|
|
Post by mattbro on May 19, 2021 22:31:12 GMT
Obviously Matthias should do what he enjoys so sure, put out a 9th edition. Same for re-writting army books. All of that is not my cup of tea. What I find useful about the WAP is his efforts to collate all units/fluff bits for 'minor' factions from the last ~30yrs. I don't think there is hardly any of 'his own BS' (which as an aside I find unnecessarily derogatory, it's as much or little BS as everything else, very much including GW's output). So yes, the result is not a tight/themed/balanced (whatever you want to call it) army list but a hodgepodge. Let's you pick an army from the list to give it the flavor you want (leaving out the things you -for whatever reason- disagree with) and play in your garage. I have used the 8th edition DoW army book and it works fine. I've looked at the Chaos Dwarf army book, terrible editing (whole fluff paragraphs repeated, and very uneven flow to the text) but it includes all unit entries one could possibly think of. Many rules lifted from KevinC's version, mashed together with the LoA. I am very grateful for his efforts. If he stopped tomorrow, the books are still there, not sure what the problem is. Just stay away from ANYBODY's ninth edition. EEFL Other than lacking a thematic direction, I feel the main problem with the "include every single thing" approach is that it actually unbalances the lists, which is the exact opposite of what the WAP is trying to do. Including so many things that were never intended to be fielded together essentially erases a lot of weaknesses that factions should have. The only weakness in your lists will be ones you build in there yourself |
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 20, 2021 17:59:56 GMT
Obviously Matthias should do what he enjoys so sure, put out a 9th edition. Same for re-writting army books. All of that is not my cup of tea. What I find useful about the WAP is his efforts to collate all units/fluff bits for 'minor' factions from the last ~30yrs. I don't think there is hardly any of 'his own BS' (which as an aside I find unnecessarily derogatory, it's as much or little BS as everything else, very much including GW's output). So yes, the result is not a tight/themed/balanced (whatever you want to call it) army list but a hodgepodge. Let's you pick an army from the list to give it the flavor you want (leaving out the things you -for whatever reason- disagree with) and play in your garage. I have used the 8th edition DoW army book and it works fine. I've looked at the Chaos Dwarf army book, terrible editing (whole fluff paragraphs repeated, and very uneven flow to the text) but it includes all unit entries one could possibly think of. Many rules lifted from KevinC's version, mashed together with the LoA. I am very grateful for his efforts. If he stopped tomorrow, the books are still there, not sure what the problem is. Just stay away from ANYBODY's ninth edition. EEFL Of course he and everyone writing their own rules should of course do what they like. I am not against anyone writing there own rules. The problem in this case is that’s it is an ongoing project and not a finished product. And it probably never will be finished. And yes for me I do keep my hands off any ongoing projects made by a single individual. Unless it’s for testing or other purpose like adding stuff to existing 8ed. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbro on May 20, 2021 21:03:06 GMT
Obviously Matthias should do what he enjoys so sure, put out a 9th edition. Same for re-writting army books. All of that is not my cup of tea. What I find useful about the WAP is his efforts to collate all units/fluff bits for 'minor' factions from the last ~30yrs. I don't think there is hardly any of 'his own BS' (which as an aside I find unnecessarily derogatory, it's as much or little BS as everything else, very much including GW's output). So yes, the result is not a tight/themed/balanced (whatever you want to call it) army list but a hodgepodge. Let's you pick an army from the list to give it the flavor you want (leaving out the things you -for whatever reason- disagree with) and play in your garage. I have used the 8th edition DoW army book and it works fine. I've looked at the Chaos Dwarf army book, terrible editing (whole fluff paragraphs repeated, and very uneven flow to the text) but it includes all unit entries one could possibly think of. Many rules lifted from KevinC's version, mashed together with the LoA. I am very grateful for his efforts. If he stopped tomorrow, the books are still there, not sure what the problem is. Just stay away from ANYBODY's ninth edition. EEFL Of course he and everyone writing their own rules should of course do what they like. I am not against anyone writing there own rules. The problem in this case is that’s it is an ongoing project and not a finished product. And it probably never will be finished. And yes for me I do keep my hands off any ongoing projects made by a single individual. Unless it’s for testing or other purpose like adding stuff to existing 8ed. Eventually I'd like to make a simple website for the books that I've written (currently whenever people request a copy I just link them to my mega account). I write my stuff by myself, but I make sure to get community feedback constantly as I work, particularly when incorporating totally new ideas/mechanics. A lot of guys from the two major facebook Tomb Kings pages have downloaded my tk book and the feedback has been very positive, which is heartening. They're all feeding me streams of comments though, which I'm incorporating into the next version. So it's a one man project, but with a lot of consultation. Currently I'm doing the Brets in the same fashion and Beastmen will be after that |
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on May 24, 2021 18:29:25 GMT
I think a few people have hit the nail on the head here. It is all well and good trying to include everything but I think because he is working alone he has missed some of the finer aspects of things. I think if we all put our heads together we could easily come up with a 9th edition that would satisfy most players.
