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

With the recent discussion being of a new edition for fantasy I just have a few simple questions. What would you like to see in a new WHFB core rules set. I'll Start:

1. Ranks of archers being able to fire (Not just the 1st rank anymore)

2. A roll of 1 on a single die, when only rolling 1 die forces a miscast. (To prevent armies from casting with only 1 die without miscasting, Such as Vampire Counts)

3. Clearer rules involving clipping and maximizing frontage.

4. A slightly less harsh miscast table

5. A change to Duels and combat resolution. (Winning a duel should provide an additional +1 separate from any wounds inflicted)

6. Change March to 2.5 times movement but keep charging at 2x. (I feel this will provide additional "Dynamic" usage of movement."

I want my 4 for a rank back, but that's just wishlisting.

Cryonicleech wrote:I want my 4 for a rank back, but that's just wishlisting.

I prefer it at 5 but its a pain that the troops mostly still come in boxes of 16. This was good before (4x4) but thats pointless now.

My changes:

1) I want fast cav to be better, firstly to say they still get rank bonus, and maybe a +2 charge movement.

2) I'd like magic duels.

3) I think the rules for monsters could be fine-tuned.

4) Extra ranks of archers to fire, at a points increase of cource.

Fast Cavalry doesn't need a rank bonus: You rarely see units of Fast Cavalry in sizes larger than six or eight anyways and taking a unit 15 or 20 big will lose much of the fast-cavalry benefits.

Magic Duels would be interesting... but I can't see them being done with as magic stands now, unless it was a sort of spell that wizards could cast. Maybe as something pre-game you could do for bonuses / penalties if there were two opposing Lord-Level mages?

Extra ranks of firing for shooty units would be wonderful - currently, you can only fire past the first rank if on a hill, firing at someone on a hill, or firing at a large target. This makes most archer units small thin lines instead of the rows of firing bowmen launching volley after volley into the foe.

I think a ranks requiring a minimum basing in millimeters instead of models would be good. Something like 100mm. Of course, that only really helps the larger models and makes things worse for some armies.

I'm not for a slightly less harsh miscast table. Instead, to spite everyone, you all get the O&G miscast table. You'll all be hoping for the casting result that makes your wizard "only" frenzy / stupid and not the many that cause multiple wounds on the caster, that instantly kill them and make you cause hits on every unit in your army, the one that fries your spell and then makes you roll again on the table, etcetera. Enjoy my pain, and the Orcs now have the 6th Edition BRB miscast table. HAH!

I'd like to see a return of the old Warhammer Skirmish (the scenarios, not the rules) and perhaps an "official" writing of Warbands. In the very least, scenarios comparable to those in the back of the BRB instead of like the ones in 40K.

I don't want a nicer miscast table, I want nerfed magic across the game. No more caster spam and ride the magic roller coaster.

I do like the sound of ranked archers.

I want place and scatter war machines instead of the guess mechanic (really like that in 40k)

Don't change ranks. Currently elite units can't afford max ranks and horde units can, that's how it should be.

Make GW +2 str while mounted again...

Disagree on the 1 on 1 dice miscast. double 1's on 2 dice is 1/36 < 3% vs 1 on 1 dice is 1/6 ~17% Maybe something more like if they roll a 1, roll again, on a second 1 it is a miscast

Agree about the challenge should be +1 on top of the wounds caused.

All and All... I don't want a new edition. My Brets never even got a 7th ed update (not that they really needed 1 except for questing knights)

Get rid of caster spam. I want to be able to play a competitive game without each army having 12 power dice...

Clthomps wrote:Get rid of caster spam. I want to be able to play a competitive game without each army having 12 power dice...

Then it'd just be regiment-slayer combat characters.

At least that would bring back movement.
With caster spam, they can just sit and spam magic. With combat characters, they have to move to kill something so there is even a decent chance to counter it...
I want 4-model ranks back, but maybe only for models with 25mm*25mm base? And 3-model ranks for 40mm*40mm?

Why does everyone think changing rank bonus for wider models is needed? (Doesn't affect me, so I'm curious where its coming from)

I can't see what a new edition could change that would fix what's wrong with the game.

