Taking inspiration from the 40k thread of the same idea, imagine you were allowed to change, add or remove ONE single rule in the rulebook or any Army Book. What would you do with your one change?

Bearing in mind the idea is to make things fairer, or make things more viable, not to make things broken.

Have at it, Dakka!

I would add a mulligan roll. Once per game you may choose to re-roll any dice or set of dice that went particularly badly.

Charge like old times, the maximum movement has to be enough for the furthest away model to make contact ( = no free "closing the door")

I was going to say it as a joke, but it kind of works. No The Most Important Rule. If there is no given rule for something, the game comes to a complete halt.

The reason is, GW would be forced to make non-gakky FAQs and have really explicit instructions. As it is, they have an out saying, meh, just roll off which I think makes them lazy at quite a lot of levels and makes the game less balanced.

I would change steadfast so that, if you lose more than half your unit in a phase, you take a penalty to reflect that. No more slavebuses getting flanked by a combat unit and holding. Who knows, it might add something other than "MY BOOK IS BENT AND I WIN!" to Skaven.


Yes, I am bitter.

Have terrain reduce movement.

 ferret61 wrote:
I would add a mulligan roll. Once per game you may choose to re-roll any dice or set of dice that went particularly badly.

+1! I honestly think this would do more to balance a game than changing any one written rule. Rules by nature get exploited.

I was going to say something about steadfast, but I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole, made of bleach and anti-biotics.

Have more terrain that blocks line of sight (forests and hills).

-Matt

Change steadfast! Make heavy cavalry on the charge against infantry worth double combat res or something to make them useful and give them a chance at breaking a 100 man NG unit or slave unit.

Just replace the silly terrain rules in 8th with the terrain rules from 5, 6, or 7th. The treatment of terrain in those editions would satisfy even a historical gamer. I'm not opposed to a magical woods or tower if its part of a special scenario but.....

Change skirmisher rules back to what they used to be, along with woods.

I'd have to agree with change to scenery rules.
Blocking line of sight or hindering movement being the 2 best options.

I dunno steadfast though nice definitely needs de-buffs to it depending on the situation. Like if you were flank or rear charged for instance and depending on how many ranks you were flanked or rear charged with. Basically you'd get a negative modifier to your normally steadfast leadership.

Then they need to nerf some of the magic a bit. Supposedly the rulebook magic.

Also it might be nice if magic missiles were allowed to be cast more than once or were made into some of the signature spells so you could cast them more than once. Maybe that's just me though. Magic missiles don't seem too effective as is unless you shoot them at a skirmisher unit and even then not really since there's probably a ton of skirmisher units. As far as monsters go it'd be a bigger threat but most magic missiles are weak in strength whereas monsters have good toughness and in some cases regeneration. At least gives magic missiles a boosted strength or something. Currently most feel magic missiles are the crappiest spell type in the game.

So yeah i'm not sure. Any of these would definitely be nice. I suppose on boards with plenty of terrain steadfast isn't too big of a deal since rand-and-file suffers immensely on it most of the time whereas skirmishers are the gods of terrain.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I was going to say it as a joke, but it kind of works. No The Most Important Rule. If there is no given rule for something, the game comes to a complete halt.

The reason is, GW would be forced to make non-gakky FAQs and have really explicit instructions. As it is, they have an out saying, meh, just roll off which I think makes them lazy at quite a lot of levels and makes the game less balanced.

There was a Standard Bearer in a white dwarf not too long ago where Jervis seemed to get very defensive and.. you know how some people get all offended and act like you suggesting something insulted them and because of that they are right and you're wrong. It was about the 'roll off' rule and it read like that, he went on about how having that rule in the main book meant they didn't have to make tight rules and that anyone who disagreed with that sentiment is wrong.

After reading that I have to agree wholeheartedly with the above.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I was going to say it as a joke, but it kind of works. No The Most Important Rule. If there is no given rule for something, the game comes to a complete halt.

The reason is, GW would be forced to make non-gakky FAQs and have really explicit instructions. As it is, they have an out saying, meh, just roll off which I think makes them lazy at quite a lot of levels and makes the game less balanced.

While I sort of agree, if they take that rule out, I doubt their FAQs would change. I like having The Most Important Rule, it's saved me a lot of hassle in the past when playing difficult players.

Steadfast I would change. Make it you have to double the enemy for it to take effect, and also bring back unit sizes (like monsters are 10, cavalry are 2 etc) so mass infantry blocks don't hold a unit until it dies...


Von Chogg

cannon vs monsters = d3 wounds.

cannon vs monsters = d3 wounds.

