Over to you.

How to beat those cowardly High Elves?

Moderators: Layne, The Dread Knights

Post Reply
User avatar
Amboadine
Miscast into the Warp
Miscast into the Warp
Posts: 3510
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:07 am
Location: Investigating Mantica

Over to you.

Post by Amboadine »

So this forum has been a little quiet recently, so let's try and breathe some live back into 8th.

Question -

You can change one rule only in 8th. What do you change?

For me I would have liked flank and rear charges to break Steadfast on the turn of the charge. Representing the shock of the charge on the recieving unit until they get organised again.
User avatar
Diobarach
Black Guard
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:24 am

Re: Over to you.

Post by Diobarach »

Good idea mate. But only one thing hmm, I guess true line of sight, I'd prefer a level system I think.

Not to be a negative Nancy but I always thought steadfast was more of a good thing. Highly mobile individual characters can fairly easily pull off flank and/or rear charges, and I've never been a fan of individual characters taking out a 20+ man unit.
User avatar
Amboadine
Miscast into the Warp
Miscast into the Warp
Posts: 3510
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:07 am
Location: Investigating Mantica

Re: Over to you.

Post by Amboadine »

r530 wrote:Good idea mate. But only one thing hmm, I guess true line of sight, I'd prefer a level system I think.

Not to be a negative Nancy but I always thought steadfast was more of a good thing. Highly mobile individual characters can fairly easily pull off flank and/or rear charges, and I've never been a fan of individual characters taking out a 20+ man unit.


I agree that is a fair point. Perhaps a unit with a full rank would be a better option, mitigates the single character option.

TLOS I woild concur with. Laser pointers got a little ridiculous for a little while.
uklvrbm
Trainee Warrior
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:55 am

Re: Over to you.

Post by uklvrbm »

6 dicing spells. Any time you use that many dice, you should be slapped. Miscast should be based on the dice used. The strength of the hits is based on dice used plus d3 or something like that.
User avatar
Haagrum
PhD in Dark Magic
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:54 am
Location: The depths of the Black Library

Re: Over to you.

Post by Haagrum »

Closing the door on a charge.

Specifically, the player controlling the charging unit chooses which unit closes the door if the charging unit has at least one more complete rank than the charged unit.

Because the shenanigans of 8th Ed charge facing manipulation was the one thing that really bothered me. 50 Orcs aren't going to swivel around just to fight one Great Eagle or sacrificial character model - they're just going to steamroll them. Plus, it encourages big units, not just tough ones.
"The wrath of a good man is not to be feared. They have too many rules."

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not a good time to find out why I have so many."
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8766
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Re: Over to you.

Post by Calisson »

The one change I liked in End Times was the new magic rules.
If only one change had to be made to WH8, that would be to implement that single page of rules (not necessarily the End Times spells themselves).
Basically, all wizards becoming Loremasters, 4D6 winds of magic, spells castable repeatedly up to 14+, no loss of concentration, and limit of 1D6 to the number of dice you can throw to cast or dispel.
For a change, I had the feeling that wizards were worth something.
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
toots
Beastmaster
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Over to you.

Post by toots »

Agree agree agree!!!!

Haagrum wrote:Closing the door on a charge.

Specifically, the player controlling the charging unit chooses which unit closes the door if the charging unit has at least one more complete rank than the charged unit.

Because the shenanigans of 8th Ed charge facing manipulation was the one thing that really bothered me. 50 Orcs aren't going to swivel around just to fight one Great Eagle or sacrificial character model - they're just going to steamroll them. Plus, it encourages big units, not just tough ones.
User avatar
Daeron
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 3908
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:36 pm
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Contact:

Re: Over to you.

Post by Daeron »

I can summarize the list of changes I'd make to this: "make the basic starts work again". WFB had an abundance of special rules that weren't necessary if the base stats worked as they should have. Unfortunately, any such change would have a wide spread impact on the design of the game, and probably require completely new AB's for all.

IE:
- I'd make WS work again, by giving it a bigger impact on the hit rolls (but not make it all defining).
- I'd make S work as is, but no longer modify armour saves (don't gasp yet)
- I'd streamline armour saves again, with 3+ being the top armour save available. Remember, they can hardly be modified so a 3+ save really means something.
- I'd make wards exceptional again instead of a blanket ability
- Armour piercing could probably be stripped except for warmachines and special weapons.
- Leadership should be harder to boost so that it plays a role again and psychology becomes a playing field again.

It would cancel the need for many special rules, re-roll mechanics, asf and the like. You would be able to look at the base stats of a model and go "ohh! now I get the concept of this unit". It would bring the game closer to its roleplay origin instead of its special rules franchise.
With a few simplifications on the movement rules you could even simplify the game sufficiently to make it less of a hassle. Ever since AoS, I've explored more games and other mechanics and I realise that I still love WFB but it had many technical complexities that contributed little to the game or immersion.
I love me a bowl of numbers to crunch for breakfast. If you need anything theoryhammered, I gladly take requests.

