|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 15, 2022 11:02:35 GMT
Thank you Knoffles. I think we were getting a bit ahead and losing what this thread was about. Good to see that Brets already have dev charge as standard. I play tested that and found it good but not over powering. So let's get the focus back to what this thread is about. My main suggestion then would be to make sure flanking removed steadfast from basic infantry and granted plus one on its own without needing the unit to be engaged in the front. I would put the outnumber bonus for combat res back in. Again tweaks and house rules not full blown changes, which if we go back GW wanted to encourage players to provide as there was no way that they could account for all possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Feb 15, 2022 11:15:17 GMT
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. You beat me to it. I was about to suggest the same thing for individual posts for each one.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Feb 15, 2022 11:44:58 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? On one hand, it's perfectly possible to play 8th Edition without having any units in Hordes, meaning deleting the Horde rule isn't the end of the world and doesn't automatically qualify such a slight alteration of 8th to be 9th Age status. Not to mention that 'iconic' is not always good - Hordes look ugly in a Warhammer army and are immensely clunky and inflexible to use, that shouldn't be encouraged or made more viable than smaller units as 8th has. With all politeness, anyone who wants to see massive units in a Warhammer universe game should play Warmaster. Not to mention there are other tweaks that should be made, such as the endless cannon debate and a personal wish would be to see the re-roll from Always Strikes First removed as that was immensely unnecessary and could be abused to death by units like Witch Elves. Other units like High Elf and Wood Elf infantry are dependent upon it, but I always thought this rule would be more useful in replacing the Fight-In-Extra-Ranks rule in Martial Prowess and Forest Stalker, which is pretty useless most of the time except in the should-be-removed hordes. I'm not saying 8th is bad as it is, but it is still flawed and those flaws need to be tweaked out. On the other, WAP 9Ed changed too much and a lot of the time changed things wrongly. In my initial post I made it clear I didn't want this to become another 9th Age or WAP 9th Edition, this is meant to be a refinement of 8th, and always will be. At least 90% of the rules should remain unchanged, and the game should still be recognisable as 8th Edition. Buildings only allowing xxx (20-25?) wounds worth of models in them I thought buildings could only house units that could fit all their models in them anyway? 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). That is a good start, but as mentioned before, even after that has been done there are still problems that need to be addressed. 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 book. Beastmen and Bretonnia definitely need 8th Edition army books to bring them in line with the 8th scene, and Chaos Dwarfs require a full-size army list with a couple of updates to out-of-date rules in Tarmurkhan, otherwise every army with an 8th book will have an unfair advantage over these three, simple as that, even with slight rules changes from tournaments. I think it's fair to let anyone you're playing look at the book before the game so they have a fair chance of understanding what they're up against, but anyone who objects to fan-made books in these circumstances is aiding and abetting injustice toward those factions, whether intentionally or not. In particular I think it's rather petty of people to not accept fan-made work simply because it's 'not official', and not even bothering to judge it based upon the quality of the rules it presents, despite the fact that GW don't even support the game anymore, and cared so little about it in the first place that they left it in an unfinished state. Unlike oldmandan I don't think some armies should be inherently more difficult to play than others, mainly because that punishes players who decide to play that army out of interest in the background or appreciation of the models. Sure, different armies can have different playstyles, perhaps even favourable and unfavourable matches, but on no account should some armies be really hard to play well while others find it easy to stomp most enemies they come across. I personally didn't advocate the rewriting of all army books that were released in 8th, and definitely don't want to see them have new units added unnecessarily as per Matthias Eliasson, just some additional errata to boost those books that fare poorly (Orcs & Goblins, Tomb Kings) in the competitive scene and perhaps tone down those that are in the OP category (Warriors of Chaos, Dark Elves, High Elves to a lesser extent), in the manner of the new balance dataslates that GW are now releasing for new 40K and AoS. 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 would say the issue is more with the balls-up or overpowering of some of the rules for the different factions, but points alterations are required by some units to make them viable, mainly those in the outdated books which will be getting 8th Edition replacements for them anyway. 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 do understand your concern, and I can assure you that this will not be an attempt to continuously bloat the game forever as Eliasson has done. As mentioned above I personally wish to stop once all the armies are on a more level playing field ruleswise, with no definite 'Top Tier' and 'Bottom Tier' of performance, because the fact that there is an OP tier and a trash tier in the first place shows GW failed to bring enough balance to the game. I wish to ensure that this is changed enough to ensure the game is better all-round for everyone (which means more than a little tweak here and there), but not so much that it loses all its 'Warhammerness' or becomes a different game. 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. Scenarios and expansions are excellent, anybody who has ideas for these can certainly write those up and post them here. I certainly have no objection to this.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 15, 2022 14:18:17 GMT
Fair point, I suppose I'm speaking from my point of view with regards to a challenge to play. That said you're right that if an army is inherently difficult to play then it punishes the player and therefore people unless they are really really determined to keep with it. We should maybe really be thinking more in terms of style and tactics required to make the army work which is where the challenges comes in.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Feb 15, 2022 19:38:39 GMT
I just don't think you'll ever get everyone to agree on these things. Fair enough if people want to pay the game however you see fit, but just within the small group in this thread you have many contrasting opinions.
