|
Post by vulcan on Feb 14, 2022 3:30:14 GMT
vulcan Some 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. No worries. I can handle good arguments, it's people being rude I can't stand. And you do make good points. Yes, the Imperial knight is roughly equivalent to KOTR at first glance. There are three key differences between the IK and KotR, though. First, you can have all the IK you want in a unit. KotR are limited to 15 MAX. To match a big unit of 30 IK, you need to charge in two units of KotR, which doubles the chances that one of your charges will fail. Two, IK can take great weapons and grind. Once KotR fail to break a unit on the charge, they might as well be really expensive infantry. Three... IK are backed up by the rest of the Empire army. Cannon, volley guns, priests, superior infantry, Steam Tanks, detachments, better variety of magic available. Another thing to bear in mind is that the Empire is supposed to be the balanced army, using combined arms tactics to win. Bretonnia is supposed to be the army that depends on it's cavalry to win games for it. Imperial core cavalry being able to go toe-to-toe on equal points is a failure, not a feature, because Imperial infantry and artillery are across-the-board BETTER than their Bretonnian counterparts for the points. When the specialist cavalry army can't even boast the best cavalry in the game (not even considering monstrous cavalry options out there), when other armies (Empire, High Elves, possibly even Dark Elves) can make superior cavalry armies. when cavalry can't beat infantry at even points even WHEN flanking... perhaps one can see how this is a problem?
|
|
|
Post by tucker on Feb 14, 2022 4:10:27 GMT
Some simple ideas for cannon:
1) The "bounce" roll is only d6 inches, and not an artillery die. Perhaps get rid of the bounce altogether and just have the cannon inflict a number of hits equal to the ranks of the target unit (or columns if shot in the flank).
2) You can reroll "Look out, sir!" against cannon. Or, perhaps, cannon can't even target out specific models and the hits are distributed to the unit like normal shooting.
3) Reduce the strength of cannon to 7. Alternatively, reduce the damage to d3 or range to 36". This gives some of the larger monsters more protection.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 14, 2022 11:00:53 GMT
I must have been lucky were I was playing WFB because everyone had fun but took pride in being a great sportsman and cheating was really frowned on. The only instant I remember was someone measured their arms to work out the guess range so we always took the piss out of him and he was banned from the local GW for it. But everyone was really strict about properly guessing ranges and being a good sport.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 14, 2022 11:13:11 GMT
Good point on the KOTR the limitations for unit size should be removed. Then we can test and see how IK and KOTR stack up. Again probably buffing the Lance formation is the way to go also possibly looking the number of attacks each Knight makes or perhaps each vow should be buffed. I think that if we focus on the unique army traits for the Bretonnians and buff those we can really improve them without over tuning them. Lances could be made armour piercing which would buff brets but also Chaos Knights and Blood knights.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 14, 2022 11:15:09 GMT
Some simple ideas for cannon: 1) The "bounce" roll is only d6 inches, and not an artillery die. Perhaps get rid of the bounce altogether and just have the cannon inflict a number of hits equal to the ranks of the target unit (or columns if shot in the flank). 2) You can reroll "Look out, sir!" against cannon. Or, perhaps, cannon can't even target out specific models and the hits are distributed to the unit like normal shooting. 3) Reduce the strength of cannon to 7. Alternatively, reduce the damage to d3 or range to 36". This gives some of the larger monsters more protection. First two are really good and should be tested. Not sure about the third suggestion. The question is, are cannons too cheap?