Furnace of Arcana, a warhammer blog with delusional grandeur.

"I move unseen. I hide in light and shadow. I move faster than a bird. No plate of armour ever stopped me. I strike recruits and veterans with equal ease. And all shiver at my coldest of whispers."
- The stiff breeze
User avatar
DarkSky
Corsair
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Over to you.

Post by DarkSky »

With no clear idea on my own, I'll second "uklvrbm". While six dicing is okay itself, I think the results of the miscast should be negligible for a spell that went off on two dice, and severe for one on six dice. Maybe allow adjusting the roll on the miscast table. 2 dice = change roll by two, 6 dice = opponent changes roll by two.
My Blog containing battle reports and painting updates: https://bleaklegion.wordpress.com
User avatar
Red...
Generalissimo
Posts: 3729
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Baltimore

Re: Over to you.

Post by Red... »

I'd revise the who strikes first rules to place more emphasis on initiative boosts and penalties. In particular:
- Remove ASF as a rule for models
- Change ASF on weapons to "add 2 initiative"
- Remove ASL as a rule for models
- Change ASL on weapons to "subtract 2 initiative"
- Change the charge bonus from "+1 to combat resolution" to "add D3 initiative"
- Add a rule that applies a -1 to initiative penalty in the next round of combat to any unit/model that loses a round of combat but passes their break test
- Add a rule that applies a -1 to initiative penalty to any unit that charges across difficult or dangerous terrain to join combat

One issue I had with 8th edition was that, as a Dark Elf player, against most opponents I could throw my units into the middle of the table, confident that my high initiative (and after the new book, our ASF) meant that I would reliably strike first against any and all chargers, while my opponent faced the opposite headache. These changes would make it so that charging influenced the order of combat, but didn't control it (avoiding the 7th ed "who charges wins" issue). The d3 component would introduce an element of randomness, so that players could not dependably calculate out who would strike first before a charge, adding in a bit of gambling to the issue. Similarly, having an ASF weapon would make you more likely to strike first, but wouldn't guarantee it.

To illustrate:
Example 1: unaltered 8th ed rules: A unit of I3 empire swordsmen successfully charge a unit of I5 dark elf warriors. The warriors automatically strike first due to higher I.

Example 2: modified 8th ed rules: A unit of I3 empire swordsmen successfully charge a unit of I5 dark elf warriors. If the swordsmen roll a 1-2, then they strike second, if they roll a 3-4 then they strike simultaneously, and if they roll a 5-6 then they strike first.


Alternatively
Example 1: Unaltered 8th ed rules: A unit of I2 dwarf warriors charge a unit of I6 high elf phoenix guard. The Phoenix guard strike first reliably.

Example 2: Modified 8th ed rules: A unit of I2 dwarf warriors charge a unit of I6 high elf phoenix guard. The best I that the dwarfs can score is 5, so they reliably strike second.

Alternatively:
Example 1: Unaltered 8th ed rules: A unit of I5 dark elf executioners charge across some rocky ground to attack a swarm of I4 vampire bats. The Executioners strike last reliably.

Example 2: Modified 8th ed rules: A unit of I5 dark elf executioners charge across some rocky ground to attack a swarm of I5 high elf spearmen. The Executioners suffer -1I from charging over difficult terrain and a further -2I from their ASL weapons. That puts them at I2. It is impossible for them to strike first and unlikely, but impossible, for them to strike simultaneously with the spearmen, if they roll a 5 or 6.

The changed I rules would still favor some units over others for probable strike order, but would prevent high I or ASF armies from simply throwing their fighting units across the table as quickly as they can go, safe in the knowledge that if combat occurs then they will get to strike first, by reintroducing other factors that influence who strikes first.


---


Another option could be to resolve each individual attack per model in sequence, rather than all together. So, for example, a unit of blackguard has 2 attacks per model. If they were fighting against a unit of empire spearmen (1 attack each), the sequence would go: blackguard strikes with 1 attack, then empire spearmen strikes with 1 attack, then blackguard strikes with 1 attack. The downside here would be that combats would go on for quite a bit longer and could get confusing.
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman
User avatar
marcopollo
Assassin
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:44 pm
Location: The thin edge of the wedge

Re: Over to you.

Post by marcopollo »

I'd like to bring back "lap-around" from 7th edition. If you win combat, you can choose to bring soldiers from the rear ranks of the unit around to the flanks two at a time on each flank until you get to the rear and then only two at a time on the rear. You got the flank bonus if you lapped around, and a rear bonus if you eventually got there. This help whittle down those big bricks and would help reduce the potency of steadfast.
User avatar
The_Peacemaker
Shade
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:24 pm

Re: Over to you.

Post by The_Peacemaker »

Warmachhine chart gone and replaced with the war machine taking 1 wound. And to compensate, cannons do D3 + 1 wounds.
Post Reply