8th Ed : what would you like to see changed?

[Layne]

So yeah : I'll offer my insights, and then you do yours. Just some stuff that I thought of, that doesn't make sense to me, and could stand to be changed.

First, if not exactly foremost ; I've heard suggestions that something has to be done to fix the cannon shot guessing system so that people can't "miss" and "accidentally" hit the Black Guard behind the Harpies... I'd just like to say before anything else that I will never agree with punitive rules in my wargames, and if they start bringing them in, I won't play them, nor will I play with anyone who will. Honor system or death! Anyway...

I have always had issues with the weapons rules, particularly in the matter of spears and halberds. A spear really ought to be better against cavalry than a handweapon, which it pretty much is not. You get extra attacks that hurt only fastcav, and your save gets downgraded from unlikely to pointless. It doesn't worry me that in battles of infantry vs. infantry, swords are better. That's how it should be, as the Romans proved many times over. But I think that spears should give a bonus against cavalry, and further bonus against charging cavalry.

Halberds, being pretty much longer, heavier spears, ought to be able to be used one-handed like spears : that is, if you're using a halberd, you still have the option of forgoing an attack bonus, so as to retain a meaningful armour save. Then, you would also have the option of leaving your shield aside [or not even bothering to bring one], and taking your halberd in two hands for even greater attack bonuses.

Likesay, +1S against cav, a further +1S against charging cav, and +1S for a halberd in two hands. Yes this would mean that a two-handed halberd would, against charging cavalry, give +3S if used two handed, and would strike in two ranks as well. But it would almost certainly mean either 5+ or 6+ save, which against most charging cav would mean no save, which in turn would mean a dead front rank. But unlike the current system, they would likely be able to get some attacks back, at least against all but the nastiest cav units going, and probably kill themselves some cavaliers, and combining that with SCR, would handsomely win most combats against cavalry, just as Russ intended. And they shouldn't really pay more than curently for the privilege, as they would continue to be useless against infantry, especially those with handweapons and shields, against ranged attacks, and even against moderate-to-heavy cav charges in the flank or rear, all of which is really how they ought to be.

The same rules would apply to cavalry, I suppose; only characters ever use halberds on horseback, so it shouldn't bugger up the balance too much. Yes it makes greatweapons, relatively, even more useless on horse back, but I think that's how it should be. Really trying to swing a two handed weapon while sitting on a running horse, you're more likely to hurt yourself than your enemy. Having said that, it does open up the possibility of creating units - I should think the next O&G book a good candidate - of creating halberd cavalry that are intended for buggering up other cavalry.

That's not all that occurs, just all I present, lacking the discipline to tackle the various problems in the movement phase, especially in the area of charges and pursuits. I leave this to others.

[Eccelex]

I would like them to do something about canons. It doesn't make sense to me that a canon can headshot my hero that is 50" away with so little trouble... It should feel like a canon, not like an awp from counter strike... An hero should be able to avoid a canonball on a 2+ roll let's say, 3+ if he's mounted, 4+ on pegasus, etc

I know that there is no need to buff heroes nowadays but it just does so little sense...

Beside, they indeed have to do something about spears and heavy cavalry.. I like your idea

[Red...]

Lots of additional thoughts here:

http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t= ... on&start=0

[Calisson]

Lots of additional thoughts here:

What changes would you like to see in the 8th edition?

And there as well:
Heavy Cavalry in 8th Edition - Rule Idea => specialized thread
8th Edition. => general discussion
Scenarios. => some ideas which could be considered in a new rulebook - along with the skirmisher patrol games, of course!

[Layne]

Oh, that thread is still going... dang.

[Calisson]

Oh, that thread is still going...

... thanks to you!
It had stalled until you started over the topic and deathknight27 posted the link.

There are now different path to that thread.
The good point with your present thread is that it will remain very easy to find inside the "idea" forum, which does not increase very fast.


Another idea: something useful could be done in the present thread below:
to summarize the best ideas from the other threads, arranging them in the same order as in the rulebook.
Anyone interested? And if ever one of the idea is taken into account, that would allow to tell proudly: "I proposed it!"

