|
Post by dannytee on Aug 30, 2015 15:03:00 GMT
But would spamming a Field Warden do anything useful? So what if your opponent has say 5 or 6 Field Wardens? What is the concern? They could be used as chaff units to block powerful enemy units. Many armies have these units but usually they are in the form of fast cav or flying units that cost 50 to 100 points and you see roughly 2 of these units per army. These fast cav or flying units can be shot down easily while the field warden can be protected in a unit and jump out when needed. Also Field Wardens could be taken to fill the front rank of a unit so the enemy couldn't attack rank and file. These are really just silly gimmick type uses but when they are so cheap it is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by beorthulf on Aug 31, 2015 23:39:26 GMT
Suggestions of new units I made for the 9th: Maidens of the Lady: etheral, skirmisher, scout M6 WS2 BS0. A support unit that debuff enemy units at proximity and grant nearby Knights bonuses when this unit is being attacked (healing, stubborn or immune to psychology...). "Scout" to put the unit forward for disrupting enemy units but provides buff to the ally troops to encourage running forward to protect them. I particularly like the fey models from reaper minis (e.g. Lorelei www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Fey). Alternative non-magical could be jesters troop, debuff enemy, enhance non-knight units and can include a bear tamer for some damage Protectors of the Stones: guardian of the stones at the border with the Forest of Loren and within Bretonnia. unit have magic resistance (1) but avoided by peasants that fear them, can be joined by a druid with access to the lore of life. +xx points: Standing Stone - place a magic stone in the middle of the board - e.g. this unit gains bonus while near the stone / negative effect on magic... bonus is lost if the enemy destroy it (or maybe bonus goes to the enemy if it is Destruction e.g. beastmen), this unit then gains hatred of the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by sorenj on Sept 1, 2015 10:16:45 GMT
I shall now post my initial thoughts on this second draft, which overall I think is not up to standard, but has some nice ideas. I think many of the units are priced way too cheap, and there is no weakness in this army for opponents to exploit. Therefore my first comments will mainly be critique and in a later post I will try and post constructive fix-ups. So bear with me if you think I'm being too negative, I'm only the devils advocate (or Nagash).
Special characters I have not addressed any of these as my gaming group never allows them. The armylist should be colorful and playable without them so I advice you do them as the final writing.
Knight of the grail Should just give magical attacks ( are impact hits also magical? I know stomp attacks do not get special rules) . Units with this special rule should have Knightly Chivalry also. Keeps it easier in subsequent special rules if you only need refer to the Knightly Chivalry rule.
The lady's boon Declares a flee? So you don't want panic to affect? what about Terror? It could spook them to make a Flee! as the rules are now.
"A Matron or Damsel of the Lady is slain by close combat attacks, or caught by pursuers after breaking from a close combat or caught by chargers after fleeing from a charge." This should just be slain by any manner (shooting/magic). Its pretty hard to take out character with shooting and magic can be countered - otherwise there is no weakness in this list
Combined profile of mounted characters You may know where I stand on this - but using a combined profile in this way is sub par. Use the Monsterous Mount approach as given before. Otherwise provide us with some arguments why this is a good way of doing it. also, 50pts magic item lords? This is the kind of nonsense that the above rule inflicts.
Throwing axes ?? Really? Must I be bothered with resolving these minor ranged attacks. If its historic because Bretonnia has always had throwing axes then sure go ahead and include them.
Protect the Dame If the rank in front of the Matron/Damsel no longer has a complete rank, then the Matron/Damsel must move forward to fill the space. Makes no sense as a rank is not defined in the rules. (yes you get a rank bonus for each rank of 5 models, but that's not the same as saying a rank = 5)
This rule sucks. Instead, give her "look out ma'am" 2+ save in close combat akin to the look our sir. and stick her in front rank.
Field Wardens 20pts - WTF Everything about this guy smells of cheese. A mentioned by others I will deploy an army consisting of 25% solo Field Wardens. He must be some sort of writers darling.
Unit champions Promote one Errantry Knight to a Cavalier for +5 pts. This should be 10pts, as for EVERYBODY else in the old world. Really, there is no excuse.
Impetuous Errantry Knights have the Frenzy special rule, though they do not gain the Extra Attack or Immune to Psychology special rules granted by the Frenzy special rule. Further more, they may never lose Frenzy. Why is Frenzy mentioned when they are really not frenzied at all. Don't change existing special rules !!!
Instead: Impetious: Erranty Knights must always declare a charge if an enemy presents itself within range and may not restrain from pursuit. Errantry knights must declare charge actions before other units.
KNIGHTS OF THE REALM again champion must be 10pts.
As a general rule magic banners is always 50pts for units, unless you are BSB. This deviation from mainstream only makes it harder for players to build armylists when there is a thousand things priced differently then usual.
