Ulthuan

Ulthuan, Home of the Asur
It is currently Mon May 20, 2019 11:08 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:26 am 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
Hello again!

Been a while since I last visited, a lot has changed. Been even longer since I have played a game of Warhammer, since the dawn of the 8th edition to be exact. Recently I've felt the desire to get back in the game with my friends, but since some of the rules of the 8th edition feel downright wrong to us, we wanted to tweak them a little. I'd really appreciate input, since the members here probably have a better overall understanding of the 8th edition rules and why they exist than we do (yes we could play 7th, but there are some legitimately good and interesting updates in the 8th that we do like, so homebrew it is). Below are the changes from 7th to 8th as told by Gifts for Geeks, which is what we used as a source for our rollback:

Quote:
Movement

Charges are now random; infantry now charge their movement rate plus 2d6”.
- Charges are as in the 7th, double movement. Failed charges move normally forwards.
Cavalry and fliers roll 3d6” and choose the highest 2 rolls
- Charges are as in the 7th, double movement. Failed charges move normally forwards.
You can now pre-measure before a charge
- No pre-measurements of any kind allowed
Charges must move straight forward, but are allowed one 90 degrees turn for free. Attackers then align with the defenders.
March blocking works as before. However, the if you pass a Ld test you can march anyway
If you flee through an enemy unit or terrain you are not destroyed. Instead you take a dangerous terrain test like in 40k.
- We don't know what a dangerous terrain test in modern 40k is (3rd edition 40k FTW!), but fleeing into enemy units at least should still destroy units. Maybe a US limit though?

Magic

Wizard levels now add to your casting roll and do not generate power dice
Players can switch between casters at any time
Every magic phase your army generates 2d6 power dice. The highest roll is the number of dispel dice
Each wizard may generate an extra dispel/power die for the pool if they roll a 6. You may never have more than 12 power or dispel dice
You cast as before, but if your total is less than 3 you fail to cast. Bonuses do not affect this!
If you fail to cast a spell the wizard can not cast again this phase
Miscasts on a double 1 are gone. However, if you roll an irresistible force the spell is cast as in 7th ed and the caster suffers a miscast on a really nasty table!
- Miscasts and Irresistible Forces works as before (double 1's and double 6's), but the new Miscast table is used
Dispels work as before your wizards. Irresistible dispels do not cause a miscast
Wizards add their level to the dispell roll
Bound spells now need power dice to cast. You need to roll above its power level
- Bound spells work as before, so are autocast
If you cast your bound item or spell with irresistible force the item is destroyed. If the bound spell is casted as an innate ability the model cannot cast again
- Irrelevant, given the above change
Wizards may use bound items or spells if you failed to cast a spell earlier, however, you do not add your magic level to the roll.

Shooting

The first two ranks of a unit may now fire
If a model is more than 50% obscured the shooting unit suffer cover modifiers.
Strength 1 attacks can now wound toughness 10 models (this applies to combat as well)
Models can take armour and invulnerable or regeneration saves. You can not have a ward and regeneration. Bad times for Dark Elf characters and plaguebearers! This also applies in combat.

Close Combat

Combat order is done on initiative. You no longer go first if you charge.
- Chargers go first, after that initiative. ASF from all elves is gone
The second rank of infantry can now fight, but with only one attack.
- This was one of the biggest contentions we had, but since some of the players (myself included) absolutely loathed the Speed of Asuryan ASF copout since the 7th ed. We agreed that the second rank can strike back with a single attack at base strength etc. IF the first rank model directly in front of him is killed.
Ranks are still counted in sets of 5. However, if you take a rank of 10 the third rank can also fight with 1 attack.
- Currently under discussion, since none of us really understand the logic here, but we might grant the supporting attacks rule to Hordes (and only hordes).
Combat results are done as 7th ed except for, outnumber is gone, and your rank bonus is calculated on how many you outnumber your enemy by, up to a maximum of 3. You now receive +1 to your combat result on the turn you charge.
- No +1CR on the charge
To negate the enemies rank bonus you require at least 10 models in the flank or rear.
- You need at least 10 combined unit strength (for example 1 chariot and 3 mounted or two units of 5 foot) OR a single Large Target (having a dragon or a stegadon in my unit's flank would rattle the hell out of me)
If you outnumber the enemy in ranks you are stubborn (now called steadfast in combat). Infantry blocks are now extremely tough
You can now reform when defeated in combat. However, you must pass a leadership test that is modified by the amount you lost the break test by.

Special rules

Loads of new rules that models don’t exist for. Hmmm….
Templates no longer partial. Every model the template touches is hit.
- Partials are back
Breath weapons are now one use only, however, you can use it in combat to get 2d6 hits at the strength of the weapon
- Breath weapons can also be used as a Stand and Shoot action to cause 2d6 partial hits. Still one use only. Given the return of partials, breath weapons may have to be upgraded across the board or an exception needs to be made for them
Fast cavalry now have a vanguard rule which means they can move 12” before the battle begins. They cannot charge in the first turn
Flyers only move 10” but may march
- Flyers move 20" as before
Flying cavalry count as fast cavalry
Large targets are as before. However, if a battle standard or general is on a large target the range of their abilities is increased to 18”
Magic resistance now adds to your ward against magic. So magic resistance 1 adds 1 to your ward save against magical spells.
Fear has been toned down. It only affects close combat. When fighting a fear causing unit you must pass a Ld test or fight at Ws 1
- We didn't really like this, since it makes Skeletons and Zombies unappealing compared to Ghouls, but what are some of your experiences with the new Fear rules?
Skirmishers no longer see 360 and they move as normal troops. However, they get unlimited reforms and may fire on the march
- Skirmishers are as in the 7th edition
Terror causing creatures create fear in fear causing units. If you are charged by a terror causing unit you must pass a panic check or flee.
- Terror works as in the 7th edition
Bows may volley fire. This means half the models behind the first two ranks may fire
Scouts may now deploy up to 12” away of the enemy, but may not charge first turn
Battle standards now give all units re-rolls for all leadership tests

Troop Types

Things such as trolls, ogres and minotaurs now count as monstrous infantry. They now fight in ranks of three and can have up to 3 supporting attacks!
- NO supporting attacks!
They also receive a stomp attack hit at their basic strength. This stomp attack always strikes last and is only for models in base to base contact with the enemy.
Cavalry may also now assault buildings, but their mounts do not fight and they may not garrison a building
Monsters get 1d6 stomp attacks
Chariots are now not destroyed by high strength hits. They take wounds as normal

Weapons

Lots of changes due to the new special rules.
Main change is that using a combat weapon and shield and to the front does not add to your armour. It gives plus one to your invulnerable save instead

War Machines

When shooting at war machines the machine is hit not the crew
Guess ranges are gone. Now you can just point and shoot!
- Guess ranges are never gone, guess ranges for life!

