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.

If GW brings back Fantasy what sorts of rules would you like to see? I started playing in 7th but liked 8th more because of steadfast being added so a chariot could no longer wipe out a unit in a turn.

Movement, charging, magic, shooting, leadership, unit types, combat roles, list restrictions, formations (wedge, block, skirmish, horde), special rules, pts/pl, release method and update schedule. Thoughts and opinions?

Give Dogs of War some love, I started in 5th and left at the beginning of 8th; kept my brets and DE, but sold my VC, WE, and DoW, always regretted the latter. They were getting no support outside of WD article regiments, FW Empire unit, no new codex outside the founding codex back in 5th.

Make sure the stupid naming conventions of AoS and current 40K are not adopted.
I dont want to see Steelshard Defendermen or Aelfmark Arrowdealers or soemthing else equally stupid instead of Empire Greatswords or High Elf Archers.

 Orlanth wrote:
Make sure the stupid naming conventions of AoS and current 40K are not adopted.
I dont want to see Steelshard Defendermen or Aelfmark Arrowdealers or soemthing else equally stupid instead of Empire Greatswords or High Elf Archers.

I've always hated these names, but only recently realised why: it just takes away from the immersion. Neither the people within the army nor their opponents would logically refer to their own/the enemy warriors as anything along those lines, while referring to weapons with specific names such as stormcall javelins, skybolt bows, boltstorm crossbows, shockbolt bows or thunderbolt crossbows is not only needlessly confusing, it also is a level of specificity not used historically until fairly modern fire arms came about. In contrast, you can imagine both the Elves or their enemies referring to Silver Helms, or Eternal Guard, or Wardancers, and they would be armed with lances, spears, shields, or the equivalent names in their own language.

Anyway, as for rules, I would like to see armies that, even if technically having only a handful of models, still feel like armies. Not two blocks of 50 guys, but a dozen seperate units, with a lot of variation in what they are. Not sure if the percentage or slot system was better (I feel it depended on the faction a bit, what units you wanted to field and how restrictive the unit costs sometimes were at a particular points level), but I like seeing some basic troops, some elites, some artillery, some monsters.
I want some unit-specific or army-wide special rules to give factions somewhat different playstyles, but not to go overboard with it. The role a unit plays in the army will already change depending on other options available, and I'm perfectly happy with a High Elf and a Dark Elf spearmen being functionally very similar, rather than giving them 3 shared special rules to distinguish them as Elves, and then another 2 special rules to distinguish them from each other, plus another 7 rules conferred by magical powers and nearby characters.

As they did with the Middle-earth revival, the best thing they could do would be to write the faction rules at the same time. Highly consistent within and between factions, balanced and logical. They can be expanded a bit later, but no need to completely overhaul and revise them.

And I hope they won't be terribly restrictive in which models they create/bring back and what options will be available in the game. There is such a large range of sculpts available (and I like kitbashing and converting too much), I'd hate it if they went for the silly 40k system and gave a Wood Elf lord a bow with an optional two-handed weapon when on foot, which it has to exchange for a spear and shield when mounted, but a spear and sword if mounted on a stag, just because those would be the sculpts produced and Kurnous forbid anybody would want to get creative and make a stag-mounted lord with a bow.

 vict0988 wrote:
If GW brings back Fantasy what sorts of rules would you like to see? I started playing in 7th but liked 8th more because of steadfast being added so a chariot could no longer wipe out a unit in a turn.

Movement, charging, magic, shooting, leadership, unit types, combat roles, list restrictions, formations (wedge, block, skirmish, horde), special rules, pts/pl, release method and update schedule. Thoughts and opinions?

In what plane of the multiverse could a chariot wipe out a whole unit in one turn?



Ideally my wishlist would be for all armies that had an army book or Ravening Hordes list to get a full list. If we won't get full on Chaos Dwarfs then do an upgrade sprue to turn Dwarf Warriors evil. That'd be the dream, along with it aping my favorite edition. If it's going to be a new ruleset, my wish is that it doesn't have the mana generation and buff aura garbage that's permeating the modern rulesets. Oh, and definitely ranks and flanks with square bases.