No, instead get back to the old cannon rules:
S7 1d3 wounds for most (I think the STank cannon was even S6)
Exception: Empire Great Cannon S10 d6 wounds (or maybe S7 d6 wounds?)

makes even more sense ... gotta patch the Stonehorn then! Maybe a comeback to some old special armour saves " 3+ Scaly Skin that cannot be reduced to worse than 5+"?
Not as good as a straight up Ward save, but does the job against cannonballs

I really like this edition, but I do find some things that erk me more than others that I would change.

I would make characteristic tests only deal ONE wound, I would have cannons only deal d3 wounds and I would tone down the current main lores. I think these changes would really balance the game and encourage more evened out lists rather than lists which rely on a particular form of spam.

Make the Lore of Light as good as the Lore of Death!

Disruption from a flank charge removes steadfast.

It's a toss up between:

An adjustment to Steadfast (-1Ld if you're engaged to your flank, -2 if you're engaged to your rear).
Any more than that is too far.

or

Forests blocking line of sight. They don't need to hinder movement, since infantry loses Steadfast while they're in there, and cavalry, monstrous infantry, etc. have to take Dangerous Terrain tests if they want to move quickly through the woods anyway.

I would like to see Steadfast move toward, If you take twice as many wounds (or more) than as you dish out, LD -1. If attacked in Flank LD -1, Attacked in Rear -2, all can be combined, So If you take twice as many wound than you deal out, have a unit in your flank and rear, your stead fast Is at -4. And Disruption cancels stead fast, Models attacked from the Rear cannot use Inspiring presence or BSB, as they are too busy trying to figure out how the General allowed them to be out flanked and attacked from behind.

* Edited txt mistakes.

Re-introduce difficult terrain or re-introduce guessing...it's a tough choice.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Re-introduce difficult terrain or re-introduce guessing...it's a tough choice.

I'd quite like to see guessing in again. After all, warmachine crews of old did genuinely have to guess the range on their weapons. And it actually gives me a use for Pythagoras' Theorem in real life...

If you lose your rank bonus due to flank / rear charge, you also lose steadfast- easy!

Also units at/under half strength give up half their VPs.

Instant end to the deathstar age (or at least, their major prevalence). It's just so easy...

Its a tough call to choose just one of the three but in order

1. if a unit is disrupted it looses steadfast
2. forest block line of sight
3. get half vp points for unit under half strength

Steadfast. There needs to be a way to break it.

 RiTides wrote:
If you lose your rank bonus due to flank / rear charge, you also lose steadfast- easy!

Also units at/under half strength give up half their VPs.

Instant end to the deathstar age (or at least, their major prevalence). It's just so easy...

Exactly what I was thinking.

I dunno... maybe give charriots march?

1. Monsters should be able to thunderstomp everything except other monsters. How can a giant or a dragon not be able to step on a man riding a horse or a smaller monster like an ogre? Makes absolutely no sense at all.
2. Have flank/rear charges disrupt steadfast.
3. Make wooded area terrain block LOS

When a unit fails a panic check, flees, and is caught by the pursuers, it should NOT auto-die. This is the most ridiculous rule in all of WHFB. I've seen massive units run down by a single figure. The most memorable time this happened was when an OK players' horde of 24 Ironguts was run down by a single friggin' Chaos Knight. I mean, what the frak? Reality is bent all the time in WHFB with no problem, but crap like that is just ridiculous.

~Tim?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
When a unit fails a panic check, flees, and is caught by the pursuers, it should NOT auto-die. This is the most ridiculous rule in all of WHFB. I've seen massive units run down by a single figure. The most memorable time this happened was when an OK players' horde of 24 Ironguts was run down by a single friggin' Chaos Knight. I mean, what the frak? Reality is bent all the time in WHFB with no problem, but crap like that is just ridiculous.
~Tim?

You know, a good fix for that is that for each attack the pursuing unit has, it should do 1 wound with no save of any kind, the fleeing unit is then engaged in the rear.
The problem then becomes, with no unit max, some guys just won't ever die. Think of skaven slaves/goblins, you could take so many they'd never die.

-Matt

I wouldn't mind something like instant death appear in fantasy. Just make it so that monsters and chariots are immune to it or something.

Steadfast cancelled by flank or rear charges from substantial units.

 Son of Landuin wrote:
I wouldn't mind something like instant death appear in fantasy. Just make it so that monsters and chariots are immune to it or something.

I wouldn't like this. Characters are pretty awesome things in fantasy, and this would take a lot of that away. And Miscasts would be horrible...

How about steadfast is lost if charged in the flank or rear by a unit wih equal or greater " rows so even skirmishers that don't get ranks but have 10 models count as 2 rows of 5)

canadianguy wrote:
How about steadfast is lost if charged in the flank or rear by a unit wih equal or greater ranks.

...This already happens, and you don't even need to charge in the flank or rear....