Terrain

There are now 16 pages of rules on terrain. In the new book the Warhammer battlefield is full of terrain. Here are the highlights;

If you march through terrain you generally have to take a dangerous terrain check as on the current 40k rules. Chariots take 1d6 wounds.
Units in forests do not get the steadfast rule. However, lone infantry characters and skirmishers become stubborn in forests.
You may now march into buildings and charge them.
You can deploy warmachines in buildings. Otherwise most the rules for building are the same as in 7th ed.

The Battle

There are now 6 standard battles for Warhammer, which should spice things up
Each one of them states you have to have d6 plus 4 terrain pieces
To win you need to score over twice the amount of victory points your opponent has scored. Or it is a draw.
- Victory point tables as in the 7th edition
Victory conditions vary on the battle.
You now only score 25 points for capturing a standard.
You score a 50 point bonus if you defeat an enemy character with a champion.

The Army Composition

Along with all the rules changes affecting your army choice there are also the following limitations

Only up to 25% of your points total may be spent lords
Only up to 25% of your points may be spent on heroes
At least 25% of your points must be spent on core. You must field at least 3 core units
Up to 50% of your points can be spent on special and you can only have up to 3 of the same unit. Unless you play 3000 points or more then the limit is raised to 6
Up to 50% of your points can be spent on rare and you can only have up to 2 of the same unit. Unless you play 3000 points or more then the limit is raised to 4
- Same tables used as in the 7th edition, ain't nobody got time to calculate percentages


All feedback is welcome!

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:21 pm 
Online
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
I haven't read all of it yet, but there is value in the random charges. I would agree that the charges are far to random however. It's been a few years since we actually played 8th edition. (We play homebrew 3rd these days if we want warhammer- but mostly we play bloodbowl or Mordheim.) But back when we did we modified the charge rule so it was less random. I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head but if you are interested I can look it up. For infantry it might have been M+ 2D3 or something like that. We also tried rolling 2 extra dice and dropping the highest and the lowest- that at least cuts down on the frequency of the most extreem results. It prevents the standoff just outside charge range that some times occurred, helps reduce distance arguments, and puts some risk into charging- which interesting. However the range of possibilities of the original rule was just nuts.

I'll look over some more of these later. We started hating 8th, grew to like parts of it that we originally hated, but also grew to hate parts we originally liked.

If you make only one change drop True Line of Sight and go back to what it was before 8th ed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
Shannar, Sealord wrote:
I haven't read all of it yet, but there is value in the random charges. I would agree that the charges are far to random however. It's been a few years since we actually played 8th edition. (We play homebrew 3rd these days if we want warhammer- but mostly we play bloodbowl or Mordheim.) But back when we did we modified the charge rule so it was less random. I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head but if you are interested I can look it up. For infantry it might have been M+ 2D3 or something like that. We also tried rolling 2 extra dice and dropping the highest and the lowest- that at least cuts down on the frequency of the most extreem results. It prevents the standoff just outside charge range that some times occurred, helps reduce distance arguments, and puts some risk into charging- which interesting. However the range of possibilities of the original rule was just nuts.

I'll look over some more of these later. We started hating 8th, grew to like parts of it that we originally hated, but also grew to hate parts we originally liked.

If you make only one change drop True Line of Sight and go back to what it was before 8th ed.

That same argument for random charges avoiding standoffs was raised in our discussions and I agree that it has upsides, but a) it halves elves' and skaven's movement advantage on charges and b) is just much too random. I'd be interested in hearing your experiences, what you felt worked and what not on your variations.

Oh yeah, forgot about True Line of Sight. Back to the 7th with LOS as well.

Thanks for the initial comments!

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:22 pm
Posts: 2546
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Pre-measuring helps to avoid SO much arguing :x

_________________
cheers, Lee

Elven Field Surgeon, Department of Intensive Care, Resuscitation and Necromancy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:02 pm 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
RE.Lee wrote:
Pre-measuring helps to avoid SO much arguing :x

But the arguments are the best part! :lol:

Also, we feel like removing the estimation aspect also removes a ton of skill

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:08 pm 
Online
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
Luna Guardian wrote:
RE.Lee wrote:
Pre-measuring helps to avoid SO much arguing :x

But the arguments are the best part! :lol:

Also, we feel like removing the estimation aspect also removes a ton of skill


We were very much in agreement when we started with 8th. It seems like a really dumb idea, and takes away some of the advantage of a higher M stat. And personally I'm really good at estimating distances. But this is one of those rules that we actually grew to really like. It even has the nice side effect of speeding the game up a little.

I'd really recommend giving it a shot for a few games, tweaking it a little (you'll find you want to), giving it a few more games. I'm pretty sure you'll like it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12509
Location: Otherworld
In my experience Random Charges work in practice because you get used to calculating chances and tend to have a Plan B ready. Line of Sight is a big one. ETC for example replaced TLOS with Simple Line of Sight and this became quite popular. I've played rulesets with pre-measuring and without. Both make sense.

I was very sceptical about 8th at first but once I'd played it a bit I was sold, it just hangs together well. As far as the tournament scene went, players in English-speaking countries were broadly happy with the way it played while those from other countries tended to prefer the fine-tuning that we had in 7th. I feel some of your changes are based on some pre-assumptions that may not hold in practice Luna (Infantry blocks being very tough for example) but I guess once you get going with them you will tweak and find a balance you're happy with.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
SpellArcher wrote:
I feel some of your changes are based on some pre-assumptions that may not hold in practice Luna (Infantry blocks being very tough for example)

That may well be, hence why I'm asking for feedback :) .