 Just Tony wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If GW brings back Fantasy what sorts of rules would you like to see? I started playing in 7th but liked 8th more because of steadfast being added so a chariot could no longer wipe out a unit in a turn.

Movement, charging, magic, shooting, leadership, unit types, combat roles, list restrictions, formations (wedge, block, skirmish, horde), special rules, pts/pl, release method and update schedule. Thoughts and opinions?

In what plane of the multiverse could a chariot wipe out a whole unit in one turn?



Ideally my wishlist would be for all armies that had an army book or Ravening Hordes list to get a full list. If we won't get full on Chaos Dwarfs then do an upgrade sprue to turn Dwarf Warriors evil. That'd be the dream, along with it aping my favorite edition. If it's going to be a new ruleset, my wish is that it doesn't have the mana generation and buff aura garbage that's permeating the modern rulesets. Oh, and definitely ranks and flanks with square bases.

Khorne Chariot charges in, gets ten attacks, kill three dudes, Ld 5 is failed most of the time, the unit runs, chariot gives chase, most likely it immediately removes the unit from the game. Same thing with a single hero, so units of infantry were pretty bad. 8th made it so Infantry ignored the casualties provided they had enough models left in the unit.

...


Okay, try this again.


I'll fix your example really quck

A Khorne chariot charges in, somehow gets 10 attacks (not sure how) and kills three people in base contact. Last person in base gets to attack back, half chance of a wound if the model is not a champion or character. Unit, unless the opponent is pants on head daft, has a standing Combat Resolution of 5, which is two left after Khorne casualties. Khorne chariot loses combat and has to check unless it counts as unbreakable.

OR

Khorne chariot charges, unit flees with the potential to outrun the chariot (depending on where the chariot was when the charge started, naturally) resulting in a failed charge, and is therefore countercharged by pretty much any unit with ranks and standard, starts out 5 CR down before any wounds land on the chariot.

Both times the chariot does NOT automatically wipe the unit, (Granted the second scenario is risky, but that'd be a judgement call) and actually loses the combat. That's what the average plays out as, and that's without step up.

Step up is only there because the lethality of units went up exponentially with 8th,


Also, I'm waiting to see how a lone character takes out a whole ranked unit by itself.

You did not play WHFB back in the days of hero hammer. The infantry gets banner, 3 ranks to start, and outnumber; that’s +5 CR;

lets use a dark elf cold one chariot instead of khorne as I’m unfamiliar with khorne chaos warrior chariots; all chariots get impact hits of D6 outside of maybe goblin wolf ones, usually D6+1, these result before normal attacks and at S5, then it goes by initiative order, the chariot has the beast and crew attacks still with charge bonus. Chariots are pretty devastating when it hits as intended.

Chariots are usually are T5, making it harder for standard infantry to harm them, they do have weakness, mainly movement, they cannot March like cavalry, suffer damage from obstacles, prone to cannon snipping, get stagnant if they don’t break units on the charge or get charged themselves.

To be fair, the OP mentions 7th edition, which totally ruins the balanced core rules set by 6th. Still it is a stretch to think a chariot charge will win a combat against a block of infantry (less so wipe it out), but the terrible army books from that edition made it quite possible to break a unit simply by getting the charge due to the proliferation of 2+ base attacks per model on many many units.
The foundation of 6th relied on Combat Resolution and units not having too many casualties unless you brought big fighty characters (much points), so the lack of step-up+steadfast wasn't an issue. Charging a chariot (0 CR points from the start) head first into an enemy with ranks and numbers was reaaally not a smart move. Even Swordmasters or Chaos Warriors weren't gonna cause more than 3-4 wounds per round as they all had 1A, which made the reliance on CR quite balanced for everyone.
On the contrary, in 7th you could easily score 5+ CR points only through kills with the amount of units that had 2 or more base attacks, making 3ranks+banner+outnumber strategy less relevant. A khorne chariot had 6A from the Crew only, which is a bit exaggerated although frenzied chariots were terrible units anyway. I think this degradation of the idea behind 6th was in part responsible for 7th being so badly balanced, and it further increased with 8th which prompted the steadfast-for-all shenanigans as a lazy way to fix the issue. 6th was balanced enough to not require such stupid rules.


EDIT: On topic, I think this topic was already extensively discussed on the Old World Wishlist thread.

