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.

Mattbranb wrote:1. Spell lores redone to bring them inline with codex spells. Seriously, who takes Lore of Life?

A move back to the old lore, perhaps? I know the old LoL had some issues, but as you said LoL now is an oxymoron.

2. Miscast table simplified (possibly nastier).

Please no. My Orcs already went from the only ones who could die on a Miscast to dying 1/6 the time they miscast. A nastier table would probably lead to something for Orcs like "Roll a D6: On a 2-3 you die. On a 4 you lose the spell and take a wound. On a 5 you lose the spell. On a six it goes off irresistibly and roll again, re-rolling further 6's. On a 1 you die and all Orc units take D6 casualties."

3. Spears/Halberd bonuses against cavalry (makes sense doesn't it?).

And that's why we'll never see it.

4. Fixing challenge rules

Clarify, but if what I think you mean then yeah.

5. Eliminating partials

The Age of the Bolt Thrower is gone, the Age of the Stone Thrower is now?

7. Possibly set limits on each army comp section, i.e. no more than 25% on special, 20% on characters, etc. etc. Would be hard but interesting.

Doesn't sound right to me, as it'd make some armies extremely difficult to play (High Elves, for instance).

1. The biggest disparity I see with the magic lores is that the codex specific ones are much, more powerful than the regular ones. Casting values, spell descriptions, etc. etc. could be tightened up and brought into line with the other ones. I'm still mad they never came out with a Slann lore (which could have been pretty spectacular and fluffy). At least every lore has 1-2 bad spells in it, which could be rewritten/revisted.

2. At least I just have a Lvl1 Shaman in my orcs so I don't worry too much. Adjusting the miscast table would tie in more with the above comments - if you make the magic phase more efficient and actually can do something (Taking a Lvl 4 with standard lores now is almost not worth it), make the miscast table more dangerous. The Orcs table is a perfect example - when you cast with them, you have a real chance of bad things happening if you miscast.

3. Yeah GW and common sense.

4. What irks me about the challenge rule is that noone else can affect challenges, even if their another unit in BSB. Perfect example with the Popemobile. Tie it up in the front, then flank it with Str 7 Dragon Ogres. Whoops, sorry - you can't hit the model becuase it challenged that maurader guy up front. As well with that example, I still think the models should have to be in BSB, not in the front rank of a combat at opposite ends.

5. Partials just seem to slow everything down - yes I know it favors stone throwers, but if your going to do it with the whole Skaven book, might as well game. You still have a pretty good chance to scatter, making it a heck of alot more inaccurate than a boltthrower.

6. The points value argument ties into the "minimum" core choice armies that seem to be popping up everywhere now. Ties more into preventing the current powergaming trend of demons, dark elves, etc. etc.

One additional part that I think could be reworked - magic defense. Is it me now or does it seem like you go all or nothing into magic defense nowadays, with a Lvl 4 and a couple mages, or a Lvl 1 or so with scrolls. A suggestion one of the guys at our store mentioned was limiting casters to casting only as many spells as they have levels. Doesn't really have a huge impact on the game, although it will tone down some of the spam casters (mostly VC lords and Slann).

Mattbranb wrote:
7. Possibly set limits on each army comp section, i.e. no more than 25% on special, 20% on characters, etc. etc. Would be hard but interesting.

They actually used to do this in the days of Herohammer. It was something like 25% had to spent on troops, no more than 50% could be spent on characters and no more than 25% on war machines.

I don't see them going back to it.

I agree with Mr. Flashman here, remember to look at newly released army books and this sort of change isn't in there.

Yeah, but how hard would it be to require # Special > # Rare, and # Core > # Special?

At least you wouldn't have 4 Special, 2 Rare 3 Core - you'd require 5 Core.

Far far too limiting.

Remember, the vast majority of Fantasy games are played without anything overtly beardy turning up. Only in the microcosm of Tournament play does this become a problem, as people feel had they not come up against Beardy McCheese and his Daemons, they might have performed better. On the casual scene, you can just not play him again.

The current organisation works pretty well. Most armies don't function too well without a decent core selection!

How so? It doesn't sound like the Casual players would be hurt at all.

And it does drive home the point about Core vs Rare

Because then you are buggered for taking theme lists for the most part.