|
|
Yvain
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by Yvain on May 24, 2021 19:12:08 GMT
I think a few people have hit the nail on the head here. It is all well and good trying to include everything but I think because he is working alone he has missed some of the finer aspects of things. I think if we all put our heads together we could easily come up with a 9th edition that would satisfy most players. Yea, like all I want is an update that just adds in some minor tweaks and we would be go to go honestly. The main problem with the game is the broken options in army books. However, even in the most broken books only a few units/options really actually need to be changed. And even those don't need to be changed by that much.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbro on May 24, 2021 19:52:18 GMT
I think a few people have hit the nail on the head here. It is all well and good trying to include everything but I think because he is working alone he has missed some of the finer aspects of things. I think if we all put our heads together we could easily come up with a 9th edition that would satisfy most players. I did feel like the Tomb Kings book needed to be rebuilt from the ground up. It was built on flawed concepts and simply didn't function, but other than that I agree, the edition rules and most of the army books only really needed a bit of a polish. The only other book that I think needed a moderate amount of work was Bretonnians, but not because their 6th ed book was bad. It was a fundamentally solid book, it just got left behind by power creep over the next two editions. They just needed to be brought up to speed |
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on May 24, 2021 20:44:10 GMT
I think a few people have hit the nail on the head here. It is all well and good trying to include everything but I think because he is working alone he has missed some of the finer aspects of things. I think if we all put our heads together we could easily come up with a 9th edition that would satisfy most players.
I think that's exactly how any of the existing 9th age/editions started. Then hubris took over. Careful now, lads. Stay the course  (by which I mean stick with new army books or simply new units for that existing, venerable yet serviceable ruleset) |
|
|
|
Post by mattbro on May 26, 2021 2:13:16 GMT
I think a few people have hit the nail on the head here. It is all well and good trying to include everything but I think because he is working alone he has missed some of the finer aspects of things. I think if we all put our heads together we could easily come up with a 9th edition that would satisfy most players.
I think that's exactly how any of the existing 9th age/editions started. Then hubris took over. Careful now, lads. Stay the course (by which I mean stick with new army books or simply new units for that existing, venerable yet serviceable ruleset) Yeah, I'm sure it started with a few guys just going "you know what, it couldn't be that hard, it just needs a fresh coat of paint. A few tweaks and we'll be done..." and now it's spiraled into this sprawling thing. I think the same thing would end up happening to anyone else who tried. I'm still going to finish my edition, even though at this pace it'll probably take 3-4 years, but when it's done it's done, I don't want it to consume me with endless rewrites plus additional army books for obscure or minor races and factions |
|
Yvain
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by Yvain on May 26, 2021 14:22:51 GMT
I think a few people have hit the nail on the head here. It is all well and good trying to include everything but I think because he is working alone he has missed some of the finer aspects of things. I think if we all put our heads together we could easily come up with a 9th edition that would satisfy most players. I did feel like the Tomb Kings book needed to be rebuilt from the ground up. It was built on flawed concepts and simply didn't function, but other than that I agree, the edition rules and most of the army books only really needed a bit of a polish. The only other book that I think needed a moderate amount of work was Bretonnians, but not because their 6th ed book was bad. It was a fundamentally solid book, it just got left behind by power creep over the next two editions. They just needed to be brought up to speed
I don't think I agree on the rebuilt comment (though I suppose the term is objective). The issue with Tomb Kings book mostly come down to points and the march restriction mechanic. There is no reason some of their stuff costs the way it does compared to like options in other factions. Things dont have to be a direct comparison, but in some cases the point over cost is significant. Removal of the move spell dependence and their attributes really start to shine.