The conversation and tweaking of the rules started when we were looking at the Supporting attacks rules, and just kind of spilled over the rest of the rules from there. In our group a lot of the controversy was caused by supporting attacks and the ability of "dead" models to strike back. Some players (non-elves primarily) thought that is was just desserts after being on the receiving end of the horribly conceived ASF rule for elves, that since they've had to deal with that ridiculousness for years it's good and just that the elves (and to a lesser extent Skaven and other high I armies) have to deal with them striking back now. On the other hand, in previous editions elves had relied on killing enemy models before being struck back as a form of defense, as our toughness and armor generally tend to stink. The ASF was an extension of this, but I don't know any elf player that was happy with it (I know I wasn't). Our Skaven player generally agrees, but since his troops are cheap it's less of an issue for him. Now, if we were all fighting with elves and skaven and humans this would be less of a problem, but about half our meta is made up of Orcs and Chaos, who benefit greatly from the supporting attacks and Initiative order striking (well, more Chaos than the orcs on that latter one) due to their higher damage output (more and higher strength attacks per model). Does anyone have experience with this?

I suppose I could learn to live with the random charges if they are really as wonderful as you all say (I still say they remove a factor of skill), but pre-measuring any distances (charges, ranges, anything really) gives me instant hives, particularly since it makes stone throwers, cannons, hellcannons and such just absolute murder.

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:05 pm 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12509
Location: Otherworld
It's true that some troops (and armies) do rely more on Supporting Attacks and Step Up than others. In particular I feel stripping these from Monstrous Infantry will neuter what is one of the most balanced troop types in the game. These rules do counterbalance ASF to some extent but the sheer killing power elves bring (especially with ASF re-rolls to hit) means enemy units can fairly rapidly run out of models to utilise them. Elves wielding Great Weapons strike at Initiative and this can indeed be an issue against Initiative 5 Chaos troops for example. It tends to encourage larger elf units, especially because of Martial Prowess.

Luna Guardian wrote:
I suppose I could learn to live with the random charges if they are really as wonderful as you all say (I still say they remove a factor of skill),

They work well in the context of the ruleset and pre-measuring. To remove them might necessitate other changes but hard to say what without testing.

Luna Guardian wrote:
since it makes stone throwers, cannons, hellcannons and such just absolute murder.

In 8th, most things are absolute murder.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:34 am 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
SpellArcher wrote:
It's true that some troops (and armies) do rely more on Supporting Attacks and Step Up than others. In particular I feel stripping these from Monstrous Infantry will neuter what is one of the most balanced troop types in the game. These rules do counterbalance ASF to some extent but the sheer killing power elves bring (especially with ASF re-rolls to hit) means enemy units can fairly rapidly run out of models to utilise them. Elves wielding Great Weapons strike at Initiative and this can indeed be an issue against Initiative 5 Chaos troops for example.

We've done away with the ASF aspect of the elves, since everyone hates it. Thus the killyness of elves is less.

SpellArcher wrote:
It tends to encourage larger elf units, especially because of Martial Prowess.

This seems to be a trend across the board, but units that are larger than 20 start to get unwieldy to move around on the board. Our meta rarely fielded units larger than 20 back in the day for the reason of convenience.

SpellArcher wrote:
Luna Guardian wrote:
I suppose I could learn to live with the random charges if they are really as wonderful as you all say (I still say they remove a factor of skill),

They work well in the context of the ruleset and pre-measuring. To remove them might necessitate other changes but hard to say what without testing.

Probably does, hence why there are multiple changes to the vanilla 8th rules that we're discussing.

SpellArcher wrote:
Luna Guardian wrote:
since it makes stone throwers, cannons, hellcannons and such just absolute murder.

In 8th, most things are absolute murder.

Of course, but it unfairly (imho) benefits weapons that previously were reliant on the inherent inaccuracy of the "guess" aspect. If guess ranges are no longer to be a thing, the scatter distances should be increased.

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 7080
Location: The city of Spires
A lot of things tie in together in 8th. So it's often hard to see them unconnected from each other. I think one of the starting points was that GW wanted to remove arguments over bits of an inch from the game. To do so, you need to premeasure. To pre-measure, you need to have random charges. And so on.

You can also wonder if guessing ranges really is a skill and adds much to the game. In my (limited) experience, it slowed the game down and didn't add much. But then, I haven't really run into true gunlines, who benefit a fair bit from not having to guess ranges. Though, as SA rightly mentions, everything got more killy and faster, so it's less of an issue actually.

My opinion on the changes:
Quote:
Movement

Charges are now random; infantry now charge their movement rate plus 2d6”.
- Charges are as in the 7th, double movement. Failed charges move normally forwards.
Cavalry and fliers roll 3d6” and choose the highest 2 rolls
- Charges are as in the 7th, double movement. Failed charges move normally forwards.
You can now pre-measure before a charge
- No pre-measurements of any kind allowed
Charges must move straight forward, but are allowed one 90 degrees turn for free. Attackers then align with the defenders.
March blocking works as before. However, the if you pass a Ld test you can march anyway
If you flee through an enemy unit or terrain you are not destroyed. Instead you take a dangerous terrain test like in 40k.
- We don't know what a dangerous terrain test in modern 40k is (3rd edition 40k FTW!), but fleeing into enemy units at least should still destroy units. Maybe a US limit though?

