Hi everybody,

I had written a wall of text fanboying and explaining Warhammer CE, but due to being too dumb to keep the right tabs open, I mistakenly deleted it all.
So now in short:

For all fans of Warhammer Fantasy before 8th edition crap rules, AoS and end times,
someone has been rebuilding Warhammer as it always should have been.
The link below leads to a downloadable pdf file, which is fully in English. I hope this works.

https://www.armycreator.de/index.php#downloads


In short:
- 7th edition as basis - but many flaws of it removed, rules streamlined to being clear and meaningful
- New unit types (Heavy cavalry, light infantry) adding to tactical gameplay,
- fair point costs,
- an important but not overly dominant magic phase
- a great army builder tool in english http://armycreator.de/
- possibility to play units not been available since 5th ed (reiksguard,...) til 8th edition new units (Phoenix, Arachnarok spider...)

Update: Link to new Version 1.07 now included! enjoy!!

Not to rain on your parade, but I think 8th. ed. was a far stronger ruleset than 6th or 7th.
I truly embraces many of the new rules. Esp. the lack of guess ranges and the random charge ranges. But also how infantry came into it's own.

8th. just needed four or five spells toned down, a few odd rules and there, perphaps increase flanking a little bit and give cavalry a boost. And you have a solid ruleset. Perhaps make the horde rule require less models to be effective to avoid these massive blocks.

If I were to re-write 8th. I would take all of the above and change one vital thing and that is to steal from KoW how a unit is defined not by individual models but by the size of a template. Having these massive blocks is not really great for the game nor for the players who have to paint and assemble 300+ goblins..

Other than that 8th. ed. were the best ed. of Warhammer Fantasy IMHO

Welcome to dakka,

It's nice to see some excitement for the old world here, and as much as I appreciate your efforts in making a home made rules set. I'll have to agree with the above poster. I thought 8th ed. Was the best edition of fantasy, far superior to 7th.

AoS does suck balls though.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Welcome to dakka,

It's nice to see some excitement for the old world here, and as much as I appreciate your efforts in making a home made rules set. I'll have to agree with the above poster. I thought 8th ed. Was the best edition of fantasy, far superior to 7th.

AoS does suck balls though.

Both had there strengths and weaknesses. Artillery could be too brutal in 8th but relied on a persons ability to guess ranges in earlier editions and so on. 7th had silly shuffling mechanics to get the charge (and not be charged) whereas 8th could be a bit too random.

7th was also tarnished by some really poor design decisions for certain armies.

Still any game in the Old World is better than nothing!

Indeed, 8th was far from perfect.

Things I disliked:
- Skirmisher rules
- Laser guided cannons
- Uber spells
- Magic resistance

The thing that 8th edition nailed for me personally was just the sheer scale of it. It finally felt like a huge massive battle between you and your opponent. None of this small unit, skirmish gak. Just massive fething battles. Thats what I've always wanted, and thats what I got. And that is inevitably one of the reasons why it failed and was canned.

Essentially all the reasons why I enjoyed 8th are the reasons why it failed and strangely, most often the things complained about by people who don't like 8th.

Wow, so much feedback in such little time!

Thank you guys!

I will try to comment on all of your replies, one by one.
Not in boring, pedantic way I hope^^

Personal opinions, preferences on how situations are dealt with in the rules are varying strongly, so I'd say someone who got along great with 8th will surely have a harder time finding the benefits of CE over 9th/8th Ed., but from personal experience I can say that even this did happen (not in either case though ) than a player like me who played most games during 6th edition / start of 7th.

Nevertheless, I really encourage you try it out at least once or twice this ruleset. The rules are best balanced for a 2000 P game, and will do well without any modification from 1500 to maybe 2500 (when playing a tournament).

For larger or smaller games, I would recommend to scale the amount of magic/dispel dice generation and lord selections.

So, go ahead, read the basic rules, check your armies special rules in the respective section, start the armycreator, choose your army of choice, build a 2000 P fun list, and start playing. It's sooo worth it.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Indeed, 8th was far from perfect.

Things I disliked:
- Skirmisher rules
- Laser guided cannons
- Uber spells
- Magic resistance

Just curious, what didn't you like about the skirmisher rules and magic resistance? Both seemed pretty reasonable to me.

The skirmisher rules were a little weird. They had a kind of strange pseudo ranked formation, no longer had 360 degree shooting, didn't have the double time rule anymore and had to rank themselves to the enemy rather than create a combat line when being charged which reduced their effectiveness as a re-director. Thats from memory, I have the rulebook locked up somewhere. So if any of that is inaccurate, I apologize. I prefer the 6th/7th ed. skirmisher rules.

The Magic resistance thing I didn't like because many of the large spells didn't even let you take a ward save against them, so magic resistance didn't even have any effect. It also benefitted units with ward saves a lot more than other units which I found strange. Personally I would have liked to see Magic Resistance as a bonus to dispel attempts when a spell is targeting a specific unit. So if you targeted a unit with fireball for example and rolled a 12 to cast, I attempt to dispel and roll an 11 but my unit has magic resistance (2), I add 2 to the dispel value which would equal 13 and be able to stop it.

 Draccan wrote:

Not to rain on your parade, but I think 8th. ed. was a far stronger ruleset than 6th or 7th.
I truly embraces many of the new rules. Esp. the lack of guess ranges and the random charge ranges. But also how infantry came into it's own.

Well, I would never go so far to say I didn't have any fun with games in 8th, no. It is good for gaming with friends, when everybody agrees not to set up the biggest filth, or playing a fun scenario...
But this you can say for any edition. The new rules in some way "fixed" things, like having to guess ranges, and yes, infantry got a well deserved "upgrade" in means of playability.
At the same time these new rules spoiled a lot. I always liked guessing ranges, really. It was good laugh when you or your opponent went-all wrong with that. Depends on taste if one needs that.
But the upgrade of infantry was like fixing a problem (too high damage output of certain units) with creating a new one (making some of the cheapest units the most reliable ones of the game and next to unbreakable, e.g. skaven slaves)
Along with that, to really profit from this rule you had to massively size-up your units. Leading to... less flexible in movement, more static and of course very expensive (in hard currency, not only point costs ) units,

8th. just needed four or five spells toned down, a few odd rules and there, perphaps increase flanking a little bit and give cavalry a boost. And you have a solid ruleset. Perhaps make the horde rule require less models to be effective to avoid these massive blocks.

With more balanced point costs in the army books, yes, maybe. But that would never have happened since GW had no interest in creating a balanced game.

If I were to re-write 8th. I would take all of the above and change one vital thing and that is to steal from KoW how a unit is defined not by individual models but by the size of a template. Having these massive blocks is not really great for the game nor for the players who have to paint and assemble 300+ goblins..

Other than that 8th. ed. were the best ed. of Warhammer Fantasy IMHO

I think that would be a step in the right direction, KoW is interesting, it just lacks the fancy fancy character building stuff and that's why I prefer WHF over it.

I'll look later, but it'll have to wow me to get me to consider it over 6th.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'll look later, but it'll have to wow me to get me to consider it over 6th.

6th was a really good ruleset to me, especially with all the additional stuff in it like siege rules, skirmisher rules...

Compared to 6th/7th (almost the same if I remember, except for some psychology rules, rank bonus requirements, right? )

main improvements from my POV are:

- No "core tax" - set up whatever you like. Core infantry units are the cheapest and most point effective units in the game.
- Point costs per model scaling down with increasing unit size - Makes larger units still playable, MSU concepts are less effective this way.
- Point costs of equipment reflects the real value for a hero/lord fighter/wizard. Way more fair - a 5+ ward save for a hero with T4 W2 is less valuable than the same for a lord with T5 and W3.
- You buy the spells instead of dicing - you know how it sucked if you chose a lore and diced all the wrong spells not fitting for your army. That's why there was a VERY strong tendency that always the same lores were chosen (Heaven in 6th, because it had 5 good spells so you couldn't go wrong). Spells vary in point costs as well. Basic wizard is very cheap, all depends on your selection.
- NxP-Factor: Some units are getting more expensive, the more of them you are fielding. => Penalty for very one-sided army concepts. e.g. a single cannon costs 60+ 1x20 =80 Points, 2 cannons cost 60+2x20 = 100 points each, 3 cannons cost 60+3x20 =120 Points each and so on.
- Streamlining of defining if an attack was successful. You measure from the mid of your front rank to the closest point of the enemy unit. If you're movement rate sufficces, the charge is successful. One wheel like in every edition only, and terrain has to be taken in consideration of course.
- difficult terrain: Halves movement, but marching is allowed.
-new unit types: Heavy cavalry (cavalry with armor save 2+) cannot march, routs only 2D6 instead of 3D6 => one of the biggest problems in 6th/7th was fast, hard hitting heavy cavalry. Problem solved. Light infantry - new unit type, allows moving like light cavalry, no movement penalties in difficult terrain, no rank bonus fires from 2 ranks. => adds a lot of great tactical elements. I love my Dark elves corsairs with repeater hand crossbow.
-Army lists on a very equal power level

These are in short some of the obvious advantages.

And some of them right off the bat I'm not on board with. In my mind the Core tax was necessary, back when 5th Edition was going on you'd see armies that under every edition since would have been nothing but Specials and Rares. Without the Core tax you would have seen stuff like an entire army of Black Knights, or Greatswords, or insert whatever Special or Rare wasn't 0-1.


Okay, since I still haven't had time to read anything but what you responded with: is 0-1 still a thing in CE?

Believe me, you will use some core units anyway because finally they ARE playable and useful no matter what the enemy is fielding. Good gods, I won a local tournament with my dark elves, in my 2000 P list were among others 21 Spearmen, 10 Repeater Crossbowmen, 5 Black Riders, 5 Harpies. In the original version I even had 20 Corsairs on top of that (+50% core units!) but I exchanged them for 13 Executioners, to be fair.
And my Orc&Goblin list contains 30 Common Goblins with Spears. I mean, hey, honestly, did ever somebody field normal stinking Goblins in a competitive play? I don't think so.
So yes, there is the possibility to field no core units in the game, but you can use e.g a limitation like in 8th edition if you like. the only official limitation is 2000 p - one lord maximum


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and i totally forgot my light infantry core unit corsairs with repeater hand crossbow in the abovementioned list.

0-1 like only one unit of black orks? No, but feel free to do so

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Indeed, 8th was far from perfect.

Things I disliked:
- Skirmisher rules
- Laser guided cannons
- Uber spells
- Magic resistance

The thing that 8th edition nailed for me personally was just the sheer scale of it. It finally felt like a huge massive battle between you and your opponent. None of this small unit, skirmish gak. Just massive fething battles. Thats what I've always wanted, and thats what I got. And that is inevitably one of the reasons why it failed and was canned.

Essentially all the reasons why I enjoyed 8th are the reasons why it failed and strangely, most often the things complained about by people who don't like 8th.

I totally agree with your dislikes. And to some extend, I also liked the big scale in terms of aesthetics. 12 Models just don't feel like a real unit, while 25 or 40 do. But I never thought 100 Night Goblins as a horde should be necessary to play them effectively. Nope. Not at all, thank you.

We did big battles between Christmas and new year for a long series of years, with up to 15000 Points per side one time (that was beginning of 7th, I remember it was new you needed 5 models to form a rank) and I reallly loved that! big scale! 3 days playing, sleeping beside the models on the floor. But in 8th, we did that once and were utterly disappointed. It took half a day to set up the figures, and in round 2 almost half of an army was eradicated by magic. That was the last time we played a big match unfortunately.
But I got another player who just finished his Azhag model, and I only recently finished Gorbad. And we'll have a 4000P match of 2 legendary boyz showin off der skills against each other^^

Moscha wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Indeed, 8th was far from perfect.

Things I disliked:
- Skirmisher rules
- Laser guided cannons
- Uber spells
- Magic resistance

The thing that 8th edition nailed for me personally was just the sheer scale of it. It finally felt like a huge massive battle between you and your opponent. None of this small unit, skirmish gak. Just massive fething battles. Thats what I've always wanted, and thats what I got. And that is inevitably one of the reasons why it failed and was canned.

Essentially all the reasons why I enjoyed 8th are the reasons why it failed and strangely, most often the things complained about by people who don't like 8th.

I totally agree with your dislikes. And to some extend, I also liked the big scale in terms of aesthetics. 12 Models just don't feel like a real unit, while 25 or 40 do. But I never thought 100 Night Goblins as a horde should be necessary to play them effectively. Nope. Not at all, thank you.

We did big battles between Christmas and new year for a long series of years, with up to 15000 Points per side one time (that was beginning of 7th, I remember it was new you needed 5 models to form a rank) and I reallly loved that! big scale! 3 days playing, sleeping beside the models on the floor. But in 8th, we did that once and were utterly disappointed. It took half a day to set up the figures, and in round 2 almost half of an army was eradicated by magic. That was the last time we played a big match unfortunately.

Then you surely had really bad luck.

We do our Christmas big game (usually it was a 3v3v3 on a big table made by joining 3 or 4) and it generally took us all day to play 4-5 turns.... by which time magic had barely made a dent. Not with 15K points on each side by any measure unless you had some weird panic domino effect. Even assuming that you will cast a 6th spell every turn and that its going to kill 500 points per cast, which are some massive ifs (dispelling, not being in range, bad winds of magic roll, unsuitable targets -try casting purple sun on elves-, etc.) you're looking at 3K points on your typical 6-turn game.

Magic was nasty at 2-3K when a single purple sun could delete your 1K gutstar, but in epic games I always found massed cannon shot to be the worst offenders (because you always take big centerpiece models to a big game).

I was happy enough with 8th not to want to look back, but appreciate the effort you've put into it.

jouso wrote:

Moscha wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Indeed, 8th was far from perfect.

Things I disliked:
- Skirmisher rules
- Laser guided cannons
- Uber spells
- Magic resistance

The thing that 8th edition nailed for me personally was just the sheer scale of it. It finally felt like a huge massive battle between you and your opponent. None of this small unit, skirmish gak. Just massive fething battles. Thats what I've always wanted, and thats what I got. And that is inevitably one of the reasons why it failed and was canned.

Essentially all the reasons why I enjoyed 8th are the reasons why it failed and strangely, most often the things complained about by people who don't like 8th.

I totally agree with your dislikes. And to some extend, I also liked the big scale in terms of aesthetics. 12 Models just don't feel like a real unit, while 25 or 40 do. But I never thought 100 Night Goblins as a horde should be necessary to play them effectively. Nope. Not at all, thank you.

We did big battles between Christmas and new year for a long series of years, with up to 15000 Points per side one time (that was beginning of 7th, I remember it was new you needed 5 models to form a rank) and I reallly loved that! big scale! 3 days playing, sleeping beside the models on the floor. But in 8th, we did that once and were utterly disappointed. It took half a day to set up the figures, and in round 2 almost half of an army was eradicated by magic. That was the last time we played a big match unfortunately.

Then you surely had really bad luck.

We do our Christmas big game (usually it was a 3v3v3 on a big table made by joining 3 or 4) and it generally took us all day to play 4-5 turns.... by which time magic had barely made a dent. Not with 15K points on each side by any measure unless you had some weird panic domino effect. Even assuming that you will cast a 6th spell every turn and that its going to kill 500 points per cast, which are some massive ifs (dispelling, not being in range, bad winds of magic roll, unsuitable targets -try casting purple sun on elves-, etc.) you're looking at 3K points on your typical 6-turn game.

Magic was nasty at 2-3K when a single purple sun could delete your 1K gutstar, but in epic games I always found massed cannon shot to be the worst offenders (because you always take big centerpiece models to a big game).

I was happy enough with 8th not to want to look back, but appreciate the effort you've put into it.

Yeah bad luck was indeed included, but that shouldn't ruin a whole game no matter what scale. That specific battle wasn't 15000 points each side, it was "just" 8000 points. And the biggest share of havoc was wreaked by exactly the spell you mentioned

Oh, and before I forget: It is not a ruleset I invented, I just found it on the inet some years ago and I became a bit engaged in it by translating some army lists into German etc., to help spread it a little more.
I think you should give it a try, as I think the 7th ed. reference seemingly is not too helpful, as somehow it is misinterpreted in "it's totally backward and just some refurbished old version). It is not, it is just the point where it started off, even a little of 8th can be found too (like spell categories, no guess ranges for artillery, some weapon rules).

GW had done the same, bringing back things from older editions. E.G. in 8th, they went away from rules of 6th/7th edition and returned to mechanics of 5th edi (percentage in army selection rather than slots, for example).

Anyone tried it so far?

We tend to play with some regulations in army selection.

For our club tournament, we had the following:
2000 Points
Up to 500 Points Lord
Lord+Hero combined less than 1000
Core minimum 500 points
max 3 same elite
max 2 same rare.

I had 3 fantastic games against Orks & Goblins (with a Boar rider breaker, some Orc Grunts, Night Goblins, Chariots and Spear Chukkas), Chaos Warriors (mainly Tzeentch, with a tzeentch lord lvl4, 2 units of normal warriors, 1 unit of Chosen, chariot) and Wood Elves (Archers, Treeman, Scouts, Outriders, Dryads, War Dancers).
If you like I can post a short bat rep, or post some of the lists used in the tournament.

Part 2 in our tournament series took place last weekend. I was fielding my dark elves once again, but I tried to build a distinctively different list than last time.
I wanted to play some witch elves and the cauldron of blood, along with an assassin.
My core units remained the same, I played some 20 Spearmen, 10 repeater crossbow archers, 5 harpies and the 20 corsairs with repeater handgun. In addition I fielded a medusa and 2 bolt throwers. I had a level 2 sorceress, a army standard bearer with the hydra banner on foot, and an assassin.
I ended up on rank 10. I was only able to get two draws against empire and dwarves, while the demons of chaos tore me apart badly. I am still quite happy as I consider all of the lists I played against to be quite bad matchups.

The empire list was a very fast one, with 3 units of white wolves, 2 units regular knights, pistoliers,outriders, and the luminark. A general on pegasus, 2 additional heroes on pegasus and a wizard of light completed the blitzkrieg list.

I used refused flank tactics and cornered as much as possible. I slowed down the approach of his troops with my march blocking medusa and the corsairs. I lost these, the harpies and the xbows. He lost some white wolves, the luminark, some pistoliers and parts of other units. Terrible game to play.

The game agains dwarves was tough.
I cursed the guy who set up the tables, giving the dwarf the abilidy to place his artillery and gun line on a 2-level hill in the center. It consisted of 2 units of thunderers, 1 uit of quarellers, a cannon and an organ gun.

In addition to these units, he fielded a large units of iron breakers with king on shield and a runesmith, and a large unit of longbeards with a battle standard bearer. A master engineer helped to fortify the gun line even further.
After he blew up his organ gun in round 2, I had the chance to attack his master engineer with my harpies. In round 3, my remaining dark rider attacked his cannon and took it out. These 2 units together overan into a unit of musketeers and crushed these too. My medusa used its gaze to sniper a wound out of his army standard bearer.
I tried to reach his lines via left flank, where I amassed both witch elves units along with spearsmen, xbows and the cauldron. To no avail. He had a banner that allowed him to double his movement, and his ironbereakers fended off all of my feeble S3 attacks with their 2+ward save, even though I had +1 to wound and hatred with my witch elves. The lord smashed elves, and the iron breakers gave the passive bonus. What a desaster. Not even 2 flank attacks could faze them.
I was quite happy with the draw^^.

The game against demons was...ouch. I made a fatal mistake while placing the units.
He had a nasty unit of plaguebearers, some horrors, 3 units of khorne hounds and 2 slaanesh beasts. The horrors and his spellcasters eradicated all of my archers in turn one, and his hounds finished off one of my bolt throwers in round 2. I was outmanouvered by the fast units and was always forced to react on them, so I couldn't face the real threat approaching in form of the plaguebearers with 2 mighty hero characters. I a desperate attempt I charged the unit with my spearmen (including assassin) and the caudlron, but my assassin was unable to kill his general (by luckily succeeding in a 6+regeneration throw, so the unit kept regeneration and a lot of my cauldrons'attacks didn't hit.

Skaven won the tournament.

7th edition was the edition that drove me out for a while. So a game based on 7th edition wouldn't get much traction from me.

7th Edition basic rules (which were only slightly different than 6th edition) or 7th edition armybooks?

I bet the latter. As this is totally not an issue with Warhammer CE, maybe you should give it a chance.

At the moment the Living Rulebook Version 1.05 is being developed. Meaning a fully playable army list for Dogs of War and Araby will be added.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excerpt from Side one, what CE is all about:
Warhammer Fantasy Battle (WFB) is a popular gaming system with a long
history that apart from casual play allows players to compete in
tournaments. About every 5-6 years a new edition was released that tried to
refine and improve the game, furthermore every other edition tried to shake
things up a bit more to keep the game fresh and interesting. Even though the
rule set was constantly enhanced, the overall balance of the game failed to
exceed mediocrity, which was a result of the army books that had a major
impact on game balance. The problem with the army books was the way
they were released as well as that they were not written in a consistent
manner. This resulted in army lists of varying power level with sometimes
glaring issues, that won’t got addressed until a rewrite of the book was on
the table, which usually takes 4-5 years. By looking at the time scales, it
was obvious that a balanced game was not feasible in this manner.

The vision of the Warhammer CE project is to create a tight rule set that
allows for tactical, challenging, competitive play of WFB. This will include
a revision of all the army lists, which are the core of most problems that are
game breaking and cause the most grievance. To reflect the feel of
Warhammer battles on the tabletop, armies that are built around a core of
infantry with support from other units will be the most effective army builds
point for point. In this way restrictions for army lists shouldn’t be necessary
for the most part and would give players more freedom in list building if
they are willing to take the hit in competitiveness.
In the end, games should be won by the tactics used on the tabletop, not by
the list brought to the game.

GOLDEN RULES
The following Golden Rules are the foundation upon which the rule set will
be based. They should act as a guideline to ensure balance and are virtually
unbreakable.

1. What you pay for is what you get

The game uses a points system for a reason. So if you pay for something, it
should be worth the price. On the other hand, if something is powerful it has
to be priced accordingly.

2. Mortality

Everything in the game has to have a weakness that can be exploited, so that
a balanced army has a reasonable chance to get rid of it over the course of a
normal game if it chooses to invest a reasonable amount of resources to
achieve it.

3. Moderate effects

All effects should have a reasonable effect on the game, taking point costs
and ease of use into account. There should be virtually no effects that
single-handedly are game changing, whatever their cost or drawbacks may
be. Also, highly situational effects should be avoided as they are impossible
to balance in an adequate way. The goal is to tone down the impact of luck as much as possible.

4. Balance over fluff

While the game should reflect the vision and feel of the Warhammer world,
game balance has top priority.

5. The factor of luck

There will always be luck in a game of dice and while there are a lot of
ways to minimize the impact of a lucky roll, the way some fundamental
game mechanics work in Warhammer (especially Leadership tests), there
will always be times when a single roll will decide the game. What can be
done though is to give the player as much control as possible on when and
where those rolls happen and give him tactical options to stack the
probabilities in his favour.

6. Lean, definitive rules

Everything has to be as clear as possible. Get rid of unnecessary rules and
make the ones left count. Although there might be optional rules, there has
to be always a definitive way to do things that takes precedence.

So one day I got super burned out on whfb and quit for a while. This was in 7th edition, right around when the demon codex was destroying the game.

The main reason that I was burned out was that I had been tournament power gaming for about a decade, and a few things I really started to hate began to creep up:

1) all of my games were basically the same. I played 2-3x a week every week every month every year. All of my games felt the same. A lot of that was due to static charge distances. There wasn't a lot of variation in my games, practice wise, or at tournaments, or even the grand tournaments.
I dislike overly deterministic systems that minimize RNG. I don't like excessive RNG either, but making the system overly deterministic where dice luck is minimized makes the game very stale and static and plays the same over and over again. Which burns me out. And is a big no for me.

2) static charges enforced what I called the "dance". I'm big on immersion. So silly things that wouldn't really happen in a battle turn me off.

The "Dance" was basically getting short of charge range, then moving laterally while your opponent did the same until one of you misstepped and got too close and then you charged them. It looked like a side ways shuffle dance for 2 or 3 turns.

A real battle in my mind's eye is two enemy forces hurtling at each other, not dancing around waiting for one to get an 1/8" of charge.

3) because of #2, everyone stopped taking infantry except for a few cases such as raising dead, dwarves (that had no cav), and demons. It was cav-hammer. Every army I faced for the most part was a checkerboard of MSU cav units.

Totally not acceptable to me.

4) very few monsters taken.

5) the slot system started taking a toll on me. I want to see armies and armies have core in it, but the slot system let people min/max by taking things like 3 units of dire wolves and the rest being elite.

Was also a thing in 6th but not to the extent it got to in 7th.

All of this led to me being burned out and gives me a very bad taste of 7th edition. I would never willingly play that again.

You will find people who prefer 8th, 7th and 6th, you even get twisted heretics who prefer AoS.