Steadfast does need to be nerfed, but I'm not sure ranks are the answer. Personally, I think Steadfast should be broken if you take a certain percent of casualties in one round of combat, 20% perhaps.. But then I also think this percentage should be dropped to say, 10%, if the unit is charged in the flank or rear. And maybe Terror could cause this to be dropped to 10% as well, if the check is failed.

Cannons randomise hits between mounts and riders just like everything else has to.

No to randomize between mounts and riders for me, I enjoy the changes to monstrous mounts, etc.

I do like the idea of being able to Thunder Stomp anything aside from other monsters, that one makes sense.

And I second (or maybe third) the rule change for 50% victory points on half sized units.

Steadfast is not THAT BAD and there are plenty of ways to counter it. I would be on board for -1 to the flank, -2 to the rear penalty though.

From the hip, all values in the miscast table change from hits to a single wound with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, to the Wizard who caused the miscast, the wound causes a permanent reduction of his wounds characteristic (assuming he's not dead). So the wound can never be healed by any means.

Ward saves are pretty much a given on casters. The idea that in some situation it's better to just have cheap casters alone, let them explode and die, and not get too attached. It also puts the risk factor a lot higher when rolling for boxcars.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
When a unit fails a panic check, flees, and is caught by the pursuers, it should NOT auto-die. This is the most ridiculous rule in all of WHFB. I've seen massive units run down by a single figure. The most memorable time this happened was when an OK players' horde of 24 Ironguts was run down by a single friggin' Chaos Knight. I mean, what the frak? Reality is bent all the time in WHFB with no problem, but crap like that is just ridiculous.

~Tim?

That doesn't represent them all dying, just fleeing off the battlefield beyond all hope of rallying.

My problems with the current edition aren't many but they are serious.

1: Flank and rear charges need to do more to break steadfast.

2: The magic phase needs less favouritism towards a single high level wizard. Horrors of Tzeentch, for example, suffer horribly from the current rules. Taking multiple wizards just means you run out of dice for them. Further, the number of dice doesn't change no matter how many points you're playing which I view as a problem as magic is really overpowered at 1,500 points but not much of a factor at 4,000 points.

3: Victory points for half dead units would alleviate a lot of the points denial nonsense.

4: Cannons need to be toned down vs characters on monster mounts.

That said, I like the current edition much more than 7th.

Make forests more impactful and less gimmicky. Cut down movement, or at least disallow marching.

Winds of magic...

It's a tossup between fear and cannons.

1) Cannons are simply too dependable, and the fact that they hit BOTH rider and mount at full strength is ridiculous. They need to be brought more in line with stonethrowers.

My suggestion would be to add a "reloading die." Roll a d6 in addition to the artillery die. On a 3-6 it shoots normally. However, on a 1-2 there are problems with loading/lighting the cannon and it can't shoot until next turn (but with no reloading die).

Misfires work as normal.


2) Fear also needs to be changed. Yes it was way OP in 7th edition, but between HYG and IP it's been nerfed to the point of uselessness in 8th edition.

Break tests should be taken at -1 against units with fear, and -2 against units with terror, and these bonuses should bypass steadfast.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
It's a tossup between fear and cannons.

1) Cannons are simply too dependable, and the fact that they hit BOTH rider and mount at full strength is ridiculous. They need to be brought more in line with stonethrowers.

My suggestion would be to add a "reloading die." Roll a d6 in addition to the artillery die. On a 3-6 it shoots normally. However, on a 1-2 there are problems with loading/lighting the cannon and it can't shoot until next turn (but with no reloading die).

Misfires work as normal.


2) Fear also needs to be changed. Yes it was way OP in 7th edition, but between HYG and IP it's been nerfed to the point of uselessness in 8th edition.

Break tests should be taken at -1 against units with fear, and -2 against units with terror, and these bonuses should bypass steadfast.

The WS1 mechanic is ok, it's the process that sucks.
If you didn't get HYG or IP for fear tests, fear would mean something again.

Units gain ASF on the turn secussfuly charge a unit.
(only that turn and only against that unit)*

* should get rid of weird loop holes

 N810 wrote:
Units gain ASF on the turn secussfuly charge a unit.
(only that turn and only against that unit)*

* should get rid of weird loop holes

I wouldn't agree with this across the board, Initiative order is one of the more interesting parts of the game.

However, some weapons should definitely get ASF on the charge, its always bugged me when a unit of heavy Cav with lances strikes second, esp against any model covered with heavy armor or holding a very short weapon.

Change the minimum rank number to four instead of five. Yes, it bothers me THAT much.

I stick by house rules when it comes to terrain we use the magic portals or waystones and stuff here and there but woods we go by light and heavy light -1 to moves heavy - 2 and may not march or charge out of them this has been altered here and there depending on situations and still working on cover for them usually just act as a cover save or total line of sight block how close you are to the edge. Hills -2 movement. thats about it atleast when you do look close enough in the BRB it says and encourages you to make up house rules and that it is just a game.

