|
|
Post by Horace on Feb 12, 2022 20:17:41 GMT
Personally, I think a soon as you start fiddling with stuff like this you immediately get into 9th age territory.
I don't entirely disagree cannons are too accurate. They could have been changed either by rolling to hit the spot then scattering on a miss, or simply not hitting monsters like templates etc. But as soon a you change this you need to change the points for cannon and also consider the knock on that monsters become problematic. Then you need to balance these, and so on.
One simple change I am all for is that in a challenge, if you kill someone in the initiative step, the mount/rider should not lose their attacks. Stops champion blocking monsters
|
|
|
|
Post by Crazy_Dokta on Feb 12, 2022 20:40:00 GMT
There a some problem with "fixing" cavalry.
Those who already have strong cav/monstrous cav (Crushers/Blood knights/HE bus) will get another strong point. As a result they will more deadlier. But what's for other armies, whose not have any cav units?
So we should to fix footslogging mobs too.
Example. We will give to Brettonia cav Impact hits. Well, they will some better (I don't think Brettonians are weak, though. They just require more skill and attention from a player. The same with the Beastmen btw.)
But I don't want fight with "new" HE super-uber-puper-more deadlier cav bus. Or "new" WOC Crushers bus.
So "I wish my cav would work better. So I'll make some combo-charges/tactic tricks for that" is good.
And "I wish my cav would work better. So I'll give them some cheesy rules" is not good.
This applies to all changes in mechanic/units/armies. If we wish to change something, we should change and balance the other stuff too.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 13, 2022 0:18:48 GMT
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. My group has used this house rule for several editions and it works quite well. We called it, "attacking Joes". The challenge rules are still available to represent a Lords and Heroes doing their thing. But you can't block attacks on the unit with beardy placement of characters in the 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. I like this idea. Not sure if the full unit strength math rules need to return to do this justice. Maybe how you phrased it is good enough. 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. I support combining the mount's and rider's toughness/wounds/armor/ward. But I really hate how End Times books also combined the other stats. The mount should make its own attack with its own WS/BS/S/I/etc. 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. More scenarios would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 13, 2022 3:42:19 GMT
There a some problem with "fixing" cavalry. Those who already have strong cav/monstrous cav (Crushers/Blood knights/HE bus) will get another strong point. As a result they will more deadlier. But what's for other armies, whose not have any cav units? So we should to fix footslogging mobs too. Example. We will give to Brettonia cav Impact hits. Well, they will some better (I don't think Brettonians are weak, though. They just require more skill and attention from a player. The same with the Beastmen btw.) But I don't want fight with "new" HE super-uber-puper-more deadlier cav bus. Or "new" WOC Crushers bus. So "I wish my cav would work better. So I'll make some combo-charges/tactic tricks for that" is good. And "I wish my cav would work better. So I'll give them some cheesy rules" is not good. This applies to all changes in mechanic/units/armies. If we wish to change something, we should change and balance the other stuff too. Cheers. Good point. The best answer is to give a buff to the cavalry that needs it, not an overall buff to all cavalry. Perhaps the main problem with Bretonnia is that you have to be VERY skilled to win with them. This is because the average knight is quite expensive for what is delivered. Even Men-At-Arms is expensive compared to other cheap infantry, and generally weaker to boot. That's why ETC's choice to balance them was extra points. So the appropriate buff mught be a 10 to 15% reduction in points across the board for Brets? Steadfast can be a problem as well. It encourages really deep units that can easily be flanked, because flanking really doesn't matter with steadfast. I'm fine with said unit grinding forever when attacked from the front, but historically flanking mattered quite a bit. There are many examples in history where a (relatively) small unit in a flanking maneuver caused the complete collapse of an entire battle line. This is why, historically, generals went to GREAT lenghts to guard their flanks, either with terrain, cavalry, or just by deploying wider than their opposing army. Making flanking irrelevant just encourages a giant slog up the middle, and empowers deathstars to concentrate all their points in one place because there's no need to guard their flanks. For what it's worth, my suggestion would be that any unit losing it's rank bonus from flanking loses steadfast as well. It doesn't gimp the big infantry units, it just makes you protect their flanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Crazy_Dokta on Feb 13, 2022 6:58:58 GMT
vulcanSome more specifically about Brettonia. Let's compare their knights and Empire knights (as the most "similar"). Difference: 2+save instead 1+ and +2pts cost. BUT also 5+ward save and lance formation. Even more: this formation is not only amount of attacks, but is 1)defence for the mage (Damsel be placed in the second rank) and 2)so called "Heroes wall" (front rank is consisted of only characters, Brettonia will have them a lot anyway). That looks like pretty good, innit?  That's right, Brettonia pays for it with weakened unit's flank. Some about steadfast and flanking. You're not going to (flank) charge the 50dudes with just 5knights, are you? (Also in some armies more than 5mounted dudes are expensive, especially if elite ones.) So you'll make combo-charges (or this charging unit is strong enough (Stubborn) to bind the opponent for a phase or two. And then on subsequent turn you charges him with another unit. WOC Discolord as example in other armies) Static rate, dynamic rate, manoeuvres - what's why I'm loving WFB, it's not so simple . Some about "historically". And just a little bit about "a small unit in a flanking maneuver caused the complete collapse of an entire battle line". You're fielding the army in the GREAT lenght (wide). My ambushers are charging your unit (table edge), your dudes in panic => "chain reaction" panic (let's pretend all your dudes fail Ld test) => collapse of an entire battleline. Even more simple. Scouting Bray shaman/Flying Daemon prince with lore of Death casts the Purple sun from the flank of your GREAT lenght. (Or charges, then casts with the hope of miscast). The same result. That's right, there are many "if", but still. Also not all "real (logical/historical/etc) laws" apply here, in wargames. And you already know that. About ETC's balance: I haven’t read this in a while (reduction VP/extra points/choices/etc) and don't remember the all their stuff. P.S. Well, I’ll try to keep focus on the subject of tread. P.P.S. I'm sorry if I said anything inappropriate. I'm not nagging you.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 13, 2022 10:44:25 GMT