You cannot please everyone. If Warhammer CE is 7th based, its 7th based, it adds to the plethora of legacy rulesets that are appearing.

@auticus: Thanks for the feedback. So the repetitive gameplay drove you away, caused by static charge distances and the manouevering related with it.
That's the same in Warhammer CE. No random attack distances. Though I do not consider it to be repetitive (yet), but to be honest, I think any game played that often will become boring sooner or later.
If this keeps you from taking a look, too bad.
Orlanth pretty nails it. You can't please anyone.
Plethora? Are there so many legacy systems out there that
A) are actually being played by more than 5 people
B) have community support from different gaming clubs
C) use modern tools like a working, own armybuilder, have a cloud system to manage your rosters and share them if you like etc
D) are used at tournaments?



Don't think so

Well I played a shedload of 8th and have played a lot of AOS and haven't been burned out on them yet. For me the deterministic same old same old burns me out. I realize everyone will have different likes and dislikes.

 Moscha wrote:

Plethora? Are there so many legacy systems out there that
A) are actually being played by more than 5 people
B) have community support from different gaming clubs
C) use modern tools like a working, own armybuilder, have a cloud system to manage your rosters and share them if you like etc
D) are used at tournaments?



Don't think so

I can tell you at least half a dozen off the top of my head. Surely there are more, and they tend to be very regional. Blackhammer is quite popular in France and French-speaking countries, MdN is decently popular in Spain and so on.

Other than 9th age of course, which at some time hoovered quite a few of these independent fan developers for their own use.

 Moscha wrote:
Believe me, you will use some core units anyway because finally they ARE playable and useful no matter what the enemy is fielding. Good gods, I won a local tournament with my dark elves, in my 2000 P list were among others 21 Spearmen, 10 Repeater Crossbowmen, 5 Black Riders, 5 Harpies. In the original version I even had 20 Corsairs on top of that (+50% core units!) but I exchanged them for 13 Executioners, to be fair.
And my Orc&Goblin list contains 30 Common Goblins with Spears. I mean, hey, honestly, did ever somebody field normal stinking Goblins in a competitive play? I don't think so.
So yes, there is the possibility to field no core units in the game, but you can use e.g a limitation like in 8th edition if you like. the only official limitation is 2000 p - one lord maximum


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and i totally forgot my light infantry core unit corsairs with repeater hand crossbow in the abovementioned list.

Dark Elf core are reliable, other armies not always so much. Lack of core tax will not effect Chaos mortals as Warriors and/or Marauders are the heart of your lists, regardless of edition, with a healthy backing of characters.
Undead and Empire armies will want to minimise core to whatever tax demands.

Yes spear goblins can be competitive, they are cheap take a lot of missile fire to get rid of orcs dont care if they flee. Dont base the army on them, but a large flanking unit per flank has a 'Attention must deal with this' sign on it, yet costs chump change to field.

jouso wrote:

 Moscha wrote:

Plethora? Are there so many legacy systems out there that
A) are actually being played by more than 5 people
B) have community support from different gaming clubs
C) use modern tools like a working, own armybuilder, have a cloud system to manage your rosters and share them if you like etc
D) are used at tournaments?



Don't think so

I can tell you at least half a dozen off the top of my head. Surely there are more, and they tend to be very regional. Blackhammer is quite popular in France and French-speaking countries, MdN is decently popular in Spain and so on.

Other than 9th age of course, which at some time hoovered quite a few of these independent fan developers for their own use.

I can also tell you a lot of systems off the top of my head. My point was, as you also stated, these tend to be very regional and are only being played by few or nobody.
Even if there is one or two more popular systems in spanish, italian, english, and french speaking countries, this would hardly count as plethora. And that was my entire point.

In Germany, there are 2 systems with a fanbase larger than 5 people other than 9th Age. Fluffhammer and Warhammer CE.

But as the topic is Warhammer CE: Did you check out the rules or try them out? I'd be happy to get some more feedback on the system rather than on my (granted) a bit provocative post






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Moscha wrote:
Believe me, you will use some core units anyway because finally they ARE playable and useful no matter what the enemy is fielding. Good gods, I won a local tournament with my dark elves, in my 2000 P list were among others 21 Spearmen, 10 Repeater Crossbowmen, 5 Black Riders, 5 Harpies. In the original version I even had 20 Corsairs on top of that (+50% core units!) but I exchanged them for 13 Executioners, to be fair.
And my Orc&Goblin list contains 30 Common Goblins with Spears. I mean, hey, honestly, did ever somebody field normal stinking Goblins in a competitive play? I don't think so.
So yes, there is the possibility to field no core units in the game, but you can use e.g a limitation like in 8th edition if you like. the only official limitation is 2000 p - one lord maximum


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and i totally forgot my light infantry core unit corsairs with repeater hand crossbow in the abovementioned list.

Dark Elf core are reliable, other armies not always so much. Lack of core tax will not effect Chaos mortals as Warriors and/or Marauders are the heart of your lists, regardless of edition, with a healthy backing of characters.
Undead and Empire armies will want to minimise core to whatever tax demands.

Yes spear goblins can be competitive, they are cheap take a lot of missile fire to get rid of orcs dont care if they flee. Dont base the army on them, but a large flanking unit per flank has a 'Attention must deal with this' sign on it, yet costs chump change to field.

Empire list of a competitive player. Not maxed out, but it gives a good idea how a CE list could look like. Includes pikemen as a core unit.

https://cloud.armycreator.de/view.php?d=5adb84b5aebf6

Another empire list with swordsmen as core unit.
https://cloud.armycreator.de/view.php?d=5a00c5193359f

I didn't get the second part of your reply, are you saying chaos warriors are the heart of the lists regardless of edition? I would fully agree on 8th, but in 7th or 6th? Not really right? Just to slow compared chaos knights.
They fixed that pretty well in 8th by random attack movement and support attacks from the 2nd rank. But as these are not part of CE, player field them for the reason: WoC infantry are supposed and designed to be more effective in close combat point-wise than any other infantry, while lacking firepower. Heavy cavalry, which was the gamebreaker in 6th and 7th, got slowed down in movement and got a raise in point costs in some cases. No more no-brainers here.

Example of a Nurgle Mortal list:

https://cloud.armycreator.de/view.php?d=5a01db592321b

Feel free to comment!

Sorry Moscha, this reminds me why I prefer 8th.

 Moscha wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Moscha wrote:

Plethora? Are there so many legacy systems out there that
A) are actually being played by more than 5 people
B) have community support from different gaming clubs
C) use modern tools like a working, own armybuilder, have a cloud system to manage your rosters and share them if you like etc
D) are used at tournaments?



Don't think so

I can tell you at least half a dozen off the top of my head. Surely there are more, and they tend to be very regional. Blackhammer is quite popular in France and French-speaking countries, MdN is decently popular in Spain and so on.

Other than 9th age of course, which at some time hoovered quite a few of these independent fan developers for their own use.

I can also tell you a lot of systems off the top of my head. My point was, as you also stated, these tend to be very regional and are only being played by few or nobody.
Even if there is one or two more popular systems in spanish, italian, english, and french speaking countries, this would hardly count as plethora. And that was my entire point.

In Germany, there are 2 systems with a fanbase larger than 5 people other than 9th Age. Fluffhammer and Warhammer CE.

But as the topic is Warhammer CE: Did you check out the rules or try them out? I'd be happy to get some more feedback on the system rather than on my (granted) a bit provocative post

The ones I mentioned tick your boxes. Active community, tournaments, different club support, etc.

There are a zillion others in different states of support, stasis, etc.

As per Warhammer CE, I did a cursory glance back when it was released but never really played it (I think there was a topic at warseer). First because it's based off 7th and second because those around miss that either went on to KoW or play MdN.... and it's not in Spanish so that cuts it even more.

I'll leave the topic now so you can keep talking about WHCE.

Thanks for the interesting info about systems played in Spain and France. Though my French and Spanish skills are quite low, I already had a look at Blackhammer and I try to figure out the basic ideas.

Yep, there was a thread started on Warseer some years ago.

Seelenhaendler keeps posting there occasionally.

Where is blackhammer. Links take me to a comic, refined gaming links to take me to a Cyberpunk RPG campaign.

 Orlanth wrote:
Where is blackhammer. Links take me to a comic, refined gaming links to take me to a Cyberpunk RPG campaign.

How's your French?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jj5lbvxamd95jij/BlackHammer%20-%20Livre%20de%20r%C3%A8gles%20V2.pdf?dl=0

It's a 6-7th based rulebook with fixed charge distance, estimation, unit strength, attacker strikes first, no step-up, etc. Changes for the most part are a weird kind of winds of magic with special dice (one a sorta D3, the other 3-6), no AS better than 1+, rank bonus based on unit strengh and not formation, no fear autobreak (-2 to ld instead), halberds strike in two ranks like spears on the turn they receive a charge, ridden monsters can join units and a few others.

It's been a while since I lived in France so can't really remember everything but it was 95% 7th ed with some tweaks. I prefered 8th so I played maybe 3-4 games.

Warhammer CE has been updated to V1.05.

The Living Rulebook now includes rules for Dogs of War and
Arabia!

I will ask for permit to upload it in this thread!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For now, here is the link, I hope it works for everybody!


http://armycreator.de/lrb/E_WarhammerCE-LRB-v1.05.pdf

Looks interesting. KoW Vanguard got me interested in building the 6th/7th ed High Elf army I always wanted but never did. Was planning on just doing 6th ed, might try this if I ever actually get around to playing

Try and see for yourself what suits you better.
I never played High Elves in 6th, only occassionally against them in tournaments. I found them to be a fair army to play against with my Orcs & Goblins.The rules of the 7th edition armybook killed of any wish to play against high elves with this "always strikes first" rule for all units.
I play High Elves in CE, and it is really enjoyable. The speed of Asuryan rule is very nice, if you get charged in the front, the enemy has -1 to hit in the first round against all High Elves. This way, you can evade a lot of painful attacks against your measly Tougness of 3, and dish out some damage for yourself.
So most High Elves player I know rely on the stat-wise comparably good core troops, and field quite some of these, bolstered by some elite troops , bolt throwers and an eagle ord two (or some Ellyrian Reavers).

My tournament army list (I ended up in 4th place, 2 victories against dogs of war and Ogres, one loss against vampire counts) looked more or less like this:

2000 Points.

2x 20 Spearmen with Standard & Champion
16 Archers
10 Sisters of Avelorn
2 Bolt Throwers
12 Sword Masters with Standard
5 Ellyrian Reavers with Bows
5 Silver Helmets
1 Hero on Horseback with a Magic Lance
2 Wizards Lvl 2

...Something like this. Looks quite fair, no?
A lot of Pew Pew, but hey it's not Chaos Warriors

I did not even use a Lord choice although it was allowed.

The response here was a bit grumpy, lots of 8th edition fans who hated 7th. Anyway, for my part, I think late 6th/early 7th was by far the best period of the game. 8th had some good aspects but magic was way too overpowered, and unit size got totally out of hand. There were a lot of changes in 7th that I thought were really for the best, the only one I did not like was the requirement for a 5 wide rank, as I felt it was purely for money grabbing reasons.

So good luck with this project, I will download the rules though I doubt I will ever get a game in!

Thanks!
It is not my project though, I only support and play WCE in my area.

Actually, CE is mostly played in Munich, no so far away from Nuremberg. So maybe you will get a chance for a game sometime! Weiss-Blaue Strategen is the Munich based tabletop club. Some of them switched from 8th edition to 9th age, and some play CE. These are mostly players who had already lost interest in Warhammer Fantasy after the release of 8th edition. If you are German or speak German, I can send you a link to narrative campaigns of old I am/was playing with a friend. We did the "Idol of Gork" campaign, which was released originally for 5th edition, and are playing the "Tears of Isha" campaign at the moment, also originally for 5th edition, with the CE rules
I had to modify the rules a bit here and there of course, but it was a lot of fun.
I just don't want to repost it here because it would be really, really too much work to translate it to English for me and I wouldn't find it fit in an english speaking forum to post in foreign language.

I do speak German (I am Irish, but living in Germany for seven years now and with a German wife).

I should check out Munich for gaming at some point. I did not realise there was such a big scene - I am not on facebook so I find it a bit hard to find clubs and stuff.

 Moscha wrote:
Warhammer CE has been updated to V1.05.

The Living Rulebook now includes rules for Dogs of War and
Arabia!

http://armycreator.de/lrb/E_WarhammerCE-LRB-v1.05.pdf

Thanks for sharing this! I'll check it out
____

In looking through Warhammer CE, the first thing I look at is Dogs of War & Empire. As a rule, DoW stuff needs to be somewhat cheaper than Empire stuff to account for the lack of bonus rules. There should also be some discount on the RoR Captains because they cannot leave their units, and must be taken. Same with the Full Command, which is mandatory, rather than optional.

For example, let's just look at basic Crossbowmen which has the same cost per model, except that the Empire unit can take Detachments as a benefit. The DoW version should probably cost -5 pts less to account for that. Now look at Pirazzo's Crossbowmen, which costs +10 pts per additional model, paying +3 pts for heavy armor that isn't even modeled!

Or if you look at DoW Pikemen which start at 8 pts per model, a whopping +2 pts/model increase over Empire Spearmen,

And then the Regiments of Renown seem to be paying an even more outsize cost for their bound Captains and mandatory Full Command.

Compare Voland's Venators with Inner Circle Knights - again, Venators are overpriced, and they lack options.

Hengus is 185 pts? An extra +160 pts for a Wizard with a 5+ Ward who can't select his Spells? And his Giants are 220 pts instead of 160 pts like an Ogre Giant? The unit is overcosted by at least 200 pts.

If the typical costs are like this, Dogs of War will not be competitive with Empire, and their signature Regiments of Renown unplayable.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Moscha wrote:
Warhammer CE has been updated to V1.05.

The Living Rulebook now includes rules for Dogs of War and
Arabia!

http://armycreator.de/lrb/E_WarhammerCE-LRB-v1.05.pdf

Thanks for sharing this! I'll check it out

Thanks for doing so! I see you had reason to complain, unfortunately. But some positions may be seen in a different light, I think you haven't delved deep enough into the fine differences between 6th/7th and warhammer CE. So there may be some misunderstandings. I will try to adress you points, as far as I can and clarifiy some seemingly unreasonable points. I am not the author of the rules, but I can ask for additional feedback from him if you like!

I cannot give a proper answer to all the positions, but to some I will try! Let's start with this:

IFor example, let's just look at basic Crossbowmen which has the same cost per model, except that the Empire unit can take Detachments as a benefit. The DoW version should probably cost -5 pts less to account for that.

Yes, crossbowmen have the same point costs as empire crossbowmen. Empire crossbowmen cannot take detachments, only state troops can do so, and they have to pay 5 points in order to be able to do it. Crossbowmen do not have this option. They can be a detachment of another unit, yes.

Now look at Pirazzo's Crossbowmen, which costs +10 pts per additional model, paying +3 pts for heavy armor that isn't even modeled!

Maybe you missed out on this special point of CE, which explains a lot: Some units are getting increasingly expensive the more you are fielding of them in your army. Most ranged combat units do. A multiplicator is added to the basic point costs, in the case of crossbowmen, it is 10 points per unit of that type you are fielding. So, if you field one unit of 10 crossbowmen, it will cost you 70 + 10x1 = 80 points. If you field 2 units of 10 crossbowmen, the costs are 70 + 10x2 = 90 points per unit.

An additional crossbowman costs 8 points, and has no armor. Pirazzos crossbowmen cost 10 points, so that is 2 points more for an AS of 5+ instead of none. Sounds reasonable to me. The heavy armour is, I think, for reasons of not having too many different profiles in the unit for hand-to hand combat, as the rest of the unit has heavy armor, too. I don't know. We are talking about 8 points less for a unit with a total cost of 250 points. 250 points for the unit seem high, but it is basically what you get if you add up the costs for 8p per pike (120), (40) points for 4 crossbowmen with heavy armor, musician and standard (25), a captain with the mundane equipment of Pirazzo (65). Equals 250 points.

Or if you look at DoW Pikemen which start at 8 pts per model, a whopping +2 pts/model increase over Empire Spearmen,

Hmm the other way round, the DoW Pikemen are even cheaper than their imperial counterparts, as pikemen are an integral part of DoW armylists (or should be, I would expect the army contains at least one unit of them), they are 20 points cheaper, to be seen as an army special rule. 160 Points DoW vs 180 points Empire.

Why the comparison with the spearmen? They lack the special rule of pikes to be considered as defending an obstacle. Which means no charge bonus for lances or spears, and no impact hits from chariots and the like, and fight in an additional rank than spearmen do. Just not comparable.

And then the Regiments of Renown seem to be paying an even more outsize cost for their bound Captains and mandatory Full Command.

Compare Voland's Venators with Inner Circle Knights - again, Venators are overpriced, and they lack options.

I agree with you, that they lack options. I could take an empire captain and equip him with some fancy magic items. The unit is basically costing exactly what you pay for 4 inner circle knights at basic unit costs, adding a standard, a musician and a captain equipped like Voland. This accounts for 214 points in total. So 215 is fair point-wise, but I can see why one would prefer the inner circle unit.
On the other hand, as the minimum size to compare would be 6 (as they have to take 5 basic knights plus a captain to get the same output as Volands Venators : Venators will pay 16 points to get the extra knight, so 215+16 = 231 points for six models including Voland. The Inner Circle Knights with the same captain & equipment will cost 130 plus Standard & Musician (35), plus the Captain fully equipped like Voland (75) = 240 points.

Hengus is 185 pts? An extra +160 pts for a Wizard with a 5+ Ward who can't select his Spells? And his Giants are 220 pts instead of 160 pts like an Ogre Giant? The unit is overcosted by at least 200 pts.

Basic Wizard Empire: 40 points, the spells coming with Hengus - 135 points. A ward save of 5+ costs about 30-35 points for all heroes in the game - and these are hard to come by - All in all 205 points. Not taking into account that Hengus can redirect damage taken at the giants, and that two of his spells are going off at half of the casting value they usually would - very useful especially considering the spell which can be used to move the giants and give the +2 movement (or +4 charge distance!) in the next round., where you usally need a 10. hard to do for a Lv2 wizard with only 3 dice max. per BM spell. Hengus lets it of at 5+.
Disadvantage of course, you can't put Hengus inside a unit, and you need line of sight to let the magic missile go off.
All in all. I think it is fair when you look at it this way, no?
Point costs of the Giants: I think we have the same misunderstanding here as mentioned above. An Ogre giant does not cost 160 points. It costs 160 + 40x points, meaning, if you use one, it costs 200 points, if you use 2, each one costs 240 points.
So there is even a small discount for the two giants compared to other armies using giants!

I hope my explanations were helpful, though I could not address all points (Discount for being DoW instead of Empire because of Empire special rules - this would go VERY deep).
Edit: Format changed

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the follow-up. If you could get my comments back, that would be appreciated.

Dogs of War - What Warhammer CE fails to understand is how the DoW army should be structured differently from Empire. It is a fundamental mistake to cost DoW units with bound "upgrades" as if they were freely-chosen like their Empire equivalents. As a rule, if you would not automatically take those options out of an Empire List, as *optimal* upgrades to the unit, then the upgrade needs to be discounted. Perhaps heavily so. For example, DoW missile Regiments of Renown pay full points cost for Captain (with fixed wargear!), Champion, Musician and Standard, where most Empire missile units would never take those upgrades in the first place, much less to *permanently* attach a Captain with fighting upgrades to the unit. In those cases, the "upgrades" are largely a waste, and should cost ~40-50% of what the book cost would be. From a design standpoint, the a la carte Empire cost is for reference, but it is a gross mistake to cost the unit fully this way. OTOH, when the basic upgrades are arguably "good", such as having Full Command for a fighting unit, then yes, charge nearly full points for that, 80% of the Empire cost. However, even then, the Captains (and much of their fixed wargear) are not worth full points, simply because they are bound (and rarely optimal). Granted that GW did this as well in their version, and that is a large part of the reason that the DoW were never competitive, especially when fielding large numbers of signature Regiments of Renown. When the most competitive DoW armies look like Tilean-themed Empire armies, rather than DoW armies, it becomes clear that the designers had failed. So...

With respect to weapons and wargear, the equipment should really match the 5th Edition Army Book, because that's what the models look like. That means most pike will be in light armor (Sv 6+), which is going to be effectively "free", because it's almost meaningless, except for the Republican Guard and Besiegers, which should be in full plate (Sv 4+ & 2+, respectively).

Crossbows - Empire Crossbows can be detachments *and* are the less-preferred choice compared to Handgunners. DoW Crossbows are the fundamental preferred missile troop of the army, so there should be a 5 pt/unit discount there to account for theme and availablity. If Empire Crossbows could take detachments, they would have to cost even more. And because of theme, DoW should have a lower Nx multiplier, 5 pts per unit where Empire should pay 10 per unit. This is the sort of thing that steers players toward making and fielding armies that look "right" on the tabletop.

Pirazzo's Regiment - I get that you are charging even more for more. But as above, you wouldn't equip Crossbowmen with heavy armor, because you'd rather buy more Crossbowmen than spend the points on any armor at all! So, if the regiment is to have a uniform Sv 5+ statline, then the Crossbowmen should pay +1 pt instead of +2 pts for heavy armor. As it is a mixed regiment that *must* take Full Command, then the musician and standard should be discounted from 25 pts down to 20 pts. As Pirazzo is a bound Captain with fixed wargear, he should be discounted from 65 pts to 45-50 pts. 250 pts for the unit is 30-40 pts too high for how good it is on the tabletop.

Pikemen - DoW pay 160 points for 20 pikemen = 8 pts each. Empire pays 55 pts for 10 spearmen = 5.5 pts each in a detachment, 120 pts for 20 standalone = 6 pts each. How are you getting that 20 Empire Spearmen are 180 pts? Pikemen are Spearmen with much longer spears, so they absolutely are comparable. Pikemen should *not* pay extra for their special rule because Empire Spearmen aren't paying extra for their special rules. Otherwise, there should be a *very* hefty points increase for Empire units that can take detachments, whether they take the or not, and that simply isn't the case. DoW should be points-incented to take pikemen as part of the army theme, in the same why that Empire should be heavily incented to take Halberdiers for theme. Halberds are 100 pts for 20 = 5 pts each - 1 pt/model cheaper than Spear or Swords; Swords should actually have a + Nx10p multiplier. Given the theme objectives and how special rules are costed in Empiire, DoW pikemen should cost 5.5-6.5 pts per model, or 110-130 pts for 20 pikemen.

Voland's Ventors - as above, the IC Knights have the option *not* to take Command, *not* to permanently bind a Captain, who would have the option to take any mix of wargear. Mandatory Command should decrease from 35 down to 25-30 pts. If Voland isn't optimal, then he needs to be discounted from 75 pts down to 60 pts. If the IC Knights would cost 240 pts, then Voland's Ventors would cost 215 pts to account for the fixed configuration.

Giants of Albion - As above, Hengus is overladen and priced as if he were buying everything a la carte. Even if his abilites are "better", having to pay an extra 185 pts for him *and* a 2nd Giant is excessive. Giants should be costed like this:
* 200 pts for the first Giant to start the unit.
* 200 pts for the 2nd Giant, because he is *mandatory* - you cannot take just one, and you cannot take 3+, either.
* 145 pts for Hengus. Empire wizard starts at 25 pts, not 40, so he should start at 20 pts being a bound wizard. You wouldn't necessarily load him with 135 pts of spells, much less that specific mix of spells, so that should cost 100. The 5+ Ward is bound... so it should be 20-25 pts intstead of 30-35 pts. If the identical Empire wizard costs 190 pts a la carte, then Hengus should be cost 145 pts.
Therefore, the fixed 3-model Giants of Albion unit should cost 545 pts, not 625 pts.

Regiment-based Dogs of War - If you get right down to it, the DoW army should be redesigned with a different philosophy in general. There shouldn't be generic crossbows or pikemen. Instead, the DoW army should be designed entirely around Regiments of Renown, who can split off sub-regiments. For example, Ricco's Republican Guard would be a Core choice. The first unit would have Ricco and full command, and it could split off sub-units of Guard with full command. This would have similar function to generic pikemen, but it would require the named Regiment to start. There wouldn't be standalone duellists - there would be Vespero's Vendetta, who might split off a sub-unit of Vendetta. Nor standalone halflings - there would be more of Croop's boys. And so on. Every unit in the army ties to a named Regiment of Renown, with it's particular quirks. That makes the army thematic and forces clear distinction from Empire.

As it is, the DoW army list is unplayable as a Regiments of Renown showcase, which defeats the entire point of playing DoW. It is a fundamental mistake to look at DoW as Tilean Empire, when they are not, and should not be, Empire. Using Empire costs as a starting point, to set an upper bound on things is fine, but costs really need to account for the fact that there will be far fewer options in the list. It's effectively the difference between Eldar Aspect Warriors with their fixed wargear and Imperial Guard Veterans with their wealth of options.