 Coldhatred wrote:
Change the minimum rank number to four instead of five. Yes, it bothers me THAT much.

This would make the steadfast issue even worse though...

But I take your point, it is quite annoying how many units still come in 8s and 16s...

 The Shadow wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:
Change the minimum rank number to four instead of five. Yes, it bothers me THAT much.

This would make the steadfast issue even worse though...

But I take your point, it is quite annoying how many units still come in 8s and 16s...

I think cavalry should be 4 models per rank, the same way that monstrous infantry/cavalry are 3 per rank. Brets can keep their special 3 models per rank Lance rule, but it makes it easier and cheaper for cavalry to get more ranks, which has become more important in 8th it seems.

Cannons and random movement both need fixing IMHO

 streamdragon wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:
Change the minimum rank number to four instead of five. Yes, it bothers me THAT much.

This would make the steadfast issue even worse though...

But I take your point, it is quite annoying how many units still come in 8s and 16s...

I think cavalry should be 4 models per rank, the same way that monstrous infantry/cavalry are 3 per rank. Brets can keep their special 3 models per rank Lance rule, but it makes it easier and cheaper for cavalry to get more ranks, which has become more important in 8th it seems.

Now this is a pretty good idea, never thought of that before.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
When a unit fails a panic check, flees, and is caught by the pursuers, it should NOT auto-die. This is the most ridiculous rule in all of WHFB. I've seen massive units run down by a single figure. The most memorable time this happened was when an OK players' horde of 24 Ironguts was run down by a single friggin' Chaos Knight. I mean, what the frak? Reality is bent all the time in WHFB with no problem, but crap like that is just ridiculous.
~Tim?

You know, a good fix for that is that for each attack the pursuing unit has, it should do 1 wound with no save of any kind, the fleeing unit is then engaged in the rear.
The problem then becomes, with no unit max, some guys just won't ever die. Think of skaven slaves/goblins, you could take so many they'd never die.

-Matt

I like this idea let's face it when we look at historical battles cavalry disappeared for hours chasing a broken battalion, classic example is The Battle of Edgehill where the Royalist cavalry broke a couple of regiments and then disappeared chasing them. Therefore if your Knights break a big unit you can choose to either keep running it do the ground killing 8 models per turn (based on 8 knights with 1 attack each) or leave it to flee and either rally or run off the table. This would add an extra tactical dimension to whether or not to charge and what to do after combat.

There are two things that I think are way to strong as it stands right now, 1 Steadfast, Cheap units are just that, they are crappy fighters, they are meant to go die, not to be bought in super blocks that just go hang out. I feel that if you have to rely on that to win a game, then you need to work on your skills as a General. 2, Int base test or remove from play, Unlike S or T test, which are more or less average across all armies, The Int base test are way to spread out. as an average stat is is so far out of whack that is is almost silly to play against. It is simple the average Int for Lizards army is 1.75, the average Int of an Elf army is over 5. Just makes the case. Here is a really easy way to adjust this is, Magic Resistance allows saves against spells that do not allow armor or ward saves. now those expense items that grant MR, are useful, A star has little deference against a spell that will wipe it out, and is not an over the top counter.

Every Phase has its hard hitters.

Shooting has War machines, Misfire takes care of these.
Magic has the SMD (Spells of mass destruction) Sure a wizard could kill itself, but not until after the spell wipes out half an armies usefulness.
CC, (Insert name her) Death star. Can be countered

Idea #1: Casting & Dispelling bonuses

All Lord level casters get +2 to casting and dispel values
All Hero level casters get +1 to casting and dispel values

All wizards still know the same number of spells according to their wizard level

This will change army comp because you are less inclined to feel obgliated to take the level 4. Level 3 wizards will be more common for those that purely want to maximize dispelling potential without necessarily wanting to pour extra points into a level 4 because their list doesn't revolve as heavily around magic.

---

Idea #2: Spell Selection

Allow Hero level casters to select ONE spell from their chosen lore
Allow Lord level casters to select TWO spells from their chosen lore

It seems a bit ridiculous that a veteran caster (some who've lived hundreds or thousands of years) march blindly onto the battlefield and suddenly recall their spells right before the battle begins.

This idea could be exploited and potentially lead to only a select few power builds, so I could see this one not being as popular as Idea #1.

---

Idea #3: Dispelling Miscasts

Irresistable Force on a dispel can cause miscasts on the opposing wizard if:

TWO or more 6s are rolled by a dispelling LORD level caster
THREE or more 6s are rolled by a dispelling HERO level caster
FOUR or more 6s are rolled by a dispelling DWARF army (representing their innate ability to resist magic)

---

Idea #4: Channeling

THREE channeling dice per LORD level caster
TWO channeling dice per HERO level caster
ONE channeling dice per non-caster that can channel such as Warrior Priests

This won't break the game, but it'll help offset the randomized winds of magic 2D6 rolls. Plus it could be helpful in larger games if the 12 Power dice cap was removed.