The one other issue is an 8th edition problem in that GW thought T5+ means you are durable, but we know T5 no save means Lasgun fodder. You fix weaker monsters and the Construct thing isnt a problem and suddenly TK will start to looking powerful
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbro on May 26, 2021 19:58:27 GMT
I did feel like the Tomb Kings book needed to be rebuilt from the ground up. It was built on flawed concepts and simply didn't function, but other than that I agree, the edition rules and most of the army books only really needed a bit of a polish. The only other book that I think needed a moderate amount of work was Bretonnians, but not because their 6th ed book was bad. It was a fundamentally solid book, it just got left behind by power creep over the next two editions. They just needed to be brought up to speed
I don't think I agree on the rebuilt comment (though I suppose the term is objective). The issue with Tomb Kings book mostly come down to points and the march restriction mechanic. There is no reason some of their stuff costs the way it does compared to like options in other factions. Things dont have to be a direct comparison, but in some cases the point over cost is significant. Removal of the move spell dependence and their attributes really start to shine.
The one other issue is an 8th edition problem in that GW thought T5+ means you are durable, but we know T5 no save means Lasgun fodder. You fix weaker monsters and the Construct thing isnt a problem and suddenly TK will start to looking powerful
Youre right that a lot of things were not as tough as Cruddace thought they were. T8 would have been a big deal in 6th, but in 8th being T8 but without any armour, ward save, and only modest number of wounds means getting murdered by archers or skinks with javelins on turn 2. Don't forget though that there are a lot of units in that book that simply can't do the job they're supposed to do, because they've been designed badly (Necrosphinx gets chewed out by most other monsters and Apophas couldn't kill another character to save his life), that isn't fixed by points adjustments. The total dependency on spells to be able to even function, but their magic being unreliable was another thing. Heralds still weren't worth using. Then there was weird stuff like Necrotects have barely any meaningful synergy with their own constructs. There are a lot of problems. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbro on May 26, 2021 20:29:52 GMT
Actually, this guy pretty much nails it https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/7pj313/why_tomb_kings_were_unpopular_on_the_tabletop/
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on May 28, 2021 17:51:01 GMT
In answer to the Tomb Kings question, firstly is there still the issue of points at which they become viable? And second the way GW came up with the points system was based on probability and how many might be needed to take out one of the enemy. For instance a Skaven chieftan 45 points was what he was set as because you would need 2-3 of them or that he could win against a basic Chaos hero one out of three fights. I will check with my mate who found this out to get the full lowdown on how GW costed things. I do agree that GW has unfairly treated the Tomb Kings and I think possibly as a community we should band together to support and fix the issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on May 29, 2021 1:15:42 GMT
In answer to the Tomb Kings question, firstly is there still the issue of points at which they become viable? And second the way GW came up with the points system was based on probability and how many might be needed to take out one of the enemy. For instance a Skaven chieftan 45 points was what he was set as because you would need 2-3 of them or that he could win against a basic Chaos hero one out of three fights. I will check with my mate who found this out to get the full lowdown on how GW costed things. I do agree that GW has unfairly treated the Tomb Kings and I think possibly as a community we should band together to support and fix the issues. I Have recently taken part in writing an "Army Composition" ruleset for a tournament my friend & I are putting on. It allows you to take anything you want from the books, but certain things from each army you are "punished" for taking, others you are "rewarded". Whatever the final score you have within your army list, you add or subtract this from your total at the end of the event. For Tomb kings we decided to: - Not give them any "negative" scores for their units/items etc
- Allow Constructs to be healed by each spell via the Lore Attribute (as opposed to 1 per phase in the book!)
- & units can march within 12" of the General
We think this should give the Tomb Kings a bit of a boost, without getting fiddly with different points. We will be open to feedback after the event though  |
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on May 29, 2021 11:49:09 GMT
Yeah, I just remember from 6th edition Fergal in the GW Aberdeen saying TK were only playable at 2000 points plus.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on May 30, 2021 9:09:22 GMT
With regards to Tomb Kings, I feel the following changes are necessary: - In the lore attribute, models with the Large Target special rule (as opposed to the Animated Construct special rule, to allow Ushabti to be healed D3+1 wounds) may only heal 1 wound in this way per successful casting
- Tomb Kings units should be able to march if they are within 12” of the Hierophant (not the general because that’s just a copy of Vampire Counts)
- If the Heirophant is slain, if there are other friendly Liche Priests or Liche High Priests on the battlefield, the Priest with the highest Wizard level may take over as the Hierophant (if there are multiple Priests with the same Wizard level, you may choose)
- Banner of the Undying Legion should automatically grant the unit the ability to gain D6+2 models from every buff spell, rather than being a bound spell
- Ushabti should be T5 (they’re stone statues, and it’s currently stupid that some big fat Ghouls are tougher than them)
- All animated constructs should be immune to Poisoned attacks (they have no blood, so poison shouldn’t have an effect on them)
|
|
(by which I mean stick with new army books or simply new units for that existing, venerable yet serviceable ruleset)
