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.

MR wouldn't be so bad if you could at least take saves against the spells that mattered.

It could stay as cheap as it is if all those nasty spells were changed to both lose single wounds only as well as allowing Ward saves(or possibly only Ward saves granted by Magic Resistance)

But that would make MR very very good and make those spells rather sucky.

Flesh Hounds would have a 2+ save vs. everything magic. Khorne troops would be everywhere.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Well, the problem is magic resist has already been priced into army books.
And it's dirt cheap.

Agreed 100%. You could possibly add something along the lines of units getting their magic resistance value added to dispel attempts directed at spells affecting that unit perhaps? It's a small buff, but considering they have the ward save potentiality helping them resist magic missiles and some direct damage spells it needn't be any bigger.

I don't think allies would break the game as much as they did for 40k if implemented into Fantasty. Mainly because in 40k half of the factions are imperial so it created an imbalance where Imperials can virtually ally with anybody, with only Tyranids getting left out. In Fantasy most armies have an obvious ally faction but also an obvious antithesis faction that they hate. I think there should also me a more obvious drawback to using combos of dubious allies. For example, Empire fighting alongside an allied force of Skaven, the Skaven should suffer a leadership penalty, to represent the fact that they are more likely to abandon an ally if they don't really like them. This would allow players to do fluffy lists but would penalise players combining for cheese.

alex87 wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
changing the complexity of the rules, they are just right now.

And 90% of what is going to happen in 9th edition.

No idea what this post means...
Like the idea of double 1 miscasts returning but I personally hope power/dispel dice generation doesn't go back to the way it was in 6th/7th. Naturally it should be scaled to allow for larger battles, but the idea of the winds of magic being random and somewhat fickle is thematic and feels accurate.

I was trying to say I oppose what looks like GW's plan to simplify the game [one book for each group of armies, for example]

 sing your life wrote:

I was trying to say I oppose what looks like GW's plan to simplify the game [one book for each group of armies, for example

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. One book for each group of armies? Its been a long time since every army didn't have their own army book?

alex87 wrote:

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. One book for each group of armies? Its been a long time since every army didn't have their own army book?

Yes, but a lot of rumours / rumourmongering / spitballing about the next edition has included the notion of a 'ravening hordes' style combined army book sort of thing. Either one book with updated lists, or multiple books that combine similar armies together.


Re: the magic resistance thing... it wouldn't surprise me at all if they turned it into something that either aided dispel attempts, or instead borrowed the "Deny the Witch" mechanic from 40k and tied it into that.

I shudder to think what that will do to the price of the rulebook/starter set. If this does happen then the persistent rumours about a few races being killed off are probably likely to eventuate.

 Micky wrote:

alex87 wrote:

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. One book for each group of armies? Its been a long time since every army didn't have their own army book?

Yes, but a lot of rumours / rumourmongering / spitballing about the next edition has included the notion of a 'ravening hordes' style combined army book sort of thing. Either one book with updated lists, or multiple books that combine similar armies together.


Re: the magic resistance thing... it wouldn't surprise me at all if they turned it into something that either aided dispel attempts, or instead borrowed the "Deny the Witch" mechanic from 40k and tied it into that.

It's funny how this would be the exact opposite of the 40k situation at the moment, with ridiculous amounts of new books, pamphlets and stand-alone characters that are being released, and yet it sounds like an almost equally poor idea.

It seems really unlikely they would do that. What they could always do is move some of the more unpopular armies to be online only. But there's very little reason to totally get rid of them.

At the GW retail stores, everything takes up space and thus it has to pull its own weight in terms of paying for the lease and salaries.

Having less products is pretty much the opposite of what any manufacturer wants to do.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
It seems really unlikely they would do that. What they could always do is move some of the more unpopular armies to be online only. But there's very little reason to totally get rid of them.

At the GW retail stores, everything takes up space and thus it has to pull its own weight in terms of paying for the lease and salaries.

Having less products is pretty much the opposite of what any manufacturer wants to do.

Some armies might have an easier time pulling their own weight if they weren't mostly metal models.

Get it? It's a valid point both metaphorically and concretely. Since plastics weigh less, but are also more popular. I'm very clever.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
But that would make MR very very good and make those spells rather sucky.

Flesh Hounds would have a 2+ save vs. everything magic. Khorne troops would be everywhere.

I don't know about that.

With what I said, you wouldn't get normal Ward saves. Just what the MR gives you. So MR3 on a 5+ ward would only be a 4+ save against the spell. Not 2+.

 Purifier wrote:

Some armies might have an easier time pulling their own weight if they weren't mostly metal models.

I don't know why some are still metal. I don't know all the details of their contracts and the sculpts. I doubt it's just as easy as flipping a switch and making everything plastic or they would do so.


If MR replaced ward instead of increasing it, it would be rather sucky and you'd never see it on heroes unless they already had it somehow.

Know it's been said a lot by now, but I agree totally with the allies nonsense, its actually killed 40k for me, that and the ridiculous fluff in the past few years.

I would also hate to see an ally mechanic but i doubt that would happen because of the expansion that was recently released.

