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.

1d3+1 gives results of 2, 3, 4, which means it has a 2/3 chance of killing a 3-wound model, the same as 1d6 wounds. 1d3+1 is actually better against 3-wound models since it cannot inflict only 1 wound. That's the nice thing about 1d3+1 instead of 1d6; it counterbalances itself somewhat since though it cannot inflict 5 or 6 wounds on a monster it also cannot inflict only 1.

Loving some of the ides coming up here. My 2 pence worth,

Monsters vs Steadfast, my thought is that most of the big bad monsters cause fear or terror, so what if a unit that fails it's fear test loses steadfast for the turn? Seems to make sense that a unit that is scared sh**less by the giant monster attacking them would be more likely to run away no matter how many of them there are.

Steadfast, I think the suggestion for units being flanks charge lose steadfast work, I hadn't considered the use of small chaff units being a issue for this so the 5 frontage + 2 ranks minimum makes sense.

Cannonballs, I like that they have their own feel rules wise, making them scatter d6 - the shooters BS sounds good to me. They would be less reliable at sniping monsters and characters but could still be reliable for hitting big units.

Level 6 spells, I think making it harder for low level wizards o get them off would be good, some throwback to earlier editions maybe. Not sure how this should work but something is needed.

Edited for typos, its been a long day.

I was pretty happy with 8th. As a skaven player I wanted a new book. brets and bm need one too.

With the core rules my only real gripe was movement, charges, charge redirect and 1" rule could get kinda hoaky. I like the idea of over haul on steadfast and cannon/monster stuff. With steadfast I think the rule should change from "having a greater number of ranks..." to " having 25/50% more ranks..." just my op. Cannons and monsters def need to stop being point,click,boom. To tone it down I'd a). reinstitute guessing range for cannon shots or b). add a dice roll for shooting at monsters (ridden or unridden) to account for the possibility that the shot can completely miss or only inflict a glancing blow ( on a roll of 4,5, or even 6+ no damage or light damage(1 w instead of d6))

Charges ( M value + 2d6) makes the game a little too unpredictable imo. I would go double M value +d6, again just opinion.

charge redirect. even tho I found it very useful I also found it very unfair and unrealistic that I could park a unit in front of the enemy kinda off to the side and block/redirect charges when the enemy unit was otherwise clear in its front.. Idk what would be fair to all armies in changing this.

1" rule- just needs more clarification for better functionality. Specifically virtual pivots.

I was really happy with 8th ed. I just didn't like the lack of updated rules for my army. It seems like a lot of people gave up on 8th cuz they didn't like what magic turned into but a lot of people like the power of magic because of the dynamic to the game it brings

aquietfrog wrote:I made an account just to post this.

Why not just add scatter to cannons? For example, on the first artillery roll, make it scatter on where it actually lands, rather than just in a straight line. Maybe even subtracting the Crew's or Engineer's BS from the scatter distance.

Incorporating some sort of scatter was my original idea, but I thought it was a bit too complicated which is why we'll likely go with either the bolt thrower or the reduced wound idea. The reduced wound idea seems like the most popular but my only concern from that is that cannons can still snipe characters out. Still, I guess we could just rule that they can't...

Druchii wrote:I think for cannons its best if they either are S10 bolt throwers or act like normal but do D3+1 wounds instead not both of those things. Like Ninthmusketeer says the current rules that say a cannonball stops if it fails to kill something is fine. Although if we do change it to d3+1 wounds that means theres only a 1/3 chance of them killing a monstrous infantry model and so theres only a 1/3 chance of it actually hitting the second rank of a monstrous infantry unit. So with that in mind considering that cannons should be able to blast through any ranked up unit i think the best thing to do is say it acts as a S10 bolt thrower.

Yeah, Ninthmusketeer is right. 1D3+1 gives a 2/3 chance of killing a 3 wound model, which is exactly the same. He has a good point about why D3+1 is a good number too.

Tamereth wrote:Loving some of the ides coming up here. My 2 pence worth,

Monsters vs Steadfast, my thought is that most of the big bad monsters cause fear or terror, so what if a unit that fails it's fear test loses steadfast for the turn? Seems to make sense that a unit that is scared sh**less by the giant monster attacking them would be more likely to run away no matter how many of them there are.