I want number per rank tied to base size.
20mm = 5 models in a rank
25mm = 4, and
40mm = 3

First, it means that 5 humans/elves/goblins have the same frontage as 4 orcs/chaos warriors/cavalry. It means the big-based units can be a little narrower & a little less unwieldy to maneuver.
Second, it means that Ogre Kingdoms can actually field reasonably sized units while still getting a rank bonus.
Third, it means many of my old armies are viable again, without me having to go find those two or three more figures to fill out the new, expanded back rank.

Now, how 8th edition is going to fix the issue of bad army books, I don't know. (I'm looking at you, Orcs & Goblins. You too, Daemons!)

Oh, and go back to the old 'redirect' mechanic for charges. 'Enemy in the way' seemed simple enough, until we discovered that you can, by following the rules exactly as written, make a J-shaped charge. Now it's just stupid.

Well, I think they did good when they made it rank 5 wide, I disagree about changing the ranks based on base size... the base size is supposed to be a balancing thing. Making it so that the bigger based units have a harder time bringing numbers to bare against smaller bases. The unwieldy bit I agree with but I think it should stay the same. It should be hard for a unit of Chaos Warriors to get rank bonuses, and easy for Skaven to have it with plenty to spare.

I'd love to see:

Firing from multiple ranks for missile troops, at least from one additional rank.
Indirect fire for archers (longbows and shortbows only, not crossbows). Say minimum range = half max, max range = double normal max (longbows become 15"-60"), -2 to hit.
Place and scatter for guess weapons.
Better/some siege rules (what should the T and W be on a castle wall?); more detail on how to run campaigns.

I would like to see shooting changed.

They need an option to shoot over units into a targeted area

like real life long bows do.

Yes, bows/crossbows should be able to shoot in ranks and not require line of sight.

Cavalry should do impact hits rather than mounts "attacking" enemy models. It would be not only more realistic, but would make the game flow better too.

Lower level wizards (i.e. heroes) should have the option of rolling a D3 on the spell selection table rather than D6 ensuring they get spells that they are more likely to be able to cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm... upon further reflection, impact hits should be heavy cavalry only and work out at D6 S4 hits per complete rank. Not sure how this would apply to the Bretonnian Lance, but then this formation is more about piercing an enemy position rather than trampling on them, so may just D6 S4 hits regardless of ranks.

A change with the march blocking rules would be pretty nice. Nothing sucks more than running a full CC army and getting marched block by flyers first turn... especially when the other army is a magic spam army...

Maybe this is just me but the "to hit" table is amazingly slowed... Your telling me that my model is ws8...his(her) model is ws4... but he hits me on 4s... double ws and still 50% to hit... thats just annoying imo

Buttlerthepug wrote:A change with the march blocking rules would be pretty nice. Nothing sucks more than running a full CC army and getting marched block by flyers first turn... especially when the other army is a magic spam army...

Maybe this is just me but the "to hit" table is amazingly slowed... Your telling me that my model is ws8...his(her) model is ws4... but he hits me on 4s... double ws and still 50% to hit... thats just annoying imo

I agree, i think they need to switch the table to like to wound chart , so 2+ at best

LunaHound wrote:

Buttlerthepug wrote:A change with the march blocking rules would be pretty nice. Nothing sucks more than running a full CC army and getting marched block by flyers first turn... especially when the other army is a magic spam army...

Maybe this is just me but the "to hit" table is amazingly slowed... Your telling me that my model is ws8...his(her) model is ws4... but he hits me on 4s... double ws and still 50% to hit... thats just annoying imo

I agree, i think they need to switch the table to like to wound chart , so 2+ at best

NO!!

There is a reason this change was implemented in the 1st place. It created something called "Hero Hammer" if you are UN-familiar with that term, go ask a player from the 90s.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Maybe this is just me but the "to hit" table is amazingly slowed... Your telling me that my model is ws8...his(her) model is ws4... but he hits me on 4s... double ws and still 50% to hit... thats just annoying imo

I can understand making it harder to hit characters - maybe something like a three or four weapon skill difference is what causes the 5's to hit instead of double +1 (as then a WS5 model always needs only 4's or better to hit, even though a WS3 model fighting a WS7 model - who is only 4 points higher, unlike a WS10 model compared to a WS5 who is 5 points higher but still hits on 4's - needs 5's to wound).