---

Unrelated but I think all monsters with the TERROR rule should have stubbon, even at their poor LD of 4-6. I find it hard to believe a large monster flees because they killed 3-5 people but suddenly decide to take off because there's more ranks and banners (or heaven forbid, a musician making the difference).

Thoughts?

Reducing rank width isn't always great. You can get less units in B2B contact and thus get less attacks. Like, imagine if a special infantry unit was 3 ranks. Sure, a conga line would be steadfast forever, but they're only ever going to get 1 attack. So basically it's only good for sitting there and dying. I don't think that's what you're trying to do with cavalry.

MI and MC usually have a ton of attacks and wider bases, so they are fine with only needing 3.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

You know, a good fix for that is that for each attack the pursuing unit has, it should do 1 wound with no save of any kind, the fleeing unit is then engaged in the rear.
The problem then becomes, with no unit max, some guys just won't ever die. Think of skaven slaves/goblins, you could take so many they'd never die.

If a unit kept being run down, they would eventually run off the board.... but yeah, it's true on a regular game a 100 goblin unit would be almost impossible to get points from, that would take tarpitting to a whole new level.-

Slaves don't have that problem, they explode before that

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Reducing rank width isn't always great. You can get less units in B2B contact and thus get less attacks. Like, imagine if a special infantry unit was 3 ranks. Sure, a conga line would be steadfast forever, but they're only ever going to get 1 attack. So basically it's only good for sitting there and dying. I don't think that's what you're trying to do with cavalry.

MI and MC usually have a ton of attacks and wider bases, so they are fine with only needing 3.

I suppose a decent offset to making cavalry require only 4 models per rank would be giving them devastating charge or something similar. That way the models that do make it in, hurt more. Of course, then you run the risk of overdoing it in regards to the Bret Lance Formation, but let's be real, Brets aren't exactly owning everything to start with.

Well, there are a few rules I'd like to see changed:

1) The entire magic phase. As it stands, it seems far, far too random:

- What spells your wizard has are determined at random
- Power dice are determined entirely at random
- Whether you get extra dice for your wizards is random
- Whether you successfully cast a spell is random
- Whether you succeed in dispelling a spell is random
- Whether you are allowed to dispel a spell is random
- Whether you miscast is random
- What happens when you miscast is completely random

There are elements of choice (which spells to cast, how many dice to throw), but overall it just seems like the magic phase comes down far too much to dice rolls. Furthermore, Winds of Magic (arguably the most important roll) is completely random and virtually nothing can change it. Roll snake-eyes in a crucial turn? Enjoy skipping an entire phase of the game for no reason.

I'd also like to see the miscast table change so that a wizard needs to be throwing at least 4 dice before he can roll Power Drain or Dimensional Cascade.

e.g. Roll 1d6 and add dice used to cast spell:
3-5: Detonation
6-7: Magical Feedback
8-9: Calamitous Detonation
10: Power Drain
11+ Dimensional Cascade

3) Change Killing Blow to 'all to-wound rolls of 6 ignore armour and regeneration saves' (HKB remains the same). Essentially, it no longer insta-kills characters, but can work on any unit type.

4) Steadfast gives some benefit to unstable units.

1.) Cannons - Much MUCH too game changing.

2.) Charge Attacks - Cavalry, large bases, and monster bases should get charge attacks.

Man, this is a tough choice, made tough by the fact that I haven't played WHFB in 4+ years...

Sniper Cannons are pretty annoying and IME too good at insta-gibbing monsters; maybe reduce it to D3 wounds? Maybe give all monsters a Ward Save? I don't know.

Making terrain actually have some kind of effect other than removing rank bonuses and "D6 Random effect"?

I think the biggest change I would like to see would be:
No more Irresistible Force. Miscast happens on Double 1's.

EDIT: Oh, oh, read the first page of the thread, totally forgot about guessing, so, as an alternative to my cannon suggestion is basically what others said; pre-measuring out! Range-guessing in!

There is only a couple of armies with cannons, so to me it doesn't seem like to big a deal leaving them how they are.
they still miss their targets and can misfire. the Dwarfs don't have magic, the most powerful phase in the game so they need something like cannons to balance it IMO

How about unit champions only being allowed to accept challenges and not issue them.
i find it really annoying when your combat lord (potentially on a dragon) flies into combat only to be held up by some pesky unit upgrade for a whole turn. and then there's steadfast.

Change steadfast so that it can be cancelled by engaging a stead fast unit on at least 2 facings. Should promote some more tactical play, and it gets rid of the reliance on magic to break them.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Have more terrain that blocks line of sight (forests and hills).