Steadfast, I think the suggestion for units being flanks charge lose steadfast work, I hadn't considered the use of small chaff units being a issue for this so the 5 frontage + 2 ranks minimum makes sense.

Cannonballs, I like that they have their own feel rules wise, making them scatter d6 - the shooters BS sounds good to me. They would be less reliable at sniping monsters and characters but could still be reliable for hitting big units.

Level 6 spells, I think making it harder for low level wizards o get them off would be good, some throwback to earlier editions maybe. Not sure how this should work but something is needed.

Edited for typos, its been a long day.

I really, really like the idea of failing Fear/Terror check (though I would limit it to only Terror) meaning you lose steadfast. It's simple, makes sense and is fluffy too (i.e. dwarves would be happier fighting a dragon than clanrats etc)

Yeah, I think flanking getting rid of Steadfast is also a good change, personally.

See above for my reply regarding cannons and scattering

A lot of people have suggested a new magic system similar to older editions, but I want to avoid changing the magic phase around too much. I don't think it's the magic phase itself that's the problem, rather the fact that people just tend to 6-dice the "6th spells". That's why the only fix I think we need is to make doing either/or more dangerous.

NinthMusketeer wrote:1d3+1 gives results of 2, 3, 4, which means it has a 2/3 chance of killing a 3-wound model, the same as 1d6 wounds. 1d3+1 is actually better against 3-wound models since it cannot inflict only 1 wound. That's the nice thing about 1d3+1 instead of 1d6; it counterbalances itself somewhat since though it cannot inflict 5 or 6 wounds on a monster it also cannot inflict only 1.

Yeah, as I say above, this is a very good point.

Matt Ratsinburger wrote:I was pretty happy with 8th. As a skaven player I wanted a new book. brets and bm need one too.

With the core rules my only real gripe was movement, charges, charge redirect and 1" rule could get kinda hoaky. I like the idea of over haul on steadfast and cannon/monster stuff. With steadfast I think the rule should change from "having a greater number of ranks..." to " having 25/50% more ranks..." just my op. Cannons and monsters def need to stop being point,click,boom. To tone it down I'd a). reinstitute guessing range for cannon shots or b). add a dice roll for shooting at monsters (ridden or unridden) to account for the possibility that the shot can completely miss or only inflict a glancing blow ( on a roll of 4,5, or even 6+ no damage or light damage(1 w instead of d6))

Charges ( M value + 2d6) makes the game a little too unpredictable imo. I would go double M value +d6, again just opinion.

charge redirect. even tho I found it very useful I also found it very unfair and unrealistic that I could park a unit in front of the enemy kinda off to the side and block/redirect charges when the enemy unit was otherwise clear in its front.. Idk what would be fair to all armies in changing this.

1" rule- just needs more clarification for better functionality. Specifically virtual pivots.

I was really happy with 8th ed. I just didn't like the lack of updated rules for my army. It seems like a lot of people gave up on 8th cuz they didn't like what magic turned into but a lot of people like the power of magic because of the dynamic to the game it brings

I think redirect is fine. It does sorta make sense and, considering that double fleeing is a tactic people use, I don't think it needs changing. I also think the suggested changes to steadfast are enough, so we don't need to change it to having to have more than one rank more to have steadfast. After all, steadfast isn't a problem vs other infantry, it's only annoying when you get to monsters etc

I think reducing charge distance will slow the game down. I think the game should be all about combat and so units needs to get in combat as much as possible. I think if we made that change we'd probably have to stick another turn onto most missions.

I see your point about blocking charges, but I think that's one of the integral components of tactics of WHFB and what makes it so good. Unlike AoS and 40k, positioning and chaff units play such an important role. I think that's one aspect of the game we should be safeguarding, not changing, personally.

I also see your point about the 1" rule. I'd strongly suggest that we take a page from Mantic's Book: saying that, when pivoting, units can move through all units and terrain See "Interpenetration When Pivoting on Page 8. What does everyone think?

Thanks again for your support and suggestion guys, good to see some new contributors!