Whats more likely to happen that would ruin the game for me is magic or shooting getting massive buffs. The emphasis needs to be on the units and characters doing the fighting.

BS shooting is pretty terrible now.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
BS shooting is pretty terrible now.

This is true and i can see now that i did a terrible job of wording my point. Whilst there is no problem with shooting being improved i would hate to see it become more like 40k. Where guns and who you choose to shoot matter more than unit placement and maneuvering.

 Niiai wrote:
9th edition for me would be very good if it stays the same as this edition except:

Make you take look out sir rolls vs all spells.
Make magic resist better.
Make cannons worse.
Remove purple sun as a spell.
Remake some of the magic item lists, just to shake things up a bit.

Some spells would be rather silly if you could take a look out sir, how would you even justify it when some things hit the mind?

But as a whole, all of this.

There needs to be a LOT more magic banners. Even if they aren't uber. They have the potential to add a lot of strategic value because they affect so many units. And some (most) armies don't have good banner choices in their own books. Or any.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
BS shooting is pretty terrible now.

Yeah, I would actually remove the long range modifier for some of the weapons.

There would be a special rule called "long range" which swaps the modifiers for long and short range around, to represent how difficult it is to use a weapon that is meant for long range combat at short range.

Examples of weapons that would be affected :

Long Bows

Jezzails

Bolt Throwers

Long Rifles (or whatever that special Empire gun is called)

If they could keep the diversity in army book magic items too that would be great. Around 8 is way too few and a lot of the time they are crap or overpointed.

^This. It's one of the few things i miss about the old 7th edition army books. If they could give us better balanced/pointed magic items that would go a long way in my book.

Army books hang around for many years/cycles. They get grossly out of balance with one another and the BRB. It only makes sense they moved to a BRB-centric magic and item and special rule system.

The old HE and Lizardman and WoC and (currently) Skaven magic items were crazy broken. Because the game had changed around them.

Likewise the old Ogre and TK pseudo-magic didn't fit with the rest of the game. If you standardize it is easier to keep the whole game evolving without breaking.

Everyone wants to be unique snowflakes in their army but the problem is at version 1.01 you're not a snowflake anymore you're a rusty cog grinding away in the machine.

What would ruin 9th for me? An upscale of the points again..

As far as allies go just bring back Dogs of War...

I would like to see a return to guess range and no pre-measure.

 DarkWind wrote:
As far as allies go just bring back Dogs of War...

I loved Dogs of War, but they came right before I stopped playing last time. Does anyone know the reason they were removed?

 DarkWind wrote:
I would like to see a return to guess range and no pre-measure.

Oh yeah, time to learn how many inches your elbow->wrist and wrist->each finger distance is again.
... no, let's not go back to that.

 Purifier wrote:

 DarkWind wrote:
I would like to see a return to guess range and no pre-measure.

Oh yeah, time to learn how many inches your elbow->wrist and wrist->each finger distance is again.
... no, let's not go back to that.

The main reason I would like to go back to this is I feel it's a bit more realistic. Now there are those who would try to "cheat" the system using body parts to measure however this wasn't always an exact science. As to where now you can measure make calculations for die rolls and more often then not always hit your target or close combat with them.

I would more or less like to see this for Charges and War Machines only. Have a rule that no pre-measurement of any sort (including body parts) is allowed when declaring charges or firing war machines.

 DarkWind wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 DarkWind wrote:
I would like to see a return to guess range and no pre-measure.

Oh yeah, time to learn how many inches your elbow->wrist and wrist->each finger distance is again.
... no, let's not go back to that.

The main reason I would like to go back to this is I feel it's a bit more realistic. Now there are those who would try to "cheat" the system using body parts to measure however this wasn't always an exact science. As to where now you can measure make calculations for die rolls and more often then not always hit your target or close combat with them.

I would more or less like to see this for Charges and War Machines only. Have a rule that no pre-measurement of any sort (including body parts) is allowed when declaring charges or firing war machines.

It wasn't allowed back then either, but so easy to game. In your movement phase you point at something or whatever. It also meant that people that were good at eyeballing a distance had a great advantage, which I honestly don't see as a skill that should give you an advantage in a tactical game. It's more like something a good carpenter should have. I was quite good at it, but I had a friend that could hit his first cannonball perfectly every game. I know he didn't cheat. We tested his skill so many times just moving some pieces around and asking him how far it was between the two units. He would sometimes get it wrong by an inch, but just as often hit it dead on. he didn't really need to play using tactics. His cannons were much better than everyone else's.

I see what your saying. However isn't guessing distance one of the skills of any artillery commander of old?

 DarkWind wrote:
I see what your saying. However isn't guessing distance one of the skills of any artillery commander of old?

But not of the general. Trust your subordinates. You can't run from cannon to cannon, judging their distances for them. You have more important duties.

 Purifier wrote:

 DarkWind wrote:
I see what your saying. However isn't guessing distance one of the skills of any artillery commander of old?

But not of the general. Trust your subordinates. You can't run from cannon to cannon, judging their distances for them. You have more important duties.

Well said