[tmr]

You know one thing I would like to see is the ability of the COB to be part of a Khainite unit like the skaven can have the bell as part of a unit of rats. Its seems from a fluff as well as making these units useable again would be a easy obvious thing to do...

anyone have thoughts?

tr

[Sulla]

What would I change?

1) Pitched battles. Each battle starts with 4-6 'objectives'. No more than 1 in each deployment zone, none closer than 10" to each other. Objectives can only be held by ranked core infantry. Each is worth 500VP's. 100VP's for killing the enemy general or capturing the enemy battle standard. 50VP,s for each other standard captured. No other VP's in the standard pitched battle. Instantly depowers heavy cav, deathstars, gunlines and forces armies to become more heavily based on core troops, which is a good thing for everybody becasue the only thing other core troops.

2)Magic system; diminishing returns here somehow. i'm leaning towards some sort of fixed random total of power and casting dice that is linked to the army size, not the number of wizards. That way, 2 level 2's will be able to cast the same number of spells as 10+levels of magic but with lesser range of spells and less area of influence. Perhaps a bonus to dispel to encourage magelords over massed lvl2s and a fighter general?

I don't think I would modify the weapon rules. I favour unit specific rules for imbalanced weapons, rather than sweeping changes for the moment. I don't think chaos warriors or black guaqrd need improvements to their halberds, for example when they have access to warshrines, cauldrons, assassins etc, for example. And while I would reduce the power of cav and flying monsters through reducing their US in the current rules, I don't think it would be needed if the pitched battle rules changed. Let them be as great at killing as they are but don't let them get any VP's from it...

@tmr. Khainite units are plenty usuable as long as your opponent brings unarmoured infantry, like O&G, skaven or beasts.

[Layne]

It doesn't overpower Elite-troop halberds that much. It simply makes charging them with cav, currently a bad idea, become a really bad idea. The trouble is, those units weren't balanced under these weapon rules. Besides, I don't propose these rules from the point of view of balance, really that's an issue for the army books - I propose from the perspective of truth to life.

tmr - that's really a question for the army books too. But it is unnecessary, really, COB already gives full benefits including Stubborn without joining Khainite units, and even if it added another 7 wounds to the unit, that would be more than balanced out by it preventing them from marching.

[tmr]

Layne - I guess it was more the idea of how cool would it look to have a COB in the middle of a unit of executioners bearing down on a unit of temple guard with a Slann in it or a unit of rats with a bell...

the battle would be epic.

tr

It doesn't overpower Elite-troop halberds that much. It simply makes charging them with cav, currently a bad idea, become a really bad idea. The trouble is, those units weren't balanced under these weapon rules. Besides, I don't propose these rules from the point of view of balance, really that's an issue for the army books - I propose from the perspective of truth to life.

tmr - that's really a question for the army books too. But it is unnecessary, really, COB already gives full benefits including Stubborn without joining Khainite units, and even if it added another 7 wounds to the unit, that would be more than balanced out by it preventing them from marching.

[Noble korhedron]

I would like them to do something about canons. It doesn't make sense to me that a canon can headshot my hero that is 50" away with so little trouble... It should feel like a canon, not like an awp from counter strike... An hero should be able to avoid a canonball on a 2+ roll let's say, 3+ if he's mounted, 4+ on pegasus, etc

I know that there is no need to buff heroes nowadays but it just does so little sense...

Beside, they indeed have to do something about spears and heavy cavalry.. I like your idea

You have been cheated - cannons are only 48" range!! So that's 2" past maximum range - unless you're just rounding up or didn't know for sure?!

[Desert icon]

Great Cannons are 60" range, and even if it was beyond maximum range there's still the cannonball bounce and the original added range from firing to take into account.

@Noble Korhedron: No worries.

[Noble korhedron]

Great Cannons are 60" range, and even if it was beyond maximum range there's still the cannonball bounce and the original added range from firing to take into account.

@Desert Icon: I was assuming he meant a regular cannon since only the Empire can take Great Cannons. Also, T.Y., I did forget about the bounce roll!!