Example would be a non-Skrolk (on account he is flipping expensive and can't have a Plague Furnace) Pestelins force.

You need a Plague Priest (Hero), a Plague Furnace (Mount Option) and a unit of Plague Monks (Special) to get this off the ground.

Pestilens have no core choices, so if I wished to have more than one unit of Plague Monks, plus some Plague Censers (also Special) to back them up, I couldn't, as I'd need a large number of Clanrats/Slaves, non of which are exactly Pestilens. Plus I might want a couple of Plague Claw catapults.

But now back on topic fully.

Another possible pointer from the Skaven book, challenges.

Verminous Valour, and the Screaming Bell both have currently odd references to Challenges, in so far that it mentions when the character refuses a challenge.

Currently, individual characters don't refuse challenges, nor are individual characters challenged. You nominate the challenging character, and the enemy unit is the target. Opponent can then choose who accepts, whereas it's the unit that refuses, with the challenging player choosing who nicks off up the back.

So perhaps we are going back to the (infinitely more satisfying to my mind) method of issuing specific challenges. Clears up one of my problems with the game (in so far that you can have your unit leader, and not your general answer the challenge, with absolutely no drawback. Hardly fitting for an act of such craven cowardice!)

Or the Skaven army book is confusingly written... which it is.

YEt to play a game with it, but it seems pretty decent to me!

I dunno, there is the whole issue of slave conga lines (slaves arranged in a single file of 20 ranks in order to score D3+20 hits when they flee) and Warp Lightning on the Doomwheel isn't overly clear. I read it as only one hit scored per generator which then does multiple wounds to the poor sod who got hit, but that being the case, why does it really matter if the odd bolt hits your troops? (proper Skaven general I am)

Anyway, slightly off topic there. Apologies!

Please no objectives and please no 20+ US to get it. Means that expensive armies have to spend a disproportionate amount of points to get a single unit that can hold one.

Cant do the whole % points thing, or anything to do with core>special>rare thing unless you want to alter the HE book. Taking 4 specials and 5 core to get 2 RBTs and an Eagle is a little excessive (as well as our 5 core are quite bad)

Also gives huge advantage to unit that have better core. If you don't believe me then obviously you have never played as necrons in a 40k game

As someone who hated some of the changes in 7th (like nerfing light infantry tactics by march-blocking skirmishers), I find the failure of the previous "rebalancing" to favor block infantry as a sign that perhaps block infantry just can't cut it in a high-fantasy setting.

I mean, with super-elite models that are more than twice the effectiveness of a normal human footsoldier- not to mention magic and war machines that equal modern artillery- block tactics just don't make sense. The only thing that could really bring them in line is bigger bonuses for blocks (like frontage bonuses in addition to depth) or a reality-like nerfage of the uberunits. The latter option drains flavor, so I'm guessing that blocks will get further bonuses. That's okay in my book, as it just makes things more epic (although even more unbalanced, potentially).

Also, there's the question of application of the rules- scenarios. Perhaps some incentive to play the other scenarios would be better than making the essential scenario- the pitched battle- into an unrealistically modern objective-grab. Massed warfare was about mauling the other army more than capturing anything, usually. Doing more decisive damage was the whole reason to resort to concentrated forces over guerrilla tactics.

Maybe the pitched battle is favored because the others are just too unwieldy. Making PBs more unwieldy and streamlining some of the others could help. Also, tourneys really could do more to offer more variety in scenarios, and thus more flexible builds.

Lastly- any new edition or rules mod is going to screw some army. Saying that a change won't be made because it screws, say, High Elves- that's poor logic. As a former Beastmen/Skink Southlands/DE skirmish player, I can say that from bitter experience.

And dear sweet Jeebus, I hope someone other than Alessio gets to do the rewrite. That cheesy git favors his own favorite builds every time he touches a rulebook.

I can still hope they won't screw the HE can't I

On the other hand, you could screw them over, and since their book is somewhat old (what 5 or sixth oldest) give them a new one within a year or two of 8th edition bringing them back up to speed.

I reckon we'll see a definitive tidy up for Always Strikes First.

When the current book was done, it was a rarity. Yeah, not so much these days. We now have problems with for example, Swordmasters being charged by non-GW wielding, ASF troops, and still going first thanks to high I value.