I don't actually mind the random charges. As Shannar said, you could do a bit to limit the randomness (2D3 instead of D6 for instance). But I think it adds a nice dimension to the game. Probably in the same way as people who consider guessing accurately a nice skill to have in the game. You need to consider the possibility that stuff goes wrong, and you need to plan for it. Several great players (Curu Olannon for instance), have stated, and I agree, that being a great player means you understand the statistics of the game and that you actually try to limit the number of times you have to roll dice as much as possible. Kind of applies here. You try to limit the impact of stuff going wrong and the chance that stuff goes wrong. And sometimes you decide to take a long shot that could pay off.
Quote:
Magic

Wizard levels now add to your casting roll and do not generate power dice
Players can switch between casters at any time
Every magic phase your army generates 2d6 power dice. The highest roll is the number of dispel dice
Each wizard may generate an extra dispel/power die for the pool if they roll a 6. You may never have more than 12 power or dispel dice
You cast as before, but if your total is less than 3 you fail to cast. Bonuses do not affect this!
If you fail to cast a spell the wizard can not cast again this phase
Miscasts on a double 1 are gone. However, if you roll an irresistible force the spell is cast as in 7th ed and the caster suffers a miscast on a really nasty table!
- Miscasts and Irresistible Forces works as before (double 1's and double 6's), but the new Miscast table is used
Dispels work as before your wizards. Irresistible dispels do not cause a miscast
Wizards add their level to the dispell roll
Bound spells now need power dice to cast. You need to roll above its power level
- Bound spells work as before, so are autocast
If you cast your bound item or spell with irresistible force the item is destroyed. If the bound spell is casted as an innate ability the model cannot cast again
- Irrelevant, given the above change
Wizards may use bound items or spells if you failed to cast a spell earlier, however, you do not add your magic level to the roll.

The change you suggest to miscast and IF is minimal. Both still have the same chance of happening, they just no longer happen at the same time. So the total effect doesn't change. (almost not at least, since you could roll 1-1-6-6, which would be a miscast and not IF). The only thing is that the upside and the downside of the event are split.

The bound spell change is fairly small, since there aren't that many around. It might make bound spells and items more popular. For instance you rarely see the Ring of fury in a HE list. Equivalent spells currently are a better choice. So it might be a good change. Needs to be tested though, since it could bring some very overpowering magic phases. After all, keep in mind that in 8th edition, almost all ways to reliably generate extra PD / DD are gone. So anything that gets you extra spells is a huge bonus. A compensation to also keep in mind is that duplicate items are also gone. So no longer can you bring 3 scrolls to ruin your opponents magic phases. It's more balanced in a way. Conversely, this has also led to some bigger spells.
Quote:
Shooting

The first two ranks of a unit may now fire
If a model is more than 50% obscured the shooting unit suffer cover modifiers.
Strength 1 attacks can now wound toughness 10 models (this applies to combat as well)
Models can take armour and invulnerable or regeneration saves. You can not have a ward and regeneration. Bad times for Dark Elf characters and plaguebearers! This also applies in combat.

Close Combat

Combat order is done on initiative. You no longer go first if you charge.
- Chargers go first, after that initiative. ASF from all elves is gone
The second rank of infantry can now fight, but with only one attack.
- This was one of the biggest contentions we had, but since some of the players (myself included) absolutely loathed the Speed of Asuryan ASF copout since the 7th ed. We agreed that the second rank can strike back with a single attack at base strength etc. IF the first rank model directly in front of him is killed.
Ranks are still counted in sets of 5. However, if you take a rank of 10 the third rank can also fight with 1 attack.
- Currently under discussion, since none of us really understand the logic here, but we might grant the supporting attacks rule to Hordes (and only hordes).
Combat results are done as 7th ed except for, outnumber is gone, and your rank bonus is calculated on how many you outnumber your enemy by, up to a maximum of 3. You now receive +1 to your combat result on the turn you charge.
- No +1CR on the charge
To negate the enemies rank bonus you require at least 10 models in the flank or rear.
- You need at least 10 combined unit strength (for example 1 chariot and 3 mounted or two units of 5 foot) OR a single Large Target (having a dragon or a stegadon in my unit's flank would rattle the hell out of me)
If you outnumber the enemy in ranks you are stubborn (now called steadfast in combat). Infantry blocks are now extremely tough
You can now reform when defeated in combat. However, you must pass a leadership test that is modified by the amount you lost the break test by.

I actually like the disappearance of chargers going first. It makes I as a stat a lot more important (it was pretty much useless in 7th). But then again, I also don't mind the elven ASF. If you want to partially change this, you could give chargers an I bonus. (and subsequently winning combat could also give a smaller I bonus). So for me, going back is not making the game better.

I think you're actually mixing up two rules with step up:
- One is that models now step up, meaning that as long as there are models, you always get to strike back. Makes a lot of sense to me. It always felt ridiculous that a whole unit would stand around watching just because the guy in front of him died. You would expect a model to step up and strike back. It also makes infantry blocks more useful. No longer can a single cav unit run over half an army.
- The other is that models in the second rank can make supporting attacks. I think, especially for infantry, that it's a good rule to have. It makes bigger blocks more viable, especially combined with step up. and it makes cheaper models more viable, since they are more likely to have more models and thus benefit from the extra rank of attacks.

I would personally keep this rule, perhaps for infantry only. And I would limit it to 1 attack, also for monstrous infantry / cavalry.

The +1 CR on the charge is pretty irrelevant. Most combats I tend to win big or lose big. It rarely comes down to 1 CR point. And if it does then half the time the other side is steadfast and it doesn't matter if they lose by 1 or 10.
Quote:
Special rules

Loads of new rules that models don’t exist for. Hmmm….
Templates no longer partial. Every model the template touches is hit.
- Partials are back
Breath weapons are now one use only, however, you can use it in combat to get 2d6 hits at the strength of the weapon
- Breath weapons can also be used as a Stand and Shoot action to cause 2d6 partial hits. Still one use only. Given the return of partials, breath weapons may have to be upgraded across the board or an exception needs to be made for them
Fast cavalry now have a vanguard rule which means they can move 12” before the battle begins. They cannot charge in the first turn
Flyers only move 10” but may march
- Flyers move 20" as before
Flying cavalry count as fast cavalry
Large targets are as before. However, if a battle standard or general is on a large target the range of their abilities is increased to 18”
Magic resistance now adds to your ward against magic. So magic resistance 1 adds 1 to your ward save against magical spells.
Fear has been toned down. It only affects close combat. When fighting a fear causing unit you must pass a Ld test or fight at Ws 1
- We didn't really like this, since it makes Skeletons and Zombies unappealing compared to Ghouls, but what are some of your experiences with the new Fear rules?
Skirmishers no longer see 360 and they move as normal troops. However, they get unlimited reforms and may fire on the march
- Skirmishers are as in the 7th edition
Terror causing creatures create fear in fear causing units. If you are charged by a terror causing unit you must pass a panic check or flee.
- Terror works as in the 7th edition
Bows may volley fire. This means half the models behind the first two ranks may fire
Scouts may now deploy up to 12” away of the enemy, but may not charge first turn
Battle standards now give all units re-rolls for all leadership tests

I think the difference between flyers moving 10'' and being able to march and flyers moving 20'' is minimal. It tones down flying monsters ever so slightly. And gives other armies a couple of counters. But I don't think you'll notice much of it in practise.