|
|
|
Post by tucker on Feb 14, 2022 14:41:03 GMT
Some simple ideas for cannon: 1) The "bounce" roll is only d6 inches, and not an artillery die. Perhaps get rid of the bounce altogether and just have the cannon inflict a number of hits equal to the ranks of the target unit (or columns if shot in the flank). 2) You can reroll "Look out, sir!" against cannon. Or, perhaps, cannon can't even target out specific models and the hits are distributed to the unit like normal shooting. 3) Reduce the strength of cannon to 7. Alternatively, reduce the damage to d3 or range to 36". This gives some of the larger monsters more protection. First two are really good and should be tested. Not sure about the third suggestion. The question is, are cannons too cheap? Possibly. Part of what makes them "auto includes" is that they're one of the few solutions Empire and Dwarfs have for big, scary things. They could cost 300 points and I might still consider taking them. Here's a fourth idea: 4) Only the model the cannonball lands on (i.e. where the marker ends up after the initial roll of the artillery die) takes a full strength hit. The models the cannonball bounces through take a lesser hit -- say, strength 5, d3 wounds.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 14, 2022 14:59:12 GMT
Some simple ideas for cannon: 1) The "bounce" roll is only d6 inches, and not an artillery die. Perhaps get rid of the bounce altogether and just have the cannon inflict a number of hits equal to the ranks of the target unit (or columns if shot in the flank). 2) You can reroll "Look out, sir!" against cannon. Or, perhaps, cannon can't even target out specific models and the hits are distributed to the unit like normal shooting. 3) Reduce the strength of cannon to 7. Alternatively, reduce the damage to d3 or range to 36". This gives some of the larger monsters more protection. I'm afraid #1 would make the cannon to much like a bolt thrower. I like #2. But it doesn't do anything to help lone characters not in units. A lone character would be all but impossible to hit with a cannon. #3, I've often though the jump from Dwarf cannons to Empire (and Ogre, and Daemon) great cannons is too large. Dropping great cannons to Strength 7 and D3+1 wounds might work well. It will still plow through infantry just fine.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 14, 2022 17:35:54 GMT
OK, done a bit of math hammering with Brets. Firstly the issue is that in a like for like fight they struggle to best empire knights mainly due to Brets only having the advantage on the charge and the empire cavalry hammer and just wears the Brets down. Against infantry KOTR lose based on steadfast. This does however reflect history as at the battle of Bannockburn the English knights were beaten by the Scottish schiltern which is basically a wall of spears. So the question now is how to best these two situations. The first is buffing the KOTR with Wyssans, I've tested this a few times today and the KOTR do better. In the second situation a Co-ordinated charge wins but steadfast does tip the balance to keep that block of infantry in the fight. A small buff is to improve the knights vows to provide Devastating charge. Initial tests show improved damage but this is balanced by the steadfast rule so the infantry stay in the fight but suffer huge losses. I'll test this a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Feb 14, 2022 20:31:41 GMT
I think the first thing that perhaps we should agree is the full scope of this. Does it cover: - Changing core rules?
- Creating a universal set of House rules?
- Adding to/creating a more comprehensive set of errata/faq's
- Rewriting 'weaker army books?
- Changing points values
- Something else i've undoubtedly missed
1) I'd be very careful with the first 1, as in an effort to re-balance it could have unintended consequences. I also think that in general, the 8th rule set is solid. I'd hate to do things like removing the horde rule. Its one of the iconic 8th things, like it or not. If you remove it, you may as well play WAP 9th. The issue is, if you change one thing, where do you stop? 2) Instead of changing rules, i'd be more inclined to do the odd House rule. Examples could include: In a majority of the current UK tournament scene, Bretonnian knights of all varieties (incl characters), have been given devastating charge. Beastmen have been given free marks of chaos. Both of these are simple, army wide changes but have made both armies far more viable. Top tier? No but definitely far more competitive. Perhaps make it so that Questing knights lose ASL on the turn they charge. Buildings only allowing xxx (20-25?) wounds worth of models in them 3) The route i'd be most in favour of taking, is to flesh out/add to/create a more comprehensive list of FAQ's/Errata for the various army books. Clear up the issues that regularly came up in play, things like: Predatory Fighter: Probably the single biggest arguments you see online are about this. I'm in favour of allowing all ranks to get it, if only as it allows one set of dice to be rolled and thus helps streamline game play (I appreciate that this may not be the RAW interpretation). Skink Special Character on Terradon (name escapes me): Clarify that he can join units of terradons. With regards to the rulebook, there was a document called the 'Independent WFB FAQ document' ( Link to doc). This was an unofficial list of FAQ's/Errata's (I'll put them in a separate post) that was widely used, at least in the UK tournament scene, at one point (it was quite prevalent on the old warhammer.org forum so may have been more widely used). 