[Druchiishootlord]

Sulla the suggestion about the pitched battle is definitely a nice one but I don't see that stopping the massed heavy cav any less effective. The standard core infantry in most armies is relatively weak. So that massed heavy cav goes after the infantry at those objectives and eliminates them as per normal. It changes the tactics around but doesn't do much to eliminate that aspect. The only thing you're doing at this point is forcing the heavy cav to go after units and basically playing 500 pt denial in VP. Or instead of the heavy cav substitute any of the others as well.

Maybe not something that extreme as core infantry only but I definitely do think something along those lines of forced objectives and not optional are is a much better idea than what we have now. It makes armies my like my Bretonnians useless for capturing those objective markers.

I honestly don't think that there's much else that needs to be changed outside of adding to roll for scenarios much like in 40K. Other than that most of the problems to me seem to be in the actual armies themselves not with the core rules set.

[Asikari]

I really don't think weapons should be changed to reflect their historical counterparts. GW has specific effects it wants weapons to have and to discern between them has named them "spear," "halberd," etc. Introducing historical accuracy to the roles and abilities of the various weaponry unnecessarily complicate close combat.

Just my $0.02.

[Noble korhedron]

I really don't think weapons should be changed to reflect their historical counterparts. GW has specific effects it wants weapons to have and to discern between them has named them "spear," "halberd," etc. Introducing historical accuracy to the roles and abilities of the various weaponry unnecessarily complicate close combat.

Just my $0.02.

You could be right - however, I still believe spears should be allowed to be used in conjunction with shields - hoplites did it in RL after all!! You could just have the sheild strapped to your weak arm and manipulate the spear with your stronger one!!

[Asikari]

Granted, yeah, I'd like to see a unit benefit from some kind of shieldwall. The reason for the hand weapon and shield bonus, however, was to provide a viable alternative to the spear option. In the game, spears were much better than hand weapons until the handweapon/shield armor save bonus came out. At that point, everyone ditched spear wielders for the more survivable option.

[Sulla]

Sulla the suggestion about the pitched battle is definitely a nice one but I don't see that stopping the massed heavy cav any less effective. The standard core infantry in most armies is relatively weak. So that massed heavy cav goes after the infantry at those objectives and eliminates them as per normal. It changes the tactics around but doesn't do much to eliminate that aspect. The only thing you're doing at this point is forcing the heavy cav to go after units and basically playing 500 pt denial in VP. Or instead of the heavy cav substitute any of the others as well.

.

Heavy cav would still be excellent at killing, as would elite infantry and flying monsters. BUT... they would not accumulate any victory points other than from the enemy general or standards, and their influence on the battle would be limited. They would likely only kill one or possibly 2 core units per game at best and since killing troops doesn't accumulate VPs.

You would get a real tough army composition choice between killer units and core. Remember that if only core can hold objectives, and you have between 4 and 6 objectives per game, evenry army is gonna want at least 3 ranked units and even then, that will most likely only net you a draw. 5-6 core units will probably be more common in a mix between fully ranked and minimum sized just as insulation in case you lose a few. This, in turn, reduces the points available for hard hitters and the tactical need for deathstars too, since points denial disappears from the game instantly. Go too heavy on smasher units and all you do is reduce your ability to contest objectives.

It's a way better system than the current pitched battle which just rewards killing and not dieing. Some armies are just flat out better at this than others (i.e. the 'top three').

[Darkprincess]

I'd like to see dark elves vs high elves in the starter box set -

oh yeah and I want to see exploding squigs back - yes I know it wastes time but it's so damn funny - maybe as an optional rule in tourneys, to satisfy the speed gamers out there.

I'd like to see the rules reflect the fluff a little better than they have in the past.

I'd like to see more variant army lists (let's have CoS back as an official build)

I'd like to see more common sense in the VC book (bats, wolves and ghouls are alive, ffs)

there you go

hang on, thats just five - not fluffy - need another one.

<thinks>

oh yeah - how about a special offer from GW once in a while ?