I didn't like the old fear rules at all. It made all fear causing armies too strong. And it always felt silly to have a unit run when it was outnumbered by a whole model. On the other hand, it has been taken a bit too far to the other side I think. It's now at the point where as a HE player I rarely care about it.
Quote:
Troop Types

Things such as trolls, ogres and minotaurs now count as monstrous infantry. They now fight in ranks of three and can have up to 3 supporting attacks!
- NO supporting attacks!
They also receive a stomp attack hit at their basic strength. This stomp attack always strikes last and is only for models in base to base contact with the enemy.
Cavalry may also now assault buildings, but their mounts do not fight and they may not garrison a building
Monsters get 1d6 stomp attacks
Chariots are now not destroyed by high strength hits. They take wounds as normal

Weapons

Lots of changes due to the new special rules.
Main change is that using a combat weapon and shield and to the front does not add to your armour. It gives plus one to your invulnerable save instead

War Machines

When shooting at war machines the machine is hit not the crew
Guess ranges are gone. Now you can just point and shoot!
- Guess ranges are never gone, guess ranges for life!

Terrain

There are now 16 pages of rules on terrain. In the new book the Warhammer battlefield is full of terrain. Here are the highlights;

If you march through terrain you generally have to take a dangerous terrain check as on the current 40k rules. Chariots take 1d6 wounds.
Units in forests do not get the steadfast rule. However, lone infantry characters and skirmishers become stubborn in forests.
You may now march into buildings and charge them.
You can deploy warmachines in buildings. Otherwise most the rules for building are the same as in 7th ed.

The Battle

There are now 6 standard battles for Warhammer, which should spice things up
Each one of them states you have to have d6 plus 4 terrain pieces
To win you need to score over twice the amount of victory points your opponent has scored. Or it is a draw.
- Victory point tables as in the 7th edition
Victory conditions vary on the battle.
You now only score 25 points for capturing a standard.
You score a 50 point bonus if you defeat an enemy character with a champion.

The Army Composition

Along with all the rules changes affecting your army choice there are also the following limitations

Only up to 25% of your points total may be spent lords
Only up to 25% of your points may be spent on heroes
At least 25% of your points must be spent on core. You must field at least 3 core units
Up to 50% of your points can be spent on special and you can only have up to 3 of the same unit. Unless you play 3000 points or more then the limit is raised to 6
Up to 50% of your points can be spent on rare and you can only have up to 2 of the same unit. Unless you play 3000 points or more then the limit is raised to 4
- Same tables used as in the 7th edition, ain't nobody got time to calculate percentages

I actually grew to like the percentages. I was worried it would completely mess stuff up. But it works. And after you've played two games you know what points values belong to what percentage and calculating is easy. It allows you to have a lot more different army builds. You can have 1 unit of 20 WL or 2 units of 10 and they have the same effect on your army list. You can experiment with Lord and Hero configurations. And it sort of feels correct that a horde army can have 5 cheap hero's where a elite army can afford only 1.

it must be said that this ties in with things like changes in magic. With the number of PD being separate from the number of wizards you put on the table, there is a natural limit to how many wizards you want to bring. The same with magic items being unique. There is no point in bringing 3 lvl 1 mages and load all of them up with scrolls.

So I would advise you to try % based armies at least for a couple of games and see how you like it.

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:21 pm 
Online
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
I was always glad to see the percentages back. I personally think the 8th percentages allow to many heros, but the 6/7th edition system allowed some armies even more points in heros, so it's a step in the right direction.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
Prince of Spires wrote:
A lot of things tie in together in 8th. So it's often hard to see them unconnected from each other. I think one of the starting points was that GW wanted to remove arguments over bits of an inch from the game. To do so, you need to premeasure. To pre-measure, you need to have random charges. And so on.

You can also wonder if guessing ranges really is a skill and adds much to the game. In my (limited) experience, it slowed the game down and didn't add much. But then, I haven't really run into true gunlines, who benefit a fair bit from not having to guess ranges. Though, as SA rightly mentions, everything got more killy and faster, so it's less of an issue actually.

I regularly face stone throwers and Hellcannons and such, so I am very invested in not allowing them to be precision guided :D . The fractions of inches arguments was never really an issue for us, not much of one anyways, and if there was disagreement we rolled dice for it.

Prince of Spires wrote:
I don't actually mind the random charges. As Shannar said, you could do a bit to limit the randomness (2D3 instead of D6 for instance). But I think it adds a nice dimension to the game. Probably in the same way as people who consider guessing accurately a nice skill to have in the game. You need to consider the possibility that stuff goes wrong, and you need to plan for it. Several great players (Curu Olannon for instance), have stated, and I agree, that being a great player means you understand the statistics of the game and that you actually try to limit the number of times you have to roll dice as much as possible. Kind of applies here. You try to limit the impact of stuff going wrong and the chance that stuff goes wrong. And sometimes you decide to take a long shot that could pay off.

I could probably learn to live with random charges TBH, especially if the D6's are replaced by 2D3's.

Prince of Spires wrote:
The change you suggest to miscast and IF is minimal. Both still have the same chance of happening, they just no longer happen at the same time. So the total effect doesn't change. (almost not at least, since you could roll 1-1-6-6, which would be a miscast and not IF). The only thing is that the upside and the downside of the event are split.

The bound spell change is fairly small, since there aren't that many around. It might make bound spells and items more popular. For instance you rarely see the Ring of fury in a HE list. Equivalent spells currently are a better choice. So it might be a good change. Needs to be tested though, since it could bring some very overpowering magic phases. After all, keep in mind that in 8th edition, almost all ways to reliably generate extra PD / DD are gone. So anything that gets you extra spells is a huge bonus. A compensation to also keep in mind is that duplicate items are also gone. So no longer can you bring 3 scrolls to ruin your opponents magic phases. It's more balanced in a way. Conversely, this has also led to some bigger spells.