 Big Mac wrote:
You did not play WHFB back in the days of hero hammer. The infantry gets banner, 3 ranks to start, and outnumber; that’s +5 CR;

lets use a dark elf cold one chariot instead of khorne as I’m unfamiliar with khorne chaos warrior chariots; all chariots get impact hits of D6 outside of maybe goblin wolf ones, usually D6+1, these result before normal attacks and at S5, then it goes by initiative order, the chariot has the beast and crew attacks still with charge bonus. Chariots are pretty devastating when it hits as intended.

Chariots are usually are T5, making it harder for standard infantry to harm them, they do have weakness, mainly movement, they cannot March like cavalry, suffer damage from obstacles, prone to cannon snipping, get stagnant if they don’t break units on the charge or get charged themselves.

I've played since 5th, which was herohammer. 7th doesn't come close. 7th was largely imbalanced due to an Army Book arms race, and a few rather exploitable rules additions. Also, why does nobody just assume that you could A: arm regiments to respond to a charge better, or B: just flee from the charge and leave the chariot stranded for a countercharge?

Also, to be frank, I'm getting REALLY sick of the "examples" that infer perfect rolling to prove their point. Just this weekend I played a game of 3rd Ed. 40K where I failed Reserve rolls on turn 4. Yes, meaning I consistently rolled 1's.

It has been ages since I played Fantasy, my impression of 7th was that blocks of infantry broke too easily, is it fair to say you disagree? Or are you just taking issue with my faultt example? Khorne gave frenzy, so 4 horse attacks and between 2 and 8 rider attacks, depending on whether there is a hero on top, I don't even remember the number of riders it had, please don't crucify me for this.for what it's worth I ran units 6 wide and 3 deep and I think most ran 5 wide and 4 deep with the exception of extra cheap or exepensive units.

We can go with Cold One Riders + Cold One Scarvet charging clanrats instead, I don't believe cav should charge in and instantly remove a unit from the table without support, although I think breaking ranks in side/rear charges became too hard in 8th. My main problem was mostly with a unit being removed when it got caught, fewer units fleeing leads to less units caught. I was probably mixing 7th 40k and 7th fantasy.

As much as I hate to do this, I'm line by line replying to get some clarity in the discussion...

 vict0988 wrote:
It has been ages since I played Fantasy, my impression of 7th was that blocks of infantry broke too easily, is it fair to say you disagree?

It has been less than a month since my last game of 6th Ed. WFB, and we read through the 7th Ed. books quite a bit looking at anything that we'd want to house rule in. And whether they broke easily or not depends on far too many variables. For the most part, no, I did not. I think that, starting with Dark Elves, the lethality of the books went to the point that it was a bit easy to inflict enough damage to guarantee a rout, but it could still be somewhat planned against.

 vict0988 wrote:
Or are you just taking issue with my faultt example?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have fault with your example. Certain units are absolutely behind the 8 ball when it comes to 1 round wipeouts. What I have a problem with is your assumption that the damage output will be exactly their number of attacks, and you don't account for anything missing.

 vict0988 wrote:
Khorne gave frenzy, so 4 horse attacks and between 2 and 8 rider attacks, depending on whether there is a hero on top,

With half of those hitting on average, maybe a third depending on the opponent, and the same results affecting the wound rolls, so about a quarter to a third of those actually killing models.

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't even remember the number of riders it had,

Probably pertinent to know if you're going to make data claims...

 vict0988 wrote:
please don't crucify me for this.

I'm not out to crucify anyone. What you said wasn't indisputably false, but it was most assuredly NOT indisputably true. That's my issue.

 vict0988 wrote:
for what it's worth I ran units 6 wide and 3 deep and I think most ran 5 wide and 4 deep with the exception of extra cheap or exepensive units.

Which will affect what happens in combat. Once again, changing the variables.

 vict0988 wrote:
We can go with Cold One Riders + Cold One Scarvet charging clanrats instead,

Okay, this isn't moving the goalpost, it's changing the sport in mid game. If you can assume blender Hero, I can assume ward save tank hero in the same unit AND that they're armed with spears to mitigate the damage. See? No standard applied.