PAUPER KNIGHTS The Halberd is an unchivalrous weapon! Really, 1 pts for S5 WTF.! I don't really see why Knightly Chivalry is an option, either they are knights or they are not. Which brings me to 12 pts for a for heavy infantry with a wardsave imune to panic is WAAAYYY too cheap.
Weapons Master Is this for whole unit or for individual model?
Men-at-arms NO NO NO. you cannot get cheap knights (20pts) AND cheap infantry (5pts) as well. Either increase cost of knights or men-at-arms are 6 pts. minimum.
Pavise. No need to write spells. Each spell determines if AS is allowed. Can they be used to parry?
Grail Reliquae Palanquin For all rules purposes the Grail Reliquae counts as a musician, a standard bearer and a unit champion. This is nonsense - I foresee a thousand instances of rule confusions and conflicts with existing rules.
Squires At 13 pts. NO . Here is 5 squires, here's another 5, another 5 and I'll keep on going. (the list of a thousand Field wardens and Squires has been born)
Grail Knights 65 pts. Quite expensive for what they do really. I'd take a pegaus knight any day.
Dread knights Nice unit. I'll make sure to bring a load of these at only 28 pts. Needs to be nerfed in some way if points are to stay the same.
GRAIL WAR CHAPEL It kinda sucks. Harmonic convergence is nice, but your own wizard can do the same only better because of wizard lvl cast bonus. It should at least be immune to psyschology and inspire units within 6" with hatred.
EDIT: I just saw the Mercenaries and Porcupine now. The Mercenaries are priced okay, I'm not sure if they are a bit too much with all them special rules. The Porcupine is just way to cheap. You don't get a Hellblaster for 95 pts. Why does it follow the rules for bolt throwers? Its just a warmachine with the following profile. Range should be 24" and mulitple shot 2D6 or something.
/Cheers
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:13:58 GMT
Field Wardens
20pts - WTF Everything about this guy smells of cheese. A mentioned by others I will deploy an army consisting of 25% solo Field Wardens. He must be some sort of writers darling. -----------Someone really needs to prove this to me, because I don't understand why this is such a good choice. Also what if the horse option is removed? As for a "writer's darling", possibly, but Warhammer players like to make themed armies and I believe army lists should allow them. There are Goblin armies, Skink armies, Gnoblar armies, Halfling armies, Witch Elf armies, Peasant armies, etc. Can you write up an army list with 25% Field Wardens and describe the tactics you would use to win? Or even better, playtest it, please?
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:21:18 GMT
Unit championsPromote one Errantry Knight to a Cavalier for +5 pts.
This should be 10pts, as for EVERYBODY else in the old world. Really, there is no excuse. Champions are more frequent in the Bretonnian Realm, just as Empire infantry work in detachments or Goblins suffer from animosity. Units champions were FREE in older versions of the army list. The +5 points, rather than +10, is a nod to this rule and connection with the background. I don't think it makes or breaks the army.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:25:25 GMT
Squires
At 13 pts. NO . Here is 5 squires, here's another 5, another 5 and I'll keep on going. (the list of a thousand Field wardens and Squires has been born) --------Hmm, I thought they might be too expensive at 13 points. I don't see how the described army list could be any army. Please explain and go beat down people with it!
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:30:06 GMT
Protect the DameIf the rank in front of the Matron/Damsel no longer has a complete rank, then the Matron/Damsel must move forward to fill the space.
Makes no sense as a rank is not defined in the rules. (yes you get a rank bonus for each rank of 5 models, but that's not the same as saying a rank = 5) This rule sucks. Instead, give her "look out ma'am" 2+ save in close combat akin to the look our sir. and stick her in front rank. ---------I def like a more simple rule like you have just described. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:33:59 GMT
Dread knightsNice unit. I'll make sure to bring a load of these at only 28 pts. Needs to be nerfed in some way if points are to stay the same. ---------They are Rare choices and they look good on paper, but they need to be playtested. They may need in increase in points.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:41:30 GMT
The Porcupine is just way to cheap. You don't get a Hellblaster for 95 pts. Why does it follow the rules for bolt throwers? Its just a warmachine with the following profile. Range should be 24" and mulitple shot 2D6 or something. ---------Hellblasters are 125 points, I think it's priced pretty well. Hellblasters can have up to 30 shots, and they will usually shoot over 10, though they can misfire. Hellblasters also have armour piercing. The Porcupine might be a little under costed, but IF that is the case, it's off by 5 or 10 points. You seem to think everything is "way too cheap." There is a breaking point, where players will not considered even taking a particular unit if it's too much. It cuts both ways.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:44:53 GMT
But would spamming a Field Warden do anything useful? So what if your opponent has say 5 or 6 Field Wardens? What is the concern? They could be used as chaff units to block powerful enemy units. Many armies have these units but usually they are in the form of fast cav or flying units that cost 50 to 100 points and you see roughly 2 of these units per army. These fast cav or flying units can be shot down easily while the field warden can be protected in a unit and jump out when needed. Also Field Wardens could be taken to fill the front rank of a unit so the enemy couldn't attack rank and file. These are really just silly gimmick type uses but when they are so cheap it is a possibility. ---------------Right, but that tactic is not as potent as it once was (i.e. 6th and 7th edition). But if this is a serious issue, taking away the horse mount option might be the solution.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 0:51:38 GMT