-Matt

THIS.

I really miss being able to move stuff across the board without laser-guided cannonballs blowing up my lovingly built & painted big gribblies. As it stands now big monsters are just free VPs to your opponent.

Im not sure.
I prefer the old skirmisher rules to the current ones....
But at the same time ii prefer the old Artillery and crew are seperate rules as they made more sense. If your crew lost their achine, they could move to another and help with that one.

1) The whole winds of magic to have some degree of certainty

2) Wizards can choose half their spells rounded down and the rest is still randomly chosen. Thus:

Level 1: 1 random spell
Level 2: 1 random spell + 1 chosen spell
Level 3: 2 random spells + 1 chosen spell
Level 4: 2 random spells + 2 chosen spells

3) Channelling attempts are improved by +1 for every level. Thus:

Level 1: 6+ to channel
Level 2: 5+ to channel
Level 3: 4+ to channel
Level 4: 3+ to channel

This will go a long way in decreasing the randomness of the magic phase

3) Cannons shooting adjust their line by scattering D6 inches at half their range. Thus a cannon with 60" range declare the line they are shooting, then at the 30" mark that point scatters 6" and the line is adjusted as required.

Hmm, there's a few I'd change honestly:
1) All disruption breaks steadfast. It makes cavalry flank charging extremely effective before the reform and, if the enemy is engaged on two fronts, it's pretty doomed. Seems fairly logical too - how could you be "steadfast" whilst disrupted? Monsters should always be steadfast when not disrupted and maybe disrupt units on the charge - the current rules make no sense in that regard (I don't care how many goblins you have, a dragon should make them think twice about hanging around).
2) Test or die spells changed. I've mentioned this before, but they're so ridiculously effective that they're better at killing tough monsters than 2 cannons, which are S10 D6 wounds. If that's not absurd, I don't know what is. Solution - allow ward saves, look out sirs and make them only D3 wounds. Still very effective, less general snipes, more mitigation by expensive gear.
3) Cannons should just do D3 wounds again and not be able to wound out of LOS with bounces. It's pretty annoying to lose a Stegadon in one shot but cannons still need to be effective for armies which have them and little alternative (cough dwarfs cough). They should be powerful, but not too good - D3 wounds means that it's still effective when it hits, which is generally 50-75% of shots. That means that 2 cannons firing at one Terrorgheist will, on average, inflict about 3 wounds. Seems reasonable to me, especially when war machines are so easily removed nowadays. Maybe it's too weak, but there should actually be some reason to take bolt throwers beyond cool factor.
4) Magic returned to 7e rules. Much more certainty, much more balanced IMO. At absolute minimum, caster level should determine dice thrown, not just the current cap of 6 dice for all (aka my lv2 wizard can suicide 6 dice pit of shades with little downside).
5) Skirmishers contract AFTER the charge is made, and close towards a model in combat. None of these silly impossible charges where it automatically fails due to contracting then automatically going back to loose formation.
6) When charging, if you can't close the door, your opponent must. None of these silly "must remain X inches from other units" either, movement trays make this fairly clear and even if they didn't, it's not so hard to figure out that a rule like this need exist. Again, this is too exploitable by making impossible charge situations.
7) "Pile in" moves of up to 3" if you drop out of combat for any reason, e.g. fighting a long single rank of models with three units (front and 2 flanks), the front striking first; this would make the units on the flanks drop out of the combat if a casualty was removed from either side without this additional pile in.

I think that's about it though. I'm pretty happy with the rules as is honestly. Unfortunately, it looks like allies are on the horizon (yay...) so who know what will change next edition.

I second the monsters always having steadfast.

Also, disruption should break steadfast.

Change the turn order to what 40K uses ie. Move, shoot/magic, Assault/charge, close combat. So that you don't charge during movement, then do your magic and shoot and then come back to the charges you made I just feel like it flows better if you make your charges then go strait into close combat also your "march" movements would also happen at the same time the same as your running in 40K
or
Adding new charge reactions such as making a swift reform (if you would normally be able to do so)
or
Allowing Units to move sideways (up to half their movement) while in CC to get more models in base contact. That way if your opponent makes a charge against unit A and ends up also engaged with 2 models in unit B then Unit B can scoot in and actually be useful in the fight.

I think single models on their own should have their front arc increased to 180 degrees.

I get that a formation can't turn quickly but why a warmachine probably weighing a a couple of tonnes can be pivoted in any direction it damn well pleases to shoot and a single model is stumped if something marches past him is beyond me.

Which brings me to my next point warmachines should have a front arc, it takes time to turn an large warmachine and re-aim.
even if its that if it turns over 45 degrees its -1 to hit, over 90 degrees its -2 to hit.

As many have said already, make flank/rear charges should negate steadfast. Would re-incentivise cavalry being taken.

