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.

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.