|
Post by lordofskullpass on Feb 11, 2022 15:02:27 GMT
This is the place to discuss the EEFL Armies Project idea coined by oldmandan - a forum-wide (or at least as many people on the forum as we can get) initiative to balance out 8th properly and get all armies to a level playing field, without overstepping the mark and entering a 9th Edition, a mistake that first The Ninth Age and then Matthias Eliasson made. Being rooted on the forum and collaborated upon by many forumites will allow this project to carry greater weight than a project maintained by just one. KevinC I imagine you'd be interested in this - and while you're here, could you please pin this thread? Here is the list of works that make up the EEFL Armies Project portfolio: 8th Edition Rulebook Errata by Warhammer: Beastmen by lordofskullpass Warhammer: Bretonnia by lordofskullpass Warhammer: Skaven by oldmandan Warhammer: Orcs and Goblins (Errata) by lordofskullpass Warhammer: Tomb Kings (Errata) by lordofskullpass Warhammer: Chaos Dwarfs by The Rules- These supplements are to be used alongside the following official works for 8th Edition: The 8th Edition Rulebook, Warhammer: Orcs and Goblins, Warhammer: Tomb Kings, Warhammer: Ogre Kingdoms, Warhammer: The Empire, Warhammer: Vampire Counts, Warhammer: Warriors of Chaos, Warhammer: Daemons of Chaos, Warhammer: High Elves, Warhammer: Lizardmen, Warhammer: Dark Elves, Warhammer: Dwarfs, Warhammer: Wood Elves and the Storm of Magic, Triumph and Treachery and Blood in the Badlands expansions. They are not replacements for these works (except the army books for Beastmen, Bretonnia, Skaven and Chaos Dwarfs which replace the 7th Edition books for Beastmen and Skaven, the 6th Edition book for Bretonnia and the Legion of Azgorh mini-list in Tamurkhan: The Throne of Chaos).
- These supplements should follow the design styles, aesthetics and book layout of 8th Edition, to give a high-quality, authentic and professional feel.
- As many games played by EEFL forumites as possible should use these works where appropriate - in order for the influence and renown for this project to spread, we encourage as many of you to use it as possible - after all, it's creation and development is intended to be for every 8th Edition player's benefit, with improved balance and quality of the Edition in mind!
- Any queries or complaints shall be posted here, with the author of the work in question being tagged to let them know they are needed. The author of the work has every right to turn down any proposed changes if they believe that such changes would negatively affect 8th Edition's balance or the quality of its gameplay.
- Players are encouraged to suggest ideas for additional factions, army lists, scenarios, campaigns and game modes, and if they wish may produce works for these ideas themselves, so long as they are evaluated to be suitably balanced by existing forumites. Upon completion these works shall be linked to this post (authors other than myself, please attach your work to Google Drive or a similar cloud storage network and send the shareable link to me via PM so that I can link it to this thread properly).
- If anyone has any other questions, send me a PM and I'll be happy to help.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Feb 11, 2022 15:03:12 GMT
Now to answer a couple of questions on the WAP discussion thread: Additionally, a project overseen by this forum to improve 8th rather than create a separate game as first 9th Age and now Eliasson have done can fill a gap in the market, especially as endorsement by this forum would carry greater weight than one person's authorship alone. Count me as on board. For a while I've wanted to try my hand at generating a minimal list of rule tweaks to balance 8th edition. But "balance" is highly subjective for sure. Stuff like: - Cannons scatter in random direction with first roll.
- BS shooting +1 at short range instead of -1 at long range.
- Non fast cavalry get impact hits on the charge.
- Once a unit is over five ranks deep it must add one file per rank.
- Something to limit hoard units:
- Maybe 36 models (six ranks of six files) is the max unit size across the board.
- Or model limits per base size so 20mm could be larger than 25mm, etc.