Aside from army books, what was the problem with 7E ruleset?

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
Aside from army books, what was the problem with 7E ruleset?

Nothing really. Though, as I've explained before, 8th is the edition that the majority of Warhammer players have been playing and getting used to for the longest amount of time. It's familiar to the majority of players, and so is by far the best choice for adapting into a fan ruleset. Whilst some people will go back to playing editions, it seems pointless to go back an edition, only then to go forward again with our own community improvements. 8th is what most people play, and so it's the best template.

I agree to port over the KoW rule on pivoting. Actually me and my buds just play like that anyway because otherwise its way too much trouble for something rather trivial.

The fear/terror rule would again be great as something added on, but in my experience those are rarely failed because of the way leadership (BSBs in particular) work. I'm not sure its a change worth making because it wouldn't come into play often enough.

Okay so I think we settled the cannon debate at D3+1 wounds.
Though I remembered something of a elephant in the room. How would we be able to incorporate round bases into the game?

I don't think you can, unless you stop removing individual casualties.

concerning magic dice casting, i would make the "6th" spells cause a wound at with no armour saves, with look out sirs. This gives more incentive to take magic resistance etc. It doesn't really work for MI and other monstrous units.

I don't like the idea of double-ones causing miscasts, it just gives a lousy result. Maybe snake eyes should cause broken concentration instead, and double six means irresitable and miscast.

Change the table of miscast results to 7th's would scare people from six-dicing spells too.

I like all the suggested rules here a lot, seems good.

 Son of Landuin wrote:
concerning magic dice casting, i would make the "6th" spells cause a wound at with no armour saves, with look out sirs. This gives more incentive to take magic resistance etc. It doesn't really work for MI and other monstrous units.

I don't like the idea of double-ones causing miscasts, it just gives a lousy result. Maybe snake eyes should cause broken concentration instead, and double six means irresitable and miscast.

Change the table of miscast results to 7th's would scare people from six-dicing spells too.

I like all the suggested rules here a lot, seems good.

How about it causes a Wound with the Heroic Killing Blow special rule?

That could work, could balance out with the damage it would to other units.

I like the idea on the Killing Blow against characters.

Also in regards to miscast I've an idea, how about when you roll a double 6 then your have to much power and the wizard can cast but must take a LD test, if he fails then he rolls on the miscast table. If you roll 3 or more sixes though you directly roll on the miscast table.

-

Then we come to round bases. my idea on it is if the model is on the round base then it should be on a movement tray with a marker on the tray to show which direction it is facing.

I was going to suggest WotR movement trays, but i think they are not sold anymore. Neither are the Warhammer ones either, I guess.

 Son of Landuin wrote:
I was going to suggest WotR movement trays, but i think they are not sold anymore. Neither are the Warhammer ones either, I guess.

Balsa wood works great

NinthMusketeer wrote:The fear/terror rule would again be great as something added on, but in my experience those are rarely failed because of the way leadership (BSBs in particular) work. I'm not sure its a change worth making because it wouldn't come into play often enough.

This is a very good point, and I do agree. However, the failing Terror check = no steadfast is a simple and sensible rule I genuinely think we should think about. Yes, it may not come into play all that often, but, if you think about it, it kinda makes sense. The whole idea of steadfast is that the unit feels "safety in numbers", so it makes sense that if they pass their Leadership check (i.e. they're brave) they're happy to face up to the dragon or whatever. This also opens up a range of new tactics revolving around Leadership debuffs (e.g. a Strigoi Ghoul King with Aura of Dark Majesty on a Terrorgeist). We could add another layer in that casualties a monster inflicts reduces the leadership of the unit suffering the casualties, but that I think reduces the attractive simplicity of the change.

Commissar-Danno wrote:Okay so I think we settled the cannon debate at D3+1 wounds.

It seems that way, yes. Though I'd still advocate discussion on the bolt thrower idea. But yeah, you're right, most people seem to be set on just reducing the wounds.

Commissar-Danno wrote: Though I remembered something of a elephant in the room. How would we be able to incorporate round bases into the game?