We didn't feel the need to completely overhaul the Magic system in 8th, because generally we found it good. The splitting up of MC and IF is more for personal reasons, we want IFs to be these "Hooray!" moments, rather than "Oh yay, oh no!" moments. The bound spell change was precicely because none of us could see much (if any) point in taking Bound items with the current rules. Also, since there are less ways of generating extra PD and very few bound items in general, it seemed like a fun change that wouldn't unbalance the system.

Prince of Spires wrote:
I actually like the disappearance of chargers going first. It makes I as a stat a lot more important (it was pretty much useless in 7th). But then again, I also don't mind the elven ASF. If you want to partially change this, you could give chargers an I bonus. (and subsequently winning combat could also give a smaller I bonus). So for me, going back is not making the game better.

I actually don't care MUCH about the chargers going first, since it very rarely makes a difference with elves. The one time it does is with White Lions and other Great Weapon wielding units, which are going to be chopped up to bits without it (and since White Lions are my favorite unit, I care a lot about this :D ). The elven ASF is gone in our meta, since it is universally hated. Yes, that means we neeed to rewrite all the elf lists. If anyone is interested, I could post what I have so far here for comment :) .

Prince of Spires wrote:
I think you're actually mixing up two rules with step up:
- One is that models now step up, meaning that as long as there are models, you always get to strike back. Makes a lot of sense to me. It always felt ridiculous that a whole unit would stand around watching just because the guy in front of him died. You would expect a model to step up and strike back. It also makes infantry blocks more useful. No longer can a single cav unit run over half an army.
- The other is that models in the second rank can make supporting attacks. I think, especially for infantry, that it's a good rule to have. It makes bigger blocks more viable, especially combined with step up. and it makes cheaper models more viable, since they are more likely to have more models and thus benefit from the extra rank of attacks.

I would personally keep this rule, perhaps for infantry only. And I would limit it to 1 attack, also for monstrous infantry / cavalry.

Yes, I am mixing up two rules. Stepping up makes sense in a simulation context, but I am unhappy with it for the reason that it penalizes elves and other low-defense armies that previously relied on killing a few enemy models to reduce the overall number of attacks coming their way. Other armies, Chaos, Dwarves and Orcs for example, still maintain their high T/AS defense. We've been toying around with allowing Step Up with one attack only, and moving Supporting Attacks to only Hordes. That would seem to be a decent compromise.

Prince of Spires wrote:
The +1 CR on the charge is pretty irrelevant. Most combats I tend to win big or lose big. It rarely comes down to 1 CR point. And if it does then half the time the other side is steadfast and it doesn't matter if they lose by 1 or 10.

Can't comment on this, since I have no experience, but I'll take your word for it :) .

Prince of Spires wrote:
I didn't like the old fear rules at all. It made all fear causing armies too strong. And it always felt silly to have a unit run when it was outnumbered by a whole model. On the other hand, it has been taken a bit too far to the other side I think. It's now at the point where as a HE player I rarely care about it.

I didn't like the old Fear rules either, but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction as you said. Maybe if outnumbered 2:1 or having been flank/rear charged it could be an autobreak if lost? That would at least make sense.

Prince of Spires wrote:
I actually grew to like the percentages. I was worried it would completely mess stuff up. But it works. And after you've played two games you know what points values belong to what percentage and calculating is easy. It allows you to have a lot more different army builds. You can have 1 unit of 20 WL or 2 units of 10 and they have the same effect on your army list. You can experiment with Lord and Hero configurations. And it sort of feels correct that a horde army can have 5 cheap hero's where a elite army can afford only 1.

it must be said that this ties in with things like changes in magic. With the number of PD being separate from the number of wizards you put on the table, there is a natural limit to how many wizards you want to bring. The same with magic items being unique. There is no point in bringing 3 lvl 1 mages and load all of them up with scrolls.

So I would advise you to try % based armies at least for a couple of games and see how you like it.

Rod

But that would require me to math :cry: !

Nah in seriousness you're right, the percentages DO make more sense. I just like the simplicity of a set number of choices :lol:

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12509
Location: Otherworld
Luna Guardian wrote:
We've done away with the ASF aspect of the elves, since everyone hates it. Thus the killyness of elves is less.

I was illustrating one of the reasons why Supporting Attacks and Step up are balanced Luna. Nerfing both and removing ASF leaves other abilities in the ascendancy. Hatred for example then becomes very scary, particularly with Dark Elves. Thunderstomp too. Maybe your playtesting will show how these and others need to be adjusted.

Luna Guardian wrote:
This seems to be a trend across the board, but units that are larger than 20 start to get unwieldy to move around on the board. Our meta rarely fielded units larger than 20 back in the day for the reason of convenience.

Funnily enough, 20 is pretty much a working minimum for Swordmaster or White Lion blocks in 8th. With your proposed changes I would have said Horde of 30 for Lions but Martial Prowess removes the need for this.

Luna Guardian wrote:
Of course, but it unfairly (imho) benefits weapons that previously were reliant on the inherent inaccuracy of the "guess" aspect. If guess ranges are no longer to be a thing, the scatter distances should be increased.

A very pressing reason for this change was the dominance of big flying monsters in late 7th. In 8th these remain powerful but this is balanced against the threat from war machines. With guessed ranges, dragons etc become dominant again. Warriors of Chaos have Daemon Princes and Chimerae which are also good already. Other changes like allowing Terror tests within 6", nerfing Supporting Attacks, Step Up and ASF, allowing Monsters to Disrupt etc add to this. Maybe there are other possible changes that could balance these out but as things stand Monsters look overpowered.

Luna Guardian wrote:
I regularly face stone throwers and Hellcannons and such, so I am very invested in not allowing them to be precision guided

In 8th High Elves are stronger defensively against these things. White Lions come with a 3+ AS vs shooting of course. Banner of the World Dragon stops Hellcannon cold. Shield of Saphery and Ironcurse Icon mean 3++ Phoenix Guard and 5++ Swordmasters are quite common.

Luna Guardian wrote:
We didn't feel the need to completely overhaul the Magic system in 8th, because generally we found it good.

Bravo. One of the biggest complaints when 8th dropped was that magic was overpowered. Replacement of older army books by newer ones pretty much fixed this.