Again, if you could get my comments to the design team, that would be appreciated.

I will! Thanks for the extensive Feedback!
I will just Copy paste your text and forward it. As soon as He replied, i will repost the answer here.

Cool, thanks!

Update: I got an answer, but in German, I will repost it here and give a translation.

At least this is helping to keep my translation skills fresh.

Thanks! Google translate is a thing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Thanks! Google translate is a thing.

Sure. Let's do both, I will post the Google translation right below the real text.and where it is getting ridiculously wrong, I will use human brain Power.

I begged and moaned and got a reply in English!

So here it is, right from the mouth of the mastermind (sorry, couldn't resist Mr.Seelenhaendler )

In general

Instead of trying to please everyone, which is impossible, WCE is designed with a clear vision and in a consistent way which (hopefully) ensures that the system stays fairly balanced.

The Dogs of War list

The list is based on the Dogs of War / Mercenaries list from 6th edition (Chronicles). In addition to the Regiments of Renown (RoR), it also contains units representing the multitude of mercenary units which, in contrast to the RoR, have not yet come to legendary fame. RoR are kind of the special characters of units. Since they are so important for the mercenary list, they are an integral part of the army, unlike special character models which (currently) are not available in other armies.

To limit the list to the RoR would have the disadvantage that a large part of the diversity of the army would be lost and armies would comprise the same units all the time. Kinda like if every empire army was led by KF or every HE army by Tyrion and Teclis.

The aim of WCE is to give players as much freedom as possible in the composition of their armies.

Balance

WCE is optimized for 2000p armies. This means in particular that units from different armies can be compared, but may not be equated, as other factors must be taken into account.

Therefore, two 2000p armies (composed in a balanced, i.e. varied, way) should be compared to determine whether one army has an advantage over the other. It is also known that there are better and worse matchups. Finding solution to these as well as improving the balance is a continuous commitment of WCE.

Empire

· Detachments are not a free special rule for the Empire, but are included in the point costs of the detachments. Therefore, an Empire player only pays for the special rule if he uses it.

· Handgunners being the preferred choice over Crossbowmen does not apply to WCE, at least not in the local meta where the range bonus is seen at least equal to the AP(1).

· Pikemen: The special rule "Entrenched" in combination with attacking from 3 ranks justifies the higher point costs compared to imperial spearmen, imo. Pikemen cost 180p for the empire, because they are only an additional option for fluff players and should not supersede the typical empire units like halberdiers.

Other

· The allegation that the list would be unplayable if you only took RoR units, is an unfounded assertion and factually wrong.

· The ingame strength of all units is based on the 6th edition, i.e. the effectiveness of certain units or their equipment cannot be judged sensibly on the basis of experiences with later editions (especially 8th). For example, a 5+ armour save is quite relevant in WCE as it is not negated by 90% of the effects/attacks.

· Like special character models, RoR can only be bought as a bundle, i.e. you have fewer options than with equivalent conventional units. It is clear that this combination is usually not optimal or that it does not meet the taste of every player to 100%. If such a combination has a relevant influence on the strength of the unit or the army, then of course this has to be accounted for. This has been done, but other factors have been taken into account that were not mention in your analysis.

The fact that the list offers a wide variety of possible combinations of different units, is one such point that gives the army list an advantage over the empire.

Equally important, all units can be supported/buffed in many ways by the large number of spells from the 8 magic lores.

Thus, the mercenary list offers a huge potential of synergy effects, which distinguishes it from other armies.

Since these effects are not listed as a special rule of the army, they can easily be overlooked. However, this potential has to be accounted for somewhere in the point costs.

This effect has been priced into the point costs of the RoR, as these are responsible for the extraordinary diversity by providing unique unit options for the army.

Instead of simply making the RoR more expensive than comparable units of other armies (which do not have the same unit diversity as the DoW list), they comprise upgrades which cannot always be considered optimal.

At this point, it should be noted that these upgrades actually do offer a relevant advantage in the game and are not just "wasted" points.

· The list is a recent addition to the LRB. The point costs were determined very conservatively, in order to avoid the list being clearly stronger than other army lists.

In particular, it should be avoided that the DoW army becomes an all-star list, where you can combine the best units from different armies in one list and additionally strengthen them with the very flexible magic lores.

For example, a dwarven army list should not be worse than a DoW army with dwarven units (warriors, crossbowmen, Long Drong), heavy/light cavalry, giants, skirmishers and supported by a level 4 mage.

Conclusion:

· The unique synergy potential of the DoW list is responsible for the fact that certain units do not compare favourably to units of other armies.

· However, a 2000p DoW army should be comparable in strength to 2000p armies of other lists.

· Improving balance is an ongoing process, so constructive feedback is always welcome.

 Moscha wrote:
I begged and moaned and got a reply in English!

Conclusion
· The unique synergy potential of the DoW list is responsible for the fact that certain units do not compare favourably to units of other armies.
· However, a 2000p DoW army should be comparable in strength to 2000p armies of other lists.
· Improving balance is an ongoing process, so constructive feedback is always welcome.

Thank you for asking; however, most of what he wrote is empty words or flat out provably untrue. It's obvious that he didn't read or understand what I wrote. Or he didn't care, which is what appears to really be the case.

I understand that it's based on the Chronicles list, when it should have been based on the 5E list. The "diversity" added in 6E came at the high cost of watering down the army and stripping it of all character. Charging what are effectively premiums for RoR units.


Saying that RoR are comparable to "Special Characters" is completely wrong, because none of them are akin to Special Characters like Morathi - the vast majority of them are non-Lord-level Heroes. Furthermore, saying that they are an "integral part of the army" is belied by the fact that NO DoW army need take an RoRs. The fundamental difference is that HE and Empire are supposed to be completely playable without their Special Characters, where DoW were *only* playable using RoR in 5E. In 5E, the DoW had several actual Special Characters that were totally optional (like KF and Teclis), and not integral to the character of the army, such as Borgio the Besieger, Miragliano, Belladonna, etc. For whatever reason, GW did not release rules for them in 6E, and that is even more the pity.

WCE giving "freedom" is like saying Empire should be able to take anything from the Chaos list and vice versa. The army should be characterful, and that is not captured under the WCE list.

Whether WCE is "optimized" for 2000 pts or not, units of comprable type should pay comparable and fair costs for a similar capability. Yet, Dogs of War have fewer bonus rules, and pay significantly more for the same unit. If a DoW army plays an Empire-like army they will pay more points for the less effectiveness. How is that "balanced"?

He claims that Empire detachments are not free, yet detachment Spearmen only cost 5.5. pts per model, where parent Spearment cost 6 pts per model. If the cost of the detachment bonus is embedded in the detachment, then the models should cost *more* than in the parent, not a half-point less!

If Crossbows are preferred in the meta over Handgunners, then they are obviously too cheap. Handguns should be an efficient upgrade over Crossbows, yet are not.

Pikemen shouldn't be available for the Empire in the first place! Pikemen should be exclusive to Dogs of War armies, only. Giving DoW units to non-DoW armies is a fundamental design mistake that even further disadvantages DoW armies compared to others. Remove Pikemen from the Empire! And no DoW Pike aren't worth a significant price increase relative to Empire Spearmen. If Empire wants to take Pikemen, they should be forced to take a DoW Paymaster and then spend a Special or Rare slot for the Pikemen.

The fact that the RoR units are consistently overpriced makes the DoW army fundamentally uncompetitive. It's a 10% points penalty, or more. While some players are good enough to overcome the handicap, players of equal skill and luck will consistently lose with an all-RoR army against another army. If he cannot numerically refute the examples I provided, which he didn't, then he needs to recost accordingly.

Having a wide variety of bad options is not an advantage. It is the illusion of false choice.

The Empire army has the same access to all 8 lores of Magic, so their units should be comparably overcosted to account for possible magic boosts. Empire armies can also hire Dogs of War, so their units should all have the potential advantage of Dogs of War benefits being added to their internal points costs.

It is untrue to say that the RoR should have all of these extra costs tacked on for possible benefits and synergies when Empire doesn't pay them. The RoR are significantly more expensive than non-RoR units, but don't provide anywhere near the functional benefit. While there is some benefit, the cost is in excess of what it provides, so it's not an advantage - it's an obvious disadvantage. Getting +1 here or there is not a benefit when you have to pay an full pts for a bound Captain with non-optimal wargear. If the stat bonuses were free, or the Captain were free, then that would be something, but its not the case.

When "the points costs were determined conservatively", that's an admission that the units were overcosted, rather than being costed fairly. It is a direct contradiction of the intent of WCE to be fair and balanced. If DoW are to be costed "conservatively", then Empire and the other armies should be costed similarly "conservatively".

The DoW list isn't an "all-star list", because it can't take anything from any other armies, so that is another false claim. Claiming that the DoW army should be worse than every other army that can take DoW units is again a clear statement of bias and unfairness. Instead, the DoW army with all of its advantages should be just as competitive, rather than being handicapped by the worst Dwarf / Empire / other army.

No other army is being penalized on cost based on "potential", except for Dogs of War

As I already demonstrated, a 2000p DoW army is not comparable to a 2000p Empire army.

I already provided constructive feedback, and it was ignored

CONCLUSION

It is a waste of my time to attempt to work with WCE or provide feedback, as there is no interest in revising the DoW list to make it equally competitive with other armies. Instead, it is clear that the DoW army is merely a grab bag to give undeserved benefits to other armies, where the cost disadvantage is outweighed by the ability to take a particular function at all. DoW don't deserve to be treated this way, and it would be better for DoW to be removed for the WCE options than to exist as such.

Based on the underlying philosophy and unfairnness, coupled with the dismissal of feedback provided, I will not have anything further to do with WCE, except to warn other people away from the WCE project.

WCE is not telling the truth when they say they want balance, or fairness, or feedback. It's all a pack of lies, and people should avoid entirely.

Wow. just wow.

I will let your answer stand for itself.

Very constructive indeed!

Edit: Removed some subjective, insulting statements.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Edit2: Removed also some "putting oil in the fire"-style comments. It's really hard to resist sometimes!

Whatever, dude.

I gave feedback that things were overcosted, and made suggestions on how to fix that, to make the army better. That is the very definition of "constructive feedback"

He said that DoW were deliberately overcosted for no reason at all. And my impression was that I was talking to a wall.


text removed.
Reds8n

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Whatever, dude.

I gave feedback that things were overcosted, and made suggestions on how to fix that, to make the army better. That is the very definition of "constructive feedback"

He said that DoW were deliberately overcosted for no reason at all. And my impression was that I was talking to a wall.

.

So much hate. The dark side strong in you is.

Perhaps you should consider how that came to be.

If the dev is going to dismiss people out of hand, yeah, they are not going to be happy about that. If your intended reaction is going to be insulting and putting oil on the fire, as you yourself put it, that is going to drive more negative response.

You and the dev created the situation with your response. As you sow, so shall you reap

Well, let's see it that way. The army list is obviously not what you expect a DoW list is supposed to look like, as it is not based on the 5th edition DoW list, but on the 6th edition chronicles.
That may be bad from your viewpoint and unacceptable, but there's no need to become rude.

As an outsider, I won't be playing CE just from his dismissive-ness in the response and that special characters aren't allowed. I play for the fluff, hence why i still play 6th, and will continue to do so. I don't need "perfect balance" as no one i play with writes hyper-competitive lists like RAF, flying circus, etc. We enjoy the meet up, rolling dice, beers, and having the special characters on the board with armies built to suit them personally. If you look at Destiny 2, they went with perfect balance on release, and lost most of their player base.

Story, Fluff, and Fun are all that we play for, we give some effort to winning, but no one is that competitive to whine if something seems powerful, they just try to kill it faster. There's no unit that can't be killed with enough effort.

I was already hesitant about CE and the response really clenched it that it's not for me. It's very clear with that statement that the dev is of the mindset that it's his playground and we're just allowed to play in it. 9th Age may not be my thing, but at least it's attempting to use community/player feedback.

That's very OK! Have fun!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Saying that RoR are comparable to "Special Characters" is completely wrong, because none of them are akin to Special Characters like Morathi - the vast majority of them are non-Lord-level Heroes. Furthermore, saying that they are an "integral part of the army" is belied by the fact that NO DoW army need take an RoRs. The fundamental difference is that HE and Empire are supposed to be completely playable without their Special Characters, where DoW were *only* playable using RoR in 5E. In 5E, the DoW had several actual Special Characters that were totally optional (like KF and Teclis), and not integral to the character of the army, such as Borgio the Besieger, Miragliano, Belladonna, etc. For whatever reason, GW did not release rules for them in 6E, and that is even more the pity.

Actually, Borgio and Belladonna have rules in Chronicles 2004, and the Marksmen of Miragliano have rules in Warhammer Annual 2003 or Chronicles 2004, but I haven't needed them so I haven't doublechecked.

Aaaah but just to bei sure, it IS of course Always possible to play Special characters, you just have to agree with your opponent that you use them. The campaigns I play are full of special characters.
Nur als they are, well, special, so per se Not really balanced, that's why they are not included in the Basic rules for tournament games.

 Just Tony wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In 5E, the DoW had several actual Special Characters that were totally optional (like KF and Teclis), and not integral to the character of the army, such as Borgio the Besieger, Miragliano, Belladonna, etc. For whatever reason, GW did not release rules for them in 6E, and that is even more the pity.

Actually, Borgio and Belladonna have rules in Chronicles 2004, and the Marksmen of Miragliano have rules in Warhammer Annual 2003 or Chronicles 2004, but I haven't needed them so I haven't doublechecked.

I just looked through Chronicles 2004, and didn't see Borgio rhe Besieger, Lucrezzia Belladonna, or Leonardo da Miragliano in there. Are the DoW Special Characters (also Mydas the Mean / Sheik Yadosh, Lorenzo Lupo and Marco Columbo) in another Chronicles? Because I don't ever recall them being updated for 6E.

Must be in Annual 2002 then, as I can't find it anywhere else. I KNOW they ran it in White Dwarf, I'll keep looking for it. I may know a site with PDFs...

I put all the ones i could find on wfb6thcharacters.blogspot.com as well

Yep, as soon as I saw Lorenzo Lupo I remembered he was in the batch of characters that were put out in WD. Pretty sure they are in Annual 2002, then. I'll have my brother check as he has my copy.

OK, I'll see if Google can give me what I'd need. If GW did 6E DoW SC's it just odd that I wouldn't have it.

I dont remember them being in 6th edition material, but it has been a very long time now.

I have made a list for DoW which I think should be playable.
What do you think?
General 90 220 LORD
Pegasus 50
Heavy Armour 10
Ench.Shield 20
Lance 15
Lucky charm 35



Battle Wizard, Lore of Light 25 180
PM Cure 25
BM Burning Gaze 50
Phas Illumination 50
Dispel Scroll 30


Paymaster 65 115
Heavy Armour 5
Citrin Talisman 40
Shield 5


5 light Horsemen 65 75
Bow 10


12 Crossbowmen 96 96

Pirazzos's lost Legion 255 295
2 add. Crossbowmen 20
4 add. Pikemen 20

19 Paymaster's Guard 152 162
Champion 10

11 Dwarf Quarellers 132 132



Cannon 100 100

Hengus & Giants 185 625
440






2000


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The army is a pretty shooty list, having many crossbowmen with long range fire of 30 " putting pressure on the enemy to come at you. They can dish out a serious amount of fire.
The cannon should be able to severely damage monsters and the like, but can of course also be used to decimate heavily armoured troops like knights or elite infantry.
The paymaster and his guard, as well as Pirazzo's Lost Legion are serving as anvils. The giants and the Lord on Pegasus serve as Hammer units.
Hengus can either use his magic missile to support the other shooting units in decimating big blocks, or take out troops of light cavalry and the likes who could try to divert the giants away from the action. His movement spell on the giants increases their attack range by 4 inch, making them a real threat for a wide area on the table. Even if they stay out of range or in long range of enemy missile units, they still will be capable to support the anvil units. The healing spell of the other wizard can be used to keep the giants alive longer, as they will of course be a primary target for enemy shooters.
Pha's illumination is allowing to re-roll all to hit rolls against the target enemy unit with ranged attacks, very useful in this shooty list. The other spell is a magic missile.

Light Horsemen are there to divert attacks from units, if necessary.

Not too bad I think, though the list of course has its weaknesses too. You will have to keep a free line of sight for 2 big missile units, therefore limiting your possibilities in positioning other units.
Only one unit there to divert problematic other units.
Very fast armies with many fliers, and cavalry (like Bretons) can be problematic.
Armies that out-gun your army are also very problematic, as your army is supposed to stay behind and pick their attacks carefully, not charge out and go get'em. a very shooty dwarf army or empire army can amass more firepower if they really want to.
But all in all, this is a well-rounded list. I think at least

Maybe the Paymaster's Guard could be reduced by some models to get free points another light unit like duelists...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, I'll see if Google can give me what I'd need. If GW did 6E DoW SC's it just odd that I wouldn't have it.

Chronicles 2003 page 112-113

 brr-icy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, I'll see if Google can give me what I'd need. If GW did 6E DoW SC's it just odd that I wouldn't have it.

Chronicles 2003 page 112-113

I KNEW I remembered seeing them in ONE of those books. Hell, Ashley used Borgio against me in a game of 6th a few years back.

 brr-icy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, I'll see if Google can give me what I'd need. If GW did 6E DoW SC's it just odd that I wouldn't have it.

Chronicles 2003 page 112-113

Thanks! I'll go hunt it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 brr-icy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, I'll see if Google can give me what I'd need. If GW did 6E DoW SC's it just odd that I wouldn't have it.

Chronicles 2003 page 112-113

Thanks! I'll go hunt it.

I can send you a copy if you have no luck.

 Moscha wrote:
I have made a list for DoW which I think should be playable.
What do you think?
General 90 220 LORD
Pegasus 50
Heavy Armour 10
Ench.Shield 20
Lance 15
Lucky charm 35



Battle Wizard, Lore of Light 25 180
PM Cure 25
BM Burning Gaze 50
Phas Illumination 50
Dispel Scroll 30


Paymaster 65 115
Heavy Armour 5
Citrin Talisman 40
Shield 5


5 light Horsemen 65 75
Bow 10


12 Crossbowmen 96 96

Pirazzos's lost Legion 255 295
2 add. Crossbowmen 20
4 add. Pikemen 20

19 Paymaster's Guard 152 162
Champion 10

11 Dwarf Quarellers 132 132



Cannon 100 100

Hengus & Giants 185 625
440






2000


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The army is a pretty shooty list, having many crossbowmen with long range fire of 30 " putting pressure on the enemy to come at you. They can dish out a serious amount of fire.
The cannon should be able to severely damage monsters and the like, but can of course also be used to decimate heavily armoured troops like knights or elite infantry.
The paymaster and his guard, as well as Pirazzo's Lost Legion are serving as anvils. The giants and the Lord on Pegasus serve as Hammer units.
Hengus can either use his magic missile to support the other shooting units in decimating big blocks, or take out troops of light cavalry and the likes who could try to divert the giants away from the action. His movement spell on the giants increases their attack range by 4 inch, making them a real threat for a wide area on the table. Even if they stay out of range or in long range of enemy missile units, they still will be capable to support the anvil units. The healing spell of the other wizard can be used to keep the giants alive longer, as they will of course be a primary target for enemy shooters.
Pha's illumination is allowing to re-roll all to hit rolls against the target enemy unit with ranged attacks, very useful in this shooty list. The other spell is a magic missile.

Light Horsemen are there to divert attacks from units, if necessary.

Not too bad I think, though the list of course has its weaknesses too. You will have to keep a free line of sight for 2 big missile units, therefore limiting your possibilities in positioning other units.
Only one unit there to divert problematic other units.
Very fast armies with many fliers, and cavalry (like Bretons) can be problematic.
Armies that out-gun your army are also very problematic, as your army is supposed to stay behind and pick their attacks carefully, not charge out and go get'em. a very shooty dwarf army or empire army can amass more firepower if they really want to.
But all in all, this is a well-rounded list. I think at least

Maybe the Paymaster's Guard could be reduced by some models to get free points another light unit like duelists...

To bring the original topic back up: Would you consider this list too shooty? I think it is still ok, as it is by far not a gunline, rather a defensive approach of an army list with a focus on S4 ranged attacks.

I think you won't do enough damage to keep a charge from hitting home, and that's disastrous since you don't have much static Combat Res sitting in the back ground.

Do you think I should enlarge my anvil units?
I was hoping they are big enough. paymasters guard is stubborn as long as he is in the unit...

Just seems like two units as anvils is a bit light. Not only that, but Halberdiers aren't really survivable on the charge and that's where anvil units really shine. Hold from the charge, keep from running, cav or smaller unit flanks.

I see your point...

Hmm. I do think the paymaster's guard could hold for at least 2 rounds, as long as the paymaster is alive, and therefore work at least once as an anvil . But as soon as he gets killed, the unit is in trouble. He has all the protection he can get on foot, but it is still only a 4+ armor save. He also ignores the first wound suffered due to his magic talisman, but still it is only a t4 model with 2 wounds.
If I removed the paymaster and his unit, I could replace it with the Brotherhood of Alcatani, which is stubborn and armed with pikes.
This still doesn't solve the problem of having only 2 anvil units, but if I want Hengus and his giants to be in the army, I see not too much possibilities to free up additional points for a third unit.
We could make the General go on foot, throw out the light cavalry, cut Pirazzos unit to the minimum. Then we had enough points for a third unit of pikemen with full command and the General in it.

Not a fan of light cav, to be honest. I'd shop around for the cheapest ballistic troops you have access to. Pinching pennies is an art form, but well worth it.

Here are some Feedback from Warhammer CE when looking at it first, i may have another look afterwards but these are things that first come to mind:


SPECIAL RULES:
I have a feeling that rules like RAMSHACKLE or MARCH BLOCKER complicates things without giving much in return. Given, FB armybooks have always had unit specified rules and such.

POISONED ATTACKS: I think i like the basic rules of this better.

SCOUT: More than 18" away from the deploy is almost at players own deployment zone -> Makes this rule not really a useful one ?

VANGUARD: Did not spot this rule in the rulebook at first look ?

IMMUNE TO PSYCHOLOGY: Wonder why units with this rule cannot choose a Flee reaction -> Shouldn't it indicate a person who is immune to outside influence so -> Also the decision to Flee ?

FEAR and PARRY rules seems like a good ones. I do not know though is it necessary to have a both BLOCK and PARRY rules.

MAGIC RESISTANCE: seems also an ok version of this.

ENTRENCHED: This seems like a decent rule.

VOLLEY FIRE: Seems like this rule is not used in this edition ? In my opinion, Volley fire rule is a really good one. With re-reading the shooting rules this is something i really do like in the original setting, when models can shoot through one rank (which realistically can be done) and with whole unit when using the rules of VOLLEY FIRE. Introducing a VOLLEY FIRE rule back then was one of the best things when it happened. What is the reasoning behind these shooting rules ? This favours greatly expensive and rare units with effective weapons as basic ranged weaponry cannot inflict damage to justify them when using bigger units. I also disliked those 10 lines of crossbowmens / handgunners or similar units a lot, and making it 2x5 unit is a lot more convenient for the game play.

SKIRMISHERS: Doesnt the loose formation they are in already affect how many the template weapons are hitting. (Preferring to "-1 to hit" with templates, meaning "partial hits" ?)

LIGHT INFANTRY: This seems like a unneccessary type -> This feels like a skirmishing unit without skirmishing ? Whats the point in this. Also if this unit is supposed to move in columns, how can it pull off these feats ?

HEAVY CAVALRY: Seems like a strange thing to not let them March, making them as slow as infantry units ?


DAGGER: This seems to be more of a thing in Mordheim than in WHFB. But if more weapon setups is needed, might i also suggest a "Heavy hand weapon", or similar setup that negates one point of armor and is cumbersome, so gives penalty to initiative or something. (Kind of a "Reverse Dagger")

Still fail to see though, why dagger would have less armor penetration. Maybe it's just for giving the option.

COMMON ITEMS: It seems there are no common items at all ?


POINT MECHANISM:
This is quite a fresh and interesting approach. I think there are some potential in this. This might be included in the regular hammer making this the only restricting factor when building armies and reworking the point costs of the army books to make a somewhat balanced original setting.


SPELL CASTERS:
At the first look, the point cost of spells are quite something, and makes the magic quite costly. Maybe a bit more so. First thing that came to mind was to take as cheap wizard as possible for the dispel purposes, as it seems mandatory which should not be the case if the basic principle of the version is to avoid that kind of things.

I also like the ability to boost the spells. Makes them more versatile. It seems the spells are more simplified in this.

DISPELLING: I personally like when player is able to dispel without a wizard. There should at least be options for people who do not want to wield a wizard (via some items and / or units may be ?) to dispell without one.


ARABY:
Restricting Bowmen (At least in Araby list) with current shooting rules seems like a far streched thing. Who would want to spam those anyway ?