It's not really out first priority to be honest, and I think, if we make WHFB style rules for AoS models, we'll have to write in that players need to be careful in considering the frontage of a unit. Still, we can say you could stick the round base unit on a movement tray and call it a day. I'd explain more, but I think this is a problem we can deal with later

 Son of Landuin wrote:
concerning magic dice casting, i would make the "6th" spells cause a wound at with no armour saves, with look out sirs. This gives more incentive to take magic resistance etc. It doesn't really work for MI and other monstrous units. .

I really don't think the issue is the 6th spells themselves, rather that there's not much risk in casting them and that it's fairly easy to get them off if that's the only spell you care about. 6th spells as they are are good counters to deathstars as well.

Rihgu wrote:How about it causes a Wound with the Heroic Killing Blow special rule?

This doesn't work, or at least adds a new complication. For HKB to activate, you need to roll to wound, which these spells don't do. So either you need to add in an errata that says they would on a 2+ or something, or just say "1/6 of the models die", either of which are too complicated, in my opinion.

Commissar-Danno wrote:Also in regards to miscast I've an idea, how about when you roll a double 6 then your have to much power and the wizard can cast but must take a LD test, if he fails then he rolls on the miscast table. If you roll 3 or more sixes though you directly roll on the miscast table.

Why? This adds unnecessary complication and we're trying to make 6th spells more risky to cast, something which making it harder to miscast goes against.

 The Shadow wrote:

Commissar-Danno wrote:Okay so I think we settled the cannon debate at D3+1 wounds.

It seems that way, yes. Though I'd still advocate discussion on the bolt thrower idea. But yeah, you're right, most people seem to be set on just reducing the wounds.

I also advocate the bolt thrower idea

The Shadow wrote:

Rihgu wrote:How about it causes a Wound with the Heroic Killing Blow special rule?

This doesn't work, or at least adds a new complication. For HKB to activate, you need to roll to wound, which these spells don't do. So either you need to add in an errata that says they would on a 2+ or something, or just say "1/6 of the models die", either of which are too complicated, in my opinion.

Ah, that's right. My first thought was for it to cause a Wound with the Multiple Wounds (*) special rule, * being the Wounds characteristic of the model taking the wound. Then, I thought I had a Eureka! moment with the HKB idea and hastily wrote that instead, without totally thinking it through.

But, with the Multiple Wounds (*) rule, I think it would work while being relatively simple. The caster would get their model removing spell, the target would get saves.

@Shadow and Rihgu: I'm firm on the reduced wounds for cannons and no other changes to making it hit like a bolt thrower. Trust me its a lot more dangerous if you do put the cannons as bolt throwers, there are so many items and spells I can rtake to boost my accuracy that they will hit every single time and go through all the ranks with re-rolls to wound.

@Shadow: It was in response to son of landuin, in that he gave me an idea on how to make magic a little more interesting

@Rihgu, so it's more the fact that models don't generally get saves versus these spells that's your issue, rather than the fact they "remove models as casualties"?

@Danno, again, I don't think we need to make anything more interesting especially not when it adds in more complications. We're on about improving here, and I don't think that's the way to go about it.

Perhaps we should have a focus on the magic phase and 6th spells aspect for a bit... Really, all I think that needs to be done is to make it more dangerous to cast the more powerful spells and so re-writing the miscast table and rules so that it's riskier to cast bigger spells (i.e. +1 to roll for every dice used when casting, higher rolls are worse). Alternatively we could say that if you miscast when casting a 6th spell and/or 6-dicing, you have to roll twice on the miscast table, and your opponent gets to choose the result that stands. Less of an errata, but not as much finesse.

 The Shadow wrote:
I think redirect is fine. It does sorta make sense and, considering that double fleeing is a tactic people use, I don't think it needs changing. I also think the suggested changes to steadfast are enough, so we don't need to change it to having to have more than one rank more to have steadfast. After all, steadfast isn't a problem vs other infantry, it's only annoying when you get to monsters etc

I think reducing charge distance will slow the game down. I think the game should be all about combat and so units needs to get in combat as much as possible. I think if we made that change we'd probably have to stick another turn onto most missions.