I shall now post my initial thoughts on this second draft, which overall I think is not up to standard, but has some nice ideas. I think many of the units are priced way too cheap, and there is no weakness in this army for opponents to exploit. Therefore my first comments will mainly be critique and in a later post I will try and post constructive fix-ups. So bear with me if you think I'm being too negative, I'm only the devils advocate (or Nagash). -----------Sorenj, I appreciate your comments, and I've replied to some of them above. Keep in mind though, some comments with out explanation are simply not helpful. At this stage, I am very much testing point values, some prices I think are a bit high, some a bit low. But it's really through some solid playtesting to get them in line. The feedback I'm most interested in are comments backed with a specific reason or thought process or playtest result on why. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by vazalaar on Sept 5, 2015 12:59:43 GMT
KevinC, I hope you will consider my proposal about combined profiles, which ofcourse means a point increase. About the Field Warden. It is imo a very good idea. I would change/add the following. Base cost raised to 25. Remove crossbow option. (Crossbows should be only for the Mercenary unit which is a rare choice, otherwise it looks to much as an Empire duplicate). When mounted +10 points and can be equiped with a spear for +2 points or equiped with spear and bow (not longbow) for 4 points. When not mounted the Warden can be equiped with Halberd (3 points) or spear (free) or great weapon (5 points) or additional hand weapon (2 pts). Can be equiped with a shield (3 points) Can exchange light armour for heavy armour (6 points) Per unit of men-at-arms or bowmen unit you can add 1 Field Warden. Thus when you go for infantry heavy Bret force with 5 Men-at-arms units you can have 5 Field Wardens. For longbowmen, remove Crossbow and pavise options and add it to the rare mercenary unit. Add Mounted Yeomen. Remove the bow option from squires, give squires light armour, shield and spear as default. (Points increase). Mounted Yeomen as in the current Bret book. I would remove the Poison knight unit. It's to much. I would remove the Grail Knight option from the Pauper knights. Also can you take a look at this? warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=130276I really like his changes to the rulebook: Spear: +2 Initiative in Close Combat, Fight in Extra Ranks (always) This would make spears a valid choice.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 5, 2015 16:35:07 GMT
I really like his changes to the rulebook: Spear: +2 Initiative in Close Combat, Fight in Extra Ranks (always) This would make spears a valid choice. Vazalaar, I appreciate all comments, as I do anyone who responds. And even if I don't reply to everything, I can assure you that I take everything that is said into consideration. As far as this spear comment. Yes, I personally like it. However, my fears are that the WFB community is falling further apart. Let me say I hope I am totally wrong about all of this, but the main reason why I am sad to see GW's drop in support of WFB is this – players, clubs and groups are now fracturing resulting in all kinds of rules 'solutions', I'm concerned this will destroy what's left of the 8th edition community. This is why we established EEFL. The core ruleset remains, even if there are some issues. It's still the most balanced edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. I strongly believe in developing new supplements for 8th edition, but not revising the core ruleset. We need a solid core to unite us and keep use together, and that solid core is the 8th edition WFB rulebook. Already, several groups and tournament organizers have a million-and-one changes for different events, etc. While I applaud their efforts, it's going to make a mess of the game. Although, as stated in other threads, I cannot commit to tournaments this year, which I normally attend, I glanced at a few tournament rules because I still want to find a way to go. I was immediately turned off when I saw pages of updates that alter the core rules. Hopefully though, it's just me. My goal however, will continue to play, promote and create expansions for the WFB 8th edition, even it I'm the last person standing.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 19, 2015 13:45:43 GMT
UPDATE:
I just wanted to give an update. I've been getting some feedback from off this forum, but I don't want anyone to think this project is dead here. It certainly is not. And I appreciate all comments.
Please continue to post comments, suggestions, ideas, battle reports etc. Please playtest if you can.
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Reolus on Sept 21, 2015 2:01:59 GMT
Hey KevinC, Just read through your rules and they look really exciting and fun! I really think you have hit on some great, balanced solutions to making Bretonnia relevant in 8th, which is awesome. I don't know if you've seen Mathias Ellison's work on 8th: issuu.com/m4cr1ii3n/docs/warhammer__-_bretonnia but it's also very good and may be useful as a comparision? I really like your inclusion of Mallobaude and the traitorous Bretonnian army! Looks very fun You seem to have a lot of people doing great play-testing and rules balancing. Myself, I'm more of a fluff/lore/scenario kind of person, so I was wondering if you wanted suggestions or ideas for your work on that? I'd be really keen to get involved and help out on that angle, if you were interested. Let me know and I'll start bombing this thread (or a new one) with some ideas that might be useful!! - Reo
|
|