Bring back the monster list where you put your character on the spider, scorpion etc..

(I had a skink chief on a scorpion)

Allow Monsters to add their remaining Wounds to their leadership value (up to a maximum value of 10) for close-combat break tests.

Monsters should not take panic tests if a model/unit with a smaller footprint is destroyed. I can understand a Hydra running away if another nearby Hydra gets killed, but if you kill a small chaff unit... the Hydra shouldn't care as much. Currently a LD5 Hydra is most likely to run off the board if not babysat with a leadership bubble.

Lots of good ideas.

I agree that sniper cannons are too good.

I really want real skirmishers back.

As for steadfast, just ditch it entirely and return to an outnumbering bonus to combat res. If you outhumber you get a +1, if you outnumber 2 to 1 it's a +2, if you outnumber 3 to 1 or greater, it's a +3. Still gives a nice big bonus to big blocks of infantry, but doesn't grind the game down to a halt.

Mmm. Tossup between:

Cannons fire by:
a) placing cannonball marker
b) scattering marker d6"-BS
c) rolling overshoot/bounce as normal.

That way they can't lazer-sniper characteres on 20mm bases from across the board, which is a ridiculous use for them IMHO.


ALTERNATIVELY

Infantry needs to be made better. Specifically medium infantry (i.e. everything between slaves and executioners). Right now they're too slow and too gak to be viable for any build that doesn't have to take them.

I'd suggest that spears give ASF against anything charging them to the front, and in addition either +1S or AP against cavalry/monstrous cavalry charging against the same.




For the record I do NOT agree with the people suggesting that disruption break steadfast. That would just give cav buses even MORE of an advantage in this game than they already have.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
Mmm. Tossup between:

Cannons fire by:
a) placing cannonball marker
b) scattering marker d6"-BS
c) rolling overshoot/bounce as normal.

That way they can't lazer-sniper characteres on 20mm bases from across the board, which is a ridiculous use for them IMHO.

This or random movement. I hate that rule!

Remove premeasuring. Imagine 8th ed without all these issues. Suddenly war machines aren't a major pain any more. Monstrous cav gets reigned in somewhat. which in turn brings back BS shooting and infantry.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Remove premeasuring. Imagine 8th ed without all these issues. Suddenly war machines aren't a major pain any more. Monstrous cav gets reigned in somewhat. which in turn brings back BS shooting and infantry.

How does removing premeasuring stop war machines?

 vipoid wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Remove premeasuring. Imagine 8th ed without all these issues. Suddenly war machines aren't a major pain any more. Monstrous cav gets reigned in somewhat. which in turn brings back BS shooting and infantry.

How does removing premeasuring stop war machines?

Cannons are laser guided now because you always declare them 10" from the back because you can premeasure. By removing premeasuring, cannons have to guess where the bounces will take the cannonball.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Remove premeasuring. Imagine 8th ed without all these issues. Suddenly war machines aren't a major pain any more. Monstrous cav gets reigned in somewhat. which in turn brings back BS shooting and infantry.

How does removing premeasuring stop war machines?

Cannons are laser guided now because you always declare them 10" from the back because you can premeasure. By removing premeasuring, cannons have to guess where the bounces will take the cannonball.

All guessing ever did was reward the people who had a knack for it or were good with math and punish the people with bad depth perception. I shouldn't have a better cannon just because I have an eye for distance. In the hands of an experienced user with a good eye, cannons were just as laser guided back in the day as they are now. I think the better answer to cannons is d3 wounds rather than d6 and possibly a Strength reduction.

I'd change steadfast. Steadfast now means you take a Ld penalty at HALF whatever you lost the combat by.

Lose combat by 4? Minus 2. It would provide a benefit without having things like "I won this combat by 12, take a test on rerollable ld10 because steadfast...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Remove premeasuring. Imagine 8th ed without all these issues. Suddenly war machines aren't a major pain any more. Monstrous cav gets reigned in somewhat. which in turn brings back BS shooting and infantry.

How does removing premeasuring stop war machines?

Cannons are laser guided now because you always declare them 10" from the back because you can premeasure. By removing premeasuring, cannons have to guess where the bounces will take the cannonball.

All guessing ever did was reward the people who had a knack for it or were good with math and punish the people with bad depth perception. I shouldn't have a better cannon just because I have an eye for distance. In the hands of an experienced user with a good eye, cannons were just as laser guided back in the day as they are now. I think the better answer to cannons is d3 wounds rather than d6 and possibly a Strength reduction.

Prwecisely, play against a carpenter sometime lol.

For cannons I'd sat the initial is S10 d6. The bounce is S6 D3.

Give me power dice depending on how many Wizard levels I've got on the table. Also delete the entire Horde rule, it really, really doesn't add anything to the game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Give me power dice depending on how many Wizard levels I've got on the table. Also delete the entire Horde rule, it really, really doesn't add anything to the game.