Seems like the most effective thing to do is to take as cheap wizard as possible for dispelling purposes and lots of melee units.

Also making 2 roc cost 250 pts a piece (?) instead of taking 1 roc for 200 seems to make only 1 mandatory.

This system makes things as it is maybe other way around, so it restricts the style of a play where there are more than one restricted units and forces the players to take only one of these choises which is not truly a choice. It's basically the reverse version of forcing to spam stronger units.

I suspect the ideal solution would be to avoid both ends, that all choices would be viable.

I also really do not know, is that Roc even worth 200 pts as it is, having only 4 Wounds and all.

It's too early to say though, because it seems other units are also more expensive in this.


BEASTS OF CHAOS:
At least in case of Bestigors, the almost twice as expensive Palace Guard of Araby seemed quite overcosted in comparsion.

I do not really know about this. Let's say one wants to play a monster smash list with chaos -> Just picks one of every monster instead of picking two of the same. I'd say the given rules gives even more option for spamming monsters in this case than the previous ones. Really depends how many similar units is available in the roster but in this case there are plenty.

The solution to power gaming in this would probably be to spam troops without the cost mechanism + spam different units with similar troop types for maximizing the effect.

Does not really differ from what people have used to, but this is probably only available for some of the armies.

The mechanims is probably too harsh, i think it should be softened a bit, or make it half of what it is for the extreme cases.


CHAOS DWARF:
In this case the obvious would be one of each War machines, and some minor shooting + Lots of slaves. The hellcannon though, seems quite overcosted at the first glance and the Dreadquake mortar seems rather cheap for 120 pts.


DARK ELVES:
Probably should add the mechanism for Cold one Knights, as it seems an army containing only these is a viable option.


DoW:
There is a type on Ogre (Oger) entry. Maybe this is intentional though, because Golgfag's Oger's are also Ogers.


EMPIRE:
So, the Halberdiers can block with their halerds. I think this is not a good option for them.

Suppose having detachments is a way around that cost mechanics for missile troops ?

Though, this should only be relevant in the smaller games where it gives an edge. Having to deploy them 10 wide makes them situational and not fitting in the bigger games.

Probably should add that mechanism to Greatswords for same reason as Cold one knights. Why give it to basic archers and not these ?

In case of Crossbowmen / Handgunners it's against the general idea of the system that 2 units o crossbowmen costs more than 1 unit of each. When thinking about this, these chould be stacked that they cost the same amount and let the players choose whether they want to include Handgunners and Crossbowmen instead of the rules that dictate them to pick one of each.

One solution would be a mechanism that punishes unit types like -> Having more missile troops makes them more costly regardless of what they are -> Having more War machines / Monsters / Cavalry / Elite infantry makes them all more costly.

In a way it is, this system can be exploited and it restricts certain types of builds that would not otherwise be too strong or problematic.


KISLEV:
Again, it's odd that it's possible to produce an army containing only bears that for some rason, are outside the cost mechanism.


LIZARDMEN:
Suppose no infantry unit may have 2 attacks ?

I am starting to get a feeling, that this might be even more imbalanced than the original one ?

I might do a couple of lists for you later, which should be completely out of place.

The meta game is also a bit gruesome, as in some cases the system enables army specialization and / or spamming of units even more than the original setting. I believe this is a thing that this project specifically wants to avoid and this could be easily fixed by adding the mechanism to some units and restricting the amount of monsters / war machines in general making it viable to use more than one of each unit and / or making it unviable to spam 1 of each.

Let's say for example: Lizardman army have a (Dino) text written below the monster units. Maybe the mechanism could add cost for additional (Dino) units, not just the individual (Dino) unit disabling a situation where 3 different dinos is way more cost efficient than 2 dinos of the same type.

This same style could be used with (Cavalry) or (Missile) or (Elite) or (War Machine) and so.

It also would let the creator of the roster a freedom to not add all cavalry units inside that restriction for example in Bretonnian army, where the basic core knights would go outside this mechanism and the specialized knights like Questing knights and Grail knights would be restricted as a group.

In my opinion, this is a better way to accomplish what i believe is the goal in this system.


OGRE:
25 pts for an additional ogre might be a bit too cheap (?).

Again, Yehetees are not restricted. But in this case, would probably not be optiomal to spam these anyway.


SKAVEN:
This gets repeatative, but i suppose those weapon teams are restricted individually.

Rat ogres seems rather expensive.


TOMB KINGS:
Have a feeling that skeletons might be overcosted in this.

In this case, there are no elite units that are outside the cost mechanism even in most cases there usually is at least one. This is how i think it's probably meant to be ?


VAMPIRE COUNTS:
So the ghouls are the only infantry that can keep the 2 attacks ?

Ghouls seem way more effective than skeletons and zombies.


WARRIORS OF CHAOS:
Seems like warriors are also keeping their 2 attacks. Why did saurus warriors lose it ?

Because they are slow ?

Chosen is as much as an Ogre ?

I doubt they are comparable in strenght.

Able to spam 5 monsters.


OVERALL FEELING:
This version is giving a feeling that it is not a Warhammer game, but something different. There are too many complex rules for it to feel like regular warhammer. Maybe with the added complexity it resembles more of 2-3ed warhammer, than the newer ones.

There are some good ideas there, but overall there are some major things (Like shooting rules) that i like better in the original version, which seems to make it a better version for me.

Immune to Psychology has always denied a Flee reaction, that's part of the base Warhammer rules, not something CE added.

Have to say there are some things i had not noticed when i made the reply as for example:

In some cases the monsters do stack in the cost mechanism.

I suppose only one rank of the models can fight.

Monsters and Monstours infantry do not have Stomp / Thunderstomp rules.

When taking these in to account, the rule set seems quite stable / balanced and seems to favour a type of play that combines different elements in the army.


At first though however, this could make the gameplay more static than for example in 8ed.

Thanks for your extensive feedback in the first place.

You adress a lot of points, some have already been clarified by yourself (all correct!) and the oney with ITP was explained competently by Platuan4th.

Concerning point costs, I encourage you to write powergaming lists and the idea why it is / could be problematic. I always find this very helpful, as thise can be tested "in the field" and if necessary, point costs / pooling can be modified in the next version of the Living Rulebook!

SPECIAL RULES:
I have a feeling that rules like RAMSHACKLE or MARCH BLOCKER complicates things without giving much in return. Given, FB armybooks have always had unit specified rules and such.

Ramshackle full akk.. Really not necessary in my book, too.
But march blocker is an important rule. As you are not allowed to march if you have a unit with Unit strength of 5+ in 8" at the beginning of your movement phase, this rule is given to some monstrous units with a lower Unit strength like Giant Eagles as a tactical element to be taken into account. Not too many units have this rule though, but as Unit Strength is an important part in other game situations (+1 for having a higher unit strength in melee, fear and higher unit strength cause to double the modificator of break tests...) it was better to introduce this rule than simply increase the unit strengh, for example.

POISONED ATTACKS: I think i like the basic rules of this better.

I like the new rules better. Units with a high toughness have a really big disadvantage compared to others. But this is really personal opinion. In the end, I am happy with my Witch Elves this way ot the other.

SCOUT: More than 18" away from the deploy is almost at players own deployment zone -> Makes this rule not really a useful one ?

You have to keep the 18" only if you are placing them in line of sight, and not behind scenery parts that grant them hard or soft cover. Mind that in CE, terrain often blocks Line of sight, not like in 8th. So, if you place scouts out of line of sight of enemy units or behind e.g. a fence so they get light cover, it is allowed to place them as close as 12" to the enemy lines.

VANGUARD: Did not spot this rule in the rulebook at first look ?

Correct, rule of 8th edition that was not carried over to CE. I found the rule nice in 8th too, I will ask Seelenhaendler why it was not taken into account for CE.

FEAR and PARRY rules seems like a good ones. I do not know though is it necessary to have a both BLOCK and PARRY rules.

I dont't know either. The game would do fine with one rule the parry rule or the block rule I think. Block rule is quite common, e.g. halberdiers make use of it to improve their AS in CC (of course they still can attack! Maybe the word blocking was misleading, if I interpret one of your later questions right? )
I guess the rules author introduced these rules to make units a bit more distinguishable without bloating the special rules section of the singular army lists.

VOLLEY FIRE: Seems like this rule is not used in this edition ? In my opinion, Volley fire rule is a really good one. With re-reading the shooting rules this is something i really do like in the original setting, when models can shoot through one rank (which realistically can be done) and with whole unit when using the rules of VOLLEY FIRE. Introducing a VOLLEY FIRE rule back then was one of the best things when it happened. What is the reasoning behind these shooting rules ? This favours greatly expensive and rare units with effective weapons as basic ranged weaponry cannot inflict damage to justify them when using bigger units. I also disliked those 10 lines of crossbowmens / handgunners or similar units a lot, and making it 2x5 unit is a lot more convenient for the game play.

I also liked the slimmer formation in 8th for shooting units.
But, that shooting of exactly these units was a problem even WITHOUT the volley fire rule. Due to this, the point costs for most ranged combat units was increased in the last update from version 1.04 to 1.05. This would also mean the shooting units would have to get more expensive.
In 8th, horde rules were introduced, as well as step up, support attacks, steadfast.. all rules that benefiited big blocks of units. To put something against that, Volley Fire was introduced.
As these rules are not part of CE, there is also no need for the volley fire rule. I am with you, it is not helping in aestetics, but in terms of balance, these rule would cause severe problems.
I'd like to adress briefly your concerns that basic missile units are ineffictive - this is not the case. Why? Several reasons, why basic missile units are quite effective in CE.
1. Psychology tests cannot be re-rolled in 12" around the Army Standard Bearer, just the Break tests.
2. Units are considerably smaller
3. Good saves are hard to come by, or the unit is slowed down. There is no unit in the game with an armor save of 2+ which is not considered heavy cavalry, if I'm not totally wrong here.
=> more failed panic tests
=> easier to score points for units below 50% of original Unit Strength)

SKIRMISHERS: Doesnt the loose formation they are in already affect how many the template weapons are hitting. (Preferring to "-1 to hit" with templates, meaning "partial hits" ?)

It could, if you stretch your formation a lot. But this has big, big disadvantages too! => you can be charged more easily (obviously), you might not be able to shoot with all of your models because some are not in range(as you can target only one enemy unit), if you decide to charge an enemy unit, distance to the enemy is measured from each single model, those that cannot reach the enemy cannot attack.
So in theory, yes, you can minimize damage to your skirmishers by spreading them far, but in the same turn you reduce their effectiveness a big deal.

LIGHT INFANTRY: This seems like a unneccessary type -> This feels like a skirmishing unit without skirmishing ? Whats the point in this. Also if this unit is supposed to move in columns, how can it pull off these feats ?

I think the best thing introduced to CE is Light infantry. Love it. Movement is basically like Light cavalry, they also move in columns and have the same rules for unlimited reforms etc.

HEAVY CAVALRY: Seems like a strange thing to not let them March, making them as slow as infantry units ?

This is a rule that is criticized a lot, but it was considered to be very important for the balance of the ruleset. As it is based on 6th/7th edition. Back then, fast cavalry was the nonplusultra. Everywhere fast, hard hitting and a high armor save.(remember: No step up, no support attacks, attacker strikes first! ).

DAGGER: This seems to be more of a thing in Mordheim than in WHFB. But if more weapon setups is needed, might i also suggest a "Heavy hand weapon", or similar setup that negates one point of armor and is cumbersome, so gives penalty to initiative or something. (Kind of a "Reverse Dagger"

Funny. I didn't even notice this rule exists until now! Yeah, sounds pretty useless. Maybe it was introduced to because of some ancient unit from 4th or 5 th edition that is playable again now.

So a guy on a horse is only 13-25% faster than a stubby dwarf?

as fast as a chariot. oddly, no one cares about that.

Chariots, i'm not super happy with either since they are really a waste of time if you are using a cavalry army, but makes more sense since it's saying you can't move "on the double" when pulling a super heavy chunk of metal and wood behind you, and it's balanced out with the impact hits. What's the benefit of cavalry then? they're slower than humans walking if they're barded, facing a dwarf or empire gunline, they'd be mostly dead before they got across the board, rendering their 2-2.5 times as many points as a foot solider moot.

It also renders scouts and flying machines even worse points vs value as they don't need to march block much of anything anymore, and rewards the people that don't use much strategy besides shoot and charge. nothing fast can flank.

I see where you're going with it, but pulling a bungie with destiny 2 and swatting a butterfly with a hand grenade until all the fun's gone is not going to keep players happy. Effectively it kills the Bretonnian army with one rule change. The biggest issue i've had with newer rulesets than sixth is just that, yeah there's something powerful about every army, but that's part of the fun isn't it? You get one thing that is crazy powerful that has it's weakness to exploit. Take a hellcannon, shoot those three pesky dwarfs off of it, and it's chewing up your opponent's army for you. There's those few builds that can be ridiculous if the player chooses to build that way. (RAF, Flying Circus, etc) But those type of players lose opponents fast. If someone is deliberately exploiting the powerful lists repeatedly, I don't really feel inspired to call them up for a game, deciding to opt to play a more fun game with another person.

TL;DR I'm not a balance heavy person. I despise super balanced games as it's always at the sacrifice of fun

Thats when i wrote the second reply when i realized i had a hard time to find those kind of lists as i was not aware of some of the basic mechanisms at first.

If something comes to mind its probably not that much race specific but magic seems too costly to invest a lot and not taking it seems not like an option.

At first thought units like bestigors and greatswordmen might be good picks.

2x10 wraiths is possibly quite nasty even with added points from the mechanism. Add a character kitted for individual combat + dispel scroll and probably a banshee or two. Ghouls seem also a really good unit, at least compared to zombies and skeletons. A wight lord with ring of the night and sword of kings could also fit there to hunt those magic weapons.

I believe that would be quite strong and hard to deal with as most of the magic is probably sorted for utility and i believe its rare to have more than on spell that causes direct damage.

Wraiths have always been quite a problematic unit that dictate the game, in some editions i remember them being only available as hero models.


As for the balance, isnt it possible to choose rules first and balance aftewards with unit costs rather than changing the game rules based on point costs ?


Also in a rule sets that use more dice rolls tend to create more uneven situations of course, regardless of the armies. In this edition the meridians of dice should be quite stable.


I personally prefer different kind of approach but i think this edition is definetely good to have and i would imagine to enjoy playing it.

Well who says you can't have a fun and fluff game when the rules are balanced? It is not that way, that armies using heavy cavalry are not working. they are just not good in everything. it takes you 3-4 rounds to get to charge instead of 2-3.
Good you mentioned Bretonnia. They are considered to be very competitive in CE. and if you like to field faster units, go for medium or light cavalry.
I would not consider myself to be a very competitive player, I am rather a beer and pretzels kind of player. In all editioms so far, I brought an army whoch felt right in a fliffy way. Orc Boys, a Boss on Boar and some Boar Boys, 2 Shamans, some Night Goblons, Spear Chuckas or a rock lobber, and a bunch of trolls for example. In each and every edotion Iplayed so far, I always felt I had a certain disadvantage against, lets say more specoalized armies. I either got oitgunned badly or just run over.
Never happened to me in CE at 2000 points. All the games Iplayed were great so far and I play it for 5 years now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Greatswords are considered to be a good choice by 2of 3 empre players I played against. And I am of the same opinion. The point costs of Bestigors have just been reduced because they were considered to be too expensive, let's see if this stands the test of time haha.
Beastmen have the disadvantage of being unruly, this has to be considered of course..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amai wrote:
Thats when i wrote the second reply when i realized i had a hard time to find those kind of lists as i was not aware of some of the basic mechanisms at first.

If something comes to mind its probably not that much race specific but magic seems too costly to invest a lot and not taking it seems not like an option.

At first thought units like bestigors and greatswordmen might be good picks.


As for the balance, isnt it possible to choose rules first and balance aftewards with unit costs rather than changing the game rules based on point costs ?

I have seen both in magic, a single spellcaster to ward off enemy magic, and a Slann with maxed out spells.

The balancing is exactly improved the way you say after the basic rules have been set. Ithink what the author had in mind when he changed some of the rules (it is not all too much, the first version said more or less"take 7th ed rulebook with the following exceptions... "was that some of the rules that he intentionally changed like poison, flammable etc. were hard to give a fair amount of points, as the use is very situative.
That is my explanation at least. thanks a lot for your feedback, both brr-icy and Amai!! It is very welcome!

This is a list i could imagine to be hard to deal with:

Necromancer + Van hel's + Unnerwing Whispers + Dispel Scroll = 175 pts
Wight Lord + Barded Skeletal Steed + Shield + Ring of the Night + Sword of the Kings = 210 pts
Banshee = 100 pts

5 Dire Wolves = 50 pts
20 Ghouls = 200 pts
18 Ghouls = 182 pts

2x10 Wraiths = 860 pts
4 Spirit Hosts = 220 pts

= 1997 pts

Spirit hosts could also be changed to produce 3x20 Ghouls.


Probably optimizing even further:

Necromancer + Van hel's + Unnerwing Whispers + Dispel Scroll = 175 pts
Wight Lord + Barded Skeletal Steed + Cursed Shield of Mousillon + Ring of the Night + Sword of the Kings = 235 pts
Banshee = 100 pts

2x20 Ghouls + Champion = 420 pts

2x10 Wraiths = 860 pts
4 Spirit Hosts = 220 pts

= 2000 pts

Dislike the change (?) that lets undead always march + Crumbling being only for one turn. Makes them less characteristic. Would also have been one of that army's main weaknesses.

Sword of the Kings seems also quite cheap considering what threat it poses.


One thing to consider would be making the cost mechanism more light for the dublicate but more hard for 3+ units for example by lowering the amount and adding 2x and 4x modifiers.

This way units that would be concidered "Special" would have easier time with only 2 choices and units that would be concidered as "Rare" would remains as they are.

(Not referring to the case of wraiths though)

The Wraiths are definitively a unit that is very hard. costly as well, for sure, as they have to win their points somewhen. I underestimated them when I played against a Vampire player once in a tournament. Our Vampire player never uses rhem, he is rather the Necromancer player with a master necromancer and another necromancer and hordes of skeletons and zombies, grave guard and that big fat flying monster.
so when I saw these 7 or 8 wraiths in the list, I had in mind:Charge em with my silver helms and the hero with the magic lance, crumbling will do the rest. I did not realize that they have 2 wounds each... so I won the first round by 2 or so, but then I got stuck and butchered.
But I think you overlooked the shambling rule.... units with this rule cannot march except if in 12" of the general. so if you want to be able to march with the wraiths, you must remain within 12"of the necromancer.

Note: killing blow just inflicts 1 wound without armor saves, not auto kills the model.

The list is tough though. A lot of parts that cannot be wounded except by magic. Terror causing units, and the fast ghouls with light infantry.

Can you explain the last part with the multipliers 2x and 4x? I am not sure if I understand what you meant.

I meant that in some cases the cost mechanism seems too hard in my opinion and restricts some choises maybe too harshly.

Traditionally there have been "Special" and "Rare" units in the game.

There could be difference let's say for example an elite infantry that have traditionally been special unit that have cost modifier 50 pts could be dropped to have a 25 pts cost modifier but doubling it if taking more than doubles so when you take two of them, the cost modifier would be 25 pts for both units = 50 pts, so half of the usual and if you take triple of them the cost modifier would be 50 pts as it would have normally be so 3 units would be 150 pts as it have been but 2 unit would be 50 pts so, easier to manage.

One way to do this would make the modifier start at three so two units of white lions would be 50 + 50 and one unit of phoenix guard and one unit of white lions would also be 50 + 50 so no difference there but taking 3 units of white lions would be restricted more harshly as it would serve as a "cap" between special and rare.

This follows the idea that Special units were capped at 3 and rare at 2 units in the past (So one more for special than rare). This would allow more freedom of choise for those units that are not so much game breaking, but some players would like to take as doubles. As it is now it usually seems, that only one would be viable for most of the restricted units. (So everything being "Rare" in a way.)

 Moscha wrote:

HEAVY CAVALRY: Seems like a strange thing to not let them March, making them as slow as infantry units ?

This is a rule that is criticized a lot, but it was considered to be very important for the balance of the ruleset. As it is based on 6th/7th edition. Back then, fast cavalry was the nonplusultra. Everywhere fast, hard hitting and a high armor save.(remember: No step up, no support attacks, attacker strikes first! ).

ANY chance I had of being on board with Warhamer CE was cast aside with this right here. I've posted the math on the forums here and on OTHER sites enough to show that the "Cav beats everything all the time" nonsense is indeed nonsense. Fixes built off netlisting and meta misinterpretation are NOT what I want in my rulesets.

Cavalry dominated 6th and 7th edition because of the plethora of 1+ saves, and everyone was fielding MSU checkerboards of cavalry themselves, and he who charged first won.

Additionally people loved their deathstars with super heroes pushed into the cav units.

The cavalry rules were not the problem. The fact that the game lacked a step up mechanic and things like pikes and spears were not accurately represented made cavalry strong due to the powergamers realizing that cav were fast so charged first and no step up meant they just had to do 1-2 casualties to minimize return attacks and force a break.

Bonus points for having a hero or two destroy the front rank by themselves.

Problem with step up: It solves a problem and creates another.

Point costs have to be totally thrown over and a completely new balancing hast to be set up.

@ Tony: As auticus states correctly, cavalry dominated 6th and 7th. The most successful tournament armies were including heavy cav. with excellent armor save, a fast hard hitter to dominate the game. At least in Germany. At an European level definitively too. It is fact. Not nonsense. I think by meta misinterpretation you mean that the ruleset is based on personal game experience, leading to a false interpretation that something is "over the top" and should therefore be limited (for obviously wrong reasons). CE was built up on the experience of tournament play in the heyday of 7th.
I am not for so long around here in Dakka. Can you post a link to your calculations, so we can discuss it? I am interested, although Math Hammer is not my favorite hobby,
In the end, the game is more than "6 attacks WS 4 S5 plus 5 WS 3 S3 against WS 3 T3 AS 5 equals 4 dead Spearmen, Unit Strength, Ranks plus Standard equals 5, so Spearmen are better than Heavy Cav.".
It's also a question of threat range, and possbilities to get into favorable positions, of possibility to gain a Net WIN of point costs out of the deployment of the unit. It is also a question how "forgiving" a unit is to a bad movement decision. Units with a high movement rate are fovorable there. Heavy Cav excels in all of these points, and therefore was problematic.
CE solves this by reducing the radius of the unit. No more, no less.
In many armies, you can choose cavalry with a 3+ armor save or less, so you still have the abovementioned advantages, and can still march. But a 3+ save ist only worth half of a 2+ or even a 1+, so it is possible for your opponent to damage the unit severely.

Ok here is another:

TOMB KINGS:

Tomb King + Cursed Blades + Urgency + Execution + Gw + Amulet of Pha-sta = 340 pts

30 Tomb Guard + Full Command + Mirage Standard = 460 pts
3 Carrion = 75 pts

2 Khemrian Warsphinx = 600 pts
1 Necrosphinx = 325 pts
1 Necrolith Colossus = 200 pts

= 2000 pts

Possibe swap is Carrions for Necrotect.



NORSE:

Konnugr + Warhorse + Shield + Ice Blade + Frost Pendant + Werewolf Hide = 205 pts
Battle Standard + Warhorse + Polar Pelt + Mead of Damnation = 125 pts
Godi + Death Frenzy + Frost Blades + The Beast Cowers + Dispel Scroll = 190 pts
= 520 pts

3x30 Axemen = 480 pts
40 Spearmen + Full Command + Frost Fjord Standard = 330 pts
2x40 Bondsmen + Spears = 220 pts

1 War Mammoth = 250 pts
1 Frost Giant = 200 pts

= 2000 pts



BEASTS OF CHAOS:

Great Bray Shaman + Shroud of Darkness + Dark Fury + Doom and Darkness + Word of Pain + Rune of the True Beast + Staff of Darkoth = 275 pts
Battle Standard + Crimson Armor of Dargan + Amulet of Chaos = 140 pts

30 Bestigor + Full Command + War banner = 375 pts
40 Ungor + Spear + Standard + Musician = 160 pts
40 Ungor + Spear + Standard = 155 pts
2x25 Ungor = 160 pts

8 Minotaurs + Gw = 325 pts
7 Minotaurs + Gw = 290 pts

1 Razorgor = 60 pts
5 Harpy = 60 pts

= 2000 pts

This list would be super weak against the list with Ethereal spam.



THE EMPIRE:

This is the core build i would go as Empire gunline but not sure about the character setup though. Empire characters seem quite feeble, and the Runefang sure is costly with only 3 attacks.

Master Engineer + Granade Launching Blunderbuss = 50 pts

30 Halberdier = 140 pts
10 Crossbowmen = 80 pts

2x25 Greatswords = 440 pts

3x10 Outriders = 690 pts

Mortar = 75 pts
Cannon = 100 pts
Volley Gun = 125 pts
Halfling Hot Pot = 50 pts

Lots of outriders though and i doubt, that any other army manages a gunline this dangerous.