I for one don't think cannons are massively broken. I wouldn't hate if they did not act as templates but it would require some testing to make sure monsters don't get OP
Regarding monsters, the 2 rules I have the biggest gripe with penalise them. I'm curious with these removed just on their own how they'd fare... 5 models should not count as a rank for steadfast. Should just be actual ranks as per rank bonus. If a character (champion usually) dies in a challenge, anyone involved in the challenge with unused attacks (usually a monster) can make them as the challenge is finished.
I quite like the horde rule. As mentioned, hordes are clunky and difficult to manoeuvre. People should use more centrally positioned scenery. And more of it . Suddenly they are not a powerful.
I don't mind disrupting removing steadfast, however I don't think it's a massive deal either way.
Also don't think O&G or Chaos Dwarfs need boosting. Sure Chaos Dwarfs would appreciate the Dwarf race rules update but they are fine without it, it's just a completeness/uniformity itch which comes with them getting no 8th update.
Also a shame other books didn't get 8th books, in the same way they are missing little things which is annoying. But I think you have to ask, do they *need* boosting? I think balancing changes made is so difficult to actually make an overall improvement
|
|
|
Post by baaderthegreat on Feb 15, 2022 20:34:55 GMT
I just don't think you'll ever get everyone to agree on these things. That's right. Years ago, I participated in a project where a lot of people tried to create an expansion for a game. From that experience I can only say: Believe me, someone has to have the last word, someone needs to be in command. Otherwise rules discussions will be endless. I agree. Fluff-wise, however, it would be nice to be able to play a Chaos Dwarf army that is not the Legion of Azgorh. I mean, it would also feel weird if there was only one Skaven faction - let's say, Clan Pestilens - that's playable in the 8th edition...
Right, and I'm surprised that many people didn't do this. It was one of the first things we did with the Chaos Dwarfs in our gaming group. I seems so logical.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Feb 15, 2022 23:08:37 GMT
When I said buildings I should have said ‘the folding fortress’!
I’m happy to help out with Fleshing out faqs/erratas and I’m sure I’ll add to other bits, especially around a Beastmen/Brets books.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 16, 2022 19:16:43 GMT
So let's get started with our errata/faq
Steadfast
A unit that has more ranks than its enemy will always be able to test on their unmodified leadership should they lose the subsequent combat.
Disruption
The psychological impact of being caught unaware can cause a unit to panic and flee. Therefore, a unit that is charged in either the flank or rear loses their rank bonus and are unable to remain steadfast.
Outnumber
Troops often take heart from being surrounded by their comrades, a unit that has more models than its opponent receives an additional +1 to its combat resolution.