- Or just remove the hoard rule
I would 100% just recommend removing the Horde rule, I never liked it as it was a scheme to get players to buy more infantry models. Infantry will still be highly viable thanks to step-up (which was a great addition all-round) and Steadfast. I've seen a lot of people recommend scatter for cannons, but I just can't see how it can be made to work. Scattering D6" on bounce is a possibility (with a Hit allowing it to travel in a straight line), but any other way I think would cause Cannons to be too unreliable and would just look weird. Also why the need to add an extra file per rank beyond five? Column formation is a thing you know. Otherwise though, those alterations would be great. Lesser unit strength closes the door in the charge. So five skaven slaves can't force twenty chaos warriors to pursue/overrun in a weird direction. I would extend the Lower Unit Strength rules to encompass panic as well - 5 Chaos Warhounds dying shouldn't panic a unit of 20+ Gors. I get what your saying. However, Total War is not something that would necessarily translate well. The danger is making things too powerful, whilst in reality yes knights would demolish infantry unless they were a schiltern. Buffing knights too much would make them insane and an auto win in every situation. For instance if Wild riders had both impact hits and devastating charge they would just annihilate everything. So I would stay with in this case Devastating charge when in Lance formation. I must confess I've never had trouble winning combats with cavalry. I never intended to make heavy cavalry more powerful than infantry, I simply feel that Impact Hits (1) for all cavalry (or at least non-Fast Cavalry as per thegoat 's proposition) would help to balance them out against infantry. I'd still think Wild Riders would be balanced in that they're quite squishy to compensate for their damage output, even with their Talismanic Tattoos, as they have no armour other than the +1 for being mounted.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Feb 11, 2022 15:34:11 GMT
I've deliberately left the Rulebook Errata and Chaos Dwarf army book authorship blank as, with so many projects myself, I thought I'd entrust these to some of you. Anybody who fancies a crack at it, please reply here on a first-come-first-served basis. I have some guidelines for the Chaos Dwarf author to follow - t he bedrock of the book should consist of the existing Legion of Azgorh rules from Tamurkhan: The Throne of Chaos, with new units being an addendum to the mini-list, but with the following exceptions:- The Resolute and Relentless special rules should be updated to those in Warhammer: Dwarfs.
- The Iron Daemon should inflict the D6 hits it inflicts in each round of combat after the first at the beginning of the round as a Grind Attack (as per the Skaven Doomwheel) rather than as a Thunderstomp (which happens at the end of combat) - a smoke-belching vehicle crewed by ruthless evil Dwarfs wouldn't stop in its path to allow you to make your attacks first, and then run you over afterwards!
- Rules should exist for 'ordinary' War Beast Bull Centaurs (so that the 4th Edition models are usable) as well as the Monstrous Beast Renders - the Renders are simply the 'bigger brothers' of the normal-size Centaurs.
Furthermore, as well as the Hellcannon appearing in the Chaos Dwarf book, I personally think it should be treated as removed from the Warriors of Chaos book (as the Chaos Dwarfs are meant to be a faction in their own right, they should no longer have to be an Easter Egg in others).
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 11, 2022 16:15:57 GMT
I've seen a lot of people recommend scatter for cannons, but I just can't see how it can be made to work. Scattering D6" on bounce is a possibility (with a Hit allowing it to travel in a straight line), but any other way I think would cause Cannons to be too unreliable and would just look weird. As is cannons are just too accurate. They should be aimed at blocks of troops, not single models as they commonly are now. I think adding a scatter die to the first roll would encourage players to aim at blocks of troops. Other warmachines like stone throwers and mortars scatter in random directions and they still show up on the tabletop. One third of the time (rolling a hit on the scatter die) would make the cannon more accurate than it currently is. Fluffwise it never made sense top me that cannon crews were millimetre perfect aiming left/right, but sloppy aiming forward/backward.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 11, 2022 16:52:45 GMT
I'll look at the Skaven and have a think as to what changes they may need. I think it'll mainly be magic, magic items and equipment and possibly some assessment of points cost, I'll also look at previous books see if there is any good items.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy_Dokta on Feb 11, 2022 17:09:11 GMT
My two cents: we need some more personal stuff for each army (loads of magic items, maybe WE kindreds or VC personal bloodline powers) as it were in 6-7th ed.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Feb 11, 2022 17:32:59 GMT