LIZARDMEN:

Not sure how the "Drop Rocks" ability works, but it's possible to manage a quite irritating nuisance list around these units. 2x12 Terradons for example, possible deleting almost any elite infantry block in the game with expection of Ironbreakers.


SKAVEN:

Seems plenty strong when taking lots of Clanrats and different weapon teams + Jezzails & Poison Wind Globadiers against targets with high Toughness value. Probably wielding more than 300 rats with them.



On side note, here are some probable spelling corrections in the army lists that i have found:

Skaven: Cautious Shield says "By not attacking in this combat" -> Probably means that "in this combat round"

Norse: Athem of Mockery is probably meant to be "Anthem"

Norse: "Body Guard" is probably typed "Bodyguard"

High Elf: Nagarythe Hatred: This is probably meant for Dark elf instead.

Dow: In Halfling Ranger entry there is strange "je" before +7p. (Is that French ?)

Empire: Banner of Steel from White Wolves is not explained what it does ?



Need clarification on this: In Drop Rocks -> What is meant by "hit like template weapons" ?

Tried to check this from the rules but did not finde any general references to this.

Not bad haha,
You exploit the fact that the multiplier for tomb king large targets is only for the single entries, not a group like monsters for e.g. beastmen.

The Tomb guard and the tomb king are a point "bunker". Hard to get for the opponent.

Downside of the army: Mostly slow moving large targets. Enemies with high strength ranged attacks are a problem. You prabably will have trouble getting your spells through when you need them, as the opponent will always save his dice to dispel your movement spell. Probably not going into close combat with your tomb king block at all. It is easy to avoid.

Yes, the purpose is to find things to exploit for purposes of balancing the game.

Tinkerin atm Lizardman and Skaven gunlines.

From some lists i currently find nothing, like ogres for example and probably DoW (Which seem rather weak).


For the Tomb King army: That's why there are carrions.


I'm beginnin to see some tactical gameplay elements in this. The armour composition is actually guite nice, having the 4+ armors only for specialized groups like dwarf and chaos and having lots of special rules to affect only of units front. I suspect lots of though have been put in to this.

It still feels quite a silly to build armies that do not have any core, but still this could probably be (or will end up as ?) the best ruleset for balanced play.

 Moscha wrote:
Can you post a link to your calculations, so we can discuss it? I am interested, although Math Hammer is not my favorite hobby,
In the end, the game is more than "6 attacks WS 4 S5 plus 5 WS 3 S3 against WS 3 T3 AS 5 equals 4 dead Spearmen, Unit Strength, Ranks plus Standard equals 5, so Spearmen are better than Heavy Cav.".

So we start with a Cavalry unit at 5 man, since this is typically listed as all it takes to sweep any unit off the board. We'll have it facing down what should be the typical mainstay units of an army, and we'll go crappy Core units as well.

Assume a 5 man front on a regiment at least 4 ranks deep. Any less than 4 ranks eliminates rank bonus for combat resolution, which is the true key for turning a close combat. People COULD run little min sized units of 10 with 4 man fronts, but it would be asinine to do so, and I can't come up with one logical reason someone would do that.

Assume full command on both units. Spot of contention here at times, but I'd like to keep things pretty squared up.

With the exception of Chaos Knights who are INDEED an exception, your average Knight unit will be WS 3 or 4, so we will roll with that. Assuming the receiving unit is WS 3, you can allocate 4 hits from the Cavalry riders. Steeds? Not so much. WS 3 on average, so they get a saucy uneven 2.5 hits.

So we're tracking 7 hits against the infantry unit, 4 at St 5-6 depending on the rider, and 3 at St 3 with very few notable exceptions.

3 of those 4 wound on average for the riders, and we will lose half of the horse wounds with an awkward 1.25 wounds.

Saves are a bit tougher to work out as you have such a wide berth of options on Core Infantry. With a simple 5+ you will more than likely get 4 gone, but it's more like 3.95 gone. Assuming you have a champion left in the unit as we have yet to dedicate attacks to the Infantry Champion, he will hit back with 2 hits. That is assuming that the unit doesn't have spears, halberds, or great weapons as this shifts the dynamic significantly.

In a perfectly average batch of rolling you will see a draw. A draw. Adding in characters will skew the model either direction, and we can go over that later.

NOW, let's say someone goes in knowing that, and builds their forces around taking a hit. Core regiments with spears will then have 7 attacks back at the knights with a good chance of swinging the 1 wound needed to bring the tie to a win for the Infantry. That's just a bog standard example, less of a chance against any WS 4 Infantry such as Dwarfs or any Elves.

The only way you can sweep with a Cav unit is to run it deep enough to get at least 1 rank bonus and bring a saucy blender lord with it, which then makes it a target for any shooting that an army can bring to bear. If the unit is 10 Cav strong including characters, it will only take 3 wounds to guarantee that the unit can't get the rank bonus. In a vacuum the Knights against most Infantry simply aren't killy enough to guarantee a sweep. Throw in ANY terrain, the widely available chaff units, and once again any player with an ounce of strategic sense to design units to survive that hit, and Cav doesn't justify a nerf like the lack of march moves that CE brings.

One day when I'm EXCESSIVELY bored I plan on doing a massive chart comparing every Cav unit against every infantry unit based on averages of rolls needed, I'm pretty sure the results will confirm what I'm saying already.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Moscha wrote:
Can you post a link to your calculations, so we can discuss it? I am interested, although Math Hammer is not my favorite hobby,
In the end, the game is more than "6 attacks WS 4 S5 plus 5 WS 3 S3 against WS 3 T3 AS 5 equals 4 dead Spearmen, Unit Strength, Ranks plus Standard equals 5, so Spearmen are better than Heavy Cav.".

So we start with a Cavalry unit at 5 man, since this is typically listed as all it takes to sweep any unit off the board. We'll have it facing down what should be the typical mainstay units of an army, and we'll go crappy Core units as well.

Assume a 5 man front on a regiment at least 4 ranks deep. Any less than 4 ranks eliminates rank bonus for combat resolution, which is the true key for turning a close combat. People COULD run little min sized units of 10 with 4 man fronts, but it would be asinine to do so, and I can't come up with one logical reason someone would do that.

Assume full command on both units. Spot of contention here at times, but I'd like to keep things pretty squared up.

With the exception of Chaos Knights who are INDEED an exception, your average Knight unit will be WS 3 or 4, so we will roll with that. Assuming the receiving unit is WS 3, you can allocate 4 hits from the Cavalry riders. Steeds? Not so much. WS 3 on average, so they get a saucy uneven 2.5 hits.

So we're tracking 7 hits against the infantry unit, 4 at St 5-6 depending on the rider, and 3 at St 3 with very few notable exceptions.

3 of those 4 wound on average for the riders, and we will lose half of the horse wounds with an awkward 1.25 wounds.

Saves are a bit tougher to work out as you have such a wide berth of options on Core Infantry. With a simple 5+ you will more than likely get 4 gone, but it's more like 3.95 gone. Assuming you have a champion left in the unit as we have yet to dedicate attacks to the Infantry Champion, he will hit back with 2 hits. That is assuming that the unit doesn't have spears, halberds, or great weapons as this shifts the dynamic significantly.

In a perfectly average batch of rolling you will see a draw. A draw. Adding in characters will skew the model either direction, and we can go over that later.

NOW, let's say someone goes in knowing that, and builds their forces around taking a hit. Core regiments with spears will then have 7 attacks back at the knights with a good chance of swinging the 1 wound needed to bring the tie to a win for the Infantry. That's just a bog standard example, less of a chance against any WS 4 Infantry such as Dwarfs or any Elves.

The only way you can sweep with a Cav unit is to run it deep enough to get at least 1 rank bonus and bring a saucy blender lord with it, which then makes it a target for any shooting that an army can bring to bear. If the unit is 10 Cav strong including characters, it will only take 3 wounds to guarantee that the unit can't get the rank bonus. In a vacuum the Knights against most Infantry simply aren't killy enough to guarantee a sweep.

Yes, no objections, that's what I said already, you quoted me on this. But as I already said, this misses the point.
The reason why Heavy Infantry is problematic is:

It's also a question of threat range, and possbilities to get into favorable positions, of possibility to gain a Net WIN of point costs out of the deployment of the unit. It is also a question how "forgiving" a unit is to a bad movement decision. Units with a high movement rate are fovorable there. Heavy Cav excels in all of these points, and therefore was problematic.

Throw in ANY terrain, the widely available chaff units, and once again any player with an ounce of strategic sense to design units to survive that hit, and Cav doesn't justify a nerf like the lack of march moves that CE brings.
.

This will help you against an inexperienced player. If you assume one moment that your enemy is equipped with an equal sense of tactical unit movement like you, He will have the upper hand because he has way more opportunity to get into favorable positions with his fast moving heavy cavalry unit, or units, than you.
With more terrain, the use of infanrry blocks gets even more limited and easier to predict
It really won't help you much if you're opponent knows what he's doing.
Why do you think you weren't seeing many armies fielding large infantry blocks like the one you used as am example, if the ar. y had access to Heavy cavalry? Let's take an example from 6th edition here, which Vampire player fielded a background resembling army with a vampire or necromancer lord with skeletons, zombies, grave guard blocks? In the tournaments I played:No one! It wa ssome Dire wolves as core choices, who shielded the one or 2 breaker black knight units withbanner of the barrows and a vampire. Some giant bats or spirit hoststo block away chaff units that would have been able to keep the main units from their destinated targets. That was more or less the concept, Other armies had similar concepts, for example Dark Elves, High Elves, Empire, Bretonnia, Chaos Warriors.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amai wrote:
Yes, the purpose is to find things to exploit for purposes of balancing the game.

Tinkerin atm Lizardman and Skaven gunlines.

From some lists i currently find nothing, like ogres for example and probably DoW (Which seem rather weak).


For the Tomb King army: That's why there are carrions.


I'm beginnin to see some tactical gameplay elements in this. The armour composition is actually guite nice, having the 4+ armors only for specialized groups like dwarf and chaos and having lots of special rules to affect only of units front. I suspect lots of though have been put in to this.

It still feels quite a silly to build armies that do not have any core, but still this could probably be (or will end up as ?) the best ruleset for balanced play.

Yeah fantastic, that is the kind of feedback I was hoping for. Go ahead and try build broken lists. Please excuse if my reply might take its time, I assure you that all your posts will be read and properly answerered!
Haven't had time to reply on the NOrsca lists yet, short feedback from my pov: Definitely hard to handle, target overload of cheap but relativeley capable units, combined with some monsters / Lord that provide high damage output. And not to mention the meatshueld of the bondsmen which do not even cause panic.
The warchants available to these units are in my view over the top for the points they cost. These should have a price tag on them. I think this army might need to be a bit toned down. Haven't played against it yet though. It is a rather rarely played army, as there were no official rules for these. Balancing is not so far as with the "regular" armies, so Arabia, DoW are also candidates where some ups and downs point - or even rule wise might be required.

Amai wrote:
Ok here is another:

TOMB KINGS:

Tomb King + Cursed Blades + Urgency + Execution + Gw + Amulet of Pha-sta = 340 pts

30 Tomb Guard + Full Command + Mirage Standard = 460 pts
3 Carrion = 75 pts

2 Khemrian Warsphinx = 600 pts
1 Necrosphinx = 325 pts
1 Necrolith Colossus = 200 pts

= 2000 pts

Possibe swap is Carrions for Necrotect.

List is illegal, priest is mandatory.

NORSE:

Konnugr + Warhorse + Shield + Ice Blade + Frost Pendant + Werewolf Hide = 205 pts
Battle Standard + Warhorse + Polar Pelt + Mead of Damnation = 125 pts
Godi + Death Frenzy + Frost Blades + The Beast Cowers + Dispel Scroll = 190 pts
= 520 pts

3x30 Axemen = 480 pts
40 Spearmen + Full Command + Frost Fjord Standard = 330 pts
2x40 Bondsmen + Spears = 220 pts

1 War Mammoth = 250 pts
1 Frost Giant = 200 pts

= 2000 pts




BEASTS OF CHAOS:

Great Bray Shaman + Shroud of Darkness + Dark Fury + Doom and Darkness + Word of Pain + Rune of the True Beast + Staff of Darkoth = 275 pts
Battle Standard + Crimson Armor of Dargan + Amulet of Chaos = 140 pts

30 Bestigor + Full Command + War banner = 375 pts
40 Ungor + Spear + Standard + Musician = 160 pts
40 Ungor + Spear + Standard = 155 pts
2x25 Ungor = 160 pts

8 Minotaurs + Gw = 325 pts
7 Minotaurs + Gw = 290 pts

1 Razorgor = 60 pts
5 Harpy = 60 pts

= 2000 pts

This list would be super weak against the list with Ethereal spam.

Yes, this lists seems not so scary on the first sight. Masses and masses of infantry. Could work as a concept in general, but I think it would have trouble against some armies, dwarves or skaven come to my mind. or vampires.

THE EMPIRE:

This is the core build i would go as Empire gunline but not sure about the character setup though. Empire characters seem quite feeble, and the Runefang sure is costly with only 3 attacks.

Master Engineer + Granade Launching Blunderbuss = 50 pts

30 Halberdier = 140 pts
10 Crossbowmen = 80 pts

2x25 Greatswords = 440 pts

3x10 Outriders = 690 pts

Mortar = 75 pts
Cannon = 100 pts
Volley Gun = 125 pts
Halfling Hot Pot = 50 pts

Lots of outriders though and i doubt, that any other army manages a gunline this dangerous.

Yes the outriders have a lot of firepower, but are a bit feeble too. First you have to get them in firing range, and then the enemy has the opportunity to fire first.. So they may be decimated badly before the get the chance to unleash.

You haven't got any character model in except for the engineer, but have only 250 points left. You will at least need one wizard to be able to dispel or you put in 2 Lvl2 wizards with magic missiles / buffs

LIZARDMEN:

Not sure how the "Drop Rocks" ability works, but it's possible to manage a quite irritating nuisance list around these units. 2x12 Terradons for example, possible deleting almost any elite infantry block in the game with expection of Ironbreakers.


SKAVEN:

Seems plenty strong when taking lots of Clanrats and different weapon teams + Jezzails & Poison Wind Globadiers against targets with high Toughness value. Probably wielding more than 300 rats with them.



On side note, here are some probable spelling corrections in the army lists that i have found:

Skaven: Cautious Shield says "By not attacking in this combat" -> Probably means that "in this combat round"

Norse: Athem of Mockery is probably meant to be "Anthem"

Norse: "Body Guard" is probably typed "Bodyguard"

High Elf: Nagarythe Hatred: This is probably meant for Dark elf instead.

Dow: In Halfling Ranger entry there is strange "je" before +7p. (Is that French ?)

Empire: Banner of Steel from White Wolves is not explained what it does ?



Need clarification on this: In Drop Rocks -> What is meant by "hit like template weapons" ?

Tried to check this from the rules but did not finde any general references to this.

SKAVEN:

Seems plenty strong when taking lots of Clanrats and different weapon teams + Jezzails & Poison Wind Globadiers against targets with high Toughness value. Probably wielding more than 300 rats with them.

Skaven can be a real pain. But I am really happy if fielding lots of clanrats is a strong build!
One one tournament a guy fielded a lot of giant rats who he tried to "death frenzy". As they are light infantry, they have a lot of attacks S3... The guy came out 3rd in the tournament. And another Skaven player won (So I would say that Skaven are a force to be reckoned in CE).





On side note, here are some probable spelling corrections in the army lists that i have found:

Skaven: Cautious Shield says "By not attacking in this combat" -> Probably means that "in this combat round"

Norse: Athem of Mockery is probably meant to be "Anthem"

Norse: "Body Guard" is probably typed "Bodyguard"

High Elf: Nagarythe Hatred: This is probably meant for Dark elf instead.

No, it is for the Shadow Warriors of old Nagarythe. So High Elves is correct.


Dow: In Halfling Ranger entry there is strange "je" before +7p. (Is that French ?)

It is actually German, it means "per".

Empire: Banner of Steel from White Wolves is not explained what it does ?
It is the last in the list of banners of Empire, You add D3 to your charge distance.

I have built a solid High Elves list, it is not maxed out, but I think this would manage quite well against your Empire list and against the "Hordes" lists.
A lot of ranged combat, almost every unit is shooting.

I copy pasted in German for now... I will translate later if I find the time.
Baically prince in Dragon princes, 2 Mages with 2magic missiles 2d6 S4, arrow curse, 5+ ward save and re roll 1s for wounds as spells
Archers, Sea guard, 2x5 ellyrian reavers with bows, 10 sisters of Avelorn, 2 repeater bolt throwers.



Prinz 140 245 KOM
Elfenross 25
Schild 10
schwere Rüstung 10
Schwert d. Macht 25
Heiliger Weihrauch 30
Langbogen 5



Magier 30 220 HELD
Sternenholzstab 30
Göttl. Führung 35
Pfeilfluch 50
Zorn d. Khaine 75

Magier 30 180 HELD
Bannrolle 30
Schild v. Saphery 45
Zorn d. Khaine 75



16 Bogenschützen 160 160 KERN


5 ellyr. Grenzreiter 95 115 ELITE
Bogen 20

5 ellyr. Grenzreiter 95 115 ELITE
Bogen 20


20 Seegardisten 250 300 KERN
Kommando 50

10 Schwestern von Avelorn 175 175 ELITE

7 Drachenprinzen 190 270 ELITE
Kommando 50
Ithilmarbanner 30

2 Repsen 220 220 SELTEN


2000

We will be having a small re-introduction igame n Warhammer Fantasy on Sunday. Two friends of mine, who played Warhammer until about 2008 / 2009, are now getting the dust off their Wood Elves and Dark Elves. Another one who is a 9th Age Tournament player also decided to join in, will be playing Demons of Chaos. And in addition, a friend who plays dwarves and has played Warhammer CE only once so far will also join. We are only 2 experienced players to teach them the basics again, so this will be a challenge The other experienced player will field Empire, and I will bring my Greenskins. We will be doing 1500 points without lord characters.

Well, the 9th age player has been playing tournaments since 6th edition, so he knows the Warhammer rules basically very well. Should be no problem for him to get into the rules again. The dwarf player has been playing only occasionally in the past, he is more into building scenery than actually playing. So he explicitly demanded some "coaching" for the game. The Wood Elves player had a short introduction already. The Dark Elves player is the one who is going to need the most support, he really hasn't touched the figures for more than 10 years.
So I am going to play against the Dark Elves player first, The empire player gets to play the Wood Elves, and the dwarf player will be playing against the Demons of Chaos. If we find the time, we will make 2 or even three games.

I built a sturdy list with a lot of Orcs, two shamans and some war machines.

I wanted the list to be infantry-heavy.
It contains:

An Orc Big Boss with great weapon, Gorks Armour (Heavy armour, +1 Tougness) 110 points

An Orc BSB , heavy armour, Umms Best Boss Helmet (5+ Ward Save), Sword of Striking (+1 to hit) 130 points

Orc shaman
Bash em ladz ( (unit re-rolls 1s to-hit in melee)
Brain bursta (Magic Missile 2D6 S4)
Ere we go (unit fights a round of combat, enemy does not fight back)
Dispel Scroll 195 points

Night goblin Shaman
Gaze of Mork (Magic Missile D6 S3, No armor saves)
Gork'll fix it (Curse enemy unit, -1 to hit, to wound and armour saves) 140 points

25 Orcs
additional choppa
full command 180 points

25 Orcs
Spears & Shield
full command 200 points

24 Night goblins with short bows 68 points

5 Wolf riders with spears 65 points

16 Black Orcs 212 points

1 Spear Chucka 50 points

1 Rock lobba 70 points

1 Doomdiver 80 points

What do you think? I think it should be okay to play against.
Maybe a bit too much points in charactes (more than one third...magic is very expensive). Option would be to remove the BSB and take 13 Savage Orcs with additional choppa (and reduce Goblins to 23 to make the point costs fit).
















Automatically Appended Next Post:
Battle plan:

Night Goblins Center, flanked by the Orc mobs, which contain the Orc Characters.
Black Orcs march behind to suppress animosity.

Goblin Wolf riders will distract flanking units.
Artillery shoots and forces enemy to advance, or will draw artillery fire away from the infantry units.
The big blocks should be able to take some fire and still be sturdy enough to hold against all opposition the enemy can come up with. The Night Goblins will draw some fire too, and they run if charged by any opponent. This will possibly enable a counter charge by one of the three other units. Black Orcs will move up in counter charge positiona fter one round. or already be in counter charge position. Orc Mobs should at least remain in combat with the characters included and the support of the BSB and supportive spells by the Orc shaman or the powerful curse of the night goblin shaman.

Amai wrote:
Yes, the purpose is to find things to exploit for purposes of balancing the game.

Tinkerin atm Lizardman and Skaven gunlines.

From some lists i currently find nothing, like ogres for example and probably DoW (Which seem rather weak).

Have you already built some extreme Lizardman and Skaven armies?

A short feedback on the games played yesterday:

I played one game against Dark Elves.

His list was built with the idea of having a lot of different units in it to get a feeling of how they are played. The list therefore was quite unique

He had just one character model, a lvl 2 sorceress with black staff, and 2 magic spells.
He had a small unit of spearmen (11 or so,) some corsairs also maybe 11 or 12), 10 repeater crossbowmen, 2 Bolt Throwers, Cold One Knights, 11 Executioners, 9 Shades, 9 Dark Riders.

I helped him here and there in some tactical decisions, and he managed to defeat me (minor victory) The firepower was too much even for my Orcs
And I killed of my doom diver in round one by a misfire

He shot my Orc boyz with additional choppa to pieces, the contained the Big Boss. He attacked them in round 4 when they were just 13 models left, killed 4 Orc Boys and wounded the Big boss. In return, I just killed 2 Executioners. So I lost combat and got run over. The black orcs charged the Executioners and took good care of them the next round.

At the same time, the night goblins got attacked by the corsairs. Although my night goblins were larger in numbers, standing on a hill and had 3 ranks (passive combat resolutiion +5) and the corsairs only one rank plus standard (passive combat res +2), they killed enough night goblins to force a break test. And with the general gone (and the ASB out of range, comingt to that later on...) they got run over too

The Orcs with Spears and the BSB had been charged by the Cold One Knights in round three. Which was a bad idea from the start But he didn't have any other choice really. He wanted to deploy them that way although i had warned him. I had to finish them off and charged into the spearmen with sorceress the next turn, and broke that unit too.

The Black orcs were shot down to 6 models and panicked in the last round

The Shades didn't do to much than hiding in the forest and shooting at my war machines. They killed the spear chukka in the last round. Well... And the Dar Riders got decimated by the spear chucka and took out my wolf riders who tried to cover the spear chucka from the bolts fired by the shades...











Automatically Appended Next Post:
Secon game was against Wood Elves,
it looked really, really good until Turn 3.

I totally had the upper hand, no big losses except for the Wolf riders, and some Orcs.
I had taken out a unit of rangers, some archers, and his eagle had only one wound left.

I had moved up until a few inches from his deployment zone, he used the good old "fire and retreat" tactics. Now he was forced to use his offensive units, he had a treeman (which had been hiding for 3 turns behind a forest from my artillery). He had some dryads and a large unit of war dancers with a hero... He charged my night goblins,with the dryads, I ran away with them to counter charge them with my black orcs. All going according to plan.

The BSB was with the black orcs, in this game. He charged the Orc boys with his war dancers, I hoped they would eventually hold with the BSB behind them
Then: He finally decided that he had to get out of the cover and charged my Orc boys with the general inside, which failed their terror test and ran away!
In the shooting phase, he gave all he got on the black orcs, which wasn't really much. BUT: As he sensationally killed 4 Black Orcs with 5 shots from the other unit of rangers (hit on 2, wound on a 4 in short range ) they PANICKED TOO and ran in impassable terrain. Dead. The Orc unit did hold for one round (because his war dancers did not wound more than 4 or so, despite their 16 attacks I think..., butt in the upcoming rounds I got butchered badly.
Personal low was my General. He was fighting in a challenge with the Wood Elves General, they both had one wound. I got the Ere we go spell through on the unit (irresistible force!) and got to hit that lousy elf without him being able to figt back... HAR HAR HAR, Three attacks with great weapon, S6 . 2 ones and one two later... well My orcs didnt do any better, they did 4 wounds on the war dancers, but he saved 3 of them on a 6. Arghhhhh....

Had a nice game with my Dark Elves against Ogres at 2500 points.
Minor victory for the Ogres.

A bit of bad luck tipped the balance in the last 2 rounds from a draw to the minor victory for the Ogres.

I fielded a Supreme Sorceress with Word of Pain, Dominion, Black Horror, Doom Bolt, and as PM spell Dark Fury.
She had the dagger of sacrifice to generate more Power Dice to make good use of her spells.