I think the simple fix to cannons is just to go back to guess ranges. That way it becomes a skill again and players need to pay attention in the movement phase and use maths. I never understood why GW changed it, i used to get accused of measuring because my guess ranges were so accurate and I always accounted for scatter.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 13, 2022 10:50:50 GMT
Agree totally with flanking to negate steadfast and rank bonus. Players should be rewarded for tactical play. Attacking Joe's is interesting and thinking on it melee is not static it's a messy business so solidiers wouldn't simply stand there and be blocked by someone on a big fat mount they'd go around. These are great points on cavalry, I think Brets horses having a strength bonus because of pure breed rule might be a way to go or the Lance formation. Again we want to encourage tactical play and reward that. If you don't protect flanks then a skilled player should be able to punish accordingly. In addition, it should be a risk using bus formation if your enemy has lots of cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 13, 2022 12:17:53 GMT
That is one point people neglect to mention about some armies. But it's something I think is important. There should be some armies which are harder to play than others and that's how in a game you can offer players a variety of challenges and then there is something for the veteran and novice alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Feb 13, 2022 13:33:03 GMT
I think the simple fix to cannons is just to go back to guess ranges. That way it becomes a skill again and players need to pay attention in the movement phase and use maths. I never understood why GW changed it, i used to get accused of measuring because my guess ranges were so accurate and I always accounted for scatter. I disagree that guessing ranges is a skill |
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 13, 2022 14:43:20 GMT
I think the simple fix to cannons is just to go back to guess ranges. That way it becomes a skill again and players need to pay attention in the movement phase and use maths. I never understood why GW changed it, i used to get accused of measuring because my guess ranges were so accurate and I always accounted for scatter. I disagree that guessing ranges is a skill If not a skill what is it? I know I worked hard to develop my range guessing abilities over the years. I would guess down to the quarter inch and drop blast markers on an individual model's head. Regardless of how good I was at it, I would not go back to guessing ranges. The arguments and hurt feelings and wasted time are not worth it. The game is better without it. |
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 13, 2022 14:51:40 GMT
That is one point people neglect to mention about some armies. But it's something I think is important. There should be some armies which are harder to play than others and that's how in a game you can offer players a variety of challenges and then there is something for the veteran and novice alike. Inevitably some armies will be the "less competitive" and others will be the "more competitive". Are you advocating that Bretonnia, Beastmen, and Tomb Kings should be left as less competitive on purpose? |
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 13, 2022 18:10:04 GMT
No I'm not advocating being less or more competitive, but define less competitive? My friend plays Vampire counts because he finds them a challenge to play, I beat him most games does that mean VC's are not competitive? I found Skaven in 6th edition difficult to play and my mate was forever massacring me, does that mean the same thing? We have to consider what are the issues that prevent these armies functioning in certain situations but also looking at which situations were they perform well. I mentioned elsewhere about Tomb Kings only being playable above a certain points value. Again what are the real issues for them? If we look at that we can make a tweak try it if it's too strong you adjust.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 13, 2022 18:12:06 GMT
With guess ranges the only other thing is to not take big monsters against Empire or Dwarfs. How does the cannon fire in 8th edition, is it still measure then roll for bounce? It's shame that other players feel the need to be so obnoxious when you're able to get a guess range in perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 13, 2022 19:36:02 GMT
No I'm not advocating being less or more competitive, but define less competitive? My friend plays Vampire counts because he finds them a challenge to play, I beat him most games does that mean VC's are not competitive? I found Skaven in 6th edition difficult to play and my mate was forever massacring me, does that mean the same thing? We have to consider what are the issues that prevent these armies functioning in certain situations but also looking at which situations were they perform well. I mentioned elsewhere about Tomb Kings only being playable above a certain points value. Again what are the real issues for them? If we look at that we can make a tweak try it if it's too strong you adjust. Every local group will have stronger and weaker players. Player's skill combined with the army rules, the units available for them to choose from and of coarse luck of the dice will all influence how they perform in any given game. But I think if you have enough experience and have read/watched other people's battle reports, you will find there is a consensus among WFB players that Bretonnia, Beastman, and Tomb Kings are the last competitive army books in 8th edition. |
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 14, 2022 3:06:46 GMT
I think the simple fix to cannons is just to go back to guess ranges. That way it becomes a skill again and players need to pay attention in the movement phase and use maths. I never understood why GW changed it, i used to get accused of measuring because my guess ranges were so accurate and I always accounted for scatter. Yeah, ah, there are so many widely-known cheats for that the skill isn't 'guessing' the range, it's catching which cheat your opponent is using. No thanks. |
|