While I think the number of wizards you have should be a factor in dice generation, it should not be a 1-1 ratio. Thats what it was in 7th, and 25 power dice High Elf or Daemon armies were zero fun to play against. Magic was actually more broken back then.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Give me power dice depending on how many Wizard levels I've got on the table. Also delete the entire Horde rule, it really, really doesn't add anything to the game.

While I think the number of wizards you have should be a factor in dice generation, it should not be a 1-1 ratio. Thats what it was in 7th, and 25 power dice High Elf or Daemon armies were zero fun to play against. Magic was actually more broken back then.

As opposed to hardcapping it at never letting you cast spells with more than two wizards a turn in 8th? I know I play High Elves and my perspective on this is biased but there's got to be a middle ground that lets me play my army without making the game no fun for everyone else.

Do you really need more than 3ish wizards? a Lvl4 and 1-2 lvl1-2s.

The current system isn't perfect, but its far better than the static system that 7th had.

I would improve the system as follows,

Channeling is successful on a 5+, and in addition when channeling each wizard rolls a number of channel dice equal to his wizard level.

The winds of magic roll remains as 2D6. But the cap on dice is increased to 16.

I'd like a bit more balance between low level and high level wizards.

A Lv4 usually costs as much as 2 Lv2 wizards, but is leagues better - gaining twice the bonus to cast and dispel.

Some sort of bonus for choosing multiple, lower level wizards instead would be nice.

The bonus is that you double your channeling attempts and the number of lores you can take.

Medium and heavy cavalry units (not models, units) get impact hits; first rank gets D6, second rank gets D3.

Should make cavalry feared once again.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The bonus is that you double your channeling attempts and the number of lores you can take.

Twice the number of lores isn't much help when you can't get spells off.

And, as for twice the channelling... really? You consider that a reasonable bonus? My second wizard will average me an extra power dice each game. Whoop.

 vipoid wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The bonus is that you double your channeling attempts and the number of lores you can take.

Twice the number of lores isn't much help when you can't get spells off.

And, as for twice the channelling... really? You consider that a reasonable bonus? My second wizard will average me an extra power dice each game. Whoop.

With the new End Times rules, multiple level 2s becomes a ridiculously good tactic.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The bonus is that you double your channeling attempts and the number of lores you can take.

Twice the number of lores isn't much help when you can't get spells off.

And, as for twice the channelling... really? You consider that a reasonable bonus? My second wizard will average me an extra power dice each game. Whoop.

With the new End Times rules, multiple level 2s becomes a ridiculously good tactic.

I haven't seen said rules.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The bonus is that you double your channeling attempts and the number of lores you can take.

Twice the number of lores isn't much help when you can't get spells off.

And, as for twice the channelling... really? You consider that a reasonable bonus? My second wizard will average me an extra power dice each game. Whoop.

With the new End Times rules, multiple level 2s becomes a ridiculously good tactic.

Which rule in particular?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The bonus is that you double your channeling attempts and the number of lores you can take.

Twice the number of lores isn't much help when you can't get spells off.

And, as for twice the channelling... really? You consider that a reasonable bonus? My second wizard will average me an extra power dice each game. Whoop.

With the new End Times rules, multiple level 2s becomes a ridiculously good tactic.

Which rule in particular?

The ones that state that level 2s know the entire lore, and can keep casting a spell as long as they meet the casting value.

As well as the D6 power and dispel dice for mages.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The bonus is that you double your channeling attempts and the number of lores you can take.

Twice the number of lores isn't much help when you can't get spells off.

And, as for twice the channelling... really? You consider that a reasonable bonus? My second wizard will average me an extra power dice each game. Whoop.

With the new End Times rules, multiple level 2s becomes a ridiculously good tactic.

Which rule in particular?

The ones that state that level 2s know the entire lore, and can keep casting a spell as long as they meet the casting value.

As well as the D6 power and dispel dice for mages.

I like this rule.

I would change the name of the save you take after you fail an armour save. I dunno I was thinking we could call it a Cavatorre Save?

...

WARMACHINE D3 MULTIPLE WOUNDS

Brutallica wrote:
WARMACHINE D3 MULTIPLE WOUNDS

it just needs to scatter. If a cannon ball bounced d3" left or right off target then it would change the impact. d6 wounds is appropriate for a str 10 cannon. Its supposed to be the most powerful gun out there. Bigger bases will be easier to hit(as they should) and a cannon should have a better then a 1/3 chance of killing things like ogres

Honestly, Ogres just need to be given a "Flammable"-esque rule where there is a chance for a single unsaved Wound to multiply into 2.

Imo cannons ahould be str 10 d6 wds on the hit, s7 d3 wds on the bounce.