I also fielded a BSB with Hydra Banner on Cold One

Core units were:

25 Dark Elves with Spears and full Command

10 Repeater Crossbows

5 Dark Riders with Repeater Crossbows

10 Raiders

5 Harpies

Special:

18 Executioners, Full Command

A Cold One Chariot

7 Cold One Knights, Champion

6 Shades

2 Repeater Bolt Throwers

1 Hydra

1 Bloodwrack Medusa

He had something like:

1 Tyrant with a Tenderiser

1 Butcher with Bonecruncher, Toothcracker and Iron Flesh
He was equipped with the Bloodcleaver and the Bangstick

6 Ogre Bulls, naked

Big Unit of Ironguts

2x 4 Leadbelchers

5 Sabretusks

4 Yhetees

1 Scraplauncha

1 Slave Giant

1 Ironblaster


My stupidity checks went ridiculously bad the whole game, I managed to fail 3 of 4 tests on LD 9 with the BSB and his Cold Ones, resulting for them in being charged by the 6 Ogres and the Scraplauncha in the Flank.
The Chariot trodded forward twice after failing both of his stupidity checks in round one and two, and was deservedly beaten to a bloody pulp by the Giant in one combat round.

The Black Horror Spell looks good on paper, but against Ogres it was a really bad choice. You won't hit many models even with a 5" template, and the damage done to these T4 / T5 models is minimal. The panic test for losses is well, only useful if the enemy actually loses a model, not a wound...

Let's state it this way, my sorceress did more damage to my own battle line by making use of her sacrificial dagger than the spells did to the Ogres . nah , not really, she did pretty ok, as the curses like stopping an enemy's movement are of course very useful, and reducing BS and WS to 1 helped a lot.

I went out of the way of the big unit with the butcher and the tyrant inside. I decimated the yhetees and the sabretusks by with shooting, and the repeater bolt throwers were going for the really hard targets as the giant (sucessfully shot in round 3) and the Iron Blaster (not sucessful at all).
I managed to kill one of his leadbelcher units with my my Hydra (with one wound remaining!) and then moved the Bloodwrack Medusa out of a forest to make a combined attack on the Iron Blaster. As I was too close for firing the cannon at either of these two units, he tried to fire a Grapeshot at the Hydra, but failed to wound. In the following rounds there was a hard melee between these three units, in which's course I was able to reduce the Iron Blaster to one wound, rout it, (but not catch it), it rallied, another two rounds of close combat, ending with both my units dead and his one still alive with the one wound. Crazy!

The Executioners were shot down to half it's size, but finally managed to get an attack on the other Leadbelcher unit and routed them.

CE looks like it repeats the one major flaw of pre-8th WFB.

Fixed charge ranges.

Every game I played, you had both sides shuffling around just outside charge range hoping to lure the other side in. Got majorly boring in my opinion.

Yes, range 'guessing' was supposed to solve that, but let's face it. There's far too many ways to cheat it... not least of which is the method written into the rules, shooting.

I do not consider it a flaw. Random charge distance wouldn't have made the game better.

But hey, have fun playing 8 th edition or 9th Age.

 Vulcan wrote:
CE looks like it repeats the one major flaw of pre-8th WFB.

Fixed charge ranges.

Every game I played, you had both sides shuffling around just outside charge range hoping to lure the other side in. Got majorly boring in my opinion.

Yes, range 'guessing' was supposed to solve that, but let's face it. There's far too many ways to cheat it... not least of which is the method written into the rules, shooting.

Ah yes the dance. Its been a long time since I have thought of the dance. There was even an early web meme on the dance, showing two armies screaming toward each other cinematically, and then stopping and doing the side way shuffle until someone overstepped by an inch. And then everyone looks at that one guy that overstepped (his side with anger, the other side with overjoyed expressions) and then they come rushing in.

I don't miss the dance either it was very jarring and immersion breaking.

Like I've stated multiple times, I only saw someone do the dance once in person. A round of 4 Repeater Bolt Throwers got him moving.

I wish I had your experience. The dance was pretty much every game for me. It is the one main reason why I prefer random charge distances.

People around my area tended to either plop gunline if a cheesemonster, or would build their units explicitly to survive a charge. Max speed, no reason to bait as the unit was dangling for the opponent to charge.

 Vulcan wrote:
CE looks like it repeats the one major flaw of pre-8th WFB.

Fixed charge ranges.

That's not the actual flaw. The real flaw is just giving too much unrealistic advantage for charging, but that's a fundamental redesign.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
CE looks like it repeats the one major flaw of pre-8th WFB.

Fixed charge ranges.

That's not the actual flaw. The real flaw is just giving too much unrealistic advantage for charging, but that's a fundamental redesign.

It's the combination of three issues. Fixed charge distance + no pre-measuring + extreme bonus for charging.

The game system rewards gamey stuff and outright cheating.

Don't get me wrong, I had lots of fun in 6th and 7th (just like I had with 4th and 5th) but these issues conditioned way too many games.

8th edition introducing both pre-measuring and random charge distance opened play and actually encouraged people to talk it out and agree before any dice had been rolled.

jouso wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
CE looks like it repeats the one major flaw of pre-8th WFB.

Fixed charge ranges.

That's not the actual flaw. The real flaw is just giving too much unrealistic advantage for charging, but that's a fundamental redesign.

It's the combination of three issues. Fixed charge distance + no pre-measuring + extreme bonus for charging.

Sure, but it comes down primarily to that big charge bonus. Take that away, and the other issues fade away. Suppose there were NO combat bonuses from charging, just a +1 morale bump - the nonsense basically disappears, because you will still get to attack with your guys and if you have a solid block, you probably won't lose morale anyways.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans&p=7012727&viewfull=1#post7012727



Automatically Appended Next Post:
That discussion is as old as the ruleset


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans&p=6807317&viewfull=1#post6807317

This post (please note : these are from 2013, and were made from the thrn actual standpoint of an actual 8th edition.)

It pretty much nails why I think "The Dance" or "Standoff", as it was alsao referred to, is not much of a problem really.

I find if your opponent is set on dancing around, just find a different opponent. random charge distances are one of the things i hate about 8th. just add step up into 6th and the bonus for charging isn't enough to warrant a dance. sure you get the + to strength or whatever for the charge, but your opponent is going to be hitting back.

Point balance with step up will be pushed over a bit I think.

Elves, for example pay for their high initiative value for a reason.

With step up, the advantage you have for hitting first against a, let's say Orc, is zero.
But this is quite important for Elves, especially for Elite Elves.

Take Swordmasters for example. If they engage a unit of Orc Boys that cost as much as they do, they are outnumbered and have to rely heavily on causing some wounds without suffering some themselves.

Example: Take 15 Swordmasters, Full Command, which is a reasonable size for Swordmasters. They will cost 250 points.
This gives you a unit that is more resilient to ranged attacks than other High Elves Infantry (-1 to hit for ranged attacks in the front) and is capable of dealing out quite some damage, thanks to their special rules giving them an additional attack for each model they kill, and, attacking according to Ini despite wielding Greatswords.

For 235 points, you get 30 Orc Boys with Choppa and Shield, Full Command, and a War Banner. You will still have 15 points left compared to the High Elf player.

So, if we leave the case away in which the Swordmasters will be charged by the Orcs, which is less probable due to the higher movement rate of the Swordmasters, the Swordmasters will strike first, (5 wide assumed) four hits, 2 or 3 wounds, and due to their sprecial rule the will get to hit 2 or 3 times again, and wound maybe one additional time. Let's say 3 wounds in total, killing 3 Orc Boys. Still, they Orc boys can counterattack with 2 boys ( champion considered dead).
Which will result in maybe one dead Swordmaster, as they hit on 4 and wound on 4.

Combat result would be 3+2+1 =6 for the High Elves, against 1+3+1+1+1 = 7 for the Orcs!

If the Orcs could step up, the result is even more in favor of the Orcs. And if the Orcs were not using Choppa and Shield against the Swordmasters, but 2 Choppas instead, it would look even worse.
So a Break test on 7 for the Swordmasters would be actually a 6 or less. Quite a difference!!


Of course, this is just an example, what I wanted to say is basically that introducing step up has a lot of impact on the game, and would require a total work-around in point costs for every unit, every equipment type if they are supposed to stay fair, if this is the goal.

For a relatively small benefit, the case that you can roll some more attacks (even the Orcs get to attack in the example above! ), it just seems.. not necessary or good for the game.

Some impressions from our campaign game "Grudge of Drong", the second mission, where a runelord named Grung is being ambushed by the High Elves.

The Elves hit the Dawi hard with magic missiles and decimated them badly.

Then, the Quarrellers did a tactical retreat from an attack, but werent rallying on 9 as they were supposed to. So the Shadow Warriors and the Eagle could double-charge them and take them out without a fight.

The decimated Longbeards and Hammerers just were to hesitating to get into close combat, he always tried to lure me in a position where he could counter charge, but why should I have done that - he should have moved more agressively. This way, I could take out all of his units one by one.

An update to the rules to version 1.06 is intended to take place next year.

One suggestion is to improve cannons a bit.

In CE, cannons roll for multiple wounds on a D3, which is the maximum for all warmachines.
The suggestion was to allow a re-roll on this.

I think that is a good suggestion.

I was sceptical at first; From an O&G point of view, I was always feeling a cannon was far superior to a bolt thrower, because they tend to hit more often if the unit is big. but reducing the damage to D3 from D6 made it comparably weaker against large targets, while still having the issue of misfiring.
So, considering the higher price, I think it is an "ok" change.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you have suggestions, feel free to post them and I will forward them to the designer, so it will be taken into consideration.

I like many of the original rules. All in all i think they are probbly the best rule base.

By original rules you mean 7th edition? Sure, I prefer it to 6th, as it is basically the same with some improvements in psychology effects and formation (no encircling enemy units anymore - that was more problematic than useful).
CE made some things more reliable and plannable, at the cost of some randomness. Some like it, some dislike it, overall I like it and there is still enough things that can get totally out of hand
No complete overhaul of the actual CE rules is planned, it is rather fine-tuning of point costs, special rules etc. that proved to be, or at least seem to be out of balance.So no worries here.

The best in CE is that you buy the spells. Really, I like it.
But: I found it to become a bit repetitive using the same spells over and over again.
So I suggested to make the 8 lores accessible to more than just the Empire, at least to the extent as it used to be in 6th/7th edition.
For example,Lore of Shadows, Death and Fire to Dark Elves,
Lore of Heavens, Light, Life to Bretonia. In the actual rules, certain armies have access to a list of spells which is partially composed out of some spells of the 8 lores.
I understand that it is very difficult to perfectly balance these spells point-cost wise( for example, a buff spell in an empire list may be less effective than in Chaos Warriors or the other way round), but I think the effect of this is rather limited, so this disadvantage does not outweigh the improved army creation possibilities.

Thoughts?

I like 8th edition rulebook.

Dont know, maybe you can invent new spells?

I can help if you tell what kind of spell is needed.

Me not so much, because of random charge rates, and steadfast rule and magic mayhem uber spells.

Hmm I don't think inventing spells is the solution, there ARE a lot of spells already. Only "problem" is, they can be used by the empire only.

Actual discussion is about the movement rules of Heavy Cavalry. All Cavalry units with an armor save of 2+ are considered as heavy, and are not allowed to march. They double movement only when charging.

This makes them slow, very slow and not very variable in the movement phase.

Suggestions were to let them march, but only add half of their movement stat to the movement in total. So for example,

Dragon Princes with a movement of 8 could march 12 inches,
Cold One Knights could march 7 + 3,5 = 10.5 inches and so on. If such a change would be made, point costs will have to be adapted.
A suggestion from me was, that when adapting march movement, make the charge movement also fall in line with this, so no in the example above for Dragon Princes this would mean they reduced their charge distance from 16 to 12 inches, Cold One Knights from 14 to 10.5...
I would round it up or down to 10 or 11.

These are all just suggestions so far, but I wonder what the community here @ DakkaDakka thinks about it...

One solution could be -2 to movement for barding instead of standard 1. Usually i think altering existing rules is better than adding multiple layers of new and specialized rules that make things more clmplicated.

This would give cold ones advantage and character as specialised faster heavy cav to make them unique. They still suffer from stupidity ? So they have also a drawback regarding movement.


Yeah i can see others could need some variety for spells too.


Those three are easilly altered by house rules, steadfast and charge as you like and spells maybe restricting the boosted versions of some spells. The basic rule set seems good to me.

There are more house rules i would suggest but generally i like them as base rule set.

If im not wrong one of the first things that is mentioned in each edition is to have fun and use the rules as players like.

Doing your own ruleset like CE is just that. Its still warhammer.

I hit hard iron with my suggestion to give march movement and in turn reduce charge range from some players hahaha.
Actually, the player most feverishly defending the high charge rate as being THE single most important thing for heavy cav to play also suggested something like you, reducing march speed by an additional -1 for all heavy cav, which is a good suggestion I think. But this leaves for example bretons with a very heavy advantage as they can charge and march 14 inches then. I would not like that so much, that would improve them too much. At least from an orcish pov
now some things are going to be tested, and given feedback. but this takes time, lots of time. Well i am looking forward to see if things get a bit shaken up by that. I am sure the rule designer will keep a fair distance from all the people trying to push certain armies in their own favor.

Yes, in the end there is always the possibility to houserule, which I did in the past, for example with miscasts and irresistible force. I like some more variety here, than just a table with 3 different results.

Bretonnians are specialists. I think they should be represented as so. That would give them more advantage in that regard in comparison to original rules though.

Maybe the original rules are good ?

But surely they are not as you people dont like using them.

Maybe bretonnians could have an army wide rule that gives them 1" more of a march distance as they have one slready so that wouldnt complicate much.


Strange thing i found that in some cases i end up in original content when changing things.

...Tuomas Pirinen, Alessio Cavatore, Rick Priestley... they knew what they were doing (most of the time ), so it is no shame to return to the good ol' boxed set rules when one finds out that one's own ideas were not all so much better in hindsight

Anyone happen to have old mordheim material, it seems hard to find in nternet.

I know there is lots of custom material but some of it have vanished from internet.

Check out the link in Just Tonys signature, classichammer.com,

and look for the thread hope I don't get banned.
There is a good link inside leading to warhammer 6th edition scans of armybooks etc.

If you step up on the one drive linked there, you will also find mordheim...

Proposed changes in LRB V1.06:

Cannons can choose to re-roll the wounds inflicted.
Grapeshot rule will remain the same.

Rune Anvil - Point costs reduced to 100 pts. Runesmith may purchase a rune from his magic items allowance that allows him to use the anvil twice or thrice per round (each rune costs 50 points extra). Each anvil effect can be used only once per round.

Skink heroes that are using the cloak of feathers cannot be upgraded to scouts (thus preventing them to attack targets at will in round 1)

Further changes might be made to movement rules of heavy cavalry and the Helstorm Rocket Battery rule will probably also be changed.

V.1.06 of the Living rulebook has been released, and I have played 3 turns of an epic battle with the new version of the rules.

Why only 3 turns? It turned out (haha) that we needed longer than expected for the game, we had played very little the last year, so we had to look up some things.
Also: 5000 Points in 5 hours? What were we thinking?

I will add some pictures as soon as I get the possibility,
it has been crazy fun so far.

We are playing a "historic" scenario, Gorbad Ironclaw's invasion into the Empire.
The original Scenario as featured in a White Dwarf a long, long time ago, was too boring, it featured almost only cavalry units on both sides. I was called the battle of Grunberg, were Gorbad was wounded and almost killed. But we wanted to field mighty armies, based on infantry. So we skipped that part of the "authenticity" and went on with what we would like to play.

We made rules for Gorbad, and the Elector Count of Solland Eldred, as well as for an improved Lvl 4 caster on both sides.

These were the only Lord choices allowed, but the rest was totally up to the player.

Elector Count Eldred had the profile values of a Grand Master, as a special rule the Leadership effect of the General was increased to 18 inches.
He rides a barded warhorse, wears heavy armor and shield, and wields one of the runic blades made by the dwarves. Hits wound automatically and allow no armor saves.

The Empires Master Wizard was allowed to roll 6 dice per spell maximum, and ignores the first miscast result.

The Night Goblin Master Shaman was able to eat a mushroom each round if he liked, with the shrooms being exceptionally potent ones: When he decided to use it, you have to roll, on a 2-5 it works like a normal mushroom. On a 6, you may target an additional unit with the spell. and on a 1, he turns veeeery paranoid and the Empire player may choose any unit in range for the spell

Power Dice were limited to 4d3+4, so ranging between 8 and 16 per round (plus Petty magic spells).

That was a good choice so far!

I decided to pick many different units from the army list.

I wanted to reflect this is an Orc's army, so at 5000 points I needed 2 big mobs of Orc Boyz on foot at least. I added some Arrer Boyz too.
The mighty Gorbad had to be with the "Elite", a large unit of boar riding Big 'Unz, 16 of the brutes accompanied him.

Gorbad has the profile of a Black Orc Waagh Boss, just lacking its special rules of suppressing Animosity and ignoring panic from normal Orcs.
He rides an exceptionally big and nasty boar called Gnarla with a basic strength of 4 instead of 3.

He wields a mighty magic battleaxe, which ignores armor saves and causes D3 wounds.

He counts as General and army standard bearer, with a range of 18 inches instead of 12 inches. He was a superior fighter and Warlord.
His only weakness is his lack of defensive power, with an armor save of 3+ and no ward save, he is better be killin' everthin' before it can strike back!

He comes at a point cost of 325 points.

As I had a Night Goblin Master Shaman, I added a unit of Night Goblins and a "Body guard" Night Goblin Big Boss.

One Orc Shaman with some direct damage spells was the only other caster. A Black Orc Big Boss completed the bunch of heroes accompanying Gorbad.
He was with a big mob of, of course Black Orcs.

One unit of Goblins with spears, some Snotlings, a small unit of Wolf riders were the expendable units.

Stone Trolls and River Trolls were accompanying Gorbad to the battlefield, along with a Giant and a Arachnarok spider.

3 chariots for damage dealing, and some artillery were also there to support Gorbad, 2 spear chukkas, a rock lobber, a Doom diver.

10 Forest Goblins spider riders were also part of the Waagh...

I will add some more infos and pictures. Some really hilarious moments.

Here RAre some pictures, as promised.

Some bit of the action...

Hey everybody, just wanted to inform you about the current developments: there will be no Rules Update end of the year this time, as nobody really got to play a lot and therefore no issues came up that had to be taken care of.

Rules V1.07 will remain valid til end of 2021.

As some may know I am planning a campaign based on Grom the Paunch's Waaagh! through the Empire, Fleet construction and "invasion" of Ulthuan.

For this, I designed special rules for both Grom and Eltharion, more will follow.

The point costs are supposed to represent
the powers they have, which leads to significantly higher point costs than in official Warhammer editions.

I try to get as much feedback as possible from people who tried out the special rules in an actual game. I've posted rules for Gorbad here in the past, and they worked out pretty well. I will use the same approach here.

Grom the Paunch

Profile of a Goblin Waaghboss: 65 points


Equipment:
Light armor,
Magic Weapon: Axe of Grom: Great Weapon, multiple wounds (D3): 65 points

Special rules:
Regeneration (4+): 60 points
Niblit the mascot: Model counts as Battle standard bearer, the whole model gains a 5+ Ward save: 65 points

Wolf chariot (does not count as chariot for the means of calcuating the Nx-factor of chariots in the army) with 3 Wolves and an additional Wound (4 total) : 80 points

Total point cost: 335 points


















Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eltharion the Grim:

Profile of an Elven Prince: 140 points

Equipment: Heavy armor, Long Bow: 15 points
Magic Weapon: Fangsword of Eltharion, no AS, +1 S: 80 points
Magic Armor: Helmet of Yvresse, +1 to AS (4+ total), 5+ Ward Save for the whole model: 65 points
Enchanted item: Talisman of Hoeth, choose one bound spell each round: PM Fireball 2/5+, PM Courage of Aenarion 2/7+: 100 points

Stormwing, Griffon with +1WS and +1 Wound: 200 points

Total point cost: 600 points

I suggest giving Grom a special rule that allows an Army led by him to ignore the Goblins' Fear Elves rule.

They gave him that power in 7th Edition, I think, which opens up more options for the goblin "invasion" in my opinion.

Thanks for the feedback! Good idea, I think this should be part of every Scenario Grom is fighting against pointy 'eads!

Since it's a campaign you could have it apply after the Gobbos first victory. Grom having shown them the poncy elves are nuttin to fear with him and his Shaman leading the Waaagh!

I have no idea how you would quantify that points cost... in the 2004 Annual Chronicles he was worth 355 Points without the cancel on Fear Elves and then 2 years later he is down to 255 Points with "Eats Elves fer Breakfast"...

Maybe 30 Points?

Or maybe since your points costs do that nx scaling, the cost would change depending on how many Goblin units Grom is taking in his Army?

Just spitballing


EDIT: I love that idea of having it kick in after his first victory against elves. Really helps build the narrative of the campaign.

Yes that idea of being it a special rule for the final battle depending on how successful the first major battle against Elves was, is fantastically fluffy, pushing the narrative, and will definitely be part of the campaign! Thanks guys!!

And thanks for the tip on point costs in annual 2004, I didnt check these beforehand, just armybooks of 4 ed, 7ed and 8ed..

This reassures me I am not totally on the wrong track pointwise!

Time to give a little update on what is happening with Warhammer CE!

At the moment, suggestions are collected for a rules update for LRB v.1.07.
As it also marks the tenth anniversary of the ruleset, the goal is to make it a really satisfying update

There's plenty of new stuff, and some rather big changes compared to the changes from 1.04-1.06. which is already confirmed to be changed.

One of the most debated rules is going to be changed, the rule for heavy cavalry.
Up to V 1.05, the rules were stating clearly that cavalry with a 2+ AS were not allowed to march. V.1.06 had an optional rule, which let heavy cavalry units march with 1.5 times of the normal movement speed.
As it was widely accepted as being not balance breaking, this is going to be the new standard in v 1.07, which is to be released in January 2022.

Along with that, many things are openly discussed.

Update time!

So now we have a first draft of V1.07!

I will try to give a short overview of what will change / what is new as per now.

Clarification on removal of models in mixed units (Like Squig Herds)
Clarification on hit distribution of ranged attacks

Close Combat: Targets of attacks has to be announced at the beginning of each timing step before any attacks in this step are resolved
Losses are not carried over to other types of models the unit may consist of (also think Squig herds)

Units with compulsory movement (x) may not be joined by characters and vice versa

Clarification of how charges on/by unit type "skirmisher" are resolved

Heavy cavalry may march with 1,5 times of their normal movement rate

Character models which are either by being one on themself or by riding a monster, classified as unit type monster, or a large target, or have compusory movement, may not join other units.

If a unit is completely destroyed safe for a character model that had previously joined that unit, panic tests for being in 6" of that destroyed unit have to be taken nevertheless, if the unit had US=>5 beginning of the phase it got destroyed.

some clarification on timing of challenges, as well as clarification that chariot crew may not fight in challenge.

only +1 buff on AS by riding a chariot instead of +2


Bears' Anger : Range 18", +2 A, +1A +1T,

Death frenzy: No effect on character models

Howdah: 4+ AS not improvable or +1 to AS, choice of player.

Light Bolt Thrower and Giant Bow both get Multiple Wounds (2) against large targets

Mark of Khorne: Character Models, which are not part of a unit, may take a LD-test to prevent them from a compulsory charge declaration due to frenzy.

Gift "Presence of Khorne": Added that if the model with this gift has joined a unit, the unit has to take only one test which then counts for the unit and the joined character model.

Gobelin of the Conqueror (Brets): Effect changed, costs reduced to 10p

Rocket Launcher (Chaos Dwarfs): Target point limitations for other cannons do not apply concerning proximity to target unit
(unwanted side effect of rule for cannons in general to prevent intentional "over-shooting" is that way no longer a problem)

Screamers of Tzeentch: Rules for their special attacks clarified.

Dark Elves: Renaming of some of the magic items

Effect of Ring of Hotek increased to 12"
Banner of Nagarythe: Bearer and his unit are stubborn, and gain +1 CR. Dark Elf units (not single models, or units not deemed Dark Elves like Harpies) also gain +1 CR in 6"

Death Hag: point costs increased to 100p

Beast Master: New special rule "Beast Master", "no leader" removed, point costs increased to 90p.

Dark Riders: Banner costs +15 points, option for Shields (+2p/model), loses light cavalry rule if equipped with shields

Black Guard point costs -1p per model

Kharybdiss: T6 and I4, no regeneration

Additional unit: Doom Steeds (from 3rd Ed., comparable to Silver Helms)

Lizardmen:

Clarification on Salamander rules (formation, how are ranged attacks resolved..).

Shield of the Mirrored Pool: Effects clarified.

Salamander Hunting Pack: Additional hunting packs +60p each

Teradon riders: T3, base point cost 95p+ Nx20p, Teradon rider 4-12 +30p each

Tomb Kings:

Lich High Priest I2 1A

Banner of Rakaph - Clarification: Only models on foot, and not in CC

Necrosphinx: S5

High Elves: added Pegasus as mount for Characters

Phoenix Guard point costs -1p per Model

Kislev: Clarification on formation rules of Bear packs.