I've seen a lot of people recommend scatter for cannons, but I just can't see how it can be made to work. Scattering D6" on bounce is a possibility (with a Hit allowing it to travel in a straight line), but any other way I think would cause Cannons to be too unreliable and would just look weird. As is cannons are just too accurate. They should be aimed at blocks of troops, not single models as they commonly are now. I think adding a scatter die to the first roll would encourage players to aim at blocks of troops. Other warmachines like stone throwers and mortars scatter in random directions and they still show up on the tabletop. One third of the time (rolling a hit on the scatter die) would make the cannon more accurate than it currently is. Fluffwise it never made sense top me that cannon crews were millimetre perfect aiming left/right, but sloppy aiming forward/backward. I understand your points, but a Scatter Dice on the first roll would often produce really weird-looking cannon shots that could scatter wide of the target unit entirely, which makes no sense given a cannon fires a shot straight forwards, while a stone thrower fires its payload up into the air in the enemy's general direction. I certainly think that a Cannon should scatter only D6", with the two rolls being resolved in the direction rolled, and no more. Also circumstances such as the arrow pointing backwards toward the cannon need to be resolved. I'll look at the Skaven and have a think as to what changes they may need. I think it'll mainly be magic, magic items and equipment and possibly some assessment of points cost, I'll also look at previous books see if there is any good items. I would certainly suggest strongly that their Core slot should include Plague Monks and Giant Rats that contribute to the Core allowance (as the Packmasters are sentient) to allow Pestilens and Moulder-themed armies (and greater variation in Core units). I really want to have a more diverse Core slot than just Clanrats and Stormvermin. Looking at previous books is good, older books can bring a lot of inspiration to a new edition. I was wondering if the 'Life is Cheap' rule from 6th (allowing Skaven to shoot into combat but randomising hits) should also be brought back, especially as it's an optional rule - you can choose to fire into a combat or not, and players who don't like the rule don't have to use it. And I trust you'll be making the book for it as well? Or alternatively I could make the book and simply include your magic item choices? My two cents: we need some more personal stuff for each army (loads of magic items, maybe WE kindreds or VC personal bloodline powers) as it were in 6-7th ed. My personal wish for that would be to replace the massive generic magic items list in the rulebook with a smaller generic items list and more faction-unique items in the army books, but that would be straying beyond 8th and into new edition territory, which I expressly aim to avoid. Similarly though additional character traits for more armies would be fantastic (and subfactions, I like the idea of subfactions), again I'd by-and-large like to keep the existing 8th books themselves intact, apart from an errata for each one tweaking profiles and special rules to balance them all out.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 11, 2022 17:44:28 GMT
For cannon scatter, how about this?
Cannon fires normally to the bounce. Then you roll the artillery die, the scatter die, and a D6 together. Artillery die tells you how long the bounce is. Determine where this end point would be. Then it scatters the result of the D6 in inches, in the direction of the scatter dice.
Yeah, sometimes the cannonball bounces backwards using this. It's a pretty rare result, and one never knows how a cannonball might bounce if it hits a rock. If it really bothers you, perhaps a D3 might work better.
At any rate, it'll still hit units just fine. It's just not going to snipe individual infantry models out of the unit reliably.
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Feb 11, 2022 17:53:02 GMT
My take on this is that changes to the main rulebook are dangerous and a slippery slope to that dreaded n-th variation of ninth edition. And I cannot imagine there being much uptake, it'll just fracture the community even more. Starts right here, don't take away my horde rule!
What might make sense is a SHORT list of houserules to smooth out the very rough edges of 8th (should fit on one page and ideally each rule would be independent and people could pick and choose to their taste). This would largely be a compilation of stuff floating about. e.g. amendments to 'True line of sight' or templates not hitting rider AND monster. But, even there I have doubts you can get to common ground (which is why I suggest a 'pick and choose' approach).
What I do like is new army books or re-writes of existing books. That just adds flavor to warhammer and helps with the long-term engagement. I will note that kevinC has done quite a few. And if you keep the core rules intact, these new books could just peacefully exist with the original army books. That's pretty much how WAP started and it is a nice body of work. Locally we are using the WAP 8th edition DoW book and we have been talking about building up a WAP 8th Norse army. Always exciting to start new armies!