Luna Guardian wrote:
The one time it does is with White Lions and other Great Weapon wielding units, which are going to be chopped up to bits without it

I'm assuming you see lots of Infantry Luna? Because most troops in the game are faster than Lions and will get the charge. Martial Prowess will help with this but likely going second every round hurts.

Luna Guardian wrote:
Can't comment on this, since I have no experience, but I'll take your word for it

Killing power is greater than previous editions (and probably will be even with the abolition of ASF etc) so kills tend to be more important than 'static' combat res.

Luna Guardian wrote:
I didn't like the old Fear rules either, but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction as you said. Maybe if outnumbered 2:1 or having been flank/rear charged it could be an autobreak if lost? That would at least make sense.

Good ideas. With BSB re-rolls Fear doesn't matter as much as it should.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
SpellArcher wrote:
Hatred for example then becomes very scary, particularly with Dark Elves. Thunderstomp too. Maybe your playtesting will show how these and others need to be adjusted.

Has Hatred changed significantly? If it's still the "reroll misses in the first round and must always pursue" is it really that bad? Obviously if the Delves have a stronger version it needs some attention as well, but then so does the Hydra :P

SpellArcher wrote:
Funnily enough, 20 is pretty much a working minimum for Swordmaster or White Lion blocks in 8th. With your proposed changes I would have said Horde of 30 for Lions but Martial Prowess removes the need for this.

SpellArcher wrote:
A very pressing reason for this change the dominance of big flying monsters in late 7th. In 8th these remain powerful but this is balanced against the threat from war machines. With guessed ranges, dragons etc become dominant again. Warriors of Chaos have Daemon Princes and Chimerae which are also good already. Other changes like allowing Terror tests within 6", nerfing Supporting Attacks, Step Up and ASF, allowing Monsters to Disrupt etc add to this. Maybe there are other possible changes that could balance these out but as things stand Monsters look overpowered.

Requires testing, certainly

SpellArcher wrote:
In 8th High Elves are stronger defensively against these things. White Lions come with a 3+ AS vs shooting of course. Banner of the World Dragon stops Hellcannon cold. Shield of Saphery and Ironcurse Icon mean 3++ Phoenix Guard and 5++ Swordmasters are quite common.

White Lions don't get any kinds of saves against any of those, though I will grant you Hellcannons are stopped by the BotWD (helps against a lot of other Chaos stuff too).

SpellArcher wrote:
I'm assuming you see lots of Infantry Luna?

Tons :lol:

SpellArcher wrote:
Because most troops in the game are faster than Lions and will get the charge. Martial Prowess will help with this but likely going second every round hurts.

Cavalry and such always has gotten the charge on infantry, I'm talking about infantry on infantry

SpellArcher wrote:
Good ideas. With BSB re-rolls Fear doesn't matter as much as it should.

Thank you :)

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:39 am 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 7080
Location: The city of Spires
Luna Guardian wrote:
Has Hatred changed significantly? If it's still the "reroll misses in the first round and must always pursue" is it really that bad? Obviously if the Delves have a stronger version it needs some attention as well, but then so does the Hydra

Slightly different. It's only reroll misses in first round. Nothing about pursuing (that's frenzy).

I think SA point was that by making other stuff weaker things that are left unchanged become stronger. HE now really benefit from ASF, which in a lot of cases gives rerolls to hit. Remove those rerolls but leave hatred (for DE) in place and suddenly DE become a lot stronger compared to HE.

Same with thunderstomp. It's D6 hits (at high S usually). Which hurts an infantry unit. But if that infantry unit can hit back with 2 ranks of attacks, then it sort of evens out. Remove the second rank of attacks from the infantry unit, which halves their damage output, but leave the damage output unchanged for monsters and monsters become stronger, relatively speaking.

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:22 pm
Posts: 2546
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Lowering the randomness of the charge increases the power of faster stuff, especially cavalry.
Removing supporting attacks, step up, strike in Initiative order does the same thing.
Monstrous Cavalry was THE thing even without all those buffs. Infantry hordes were not that hot, contrary to expectations at the start of 8th - if you want to nerf them think about how this influence your meta.

_________________
cheers, Lee

Elven Field Surgeon, Department of Intensive Care, Resuscitation and Necromancy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:33 am 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
RE.Lee wrote:
Lowering the randomness of the charge increases the power of faster stuff, especially cavalry.
Removing supporting attacks, step up, strike in Initiative order does the same thing.

I was under the impression that regular cavalry needed a little something?
RE.Lee wrote:
Monstrous Cavalry was THE thing even all those buffs. Infantry hordes were not that hot, contrary to expectations at the start of 8th - if you want to nerf them think about how this influence your meta.

I've heard this, but I haven't had any experience with MonCav. How would you fix them so that they wouldn't be the obvious choice on general?

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:22 pm
Posts: 2546
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Luna Guardian wrote:
I was under the impression that regular cavalry needed a little something?


Not really. It suffers when competing against MC for the same slot (Chaos Knights/Crushers) but a lot of people run regular cavalry buses with great success. Often these are character delivery systems, but stuff like Empire IC Knights can be really powerful and is often a better choice to fill up your core than infantry.

As for MC - we don't use a lot mostly due to self restraint. I only own 3 Demis and 3 Crushers which is a nice number. I think the main thing with them is the 20/0 point system where fast stuff gains you a lot of points. Switching to objective based scenarios changes that up in favour of infantry, I find.

_________________
cheers, Lee

Elven Field Surgeon, Department of Intensive Care, Resuscitation and Necromancy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:24 am 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 7080
Location: The city of Spires
MC are hard to fix, because 8th edition is all about concentration of force. Though, yes, previous editions had this too, but slightly less so. a unit of MC packs a big punch in a very small front and is durable enough not to get many wounds in return. It's great that your unit of 40 spearmen is steadfast, but they aren't going to hurt a MC unit and they'll be removing 10+ models per turn.

Limiting supporting attacks from MC will have a bit of an impact, though it mainly removes the worst of the excesses. 3 MC models can already go to town on a lot of stuff.

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12509
Location: Otherworld
Luna Guardian wrote:
Has Hatred changed significantly? If it's still the "reroll misses in the first round and must always pursue" is it really that bad?