WoC:

Shaggoth: T6, 250p + NX25p

Book of Secrets not an option for models with Mark of Khorne any more

Ogre Bulls: Equipment costs (light armor, iron fists, add. had weapon) alle reduced by 1 point

Iron guts Base points (3models = 165 points, each additional model 40p

O&G: Goblin horde: If the army contains not a single Orc, you may take 2 lord choices instead of one.

Goblin characters may take short bows for +5p

Squig Hoppas LD 5

Skaven:

Clarification on Formation of Rat Ogres Beast packs.

Mounts for Skaven War Lords added: Pox Rat. Bone Ripper Rat Ogre, War Palanquin

Base Costs for some units changed:
Warp Flame Thrower weaopn team -10 points

Doom Wheel and Hell Pit Abomination up +25 points

Dogs of War:

Equipment options for Character Models changed

Additional magic items and banners
Minimum size of pike units reduced

Vampire counts:

Special Necrarch Bloodline Vampire Count added.

Soul Striders special rule of Hex Wraiths clarified

Wood Elves

Clarification that equipment & special rules of model has no effect on Murder of Spites

Dryads cause fear now

Dwarves: "Loner" Special rule of Slayer character models included in "Slayers" general rule now.

I understand that this is a labour of love and has a lot of passion behind it, but I can't help but ask myself... why not just play 6th edition with all the books from that edition?

6th I find was the most balanced, funny, and fun edition of WFB. No one army book stands out as being over powered, yes some are strong... but will have a lot of things to balance that strength. Having recently gone back to playing 6th edition I know it is the edition that I personally would favour over any other. Aside from the absence of a full Chaos Dwarf list, it feels like a complete edition.

7th could have been a great edition, but the army books ruined it. Vampire Counts, Dark Elves, and Daemons of Chaos spring to mind. Plus it is where we started to see the over sized miniatures creep in.

8th was a blatant cash grab.

 stonehorse wrote:
I understand that this is a labour of love and has a lot of passion behind it, but I can't help but ask myself... why not just play 6th edition with all the books from that edition?

6th I find was the most balanced, funny, and fun edition of WFB. No one army book stands out as being over powered, yes some are strong... but will have a lot of things to balance that strength. Having recently gone back to playing 6th edition I know it is the edition that I personally would favour over any other. Aside from the absence of a full Chaos Dwarf list, it feels like a complete edition.

7th could have been a great edition, but the army books ruined it. Vampire Counts, Dark Elves, and Daemons of Chaos spring to mind. Plus it is where we started to see the over sized miniatures creep in.

8th was a blatant cash grab.

6th Edition in its entirety would be my "to go" decision too, if I had to pick between 5th-8th ed.

Mostly really reasonable army books with not too much difference in total power level (setting single AB's in direct comparison aside, as DE vs WE), and a solid set of rules. I do have fond memories of playing 6th edition!

Downsides for going totally 6th are:

You can't play units that were not part of the edition. Almost every army book starting 2006 has gotten some new unit added. Some armies didn't even get an army book in 6th at all, so you will have to rely on ravening hordes (Chaos Dwarves).
Some cool units pre-dating sixth ed. aren't playable at all.
Also, I would really miss some well done rule streamlining in 7th compared to 6th, which are also part of Warhammer CE.
Another downside: The rules are all OOP, and a lot of them are spread over various books and FAQs, so many, that it's hard to really get a grasp of "That's what the rules of 6th ed. are completely."
Granted, you can find them all if you like, it's all out there in the Inet if you can't find your "Chronicles 2004" or GW homepage FAQ printout you made back then.

But why the hassle, if I can have all the best of 6th and 7th combined, more playable units than in these editions, an ever improving balance and everything in just one plain document?

The only reason for me to play 6th would be if someone insisted on playing it instead of Warhammer CE. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer that by quite a lot over, say, 8th edition in general, or a game against 7th ed. Demons, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves or even Skaven. So why not give it a try?

I forgot one advantage of 6th: It had the best art in the army books. I loved the b/w paintings, the lore, the overall layout.

I updated the link in the first post, so you're able to find the newest version of the rules (V1.07) there!

The Living Rule Book will now remain as it is for at least one year, so have fun trying out new army concepts. See some post above what kind of changes have been made to the rules from 1.06 to 1.07.

Hello,

we are about to try out the CE rules for the first time...

I introduced my gaming group to the 7th edition close to 4 years ago now... since the oldest of our players liked it far more than the 8th.

I know that there are many fans of the 8th edition, but the older players of us thought that guessing a range (for anything) and not having a unit fail to make a charge because of the die roll is vitally important.

Rant aside, reading the CE 1.07 rules was a joy.
We have to get used to light infantry... and later on heavy cav rules... but we'll make it work.
We'll start with the optional rules for guessing the range (of course! see above for our reasons for the 7th ed.).

Being a big fan of the unit restrictions in the 6th and 7th edition, I am wondering why this was obmitted in the CE version entirely.

The reason for this post is an army question though: The Blooddragon Lord is the only Vampire without "The Hunger" (in both the german and the english version of the rules).
Is that an accident or was there a reason?

As an old Strigoi and Blooddragon player, this was nagging on me. Please help.

I would expect that that's because the first Blood Dragon is supposed to have cured his hunger permanently by defeating and draining a dragon. Although I always preferred to treat that as a legend, not canon. (Like Golconda in Vampire the Masquerade, if you're familiar.)

pidaysock wrote:
Hello,

we are about to try out the CE rules for the first time...

I introduced my gaming group to the 7th edition close to 4 years ago now... since the oldest of our players liked it far more than the 8th.

I know that there are many fans of the 8th edition, but the older players of us thought that guessing a range (for anything) and not having a unit fail to make a charge because of the die roll is vitally important.

First, congrats to making this choice, I bet you won't regret it!
If you need clarifications or have questions in general, just post it here and I will see to it that it gets adressed and answered to the author of the rules,
Seelenhaendler. I will try to answer all of your questions below, as some of them had already been in discussion in a German Warhammer Forum. I will post the original replies and translate them in English for you. Hopefully, nothing gets lost in translation, but it should work out. Message me again if something sounds awkward or otherwise incorrect

pidaysock wrote:


Rant aside, reading the CE 1.07 rules was a joy.
We have to get used to light infantry... and later on heavy cav rules... but we'll make it work.
We'll start with the optional rules for guessing the range (of course! see above for our reasons for the 7th ed.).

The light infantry rules are really cool and add some interesting possibilities to the game.
Free reforms, no movement penalty for difficult terrain, shooting from 2 ranks, but (in general) no rank bonus, is a nice "in between" step to skirmisher units!

Heavy Cav got a big upgrade in the last release, allowing them to march again (but with reduced speed). This was one of the most controversial points in the CE community since 2012,
and we hope the current solution is a fine balance between keeping the Heavy Cav a valid and capable selection and preventing it from becoming a "Cavalry Hammer 2.0" edition.

pidaysock wrote:


Being a big fan of the unit restrictions in the 6th and 7th edition, I am wondering why this was obmitted in the CE version entirely.

Basically, the idea is that the author wanted to give you as much freedom in listbuilding as possible. That being said, the rules are rewarding (or at least that's how it is intended) a balanced approach to list building, having a solid core of 2-3 infantry units, supported by lighter units,, special Elite units, warmachines, and monsters in some cases. A balanced list, which is not just a one-trick pony, should be superior to an army leaning very heavily on just one thing. These lists are strongly penalized by the multiplying point costs for these choices, taking in account that some armies are leaning in their background more in one of these directions than others, but still.

But if you like, you can still use whatever "limitations" to unit selection you like in your game group, it should still be fair if you apply 6th/7th ed slot system or 8th ed. %-ratios on heroes, special or rare slots.

I know a group of players located in Frankfurt that use in their games some loose restrictions like min 500p core, max 1000p characters, max 500 pts of rare units.

My group generally uses the max 1000 pts for characters (just in case someone wants to play a Greater Demon or similar things), 500p core, and max 3 times the same special and 2 times the same rare unit.

pidaysock wrote:


The reason for this post is an army question though: The Blooddragon Lord is the only Vampire without "The Hunger" (in both the german and the english version of the rules).
Is that an accident or was there a reason?

As an old Strigoi and Blooddragon player, this was nagging on me. Please help.

It is not an accident, it is intentional. antia supplied a very nice "fluffy" explanation for it that I'd say is quite cool Also, if I remember correctly, the Blood Dragons are warriors at heart, from the ranks of the finest of men; so they are quite unwilling to drain their enemies of their blood, as they consider it a stain on their pride.

But here is the actual game design reason for it:

Short version:

Q: Der Blutdrachenfürst hat keinen Blutdurst. Wie kommt’s? The blood dragon Vampire Lord is not subject to "The Hunger". How come?"

A: Als Ausgleich für die hohe Rüstung und damit das Modell nicht "unsterblich" ist, hat der Blutdrachenfürst keine Möglichkeit Lebenspunkte zurückzugewinnen.
As a compensation for the high AS and therefore making the model not invincible, the Blood Dragon Lord has no possibility himself to regain wounds.

More elaborate version:

Reply from OP to the answer above:

OK, als wirklich nur ein „irgendwo schwächen“. Aus Simulationssicht ist das natürlich eine große Verfehlung, weil dem Vampir dann die Regel fehlt, die ihn als Vampir ausmacht. Ich sehe, dass du ihn mit seinen bereits 250 P (ggü. den 200 P anderer Vampire) nicht noch teurer machen möchtest, aber eine Lösung des Problems ohne den Simulationsfehler hätte wohl Potential, eine „deutliche Verbesserung“ zu sein. Ok, so it's only a "kind of weakening". From a simulation's point of view a big blunder, as the vampire is missing the rule, which defines him as a vampire. I see that you don't want to make him more expensive with his already 250P (versus 200P for other vampires), but a solution of this problem without the big simulation blunder would have potential to be a significant improvement to the rules.

Reply from Seelenhaendler:

Es ist nicht "irgendwo" schwächen, sondern gezielt an einer Stelle, die verhindert, dass Blutdrachen "unsterblich" werden.

It's not only a "kind of weakening", but intentionally at a point to prevent Blood Dragons becoming "invincible".

Siehe auch Goldene Regel 2 (Sterblichkeit: Alles im Spiel muss eine Schwäche haben, die ausgenutzt werden kann, so dass eine ausgewogene Armee im Verlauf eines normalen Spiels eine angemessene Chance hat, das Element auszuschalten, sollte sie eine angemessene Menge an Ressourcen dafür aufwenden.)
See also golden rule number 2. (Mortality: Everything in the game has to have a weakness that can be exploited, so that
a balanced army has a reasonable chance to get rid of it over the course of a normal game if the player chooses to invest a reasonable amount of resources to achieve this goal.)

Die Punktekosten sind da nur zweitrangig.
Ich sehe hier auch keinen "Simulationsfehler", sondern eher ein "Konsistenzfehler".
The point costs are only secondary here. I also don't see a "simulation blunder" but rather a "consistency error".

Ziel ist es zwar, stimmige und möglichst konsistente Regeln zu schaffen, aber grundsätzlich geht die Balance vor. Siehe auch Goldene Regel 4 (Balance vor Hintergrund: Obwohl das Spiel die Vision und das Gefühl von Warhammer vermitteln soll, hat die Spielbalance oberste Priorität.)

The goal is to strive for fitting and consistent rules, but balance comes first. Also see Golden Rule number 4: .

Balance over fluff
While the game should reflect the vision and feel of the Warhammer world, game balance has top priority.

Hope this helps !!

Moscha wrote:
First, congrats to making this choice, I bet you won't regret it!
If you need clarifications or have questions in general, just post it here and I will see to it that it gets adressed and answered to the author of the rules,
Seelenhaendler. I will try to answer all of your questions below, as some of them had already been in discussion in a German Warhammer Forum. I will post the original replies and translate them in English for you. Hopefully, nothing gets lost in translation, but it should work out. Message me again if something sounds awkward or otherwise incorrect

Thanks. German is fine... this being a forum in the language of Shakespeare, Hemmingway and Sorkin, one should stick to it though.

Moscha wrote:
The light infantry rules are really cool and add some interesting possibilities to the game.
Free reforms, no movement penalty for difficult terrain, shooting from 2 ranks, but (in general) no rank bonus, is a nice "in between" step to skirmisher units!

I am very much looking forward to it.
The difference between Cav and "really heavy Cav" was always felt in the 7th edition... but more on the impact in games. "Really heavy cav" in my game group are models with 2+ Attacks. Namely Dragon Princes (HE), Chaos Knights, Lizardmen Cav, Bloodknights and Grail Knights.
I also fielded the Khorne Juggernauts once...

Now with the (partially) increased base size and the new rules in CE, the cav units are much more diverse.

Sure everyone misses the heavy punch units at first... but I am a big fan of balancing in a game, and WHFB got less balanced with every army book.
The community approach is right choice in my eyes. Adjust all Armies at once.

** unit restrictions **

Moscha wrote:
But if you like, you can still use whatever "limitations" to unit selection you like in your game group, it should still be fair if you apply 6th/7th ed slot system or 8th ed. %-ratios on heroes, special or rare slots.

My playgroup will discuss it... especially the High Elves is saddened that the restrictions are the same for everyone.


** The Hunger **

Moscha wrote:
It is not an accident, it is intentional. antia supplied a very nice "fluffy" explanation for it that I'd say is quite cool Also, if I remember correctly, the Blood Dragons are warriors at heart, from the ranks of the finest of men; so they are quite unwilling to drain their enemies of their blood, as they consider it a stain on their pride.

But here is the actual game design reason for it:

** ... **

The goal is to strive for fitting and consistent rules, but balance comes first. Also see Golden Rule number 4: .

Balance over fluff
While the game should reflect the vision and feel of the Warhammer world, game balance has top priority.

Hope this helps !!

It does.

I can get behind a concept of balance... even for the immortal vampire blood dragon lord.

Yeah haha it very hard otherwise to play a game where you can field some measly Goblin and a Demigod and still have both kinds being a fair deal in rhe game

I've got a rule question...

Pursueing into new enemies...
We can't find the paragraph about being "immune to fear and terror" anywhere.

Does that mean, that if I pursue into a new terrifying enemy who , I still have to test and if worst comes to worst, flee myself suddenly?

If yes, do I make the test prior to the 1" stop in front of the unit, or after I actually enter BTB?


edit.... Fear doens't require a psych-check anymore when I charge? Oh dear. But terror does.... so the question above is limited to the subject of terror...
2nd edit... The Bretonnia Armory is unclear about the Hardwoodlance/Kernholzlanze: One rerolls hits in German, but wounds in English.... the 6th Edition book said "to-wound" rolls... please clarify.
Also: under: Characters march with units.... the example has a heavy cav model marching with infantry. However the march is reduced to 7". This must be a left-over from 1.05 or 1.06 ruleset, since heavy cav can now march as well.

pidaysock wrote:
I've got a rule question...

Pursueing into new enemies...
We can't find the paragraph about being "immune to fear and terror" anywhere.

Does that mean, that if I pursue into a new terrifying enemy who , I still have to test and if worst comes to worst, flee myself suddenly?

If yes, do I make the test prior to the 1" stop in front of the unit, or after I actually enter BTB?


edit.... Fear doens't require a psych-check anymore when I charge? Oh dear. But terror does.... so the question above is limited to the subject of terror...
2nd edit... The Bretonnia Armory is unclear about the Hardwoodlance/Kernholzlanze: One rerolls hits in German, but wounds in English.... the 6th Edition book said "to-wound" rolls... please clarify.
Also: under: Characters march with units.... the example has a heavy cav model marching with infantry. However the march is reduced to 7". This must be a left-over from 1.05 or 1.06 ruleset, since heavy cav can now march as well.

As you don't declare a regular charge, no terror test is required when pursueing, whether you decide to attack or to stop in front of rhe enemy.

On the other subjects: The English version is the correct one.

And concerning the example of marching. you are right, definitely a left-over from before the rule changes for Heavy Cav!

Thanks for the great feeeback! Greatly appreciated.

Did you have a chance to play already?

Here are a few more rule questions (in German).

For those who prefer the English language, here is the short version:
A.1:Terror causing characters in units: Is there a test when you attack (when you are attacked by) the unit?
A.2: Attacks: 7th Edition: if not otherwise possible the defender is alligned to the attackeing unit. Why not here?
A.3: Why is it forbidden for a magician, a BSB and a general to join a unit?
A.4: Shallow Lakes and springs... why are they impossible to overcome during an attack?

V.1:Lahmia on Witchthrone: Why can she gain the 5+ Saving throw, when that is only useful for characters on foot?
V.2: Strigoi rules reference magic items, when there are none.

W1: Flying woodelves: are the destroyed when they flee into a forest?


and now... the longer German version:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allgemein:
A.1: Entsetzen verursachendes Charaktermodell.
Auf Seite 22 steht, dass die Immunität von Entsetzen sich auf die Einheit überträgt, der sich das Charaktermodell angeschlossen hat.
Auf Seite 23 steht, bzgl. Reittier und Charaktermodell, dass das gesamte Modell Entsetzen verursacht.
Unklar ist, ob ein Entsetzen verursachendes Charaktermodell in einer Einheit auch dazu führt, dass auf Entsetzen beim Angriff getestet werden muss oder nicht.
Bitte um Klarstellung.

A.2:Angreifer
Ich finde keinen Passus, dass sich auch der Verteidiger nach dem Angreifer ausrichten kann, wenn sonst absolut kein Platz ist für den Angreifer.
Beispiel: Angegriffende Einheit dicht hinter einem Haus im 20° Winkel. Angreifer 2" vor/nebem dem Haus mit Sichtkontakt zur ganzen Front des Angegriffenen (und auch im Frontbereich des Angegriffenen).
Warum ist dies nicht berücksichtigt?

A.3: Warum gibt es die Beschränkung für maximal zwei Charaktermodelle pro Einheit? Ist nicht ein Magier, ein AST und ein General (immerhin alle in W:CE schwächer) in manchen Einheiten üblich (z.B. Lanzenformation).

A.4: Fluss oder (seichter) See: Ein Angriff von Kavallerie oder normaler Infanterie ist durch die Unpassierbarkeit beim Angriff ausgeschlossen. Was machen Armeen die keine Leichte Infanterie oder Plänkler in der Armee haben (oder einfach nicht eingepackt haben)? Das macht einen Fluss mit einer breiten Fernkampfeinheit dahinter besser als a Festungsmauer.

Vampirfragen:
V.1: Eine Lahmia Vampirfürstin reitet auf einem Hexenthron, kann aber die Vampirkraft "Blitzschnell" (Ausweichen 5+) erhalten.
Gilt Ausweichen auch bei Modellen auf Streitwägen, oder ist diese Vampirkraft erst aktiv wenn der Hexenthron zerstört ist?
Ist also eine Lahmia Vampirfürstin auf ihrem Streitwagen einfacher auszuschalten, weil sie hier nur einen 6+ Rüstungswurf hat?

V.2: Beim Strigoi Ghoulkönig sind bis zu 150 Punkte an magischen Gegenständen und Vampirkräften möglich...
Welche magischen Gegenstände sind hier gemeint?
Des weiteren fehlt die Fledermausgestalt (wie in der 6. Edition).

Waldelfenfragen:
W.1: Seite 19: Flieger die ihre Fluchtbewegung in unpassierbarem Gelände (einschl. Wald) beenden würden, werden zerstört.
Seite 174: Flieger dürfen ihre Flugbewegung in Wäldern beginnen oder beenden.
Werden also fliehende Flieger der Waldelfen wenn sie den Wald erreichen zerstört oder nicht?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Otherwise we feel that some armies are unneccessarly downgraded.
Bretonians are (almost exclusively) Heavy Cavalry - together with the anti-cav rules of spears makes it appear as if the authors don't want to see the army on the battlefield at all.
Maidens lack the Grace of the Lady... .. all in all, is a debuffed army without fancy "new" 8th edition units to counter the debuffs seems rather terrible. New (and fitting) units would have gone a long way.

Vampires lack saving throws... A Carsteinring is not what's missing here... but a single 3+ saving throw (of any kind) should be availble. They pay for a CC profile and can't use it for fear of running around without (magic) armor. Some units were rightfully debuffed, yet the flying monsterous infantery wasn't. Some changes are rather odd: The Corpse Cart is only useful to Zombies now.

Elves when compared to 7th Edition: High Elves lost ASF, Wood Elves lost the saving throw for forest spirits... yet Dark Elves seem to have lost nothing. Together with Demons and Vampires the DE dominated the tournament scene.

We will play our first battles on the 10th of April... and not all of us are looking forward to it yet.

A.1: Terror causing characters in units:
A unit charging a unit comprising a terror causing model has only to pass a terror test if the charging unit would get in BTB with the terror causing model after the charge is completed, e.g. there is no terror test if a unit rear-charges a unit with a terror causing model in the front rank (and with more than 1 rank).

A.2: Attacks: 7th Edition: if not otherwise possible the defender is aligned to the attacking unit. Why not here?
Since units can usually activate in the turn before they are charged, they get to position themselves in a way to take the charge.
As charging is very powerful in (classic) WFB, the ability of the charged unit to be able to dictate the facing and therefore the direction of possible pursuits/overrun moves is a way to balance combats.
Therefore, aligning the charged unit to the charging unit to maximize contact is not intended by the rules.
If it is not possible to align the charging unit at all, align the charged unit against the charging unit in a way that requires the charged unit to move as little as possible, in the same way as in the case of “Charging multiple targets” (p.6).

A.3: Why is it forbidden for a magician, a BSB and a general to join a unit?
The limit of two characters per unit is manly for balancing reasons.
It incentivizes to field more (rank&file) units and limits death star units.
Also, since there is no limit to the number of hero level characters in an army (apart from points), this rule prevents units with a front rank made up entirely of characters which could be especially powerful if they are ethereal, e.g. a block of skeletons with a front rank of wraiths.
Further, there is usually no need to displace command models of the unit to the second rank which improves the aesthetic of the unit/game.

A.4: Shallow Lakes and rivers... why are they impossible to overcome during an attack?
Depending on what picture you have in mind when you picture a shallow lake or a river, it just does not seem feasible that charging through such a feature would make sense for most units.
These terrain features have a severe effect on the game and therefore should only be used with due consideration and are not recommended for competitive play.
However, if you prefer to play with a lot of water features you are free to amend their rules to fit with your intended playstyle.

V.1: Lahmia Vampire on Coven Throne: Why is Quickblood (Dodge (5+)) an option, since Dodge is only useful for characters on foot?
The Coven Throne grants the vampire a 5+ ward save anyway so she is well protected on the throne and Quickblood only comes into effect after the Coven Throne is destroyed.
Quickblood is a very thematic power for a lahmian vampire, so the option was included. However, the power is 50% cheaper than for other vampires to compensate for the limited use.

V.2: Ghoul King rules reference magic items, when there are none.
The term “May take up to 150p of magic items (incl. Bloodline Powers)” is the standard term used to describe the options of a character.
Even though the Ghoul King has no access to any magic items (other than Bloodline Powers) at the moment, some might be added in a future update of the rules (although there are currently no plans for this).
The Ghoul King has no access to the power Bat Form. This is intentional. A strigoy vampire with flight (Bat Form) can be created by using the generic vampire option, if you really want one.
Btw, the generic vampire option can be used for any bloodlines and was the only option in the beginning of the ruleset before other vampire options were added to implement specific mounts or traits.

W1: Flying woodelves: are they destroyed when they flee into a forest?
No. The special rule Children of the Wood also prevents flyers from being destroyed when they flee into a wood.

Otherwise we feel that some armies are unnecessarily downgraded.
Bretonnia is(almost exclusively) Heavy Cavalry - together with the anti-cav rules of spears makes it appear as if the authors don't want to see the army on the battlefield at all.
Bretonnia is very competitive, at least in our group and even before the recent change to the heavy cavalry rule which now allows marching at 1.5 pace.
Also, the anti-cav rule for spears is only a small buff to spears and has no significant impact on the effectiveness of Bretonnia.

Maidens lack the Grace of the Lady... .. all in all, is a debuffed army without fancy "new" 8th edition units to counter the debuffs seems rather terrible. New (and fitting) units would have gone a long way.
My advice is to play a few games to get a feeling for how the army performs and how the different options synergize, in particular with magic.
Overall, bretonnian cavalry units are very competitively priced.

Vampires lack saving throws... A Carsteinring is not what's missing here... but a single 3+ saving throw (of any kind) should be availble. They pay for a CC profile and can't use it for fear of running around without (magic) armor.
The limited option for armor is intentional to prevent vampires from being unkillable and to make their ability to regain lost wounds an integral part of their playstyle.
Also, vampires are far from a pushover in close combat, even without any protective gear. Keep in mind that slain models do not get to attack back in close combat. Thus, a vampire is only in danger when it fights an opponent which the vampire can’t kill in a single round of combat, like large monsters or powerful characters. However, in this case, a 3+AS would be of limited use as those opponents usually attack with S6+ anyway.
If you want more protection for your vampire, the Blood Dragon is a good choice, even though it lacks the option to regain wounds for balancing reasons.

