far of.

    Last but not least, please remember that the damage output of units in WFB CE is very reasonable (about 1-2 casualties on average) and that whipping out whole ranks is not the norm. The concept of "models that were killed before they could strike are not allowed to fight back" makes a complete category of units that are hard hitting but very fragile ("glass cannons") viable without the need to revert back to specific special rules. And unit diversity is a plus in my book.
    Last edited by Seelenhaendler; 28-06-2014 at 09:50.
    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!

  17. #37

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

    Short update on the project status:
    I am currently reviewing all available army lists to make sure that they are as balanced as possible among themselves and that there is no "power creep" sneaking in.

    While I am at it, I was thinking about doing short "designer's notes" for the core rules and each army list that list the changes and give some insight to the thought process behind them.
    Would you be interested in these?
    What else would you like to see?

    Best regards!
    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!

  18. #38
    Veteran Sergeant ZT Strike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Evansville, Indiana
    Posts
    98

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

    Nice rules set, unfortunately I'm not a massive fan of 6/7th ed.
    -ZT Strike
    Sea Guard of Eataine - Asur
    Corsair of Karond Kar - Druchii


  19. #39

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ZT Strike View Post
    Nice rules set, unfortunately I'm not a massive fan of 6/7th ed.
    Thanks!

    If you are one of those that didn't like 6/7th because of:
    - weak infantry
    - overpowered cavalry/monsters
    - charging units always winning
    - whacky psychology
    - unbalanced magic
    - imbalanced army lists
    - deathstars
    - terrain rules
    - etc.
    then give this rule set a try! You might end up liking it

    The above list is only a small sample of the most commonly mentioned problems that are addressed by the rule set. In addition there are multiple additions (like the new point cost system) that improve the overall balance of the rule set and allow for highly varied armies and games.
    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!

  20. #40

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seelenhaendler View Post
    If you are one of those that didn't like 6/7th because of:
    - weak infantry
    - overpowered cavalry/monsters
    - charging units always winning
    - whacky psychology
    - unbalanced magic
    - imbalanced army lists
    - deathstars
    - terrain rules
    - etc.
    then give this rule set a try! You might end up liking it
    Sounds like a plan. If your reboot also adresses the clunky movement/charging rules you may consider me a fan.

    Actually that's GW's job you're doing for them; spotting the flaws in a product and improving on it. And you're doing it free to boot! I like all those improved Oldhammer versions popping up; if things continue like that we will soon be able to phase GW completely out. Never underestimate fan devotion!

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... 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
  •