On the new/revised army book side I am happy to contribute by reading/editing/even play testing.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Feb 11, 2022 19:53:10 GMT
I'd be happy to help out with an Empire "revision", but they don't need much. (Greatswords being -1 point per model, Generals being able to take Demigryphs as mounts, etc.) I can see what I can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 11, 2022 21:10:21 GMT
I can get on board with a list of house rules. Yeah I think you might have to do the AB my tech skills are limited, I can come up with good ideas but not sure how I would produce a codex. Life is cheap never went away, globadiers can do it to any unit, but slaves and rat swarms are expendable so their combats can be shot into. One of the main reasons for limiting life is cheap is because a few me included used during doubles matches used to shoot into our team mates combats. Giant rats not contributing to core was to limit the spamming of them. Plague monks being core is certainly a possibility as night runners are core but gutter runners are special. Though Plague monks being core might go against the fluff.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 12, 2022 16:08:05 GMT
Not sure about making Plague monks core. But a possibility would be to introduce the plague pontifex from the Lustria campaign and if he was the army General that would make Plague monks count as core. Again though the reason for Plague monks being core is to keep the numbers of Plague furnaces down. If they were core I would just take two which would give me a horrendously solid core that could deal loads of damage.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy_Dokta on Feb 12, 2022 17:14:44 GMT
Not sure about making Plague monks core. But a possibility would be to introduce the plague pontifex from the Lustria campaign and if he was the army General that would make Plague monks count as core. Again though the reason for Plague monks being core is to keep the numbers of Plague furnaces down. If they were core I would just take two which would give me a horrendously solid core that could deal loads of damage. Maybe it's something like army lists from 6th Skaven armybook? Greater clans with certain units for them (Pestilens have monks in core (and that stuff from Lustria book too), but several Special units are Rare for them or are not allowed at all. The same with other Clans). Also they need certain Lord&Hero choices (Master mutator/Plaguelord/Masterwarlock for the Moulder/Pesti/Skryre respecrively). P.S.: Skaven are ok in 8th ed, it's just for variety and fun. P.P.S.: The same maybe for the WoC. Some certain units/lists for each Chaos mark. Also "Chaos animosity" (from old ed) - they hate each other after all (Tzeentch - Nurgle, Khorne - Slaanesh). I don't have the book near at hand, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 12, 2022 17:33:58 GMT
Yeah, overall Skaven are fine in 8th edition. I was looking at just tweaking the magic items and equipment to bring them in line with 8th edition, so things like warlock enhanced optics became a gear option not a magic item, I like the idea of tooling them up in different ways. Also boosted versions of spells would be nice. And in fairness no one ever uses worlds edge armour so what's the point in having it.
|
|
|
Post by adso13 on Feb 12, 2022 19:13:48 GMT
I think the house rules idea is a great answer to the "problem," I guess you could call it. Here are a few I'd suggest:
1. Any model in b2b with a character in a unit can direct their attacks at the unit instead of just the character. This solves a lot of the problems with the Gutstar primarily, but also with other armies being able to load up on characters in a front rank. 2. Someone mentioned it already, but give any cavalry unit that isn't fast cavalry Impact Hits, and maybe Monstrous cavalry devastating charge in addition to Impact Hits. Really just something to make a cavalry charge meaningful. Possibly d3 impact hits per full rank? 3. Steadfast is negated if there is a unit in the flank or rear of at least two full ranks of infantry, or one full rank of cavalry (any kind) or monstrous infantry. I love the steadfast rule, but it is a bit much. 4. I'm not sure what I'd do about ridden monsters, but they're basically worthless at this point. I like what they did in End Times with them, with the combined profiles, but maybe something more like monstrous cavalry. Use the wounds of the monster and the save of the rider together. 5. New Freaking Scenarios. The battles in the BRB are all well and good, but they definitely lend themselves to certain armies winning a lot. Even if you just have things like objectives many (not all) of the disparities between the army books are lessened.
Some other things to mention: I've never been super successful with cannons no matter how "laser-guided" they are, so I'm not too fussed about them, but I'd be okay with a d3' scatter after the first bounce. D6' is waaaaaaay too much. I still want them to be able to take out monsters as some of those monsters are really freaking hard to deal with otherwise. With a small scatter after the bounce, they'd still be able to reliably take them out, without it being a "guaranteed" first turn kill. I think the tweaks to the rulebook above make it so you don't need major changes to the army books. So, Beastmen, for instance only really need marks--and not even for free--and their army is way better. Maybe points adjustments here and there. Mottdon is sooooo right about demigryphs being purchasable mounts. Like, how is a Templar Grand Master not allowed to be on one? WTF, mate? As for any other tweaks to an army book, I'd be happy to test them out. As long as it's not Skaven or Demons as neither I nor my nephew have either of those books.
|
|