I see your point about blocking charges, but I think that's one of the integral components of tactics of WHFB and what makes it so good. Unlike AoS and 40k, positioning and chaff units play such an important role. I think that's one aspect of the game we should be safeguarding, not changing, personally.

I also see your point about the 1" rule. I'd strongly suggest that we take a page from Mantic's Book: saying that, when pivoting, units can move through all units and terrain See "Interpenetration When Pivoting on Page 8. What does everyone think?

Thanks again for your support and suggestion guys, good to see some new contributors!

I see your point about movement.

I don't think the change in charges makes it slower but more consistent. 8th ed clanrat 7-17", 8.5 ed 10-16, cavalry 10-22" 8.5 17-22". I think it would be a great way to end those heart breaking whiffs. I do agree that combat is where its at.

After reading through. I like the new idea for steadfast. It's simple, easily implemented, and most would agree before it were even mentioned.

I think someone posted earlier about wizards generating their own dice. I like that. I would also take it a step and suggest that they use their own dice too and keep a cap on amount of power dice generated in a phase. maybe put a cap on the sum of wiz levels. just a thought.

Skaven- Imo, the 7th ed book was easily implemented into 8th except for the fact that GW FAQ'd, amended, and errated everything except what they needed to.
I think the only things that needed changing (please bear with me, I have neither books nor the FAQ sheet in front of me) were terminology, spell types and specs on a few models.
Spell types
skitterleap- stays typeless
warplightning- missle
howling warpgale- hex?
death frenzy-aug
scorch- direct d
cracks call- missle?
pestilent breath- missle?
bless with filth-aug
wither-hex
vermintide-missle
cloud of corruption- direct d
plague- direct d
dreaded 13th- I think good arguments are made for direct d or hex but considering casting value, over all power, and the way it fits into 8th ed now, it should be a hex.
I think casting values could be altered but I would only alter plague. I admit, its too cheap for its power but its new value should be moderated by its ability to backfire. I think 15 or 16, rather than 13, is fair. Here is a crossroad for skaven. Do you give rats additional lores? It seems like we should when everyone else in 8th can. What should we get idk. It could really imbalance skaven. It might be best to leave as is.

I have to rant about skaven 's 2 lores and tournies. most TO's mandate that lores be chosen as a part of army list submission. With Skaven and mixing their lores, I think its a pain in writing a tourney list. I can't make a determination on how best to deal with this but I would ask you to consider this.

wording- wheel and abom need random movement, night runners need vanguard. Im sure there's other stuff im missing

spec models, point values and stat lines-
verminlord- point value should go down. compare to a greater demon with l4 wiz upgrade in point value and stat lines. depends on new core rules.
abom- shouldn't change- abom is picked on.
anything else should depend on how the core rules change

magic items- its only fair to the other armies that skaven should lose 80% of their 7th ed list (or is it? For fulff's sake rats with their warp-tech can crank out their own magic items like dwarves do. I think it'd be cool if skaven got a table for building items like the dwaves do but I can hope in one hand...) I've noticed in other armies' books that they get stripped down to the items they've pretty much *always* had
10 items to keep for skaven
fellblade, weeping blades, warpstone armor, skavenbrew, brass orb, sacred standard of the horned rat. doomrocket, smokebombs, plague banner, things-catcher. The first 6 def in every skaven book since at least 5th ed. the last 4 are clan spec. I think plague banner, smoke bombs, and things catcher have been in previous books

Another person mentioned that armies should get scrolls of binding. I think this especially true for skaven and their clan moulder affiliation. I think it could add a horrible imbalance to skaven. I think we should be able to get most monsters any other army can get but I think we should have to pay higher points. Again, I think it would be subjective depending on the 8.5 set but I think 15-25% more is reasonable.

I like the idea of pivoting through terrain without any penalty but other than that change i really think the movement phase is fine charges etc included. Like i said before i really don't think we should change much at all only the glaring issues like steadfast, cannons and monsters. Personally i don't think some of the things people have mentioned like magic and supporting attacks need changing at all. My group tried to comp 40k back in 6th edition but it never really took off because they changed too much and i want us to avoid doing the same.

