Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?