Re-rolling to hit, even for just one round, is very strong for troops with good damage output because that first round instantly reduces the enemy's ability to hurt you back in subsequent rounds.

Luna Guardian wrote:
White Lions don't get any kinds of saves against any of those,

I'm not quite sure what you mean here Luna.

RE.Lee wrote:
Not really. It suffers when competing against MC for the same slot (Chaos Knights/Crushers) but a lot of people run regular cavalry buses with great success. Often these are character delivery systems, but stuff like Empire IC Knights can be really powerful and is often a better choice to fill up your core than infantry.

This.

Prince of Spires wrote:
MC are hard to fix, because 8th edition is all about concentration of force. Though, yes, previous editions had this too, but slightly less so. a unit of MC packs a big punch in a very small front and is durable enough not to get many wounds in return. It's great that your unit of 40 spearmen is steadfast, but they aren't going to hurt a MC unit and they'll be removing 10+ models per turn.

This. I think MC are fine as they are but under your amendments Luna they might need reining in somehow.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:22 pm
Posts: 2546
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Prince of Spires wrote:
Limiting supporting attacks from MC will have a bit of an impact, though it mainly removes the worst of the excesses. 3 MC models can already go to town on a lot of stuff.


A lot of the killing power in MC comes from the mounts (Demis mostly, but Juggernauts too) - they don't get those extra attacks from the second rank. I think this was done on purpose to limit their use in big units and I think a single rank of 4 is still the most common unit size for MC.

I agree that steadfast is nice but without anything to counterattack effectively you're just prolonging your agony. This hurts expecially against 1+ save stuff as even units that would be respectable flankers in 6/7th (halberd-wielding infantry of all types) does very little.

_________________
cheers, Lee

Elven Field Surgeon, Department of Intensive Care, Resuscitation and Necromancy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:08 pm
Posts: 158
Would it make sense to reward better the player who flanks?
I imagine that flanking was toned down in 8ed to balance Steadfast, which makes one-turn breaks more unlikely so that pinning a unit and counter-charging on the flank is easier.

Even if MC has 1+ AS, they should flat out lose on CR against a Steadfast block and a flanking unit right? Or is their damage output so high that they are able to compensate a large static CR deficit?

_________________
' "In fact, men, the general has this to say about ensuring against defeat when outnumbered, out–weaponed and outpositioned. It is..." he turned the page, "Don't Have a Battle."
"Sounds like a clever man," said Jenkins. '
Terry Pratchett, Jingo!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12509
Location: Otherworld
elendor_f wrote:
Or is their damage output so high that they are able to compensate a large static CR deficit?

Often it is. The High Elf book has multiple counters to MC though. RBT, Magic, Cavalry Bus, Dragons. An elite infantry block should beat a 3 or 4 strong unit of MC in a straight fight. Not every book is as well off but most have some answers.

Also, not all MC are awesome. Demigryphs and Skullcrushers are strong. Mournfangs and Necro Knights are so-so. Bloodcrushers are pants.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:08 pm
Posts: 158
Ok I see, thanks for the clarification :)

_________________
' "In fact, men, the general has this to say about ensuring against defeat when outnumbered, out–weaponed and outpositioned. It is..." he turned the page, "Don't Have a Battle."
"Sounds like a clever man," said Jenkins. '
Terry Pratchett, Jingo!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts: 849
Location: Executing operation Ramesesis Reactionary Reviving
I may be a bit radical here but I would, based on my recent expirience, suggest switching to other rules.

Kings of War looks overtly simplistic on the surface but when me and my friend finally got to play a game (our first since AoS crashed the party) we were suprised over how smoothly it ran. Everything can be measured and there are no random charges.

But that does not matter because if you play elves your speed and your weapon skill is your advantage. If you can help it you do not want to be charged!
Dwarves WILL be charghed. But if they are in regiment size they can weather the first attack reasonably well. They have a high defence so you have to work getting those wounds. And having wethered the first onslaught the dwarfs will get their chance to charge you the next turn around.

It was remarkably balanced and it was me losing focus of the mission rather than dwarfs being overpowered that lead to me losing. My friend kept the missions main goal in focus and had some luck with his cannon taking out my elite infantry that he truly feared.

Now I have looked more into it and tweaked the list. Magic is simplified and like characters they are not combat monsters unless they ride a dragon or something like that. But they are great support for the troops, just as they should be.
The elves still have the best selection of spells and the spells are better than the same ones cast by other races. And the elves have two good buff spell, heal, that can restore 1 to 3 wounds on a unit, and Bane chant, that gives the unit +1 for piercing and +1 for crushing strength, increasing their chances to get through the enemys defence and cause damage.

Thjngs will be fun in the future.

_________________
ImageImage
Vaul´s Volatile Vicar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SeuPZoi2GE


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
Hey Rammie, glad to see you're still about! Kings of War might be worth trying, since there'd be no need for new models, if the rules are easily understood (I've never looked at them before, so I wouldn't know).

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:05 pm 
Online
Very Helpful Elf

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
It is a pretty good game. We don't play it much as we don't play army sized games much anymore, but. the games we did play when trying things out were enjoyable. And the basic rules are free. I'd recommend picking up the more advanced ones, we went with the cheaper rules only version- we wanted new rules for playing our warhammer armies, not a whole new background.
a
And if you can understand warhammer rules KoW rules are a piece of cake. And they are much better about helping when there is confusion. If we weren't so addicted to Mordheim KoW would be our game I think.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:03 am 
Offline
Bond... James Bond
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:13 am
Posts: 2672
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Seeing the Nicknames in this topic makes me feel nostalgic.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:50 am 
Offline
Pendragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am
Posts: 1647
Location: Cold, miserable and expensive Finland
Giladis wrote:
Seeing the Nicknames in this topic makes me feel nostalgic.

What's what old saying about Ulthuan being like the mafia?

Good to see you Gil

_________________
Prince Deral Lionbane, head of the House of Lionbane, Lord of Lionstone and Warden of Tor Charta

Luna, try not to beat them too hard. They are proud about their pseudo-glorious past and their present nothingness, you know.
-Elmoth, about Caledorians


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group