I do not, however, support 2's to hit. As said, it makes things too skewed in a Hero's favor. If you want to hit on 2's, take the +1 To Hit Magic Item: Several armies have a S5 character who isn't at much loss with one.

Red_Lives wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Buttlerthepug wrote:A change with the march blocking rules would be pretty nice. Nothing sucks more than running a full CC army and getting marched block by flyers first turn... especially when the other army is a magic spam army...

Maybe this is just me but the "to hit" table is amazingly slowed... Your telling me that my model is ws8...his(her) model is ws4... but he hits me on 4s... double ws and still 50% to hit... thats just annoying imo

I agree, i think they need to switch the table to like to wound chart , so 2+ at best

NO!!

There is a reason this change was implemented in the 1st place. It created something called "Hero Hammer" if you are UN-familiar with that term, go ask a player from the 90s.

I would have agreed with you... untill they put in unit that could care less about the chart... They try to nerf the hero hammer maybe but when you put in stuff like bloodthirsters... might as well put it back to the way it should be imo... Nerf other rules or something but its just annoying imo.

A Bloodthirster is annoying, but not enough to warrant Hero Hammer to rear its head.

Even if they added some special rules for it I would be happy. Honestly when you are are attacking something thats double WS then you and you get a 50% chance to hit it still... its riduculous... that like me walking up to jet li right now and having a 50% chance to actually smack him... I somehow doubt that either of those should be possible wouldnt you agree?

The way it used to work was that the WS to hit chart was similar to the BS to hit chart. meaning that it would often require 7s 8s and 9s to hit hero characters. and if you had WS 10 you were plain un-hittable by non characters. That was majorly gay, granted you should need 5s to hit against double WS not just double +1 but its not THAT big of a deal.

I would like to see some of the same rules for Warhammer Ancient Battles make their way into Warhammer Fantasy simply because they make sense.

Things like the entire unit of archers being able to shoot without having to be on a hill to do it.

Things like attempting an orderly withdrawl so you can try to get your vulnerable missile troops away from close combat.

Things like attempting to disengage from combat so your buddy floyd on the left flank that just got charged by a black orc unit doesn't just stand there and watch his buddy frank get whacked because the unit lost combat and cannot turn to face the flank chargers, so now he's just gonna stand there round after round and wait for his turn to die (The most stupid rule EVER put into Warhammer in my personal opinion). Attempting to disengage at least mitigates the stupidity of it a bit.

Then there is the rule I think needs to make its way into the charge reactions...instead of just stand and shoot, hold, and flee, how about what the Peltasts used to do in the days of the Phalanx...they would fire and flee. Thats what made them a skirmisher. I think the fire and flee rule needs to be added to charge reactions.

And there is also the chariots...Chariots were fearsome, not because they came crashing headlong into units and trying to kill whoever they ran over, they were fearsome because they would chase down units that broke and cut them to pieces with their scythed wheels as members of said units scrambled to get away. Impact hits are rediculous on chariots, they should be on things like charging Dragons and Ogres and things with mass, not chariots with no real mass to speak of. And all chariots should cause Fear

Well, those are the changes I hope to see.

Archers fire in muiltiple ranks.

More of rank bonus for those hoarde armies and cheap infantry.

The magic phase needs a total overhaul because anybody can choose a spell and roll dice. Plus that about all you see nowadays is nothing but casters.

fellblade wrote:I want number per rank tied to base size.
20mm = 5 models in a rank
25mm = 4, and
40mm = 3

this is a great idea.

i would like something to be done about march blockers. an eagle sitting out of sight, behind 30 black orcs shouldnt have any effect on how far those blorcs march.

Lets see - things to change:

1. Fixing the wheeling/clipping rules
2. Redoing the Lores of Magic (written an edition or two ago).
3. Limiting casters to casting their number of spells equal to their level
4. Fixing Magic Resistance (come on - not specifically targeting a unit is a cheap way of getting around magic resistance).
5. Fixing the challenge rule to make it less abusable (Popemobile anyone).
6. Possibly changing unbreakable units to suffer additional wounds due to combat res (much like swarms).
7. Fix the rank bonuses to be based on base size as mentioned above
8. Eliminate partials but drop the strength on artillery
9. Make halberds or spears grant bonuses against cavalry
10. Clarify the whole "cast into combat" and LOS with magic
11. Allow units that are fleeing and are subsequently charged to rally (continual fleeing without a rally chance is annoying).
12. Fix the screening and frenzy rules.
13. And the big one - for different size games, institute a points allowed per selection choice, i.e. 50% on core, 25% characters, 20% special, etc. etc. I know GW wants fantasy to go back to big infantry blocks duking it out - this would help prevent power builds, as well as increase sales.