P.S... one more thing - despite the relative unpopularity of Ogre Kingdoms, I wouldn't want to see the gnoblars go - they should be available to O&G players - they are goblins after all.... Our gobbo player regularly uses them (with the rest of the group's permission) and they add a lot of fun and character

[Druchiishootlord]

Now what you say is true Sulla but for someone like me who plays in a tournament aggressive play area among the better players that's all the games would turn into are points denial games with each person besting to take the biggest and heaviest hitting things to achieve their ends. I think that's what it would turn into if you started FORCING people to take units that they don't really want to.

I completely agree with you that it is a better fix than the current pitched battle but that gives armies with an overwhelming amount of infantry choices a decided edge and armies that have few choices at a marked disadvantage. For example the Bretonnians only have 1 strategical choice because one of their core choices loses one it's special rules if it moves and the other is a special unit. Or HE for example you would almost be forcing those players to throw away one of the distinct advantages to their army in only having to select 2 core at 2-2999K.

I like the idea but I think it needs to be watered down a bit. So that you're not forcing too many advantages or disadvantages for/against any particular army. So maybe just any Core unit or ranked infantry with a US of 10+ can score those points. It would allow armies to keep their distinctiveness but would also force more core on the field in order to do this if the player wants to win but he's not forced to and can play a draw/points denial style with his heavier/cheesier army. Players play games because they like to have fun and win. The part where some players will never be able to win will force them to make the chance.

[Red...]

I'd like to see the game shift away from power armies and re-embrace some of its more traditional armies.

What do I mean? Well, at a recent game club meeting I noticed that the following games were going on:

Warriors of Chaos Vs Daemons
Warriors of Chaos Vs Dwarfs (mine)
Beastmen vs Wood Elves

Yes, that's right, out of 6 armies, 4 of them were Chaos.

It suddenly struck me: games workshop has landed us with a game where traditional fantasy forces (e.g. orcs and goblins and dwarfs) hardly ever get fielded. Why? Because they're awful. (animosity and feeble leadership, for example, essentially cripple orcs and goblins). Even those traditional armies that do get fielded a lot, tend to rely on one or two incredible units (when was the last time you saw a credible 2250 empire army without a steam tank?)

Yes, I know we could argue back and forth about whether these armies really are good or not, but that doesn't really change my overall point which is that warhammer is changing ever more into a game of "chaos/vampire counts/elves vs chaos/vampire counts/elves". Personally I think that chaos has a role to play in the world, but it would be nice if it wasn't SO overdominant.

I played a game recently with my Warriors of Chaos (yes, I know...) where an empire gun line ripped my right flank to shreds - he wiped out my chaos knights, sunk my trolls in a tarpit unit and nearly killed my daemon prince. In a desperate attempt to claw back the situation I charged his cannon with the stumbling daemon prince. His unit fled, and I destroyed the cannon.

Not particularly impressive right? One cannon for 6 knights and half a daemon prince. Well. Yeah. Except then his army ran away. Yes. His entire army. One unit was within 6" of my daemon prince, and failed his terror test (not too shocking on leadership seven. The other units then leapfrogged over each other in their haste to get away. His line crumpled and the left side of my army smashed him.

So what would I want in 8th edition? I'd like them to try and adjust the balance away from the big nasty armies with big monsters, super characters and uber troops ("hohoho, WS5, S5 with 3 attacks and a 1+ armour save") who can rely on tactics as simple as "go that way and don't stop until you hit them or they hit you - it doesn't matter which, you'll still win combat" back towards core fantasy armies that include normal sized models .

How could they do that? Well, here would be my suggestions:

- Increase the maximum SCR in units to 5 (that'd help make orcs and goblins credible again).
- Change the rules around stubborn, immune to psych and unbreakable (unbreakable and stubborn units are killer against rank and file troops - don't believe me? try charging a hell cannon with a normal ranked up empire / dwarf infantry unit and see how far that SCR gets you...). Immune to psych makes steamrolling with power units far too easy.
- Fix ward saves and regens (e.g. make all ward saves count as 5+ or 6+ only and regen only occurs on 5+).
- Make all armour saves fail on a 1 and 2.
- Give all units a minimum of 50% strike backs, rounding up (e.g. if one player kills the front five guys in a unit, the other player still gets 3 attacks back). That would give units a chance of doing damage against uber models like greater daemons or kholek.
- Give war machines a +1 strength bonus against models on 40mm+ bases and a -1 strength bonus against models on 20mm bases. That way gunlines could still deal with players who insist on turning up with monster armies, but would struggle more against rank and file armies.
- Dilute animosity. E.g. Make units that fail animosity suffer a -2 leadership penalty.
- Get rid of the "outnumbered by a fear causing enemy = autorbeak" rule. It sucks and again makes taking low leadership armies like O&G or humans a very difficult choice (unless you take the same old units: steam tanks, azhag on his wyvern, etc).
- Stop counting horses in the model count. A unit of 5 knights should be unit strength 5, not 10. That will make heavy cavalry less effective.
- Make infantry weapons more effective - others have suggested ideas like giving pikes anti-cavalry bonuses, etc. That would help.
- Change the strength vs toughness system to reflect the weapon skill system. 5+ should always wound and 2- should always fail, with 4+ the norm. That would make great weapon infantry less good against rank and file troops, but also allow rank and file troops a chance against nasty characters and monsters.
- Fix magic so that its more reliable but less devastating. Its stupid how if you get lucky you can fry and entire unit, but most of the time it doesn't deliver at all. I'm all for the role of luck, but a bit more consistency is really needed with magic.

If GW made even just a few of those changes it would help considerably!

They won't of course, but still!

[Krupp]

I'd like 8th to give more power in the rank and file infantry.

- US 10 for flank or rear chargers to negate rank bonus, or 50% of defending units US

- up to +5 static for ranks

- No more multi save, take best available

- Make the misscast table horrible 30%-40% wizard dies 10% takes unit with him. Change min casting roll to 4+.

- the psy rules need a change. More negatives for ItP units.

Theres only so much they can do without changing the army books. As it stands right now, characters, magic and monsters are too dominating, they should be supporting the rank and file rather than the other way around.

[Blaznak]

I do miss the wrap around rules. I also think a "backwards march" and "backwards wheel" would be easy to implement and not make matters too complex. Finally, I do like that in 40K there is no follow through after a charge into a new unit. I would like something like that imposed (or even that the unit being charged gets its standard reactions).

[Borog]

I do miss the wrap around rules. I also think a "backwards march" and "backwards wheel" would be easy to implement and not make matters too complex. Finally, I do like that in 40K there is no follow through after a charge into a new unit. I would like something like that imposed (or even that the unit being charged gets its standard reactions).

I thought the wrap around rule was terrible, it was so confusing if you were able to charge the "wrapped around models". How would that work in practice?

I also think the backwards march is uneccessary, we already have a simple rule there: you can move sideways or backwards at half speed.

Also, I think the rules for overrun are very cool, they can make for a coordinated flank manouver that is hard to pull off, but gives great benefits and gives you a feeling of your units working in synergy.

Sorry, I don't mean to go after you personally, but you had the last post, and I just so happens to disagree with you on every point Each to his own though!

My personal wish is that they go away from hero- and monsterhammer.
I want ranked infantry to come back and be a viable and perhaps even necessary choice. Lately big monsters have become a trend, and the new beastmen really embraced this. It's about banners and large units, not monsters. Make it so that people can go with a monster list because it's fluffy, not because it's the logical option if you want to win!

and make magic so that medium magic gets a role again, it's cool to have a wizard blasting away and maybe affect the game. Not that magic dictates everything.

A more brutal miscast table like Krupp said sounds like fun!
But I think it's should be more dangerous for the wizard, and less so for the unit. Take a few troops with you in the blast, but don't decimate the unit. Cause the game should be about units slugging it out!

I think Krupp had some good ideas. I'm not sure about the flank, cause I think it's an important part of the game to get flank charges.
Then again, maybe it would be ok, as it would mean that everyone would try to take out cavalry, but just kill one rider or more.

In fact, I'll just stand by what Krupp said, but remove the "10% takes unit with him"




God, I hated herohammer...don't bring back herohammer...please?
That one time, where two units faced each other, and a hero charged alone out of one of them and made the other unit flee was just heartbreaking...

[L1qw1d]

how about just supporting the community instead of not serving court orders for ideas (like they've done for Space Hulk)