What I would favour is rather than tinker with ASF, simply go slightly 40k, with chargers counting as I10 for the first round, and GW's counting as I0 when not charging/in subsequent rounds. Tidies it up nicely, and predictavely tackles other problems that could arise.

I really hope March Blocked skirmishers stays. Skirmishers have gotten very filthy these days, and speaking as a player of armies with limited Skirmisher availability (Dark Elves have Shades, and nowt else, Skaven have Globadiers, Gutter Runners and Censer Bearers, OnG have, erm, none that I can think of) the game gets really fricking lame when Skirmishers armed with ranged weapons just constantly dance around you. You can never bring them to combat, and you slowly lose to attrition. It's an interesting tactical challenge once in a while, but when it happens on a regular basis it's exeedingly tedious (yes, I'm looking at you Wood Elves..grrr.)

Scenarios wise, I reckon examples with different setups (like the use of the Farm during the battle of Waterloo) ought to suffice.

Hmm if i would like anything to happen with ASF it would be that it follows normal rules if both units have ASF, so charging units go first, GW last in subsequent rounds, I in subsequent rounds. But that may just be me.

Right because high elf rank and file troops are the real problems in WFB atm and ASF needs fixing! Not the big characters or monsters or leadership screwing or billion power dice magic that is dominating everything

The whole HE book was based on ASF if they change it so its "Not always strike first" you may as well add "High elves lose the game if they are charged" as a rule

Oh shush.

Clearing up a very broad rule which is now fairly widespread makes sense.

I think the point here is it might not be that simple, and broad changes that aren't well thought out to rules that weren't well thought out may lead to even bigger problems.

So a standard edition change, then, Alpharius?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I reckon we'll see a definitive tidy up for Always Strikes First.

You mean they haven't fixed that yet? ASF was a mess back in 4th and 5th edition when I used to play

They have and they haven't.

ASF v ASF goes straight to an Initiative thing. Whoever is highest, goes first, but always after Impact Hits.

Now whilst this is valid, and works pretty well, I personally find it a little daft that even charging, ASF v ASF with a GW, STILL goes to straight Initiative. The rule itself is valid, I just think it could be tweaked to mean ASF v ASF cancels itself out, and things are resolved normally, which is just as valid and straight forward.

That sounds like the fix I used back in the day. e.g. charging + ASW weapon (ASFx2) trumps ASF weapon (ASFx1) alone. It sounds to me like they haven't fixed it. Your spectacle colour may vary.

Like I said, the way it works now is nice and simple, and leaves no room for 'interpretation'

It's just I personally would prefer another method. Horses for Courses!

Main problem of course (Which I neatly failed to mention) would be the two editions of the High Elf FAQ, one saying Great Weapons still strike last in ASF V ASF, and the other (most recent and current) saying just stick to I v I, regardless of who did what and what with.

Kirasu wrote:Right because high elf rank and file troops are the real problems in WFB atm and ASF needs fixing! Not the big characters or monsters or leadership screwing or billion power dice magic that is dominating everything

The whole HE book was based on ASF if they change it so its "Not always strike first" you may as well add "High elves lose the game if they are charged" as a rule

I think you misunderstood what i was saying, ASF always strikes first, if the charging unit also has ASF then the effects of ASF are cancelled between the two units and normal rules apply for determining who strikes first. If there is multiple units charging a unit with ASF and at least one unit does not have ASF then that/those units must strike after all ASF units have attacked.

So ASF is still the same except when charged by another ASF, still goes after impact hits and before anyone else. It gives the game more tactics when you play HE vs HE (as i have a few times with real rules and a few times with house rules, house rules are so much better and more tactically enjoyable) and decreases the domination of some units over others.

Alpharius wrote:I think the point here is it might not be that simple, and broad changes that aren't well thought out to rules that weren't well thought out may lead to even bigger problems.

Well, this is GW, so I don't think we need to wonder over that possibility.

cool lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ima hungry little ripper lol

I'd like to share my perspective on a couple of rumors...