Hm, do any of you think this could work?

To help "solidify" ranks, the way wounds work in combat is changed. Models you kill are still models killed: You cause five wounds, you cause five wounds. However, now you don't get one point of combat resolution for every wound you cause.

I'm thinking one of the two following charts:

CHART A

0-1 Wounds: +0 Combat Resolution
2-3 Wounds: +1 Combat Resolution
4-5 Wounds: +2 Combat Resolution
6-7 Wounds: +3 Combat Resolution
Every next Even-Odd: +1 to Combat Resolution

This one would vastly limit the effect wounds had on combat. Essentially, it's turning every two wounds into one point of combat resolution (rounding down). The advantage of this is that it makes Ranks a bit more solid. The disadvantage is, it makes ranks quite a bit more solid (Chariot charing 20 goblins? It needs to cause 8 wounds just to match the Goblins, assuming no Musician / Standard). It'd also lead to more units just whacking away at each other until there's nothing left, neither side breaking (I could cause four more wounds, but as long as the enemy outnumbers they lost only by 1 point).

CHART B

0 Wounds = 0 Combat Res
1-2 Wounds = +1 Combat Res
3-4 Wounds = +2 Combat Res
5-6 Wounds = +3 Combat Res
Every next Odd-to-Even = +1 Combat Res

This chart still makes wounds a bit less effective, but now it's easier to get to the next step of the chart. Three wounds causes +2 combat res, for instance, and not +1. However, it's more rewarding to a luck wound than the last chart: Being able to slap that second wound on is only important if you think you can get a third to go with it. Furthermore, ranks are still solid blocks that aren't likely to move: Instead of needing eight wounds to tie 20 goblins w/o command, the chariot now needs 7 - not that big a difference.

Anyways, to split from the combat res wound discussion:
Outnumber can be increased in its bonus. Up to +3, similar to ranks: If you outnumber at all, you get +1. If you outnumber in unit-strength by 2-to-1, you get +2. If you outnumber by three or more times their unit strength, you get +3.

This would likely be in replacement to the wound chart I proposed, as combining this with wounds would make some blocks nigh-untouchable without your own Rank & File unit. Example as to why: 6 Chaos Knights w/ Attached Exalted Hero (7 Total) charge a unit of 30 Night Goblins. Goblins have three ranks, standard, outnumber, and outnumber x2. Six static combat res. The Knights have 1 static combat resolution. Not too bad in the current rule set... but with the above rule chart, they'd need at least nine wounds to tie.

2 ranks may choose to fire indirectly (fire OVER units) @ additional -1 to hit (I think that's fair).

Bring back "wrap around" for winning combat but still locked in. Make this a double edge sword though. If a unit wins combat but the enemy does not withdraw (for any reason), the unit which won combat the previous turn may opt to bring up to 5 models into base to base contact for the purposes of additional close combat attacks. This will however negate additional rank bonuses.

Alter the WS to hit chart SOME. While I remember (and hated) Hero Hammer, I do think its slowed a WS4 model has a 50% chance to hit a WS8 character. The best you can always hit is a 3+ but maybe alter it to results of double the WS with a -1 modifier equals a 5+ to hit. For example,

Model A @ WS 8 vs Model B @ WS 4 - "A" needs a 3+ to hit. "B" needs a 5+ to hit.

Model A @ WS 7 vs Model B @ WS 4 - "A" needs a 3+ to hit. "B" needs a 5+ to hit.

Model A @ WS 6 vs Model B @ WS 4 - "A" needs a 3+ to hit. "B" needs a 4+ to hit.

So basically when figuring out what your "To Hit" roll is, a 5+ would be when the number is -1 of double the amount.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+
2 3+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+
3 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+
4 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 5+
5 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 5+ 5+
6 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+
7 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+
8 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+ 4+
9 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+ 4+
10 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 4+

Makes too mcuh sense...................GW would never go for it.