Let me know your feelings on these suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by adso13 on Feb 16, 2022 20:50:41 GMT
So let's get started with our errata/faq Steadfast A unit that has more ranks than its enemy will always be able to test on their unmodified leadership should they lose the subsequent combat. Disruption The psychological impact of being caught unaware can cause a unit to panic and flee. Therefore, a unit that is charged in either the flank or rear loses their rank bonus and are unable to remain steadfast. Outnumber Troops often take heart from being surrounded by their comrades, a unit that has more models than its opponent receives an additional +1 to its combat resolution. Let me know your feelings on these suggestions. The way it's worded, a single archer could charge into the flank or rear of a 30 man unit and cause disruption. I want to be able to break steadfast with a well-timed charge, but I don't think a single skirmisher, or even five for that matter would make that much of an impact. Even one knight probably wouldn't, either. Thant's why I think it should be a full rank of cavalry and two of infantry. Also, I don't think it should be "charged," because you could charge with a rat or elf dart, they all get wiped out, and there's nothing on the flank, but steadfast is still disrupted. I think it should be something like, "when taking a break test for losing a combat, if there is a unit of infantry with at least two full ranks, a unit of cavalry, monstrous infantry, or monstrous cavalry with at least one full rank, a monster, or a character on a ridden monster in the flank or rear of the testing unit, that unit cannot be steadfast." Probably not the best wording, but it makes it so that you have to have numbers afterward, and you can't have elf darts (10-man units in 3-3-3-1 formation) breaking steadfast, because that seems silly.
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Feb 16, 2022 21:11:24 GMT
So let's get started with our errata/faq Outnumber Troops often take heart from being surrounded by their comrades, a unit that has more models than its opponent receives an additional +1 to its combat resolution. Let me know your feelings on these suggestions.
As is you'll make the Ogre generals cry. Since it seems overkill to bring back 'unit strength' as a concept, maybe it could be changed to 'has more combined wounds in the combat'? It needs a phrasing that makes clear how to deal with multi-unit per side situation.
But, I also think we need a bit of discussion if outnumber really needs to make a comeback at all. some points: - do we need to encourage bigger units? they don't seem rare in my experience - does the +1 make enough of a difference to make it worth including the rule? I generally see quite a lot of combat res from killing models (different from older editions and a change for the better in my opinion) and then the +1 is only a minor sway in the combat result.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 16, 2022 22:56:44 GMT
Good point about unit strength, suppose really there is no need of outnumber. Sorry about the wording I thought it was fairly straightforward in the rules that units required at least one rank or more I'd need to check and skirmishers were not able to disrupt ranks, as for rat darts unless there is a lot of them they wouldn't be able to do like wise and in my experience as soon as they get pummelled into nothing disruption is over. Also from personal experience I have done the afformentioned scenario with a large rat dart which then cost me the game.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Feb 16, 2022 23:00:02 GMT
Is outnumber even necessary when you have rank bonus?
I also think with steadfast it's simpler and cleaner to just make disrupted = not steadfast
I would also add. The first rank of a unit should not count towards steadfast, it should be more rank bonus than the enemy in the wording.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 17, 2022 11:33:53 GMT
That was always my thoughts, as long as your rank bonus was greater or had more ranks you where steadfast than your enemy. Mind you when you play Skaven you always have more ranks so it never comes up.
So to review
Steadfast
As long as your rank bonus is greater than your opponents. A unit may test on its unmodified leadership should they lose a round of combat and have to take a break test.
Disruption
Insert spiel here. When a unit is charged in its flank or rear by a unit with two or more complete ranks of five models they lose the bonus for rank and are unable to remain steadfast.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Feb 17, 2022 13:07:59 GMT
That was always my thoughts, as long as your rank bonus was greater or had more ranks you where steadfast than your enemy. Mind you when you play Skaven you always have more ranks so it never comes up. So to review Steadfast As long as your rank bonus is greater than your opponents. A unit may test on its unmodified leadership should they lose a round of combat and have to take a break test. Disruption Insert spiel here. When a unit is charged in its flank or rear by a unit with two or more complete ranks of five models they lose the bonus for rank and are unable to remain steadfast. What about when both units have a rank bonus of three. But physically a different number of ranks?
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 17, 2022 14:02:03 GMT
Good point, as you mentioned there we would probably have to go either on column width or dice off. Not sure, though have think about that one. Thanks for bringing that up. The only other aspect is to rely on damage and after casualties steadfast could then be calculated.
|
|