4) Rewriting army books. The main issue with this, is getting universal acceptance and a difference of opinions in what is actually needed in them. Even at our club where you have a number of warhammer players, there is a split of those who will accept house rules and those that won't, so throw a fan made book into the mix is akin to consorting with the devil . I know our own Kevin C has re-written the Bret book and taking out the lance formation still makes me shudder lol. I know he also much prefers the 6th ed Beastmen book. 5) Changing points values. Again i'm not a huge fan of this (and hell I love my beastmen and god knows a chuck of their book is stupidly over costed). Again the main issue comes down to where do you stop and getting universal acceptance. I don't say this to be negative about the project but to get us thinking about where do we start and finish. I'll admit to being more of a purist at the game. Tweak rather than rewrite. I am a huge fan of scenarios. I've saved down multitudes of event comp packs over the years, as they often had custom scenarios and these are a great way to help promote different lists. If you play just battleline you will promote the deathstar smashhammer mentality. My final comment here is about balance. I often hear the word balance thrown about (mainly by people shouting about how 6th edition is the best on the FB forums) but I actually like that different armies are both more challenging to play (either because of the play style or due to having an inherent disadvantage). I can't talk about TK's as i've not used them but I have used Beastmen extensively and faced some very good tournament generals and I'd be happy to pit the beastmen against the best of their lists (and this is without the marks). I'm not saying that I've won all of the games (as that would be what is called, a lie ) but they would have a good run for their money. I'm not a bad player but I don't think the gulf between armies is as wide as it is often made out to be and the 8th ruleset seems to help (in the main) even out the differences.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Feb 14, 2022 20:33:11 GMT
OK, done a bit of math hammering with Brets. Firstly the issue is that in a like for like fight they struggle to best empire knights mainly due to Brets only having the advantage on the charge and the empire cavalry hammer and just wears the Brets down. Against infantry KOTR lose based on steadfast. This does however reflect history as at the battle of Bannockburn the English knights were beaten by the Scottish schiltern which is basically a wall of spears. So the question now is how to best these two situations. The first is buffing the KOTR with Wyssans, I've tested this a few times today and the KOTR do better. In the second situation a Co-ordinated charge wins but steadfast does tip the balance to keep that block of infantry in the fight. A small buff is to improve the knights vows to provide Devastating charge. Initial tests show improved damage but this is balanced by the steadfast rule so the infantry stay in the fight but suffer huge losses. I'll test this a bit more. The devastating charge rule is used extensively in the UK Tourney scene at the minute and is universally liked, as it helps improve what Brets should do best but isn't overpowered.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 15, 2022 2:10:52 GMT
Hi all,
I'm not a huge fan of modifying the official 8th edition rulebook or expansions in unofficial documents. I think a key component of playing an official game (especially an out-of-print game) is that there is a commonality between players across the world. Two people who have never meet before can agree to play a game of 8th edition WFB and understand that they are playing the same game, where modifications, or indeed creating an entire new system, narrows that playing field.
Even so, that's not to say you guys can't do this, I think that's great if people want to rewrite their own army books and so on. I'm a huge house rules guy myself, just I'm not interesting a drastically altering the game. 8th is just so well done in my eyes.
I would recommend not going overboard in changing things. The least amount of modifications would be the best way to go in terms of eligant design and player buy in. For example, if you completely rewrite how cannons work, there will be players completely turned off from what you are trying to achieve. For cannons, I would do either one or both of the following changes, probably one though is the way to go rather than both.
1. If a ridden monster/chariot is struck by a cannon pull randomize as normal to see if either the rider or the mount is struck, rather than both being hit. 2. Change the multiple wounds special rule to D3+1. (I put a basic cannon in the dogs of war army list I'm working with and simply made it D3+1 wounds).
Just some thoughts. Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Feb 15, 2022 3:08:17 GMT
gosh, what a conservative bunch we are on this forum...surprise!