That's a good point about the change in charge range, with 2M + D6 being a lot more consistent. However, one of the things I really didn't like about 7th was the set charge ranges, and that, unless your opponent was an idiot, your lower-movement troops would never get the charge in a 1v1 situation. There was all this edging slightly forward whilst remaing juuust out of charge range that really annoyed me. Now I know adding on that D6 will mean there's some variation, but I'm worried it'll go back to being a bit too much like it was in 7th. Again I know that's only a personal grievance but, like Druchii says, we don't really want to be changing things that don't need changing, just for the sake of it.

Also @Matt, we'll deal with changes to Skaven and the other non-8th edition armies once we've got our fan ruleset nailed down.

@Druchii, I do definitely see your point about not changing too much but I'd disagree on magic. I think we need to make it a little bit dangerous at the higher end, and that's something most people seem to agree on.

Fair enough. I know a lot of people dont like the magic system but i personally think it's fine.

Anyway should we start to vote on some changes before this project starts to lose steam?

Yes, good idea.

I'd say there's been enough discussion to vote on the following:

(I've listed the options for each below it)

Cannons
1) D3+1 wounds
2) S10 Bolt Thrower
3) Some sort of scatter on the original placement of the cannonball
4) Stay the same

Steadfast/Monsters
1) Removed if engaged on two or more fronts by two or more enemy units with at least two ranks of five models
2) Removed if you fail your Terror check
3) Removed if you take 25% casualties in a single turn
4) Removed if you take 25% casualties in a single turn by a Terror-causing model
5) Only gain the bonus if you have 25% more ranks than your opponent (i.e. if he has 4, you need 5 to be steadfast)
6) A Unit Strength like system brought in, i.e. each rank of Cavalry counts as 2 ranks of infantry etc
7) Have Monsters count as having a number of ranks equal to half their remaining wounds
(Any or all of the above)
8) No change

Magic
1) A new Miscast table with results getting worse the more dice you rolled to cast the spell
2) A new Miscast table with results getting worse the higher "up" the lore the spell you cast is (i.e. chances are that spell #1 is not that bad, but spell #6 will be)
3) Revert to a similar system to 7th edition, where casters generate a number of power dice equal to their level + 1 and can only use these dice
4) Have "6th spells" only inflict a wound with no armour saves allowed
(Any or all of the above)
5) No change

Ridden Monsters
1) Have ridden monsters count as a single model using the highest characteristic for T and W when resolving damage (just like Monstrous Cavalry)
2) Have all ranged attacks randomised to hit one component only (includes templates i.e. cannons), 1-4 hits the Monster, 5-6 hits the rider
3) No change

Is everyone happy with this poll? Anything I've missed? Am I ok to post it on the front page, or in a new thread?

Just to chip in...

As a veteran from 3rd Ed, I really like protracted combats - so I like steadfast. I would avoid removing it due to flanking.

However! 3rd also had "Free strikes" when a unit was losing. So I'd incorporate something similar, and represent that a unit may be steadfast not due to bravery, but due to the front rank having nowhere to run away to.

1) Take a break test as normal, with modified Ld due to combat resolution. If you pass, no problem.

2) If failed, check if your unit is steadfast. If it is, check if your break test roll would have passed. If you still fail, proceed as normal.

3) If you pass due to being steadfast, take a number of wounds (saving throws allowed) equal to how much you lost combat by. This represents the front/side ranks turning to try to run, being blocked and their opponents hacking them down.

Obviously, if you flank a unit you're going to win by significantly more, and hence start removing large chunks of the steadfast unit much more quickly.

One other suggestion I'd make (again harking back to 3rd) - I don't like the way that the horde rule kicks in at a flat frontage of 10. This encourages deathstars. I would suggest that the definintion of horde be kept (for things like Skarsnik's prodder, etc.) but not grant extra attacks. Instead:

Lapping around. If your unit has the broadest frontage in the combat, an extra rank can fight. Monsterous infantry count as two models for calculating breadth of frontage.

It's an interesting idea, kind of like a pseudo-unstable/unbreakable for Steadfast units I guess. Still, I'd be worried it'd be too much of a drastic change