My perspective comes from a former warhammer player and current very active 40k player. When Warhammer was transitioning to its current edition I was very unhappy with the game. Not the models, not the lore, just the game mechanics. I was pleased with 40k's transition into 4th edition, but it wasn't a great game yet. When I saw that fantasy had basically not improved on any of the facets of the game play that I found monotonous, and unfun, I dumped it. When 5th edition 40k hit I fell in love. While still not a perfect game, the leaps and bounds of improvement made keep me totally fired up about it to this day.

I hesitate to even mention the comparison between game systems. I do not want to start any sort of argument here. I am primed and ready to get back into fantasy if the steps i feel need to be taken happen. Some of the rumors about these steps have surfaced, and a bunch of people are poo-pooing them without realizing their positive impact.

First of these is some sort of 'scoring' status for core units. It isn't an overstatement that scoring troops in 40k was one of a short list of major changes that saved the game. Troops and core units never hit as hard as any of the other force organizations slots. They were always a begrudgingly accepted requirement. Shrewd players took what they had to and dumped the rest. There was never any positive reinforcement for decisions made to invest in more than you had to.

Now i don't think a system for objective locations on a fantasy table is necessarily the way to go. But incentivising the survival of core units in fantasy could make for a serious consideration of the humble block unit. Sure plenty of army books have core cavalry elements, but even those books would more likely consider a cheap, large block if it meant that its survival could win the game. Fast cav, chariots, war machines and monsters would obviously still have a place, considering their damage potential, but the new challenge of balancing a solid core, and protecting it would make for a new paradigm in list design.

Ultimately, as a consumer, a positive factor in taking core units, and especially blocks, would go along way to drawing me back into fantasy, right behind me would be around $500 of army investment.

The other factor of fantasy that drove me away was the Dominate, Dabble, Defend paradigm of magic. When selecting characters, the only sane choice was to either plan to dominate the entire magic phase, gathering double digits of power dice, and thusly, the free dispel dice that came with doing so. Or to take a scroll caddy. the useless, unfun model we all loved to hate. the dabblers were always shut down by both the dominators and the defenders, and therefore wasted points trying to slip spells off.

Any changes to the magic phase that i catch wind of, i listen eagerly. Limiting the expenditure of dispel dice based on power level of defending wizards would be one step towards dabblers having a chance. That would be another big step in getting me and my money back.

All fantasy players are acutely aware of the maximizing attacker/free wheel/clipping mess, and i'm pretty confident that'll be cleaned up. Some form of kill points to counteract the drive towards MSU, can speed up games, and balance bigger, bockier armies with the speedsters (this would have to be handled well... not saying that is an easy fix, or without growing pains)

lastly, the wacky events in fantasy that are not specific to the orcs and goblins book were something I wasn't fond of. Warmachine misfire tables, miscast tables and wild cannon bounces being the obvious culprits. I hope they keep the unfortunate, sometimes game shattering event strings (3 cannons blowing themselves up, a miscast killing a wizard lord and shutting down a crucial magic phase) to a minimum, they don't add 'flavor' or 'excitement' to me and many of my gaming group. They add gnashing of teeth, and frustration to the victim, and sadness, survivor guilt and pity to the benfactor. I hope for many of those rules to have their bonuses and penalties drawn closer to center.

Ok, thats about it. Hopefully, I won't get flamed too hard for sharing my admittedly outsider views of your game. My overlying message here is to not be afraid of any army building paradigms that drastically change, and likewise with any new battle 'objectives' (whatever they may be) They could very well save your game.

@Shep: I think you had a good summary there.

IMO, WFB could refocus on Core with modified KPs:

1 KP per Core UNIT
2 KP per Special UNIT
3 KP per Rare UNIT

+1 KP per Hero
+3 KP per Lord

x2 if generating PD.
x2 if General

Moving to KP like this instead of VPs dramatically changes how you look at units, and especially Core vs non-Core.


Then, it's the issue of standard-bearing ranked infantry sucking. These guys should be the objectives / quarter holders, and would actually be worth something.

But then, I'm no WFB designer, so oh, well...

Shep wrote:
Ultimately, as a consumer, a positive factor in taking core units, and especially blocks, would go along way to drawing me back into fantasy, right behind me would be around $500 of army investment.

And like an evil pied piper there would likely be at least 3 or 4 of us other sprue posse guys who would take the plunge (or pull armies out of cold storage).

It should be obvious that I agree with most of your points as these points of contention have been oft discussed around the table.