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 15, 2022 4:10:10 GMT
I must have been lucky were I was playing WFB because everyone had fun but took pride in being a great sportsman and cheating was really frowned on. The only instant I remember was someone measured their arms to work out the guess range so we always took the piss out of him and he was banned from the local GW for it. But everyone was really strict about properly guessing ranges and being a good sport. There's 'accidentally' waving the tape measure over the cannon and the target when measuring movement. There's measuring distances between terrain features during setup, and placing your artillery next to terrain so you already know all the distances between it and everything else. There's no rule saying you can't measure the distance between the cannon and a nearby friendly unit, and odds are you measured the distance between said unit and an enemy unit to 'see if a charge was viable'... If you know an enemy unit was deployed on the 12" deployment line, and your cannon is 6" back, that's one side of a right triangle. Measure from the cannon to a spot directly across from the enemy unit and you have the other side. Basic trig to determine the hypotenuse. Four so far. Not one inolves judging the distance by eye.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 15, 2022 4:13:10 GMT
Some simple ideas for cannon: 1) The "bounce" roll is only d6 inches, and not an artillery die. Perhaps get rid of the bounce altogether and just have the cannon inflict a number of hits equal to the ranks of the target unit (or columns if shot in the flank). 2) You can reroll "Look out, sir!" against cannon. Or, perhaps, cannon can't even target out specific models and the hits are distributed to the unit like normal shooting. 3) Reduce the strength of cannon to 7. Alternatively, reduce the damage to d3 or range to 36". This gives some of the larger monsters more protection. I'm afraid #1 would make the cannon to much like a bolt thrower. I like #2. But it doesn't do anything to help lone characters not in units. A lone character would be all but impossible to hit with a cannon. #3, I've often though the jump from Dwarf cannons to Empire (and Ogre, and Daemon) great cannons is too large. Dropping great cannons to Strength 7 and D3+1 wounds might work well. It will still plow through infantry just fine. A lone infantry - or even cavalry - model SHOULD be nearly impossible to hit with a cannon. We're talking medieval or early Rennasiance cannon, not a sniper rifle or a howitzer with exploding GPS guided shells. Dragons are fantasy. Cannons are not.
|
|
|
Post by adso13 on Feb 15, 2022 5:05:11 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. My only real issue with guess ranges is that some people literally CAN'T guess ranges with any degree of accuracy. For instance, I have a buddy who's recently gone blind in one eye. That makes your depth perception much worse. Also, some people's brains just can't do spatial relations to get good at that. Personally, it's a barrier to entry that's not really necessary. A good general will generally beat a bad one, lucky dice rolls be damned. And, I've said it before, I'll say it again: what someone who's good at guessing ranges loses is way less than what someone who isn't good at guessing gains. I definitely understand that making changes to the rules/ armies can get controversial, and I'm absolutely all for keeping it simple, which is why I only suggest five changes. You definitely want to keep the majority the same so that there isn't a ton of drift and two people from anywhere in the world can get together and play. But I will point out that most people who play in a tournament already agree to certain changes for that tournament, so I'm not sure that it's really that big of a deal to make a few tweaks here and there in the interest of making an already great game better. I'm honestly not sure that giving all cavalry Impact Hits/ Dev Charge is going to unbalance things that badly. But I could be wrong, I've never had anyone play that unit of HE knights against me. Perhaps just adding Impact Hits and Dev Charge to certain units to buff them a little bit would be better and less unbalancing. Has someone already set up a different page for each of the armies/ rulebook? That way, the suggestions for each army and the rulebook can be all in the same place and all the discussion can for each one can be there without having to dig through it all here. And we can test it and see what works and what doesn't. The biggest thing is to play the super the most brokenest thing a LOT in order really determine if it IS that broken and then bring that info here. The most important thing with this is that no matter what we come up with here, it's still your game to do with what you will. No one is going to beat down your door, take your models and rule books because you've decided to go with some of that changes and not others. What do you and your play group like? Go with that. Plain and simple.
|
|