Some units were rightfully debuffed, yet the flying monsterous infantery wasn't.
If I remember correctly, Vargheists have less WS and are more expensive than their 8th edition counterpart. Also, they are frenzied which is a major disadvantage, especially against a savvy opponent.

Some changes are rather odd: The Corpse Cart is only useful to Zombies now.
Well, it is a cart full of (fresh) corpses, so it fits thematically that it benefits Zombies which are (fresh) corpses.
When the lists were designed great care was taken, to prevent too many effects to be stackable so that synergies would be reasonable and not unbalance the game.
Thus, the corpse cart was put in a role where it benefited an army based around multiple units of zombies the most.
However, I do recognize that this limits the use of the corpse cart, at least from a competitive standpoint.
If prefer the corpse cart to be more flexible, try house ruling that the spell part of Vigour Mortis also applies to Skeleton Warriors and Skeleton Spearmen.

Elves when compared to 7th Edition: High Elves lost ASF, Wood Elves lost the saving throw for forest spirits... yet Dark Elves seem to have lost nothing. Together with Demons and Vampires the DE dominated the tournament scene.
Although the core rules are based on 7th edition, the army lists are based on the 6th edition army books. Therefore, it is usually better, i.e. more favorable, to compare the army lists to the respective 6th edition army books.
Since there have been changes on multiple levels (point cost, magic, options), it is best to play a few games to a feeling for the game first, before jumping to conclusions with regard to the powerlevel of various armies.
However, while I am confident in the current state of the ruleset, there is always room to refine army lists and improve the balance.

Thank you for your interest and I am grateful for any feedback which helps to improve the ruleset.

Hello Seelenhaendler, and thank you for your reply.

We are about to play the first battle... and will see how the units perform.

Since I do have 10 armies at my disposal, I try to look at all the armies in the CE rules and hope to judge them correctly early on. Yes, playing is important... but writing army lists for each army is currently all that I can do before the 10th of April.

Our Bretonian player is rather unhappy, since the core rules punish heavy cav when compared to 6th or 7th edition.
As I wrote before hand... most armies have new and fancy (8th edition) units to compensate the new downsides... the Bretonians lack in this department.
I would suggest a falcon/crows swarm (similar to the bats)... to give them an "anvil unit", which the knights can use to charge into flanks (if the terrain allows). Make the second unit very expensive (not steam tank expensive... but I guess, you know what I mean)... it doesn't matter. Some "new juice" goes a long way to reach out to the noble knights.
And no, the knights on foot don't compare to units such as the flying chariot for the high elves, the ghostly riders for the dark elves, the demigryph knights for the empire... or so on.
We are well aware that the Bretonians were very competitive in the 7th edition. But when compared the the Dark Elves (who seem to have lost rarely anything) it seems rather one sided adjustment.

Looking at the undead armies, I cannot begin to imagine, why some changes were made.
I have nothing against higher costs, or adjusted rules (in fact, I rather welcome that the scythe wielding riders are no longer ethereal, or that the bloodknights are monsterous cavalry now)...
But as I said before: a 3+ saving throw (let it be an armor throw - which isn't overpowered) would go a long way to make the vampires (lord and hero choice) more playable. cutting the extra wound would be fine as well. Cut the lord choice for the wight king, while you are at it. And give back the whight hero (both BSB and without) the extra wound back. The eternal hunger rule is from the 8th edition and should not be a reason to claim that vampires are resilient. Please cut the rule (it's from the 8th edition anyway), allow the invocation to be used on characters again - that way, the cost of the spell reflects the abilty to "heal" characters as well.
Again in comparison (to other armies), it seems that vampires can't be protected for balancing reasons, yet treemen ancients with 'annoyance of netlings' can be.
most lords can gain a decent armor save and a ward save on top while not being the crux of the army that makes it fall apart.

Speaking of the hero vampire... why is s/he unable to use the invocation? This was a spell that was available (for free) to every vampire in the 7th edition. Taking a hero vampire now is only useful if you want to have a close combat character - and for that, a ghost or whight seneshal is a lot more cost effective. Even taking both,a necromancer and a ghost is more useful.
Let's talk about lower point game than 2k Points. Try 1k: Would you use a vampire hero at all in a "Vampire Counts" army? (Your reason can't be "CE was written for 2k points." - if something is not worth playing in 1k points, in not worth playing at any scale.)

Also both undead armies lack a BM spell to summon a small unit. That only a Masternecromancer (in the vampire army) is able to summon skelletons is simply not thematic at all. Yes, Heinrich Kemmler was the greatest necromancer... but that doesn't mean that Vlad, Mannfred or Zacharias were unable to summon anything on the fly.
I humbly suggest a 8+ BM Spell, to summon D3+4 zombies for 50 Points (for all Undead magicians, or even for just a subset of them), as well as the same spell with D3+2 Skelletons for the Tomb Kings. Let both units be worth 50 Points in the field... When compared to the summon skeleton unit-spell, it seems right.

An undead army (no matter how balanced in armor throws, point costs, and the core rules of fear are) needs to have the ability to summon the dead.
It may be annoying if a small unit pops up in front of the opponents unit - but it is a line of defense for the undead. Ranged attacks will cut down small units quickly, thus giving the opponent more victory points anyway.

Having spent hours with the undead, I will move on to more armies in the next days... but so far, I haven't found an army where the soul was missing so much.

Another question that came up today, the rules say that a remains in play (RIP) spell ends when the caster dies, chooses to end it, or the game ends. Of course it can also be banned... but let's skip that part.
Does that mean that the caster can cast something else and still uphold this remains in play spell indefinetly (should s/he so chose) and even cast a second remains in play spell (should s/he have one)?

Last question for today: Plans to include Amazons or Fimir? Is new army input welcomed?

pidaysock wrote:

Our Bretonian player is rather unhappy, since the core rules punish heavy cav when compared to 6th or 7th edition.
Heavy cavalry was quite powerful in 6th and dominated in 7th, so a slight downgrade of this unit type helps to level the playing field and makes the various unit types viable.

As I wrote before hand... most armies have new and fancy (8th edition) units to compensate the new downsides... the Bretonians lack in this department.
New units were not added to compensate any downside but rather to make new and old (i.e. Oldhammer) models playable which have no 6th edition rules. Great care was taken to ensure that these new units do not unbalance the game. Therefore, they are usually more expensive or less point efficient than “old” units, in particular if they add new option or playstyles to the army.

I would suggest a falcon/crows swarm (similar to the bats)... to give them an "anvil unit", which the knights can use to charge into flanks (if the terrain allows). Make the second unit very expensive (not steam tank expensive... but I guess, you know what I mean)... it doesn't matter. Some "new juice" goes a long way to reach out to the noble knights.
And no, the knights on foot don't compare to units such as the flying chariot for the high elves, the ghostly riders for the dark elves, the demigryph knights for the empire... or so on.
There are currently no plans to add any new units to the Bretonnians (or any other army), especially if there are no official models for them.
As for an anvil, the Grail Reliquae is a solid anvil. Also, Questing Knights with the Valorous Standard, a full unit of Knights of the Realm, or a solid block of Men at Arms can function as anvils for different point costs. Do not underestimate the power of static combat resolution, i.e. three ranks, a banner and musician, outnumber + a war banner and BSB if you really want to go overboard.

We are well aware that the Bretonians were very competitive in the 7th edition. But when compared the the Dark Elves (who seem to have lost rarely anything) it seems rather one sided adjustment.
Bretonnians now have a very good selection of spells that complement the army nicely.
Dark Elves: their 6th edition army book was not competitive. They even got an update in White Dwarf to improve their power level.
It has been some time since the DE list was designed for WCE, so I can’t tell you all the details but I am pretty sure they are less powerful than in 7th edition.
One of their drawbacks is hatred which forces them to pursue. Just like with frenzy, a savvy opponent can exploit this special rule to pull units in a bad position. How much of a disadvantage this is, heavily depends on the DE player and his opponent, however.
Are there any options in particular that you find overpowered/unbalanced in the DE list?

High Elves:
They gained a new special rule (Speed of Asuryan) and also have access to very powerful spells, like shield of saphery.


Looking at the undead armies, I cannot begin to imagine, why some changes were made.
I have nothing against higher costs, or adjusted rules (in fact, I rather welcome that the scythe wielding riders are no longer ethereal, or that the bloodknights are monsterous cavalry now)...
But as I said before: a 3+ saving throw (let it be an armor throw - which isn't overpowered) would go a long way to make the vampires (lord and hero choice) more playable. cutting the extra wound would be fine as well.
Why do you think that vampires are unplayable without a 3+AS (which by the way would stack with barded nightmare for a 1+AS, no?)? The army list was designed specifically with limited armor in mind, so adding more armor for vampires is not an option.
Still, if you “need” the additional protection, you can use the Blood Dragon rules for your vampire.

Cut the lord choice for the wight king, while you are at it. And give back the whight hero (both BSB and without) the extra wound back. The eternal hunger rule is from the 8th edition and should not be a reason to claim that vampires are resilient. Please cut the rule (it's from the 8th edition anyway), allow the invocation to be used on characters again - that way, the cost of the spell reflects the abilty to "heal" characters as well.
With additional armor and the option to be healed by IoN, vampires would be close to be unkillable. Even without any protective gear or powers, it takes on average 8 S5 hits to kill a vampire lord which equals 16 S5 attacks or about 4 rounds of combat vs the majority of close combat lords of other armies.
This is plenty of survivability in my book, especially for a model that can hide in units and regain wounds.

Again in comparison (to other armies), it seems that vampires can't be protected for balancing reasons, yet treemen ancients with 'annoyance of netlings' can be.
most lords can gain a decent armor save and a ward save on top while not being the crux of the army that makes it fall apart.
What are you comparing vampires to that you think they are pushovers? Kitted out chaos lords, dragons and greater daemons?
Again the Blood Dragon seems to be the alternative you are looking for.
Also, losing the general is no longer the immediate end of the vampire army.

Speaking of the hero vampire... why is s/he unable to use the invocation? This was a spell that was available (for free) to every vampire in the 7th edition. Taking a hero vampire now is only useful if you want to have a close combat character - and for that, a ghost or whight seneshal is a lot more cost effective. Even taking both,a necromancer and a ghost is more useful.
Let's talk about lower point game than 2k Points. Try 1k: Would you use a vampire hero at all in a "Vampire Counts" army? (Your reason can't be "CE was written for 2k points." - if something is not worth playing in 1k points, in not worth playing at any scale.)
A hero level vampire has a profile that is comparable or better than most lord level characters of other armies. Choosing a vampire as your general in a 1k army has the advantage that your less likely to lose your general than when you pick a necromancer as your general. Also, the bloodline powers give you a lot of flexibility in how you can build and use the vampire in your army.


Also both undead armies lack a BM spell to summon a small unit. That only a Masternecromancer (in the vampire army) is able to summon skelletons is simply not thematic at all. Yes, Heinrich Kemmler was the greatest necromancer... but that doesn't mean that Vlad, Mannfred or Zacharias were unable to summon anything on the fly.
I humbly suggest a 8+ BM Spell, to summon D3+4 zombies for 50 Points (for all Undead magicians, or even for just a subset of them), as well as the same spell with D3+2 Skelletons for the Tomb Kings. Let both units be worth 50 Points in the field... When compared to the summon skeleton unit-spell, it seems right.
An undead army (no matter how balanced in armor throws, point costs, and the core rules of fear are) needs to have the ability to summon the dead.
It may be annoying if a small unit pops up in front of the opponents unit - but it is a line of defense for the undead. Ranged attacks will cut down small units quickly, thus giving the opponent more victory points anyway.
As you mentioned before, VC were one of the armies dominating 7th edition. Magic and to a degree summoning was a major part of that.
With the design goal of “what you pay for is what you get” (golden rule #1) spells are no longer “free” but rather cost an appropriate amount of points.
Also, the ability to raise more models or even units is more limited in WCE and a specialty of necromancers which now have their distinct role in the army.
The ability to raise multiple units a turn can easily unbalance a game and thus is not an option in this ruleset.
Why do you think a VC army needs this ability to be viable?
In the last tournament VC placed in the top half, only 4p behind the 2nd place. While this is in no way representative for the competitiveness of the army in general, it at least shows that it is playable and can compete.

Having spent hours with the undead, I will move on to more armies in the next days... but so far, I haven't found an army where the soul was missing so much.
We obviously have very different ideas on how the an VC army should function and thus how it should be designed.
If you still feel that the army is unplayable after a few games, feel free to introduce some house rules.

Another question that came up today, the rules say that a remains in play (RIP) spell ends when the caster dies, chooses to end it, or the game ends. Of course it can also be banned... but let's skip that part.
Does that mean that the caster can cast something else and still uphold this remains in play spell indefinetly (should s/he so chose) and even cast a second remains in play spell (should s/he have one)?
Yes.

Last question for today: Plans to include Amazons or Fimir? Is new army input welcomed?
There are currently no plans to add any further army lists to the LRB. However, there are multiple “unofficial”, i.e. fan made, army lists currently in development, like Halflings, Cathay, Nippon, Ind, Albion, etc. Send me a PM if you want to know where to look and contribute.

Heavy cav NEEDED to be toned down, that was all anyone ran in those editions and for a good reason.

They were hugely dominant.

pidaysock wrote:
Hello Seelenhaendler, and thank you for your reply.

We are about to play the first battle... and will see how the units perform.

Since I do have 10 armies at my disposal, I try to look at all the armies in the CE rules and hope to judge them correctly early on. Yes, playing is important... but writing army lists for each army is currently all that I can do before the 10th of April.

Our Bretonian player is rather unhappy, since the core rules punish heavy cav when compared to 6th or 7th edition.

As I wrote before hand... most armies have new and fancy (8th edition) units to compensate the new downsides... the Bretonians lack in this department.
I would suggest a falcon/crows swarm (similar to the bats)... to give them an "anvil unit", which the knights can use to charge into flanks (if the terrain allows). Make the second unit very expensive (not steam tank expensive... but I guess, you know what I mean)... it doesn't matter. Some "new juice" goes a long way to reach out to the noble knights.
And no, the knights on foot don't compare to units such as the flying chariot for the high elves, the ghostly riders for the dark elves, the demigryph knights for the empire... or so on.
We are well aware that the Bretonians were very competitive in the 7th edition. But when compared the the Dark Elves (who seem to have lost rarely anything) it seems rather one sided adjustment.

I think it is of course very undestandable that Bretonnia players feel bad about not getting new units at all - but the Heavy Cav rule may feel as a bit of a Nerf, compared to other armies they are not too weak, rather the contrary.

As Dark Elves Player: The Stat Lines and special rules are mostly based on 6th E units after the official upgrade. Magic items are also toned down to a sensitive level (No Chain of Khaeleth, for example...) Harpies have only one attack instead of 2. Killing Blow is less effective in CE than in 6-8E WHF (only one Wound without AS instead of auto kill), so a little downgrade for Executioners. Hydra is on a reasonable power level with strong NX-multiplicators. Black Guard is way less dangerous than in 7E. Assassins are no longer able to be equipped as deadly as in 7E. Reaper Bolt Throwers have 5 shots instead of formerly 6 and have NX-Point costs. Repeater Crossbows are no longer armor piercing. Cauldron of Blood is toned down compared to 7E. That's just what comes right from the top of my head, there might be even more "Downgrades" compared to the ridiculously strong 7E book. And it is fine, really.I have had a great tournament experience against "maxed" lists as well as fluffy beer and bretzel games.
I think I made my point concerning Dark Elves here, it's not supposed to be a rant, just to make the changes for DE visible ; what might not catch the eye at the first glance.

I would also support the statement of getting some games played! I am not a dedicated Undead player, as you are, I own a little army but only played once or twice with it so far - but I have played quite some games against Vampire counts with my O&G, and Dark Elves. I do agree that not summoning new units except for a Master Necromancer somehow feels unintuitive. On the other hand, this is such a strong (if not game-breaking, if available to multiple spellcasters!) mechanic, this would definitely not make the game better.
Flanking, marchblocking, redirecting, threatening war machines...

The way it is designed now, you can try to caste that really strong spell once per turn, if you accept the downside that you Lord is not a powerful vampire but a squishy Wizard.

Overall, I can say that I lost more games to Vampire Counts than I won, I consider it to be about as powerful as it was in 6th Edition, a bit less powerful maybe because of the better fear rules in CE.

Mentioning special Characters: We made rules for Heinrich Kemmler and Krell for our yet-to come La Maisontaal-Scenario with Brets and Skaven - I'd be happy to provide you with them if you like. Also, I would be interested in how you would design a Vlad / Isabella / Mannfred or Konrad von Carstein? I hate Zacharias, so not him

Before I endlessly write about Vampire Counts...

here are a few more rules questions:

- Shields and Characters. Do they gain the "blocking" special rule when fighting on foot?

- Terror... is it correct, that a unit test every time they get charged or charge a terror causing unit? (i.e. Beforehand a unit tested once per game for terror, and then only for fear).

-Vampire counts related question: Are "wight blades" lost when the unit chooses a twohanded weapon or a lance?

-Ramshackle construction of chariots: Why is it Strength 8 and not Strength 7 that causes an additional wound?
The amount of Strength 8 attacks (in any edition) is so small, that I cannot imagine that this truely has that much of an effect.
Dwarfs will not take two strength runes for their spear throwers, characters can (almost) never reach that level...
This leaves only cannonballs... And the rule affects four chariots game wide. The extra wound on Strength 7 attackes with any chariot would make more sense in my eyes...

pidaysock wrote:
- Shields and Characters. Do they gain the "blocking" special rule when fighting on foot?

No. Reason: Balance

pidaysock wrote:
- Terror... is it correct, that a unit test every time they get charged or charge a terror causing unit? (i.e. Beforehand a unit tested once per game for terror, and then only for fear).

Yes. Less bookkeeping. Also, terror in WCE is much weaker than in 6th/7th edition, so taking multiple test is not a problem and keeps terror in its weaker form relevant.

pidaysock wrote:
-Vampire counts related question: Are "wight blades" lost when the unit chooses a twohanded weapon or a lance?

Wight Blades are equipment and can be used to fight (see p. 13 "Equipment"), just like any other weapon option.
Unless noted otherwise, they don't get replaced if you buy additional equipment.
For example, grave guard with great weapons still have their wight blades. So when you fight in cc, you may declare to fight with great weapons (+2S, ASL) or wight blades (KB, magic attacks).

pidaysock wrote:
-Ramshackle construction of chariots: Why is it Strength 8 and not Strength 7 that causes an additional wound?
The amount of Strength 8 attacks (in any edition) is so small, that I cannot imagine that this truely has that much of an effect.
Dwarfs will not take two strength runes for their spear throwers, characters can (almost) never reach that level...
This leaves only cannonballs... And the rule affects four chariots game wide. The extra wound on Strength 7 attackes with any chariot would make more sense in my eyes...

This special rule has been implemented early on and ended up being not used a lot. Therefore, I am considering of dropping it to streamline the rules.
The intention was to give catapults and cannons (which damage was reduced from D6 to D3) a small boost versus specific chariots, in particular comparatively cheap chariots which can be fielded in larger numbers.
S8 was chosen specifically so that S5 characters with a GW would not get the additional damage boost. Wounding on 2+ with no AS most of the time is good enough. No need to double the damage.

Just to tell you what I am doing atm;

I have played the classic campaign sets Grudge of Drong, Tears of Isha and The Idol of Gork and adapted them in order to work with the Warhammer CE ruleset.

I made a documentation for it that improved over time from a plain battle report with pictures and army lists to a completely documented campaign with scenario and rules description, troop selection limits, fluff texts and so on.

The Grudge of Drong was the last and most complete of them.
Now I decided to translate them to english, so that people can enjoy and play the campaign internationally (and laugh about the tactical blunders we made).

I am about half way through, let me know if you are interested in it when it's finished, and I will send you a message with a link.

Dear friends of classic Warhammer,

I hope you had a hobby-rich year, in which you could play many Warhammer battles with a lot of memorable moments.

Even if the environment to play battles is still not on the old level, Warhammer fortunately offers enough opportunities to do the hobby, for example by adding a unit to your army or enjoying the background.

As already announced last year, there will be no update for WCE this year, i.e. version 1.07 will still be valid in 2023.

But even without an upcoming update, you are always welcome to share your experiences with WCE and give feedback, so that the system can be improved.

With Warhammer: The Old World (ToW), we're in for one of the biggest changes since 2015 next year (or the year after?), at least in terms of available official WFB miniatures and fluff.

What impact ToW will have on WCE, I can't say for sure yet.
For now, though, I'm assuming that WCE will remain as an alternative rules system alongside ToW and will be updated accordingly, just as it was back in the 8th Edition days.
This means that (selected) units newly introduced with ToW will get corresponding rules for WCE, so that ideally you can use your Warhammer army under both ToW and WCE rules sets.

But until then there is still enough time to finish one or the other project and of course to play some more battles.

I wish you happy holidays and a hobby-rich 2023!

Seelenhaendler

Dear friends of the Old World,

the wait is finally over: Warhammer: The Old World (TOW) will be released in a few weeks!

With ist release, we will enter a new era in which there will once again be new (and old) official WFB miniatures, new background and, above all, a new ruleset for fielding our armies on the battlefield oft he Old World.

From the preview articles, it is already clear that TOW has a different focus than WCE and will likely play in a fundamentally different way.

Even though I find some of the concepts of TOW interesting, WCE will not be amended to become similar to TOW, but will retain the "classic" gameplay and concepts that characterize WCE.
In this way, WCE will remain as an alternative ruleset for those who wish to continue playing or return to it in the future.

The plan is for WCE to continue as an alternative ruleset alongside ToW and to be updated accordingly, as it was in the days of 8th Edition.
This means that (selected) new units introduced with ToW will receive corresponding rules for WCE, so that ideally you can use your Warhammer army according to the rules for both ToW and WCE.

Due to the imminent release of TOW, there will again be no update for WCE this year, i.e. version 1.07 will remain valid for the time being in 2024.

All new units for TOW previewed so far already have appropriate rules in WCE, so that they can already be used in WCE games without any problems.

As soon as new units for TOW are released for which there are no suitable rules in WCE (and which I consider to be useful additions to the respective armies), I will prepare a proposal for appropriate rules.

When the storm around TOW has calmed down a bit, I will evaluate the situation and decide on the further course for the project.

Until then, have fun with Warhammer in the Old World!

Happy holidays and a hobby-rich 2024!

Seelenhaendler

I was made aware that there is a German battlereport for WCE on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/WYc-30V25D8

 Moscha wrote:
Hi everybody,

I had written a wall of text fanboying and explaining Warhammer CE, but due to being too dumb to keep the right tabs open, I mistakenly deleted it all.
So now in short:

For all fans of Warhammer Fantasy before 8th edition crap rules, AoS and end times,
someone has been rebuilding Warhammer as it always should have been.
The link below leads to a downloadable pdf file, which is fully in English. I hope this works.

https://www.armycreator.de/index.php#downloads


In short:
- 7th edition as basis - but many flaws of it removed, rules streamlined to being clear and meaningful
- New unit types (Heavy cavalry, light infantry) adding to tactical gameplay,
- fair point costs,
- an important but not overly dominant magic phase
- a great army builder tool in english http://armycreator.de/
- possibility to play units not been available since 5th ed (reiksguard,...) til 8th edition new units (Phoenix, Arachnarok spider...)

Update: Link to new Version 1.07 now included! enjoy!!

Not for me. When your entire ruleset is based on either how sharp your vision is so you can accurately measure stuff by eye OR on your being able to cheat and premeasure in any one of the dozens of ways I saw it done prior to 8th without your opponent catching you, it's not for me,

 Vulcan wrote:
Not for me. When your entire ruleset is based on either how sharp your vision is so you can accurately measure stuff by eye OR on your being able to cheat and premeasure in any one of the dozens of ways I saw it done prior to 8th without your opponent catching you, it's not for me,

That’s perfectly fine. Just play with premeasuring!
Either way, you are free to use any part of this ruleset you like for your games of Warhammer or any other ruleset that suits you better for that matter.
Have fun playing Warhamner Fantasy!

Enjoy, but I will stick to 6th, 8th, TOW, and a little WAP here and there because we Use it as part of our Warhammer RPG 4th edition adventure/Nation building hybrid.

But after seeing most of the rules, I’m confident ill mostly be playing The Old World.

Even though i played it, theres no real nostalgia for 7th edition to want to go back to it. 4th and 5th? Sure, once in a while. 4th was where I really got into playing fantasy at higher level. I competed a lot during 5th and 6th. Those were the days I yearn for as a 42 year old man.