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't believe cav should charge in and instantly remove a unit from the table without support, although I think breaking ranks in side/rear charges became too hard in 8th.

It depends on how the cav lands. A ranked up cav unit? Absolutely it should. Five dudes? Statistically they won't even break the unit.

 vict0988 wrote:
My main problem was mostly with a unit being removed when it got caught, fewer units fleeing leads to less units caught.

True, but tar pits make the game worse, and infinite attacks CERTAINLY doesn't fix the problem.

 vict0988 wrote:
I was probably mixing 7th 40k and 7th fantasy.

Happens to the best of us.

If I'm going to come back to GW via fantasy:

6th edition 2000-2003 is my golden era. Due to the rules being good and the balance being good.

8th edition - i liked a lot of it. But the parts that I hated made it a mixed bag having to play it and having to house rule to make it a game I could tolerate. Steadfast wasn't a bad idea. The bad idea was letting people build units with 200 models in it and cramming all their characters in it.

So steadfast with unit caps would be fine by me.

Flanking should also cancel out steadfast, so that movement had a place again. 8th edition battles were often two mega blobs belly smacking in the middle of the table until one fled. The moment I realized I didn't like 8th edition was the moment a player at our store had two units of 200 skaven slaves and was just mindlessly shoving them forward and when someone mentioned they could be flanked because they were so huge, he chuckled and said "so? that doesn't mean anything I'm still stubborn on a 10".

The magic was also obscene. Likely as their counter to mega blobs. It needed tone down. A LOT. Risk needs put back into the game so there are meaningful choices. Six dice for the win strategy was part 2 of why I did not like 8th edition. Just chuck 6 dice at your favorite death star spell and hope for double 6s so it can't be dispelled, your mega spell goes off and does tons of damage, and likely your wizard just bruises a toe nail on a very benevolent miscast chart that made it difficult for anything really bad to happen. Very little risk, almost all reward play needs to go away.

As Tony mentions - the magic the gathering buff aura crap needs to be lessened. I'm beyond tired of playing a table top version of Magic with expensive models.

I want the game to be centered around maneuvers and outplaying your opponent on the table, not in being good at excel and borrowing netlists. Let AOS stay the game where people win via listbuilding and double turn "fun".

Last - I won't play a game that has obvious list builds you should take and obvious factions that are head and shoulders better than everyone else. I don't care how pretty your models are. If I hate your game, your models are useless to me.

Alright, since Auticus went farther in depth, I guess it's only fair that I do the same what with this being wishlisting.



What I'd want personally is to bring back 6th edition wholesale, like every single resource available. Put in the Power Dice rules, Insane Courage, and possibly 5 man ranks from 7th, Edit the army books to bring them more in line with each other, and redo the Chaos books completely. Beasts headed a bit in the right direction as it established Beast units that were destined to be Special no matter what, and honestly the Daemon and Mortal lists should have been the same way. I'd also like for the unit choices from the 7th Ed Beastmen book to be used with the rules and stats from the 6th Ed. Minotaurs.

"But, Tony..." you say, "... Chaos was meant to intermix and be bigger and badder and better than everything else!!! Gav Thorpe said so in the opening pages of the Hordes of Chaos book HIMSELF!!!!!!" Gav was wrong, though. Each book is its own thing. Now good Allies rules, THAT I could side with. Simple as pie, honestly...


ALLIES: Units from a separate army book can be incorporated as allies to an army. The majority of the points must be spent on the parent list, with the allies taking up less than 49% of the total points. Allied and parent lists are both obligated to Core and character requirements, with the exception that only the parent list can take Lord choices. The parent list will be held to the Core requirements of the total point value of the army, with the Allied contingent obligated to the requirements of its own points total. The required Allied character will be counted as the General for all Allied Leadership and Break checks.

Also, make Bretonnia Arthurian again.


Also, find a nice middle ground between the two Dwarf books. The Anvil should cast magic, and not be an artillery piece. it should be cheaper, and an upgrade to a Runesmith AND a Runelord. It should basically contain bound spells which limits the Runesmith to the two lower spells and the Runelord to all four. The exception to the bound spell rules will be a die roll to see if a miscast is suffered. Basically a 1 and you're in trouble.


Last but definitely not least, despite the fact that I REALLY don't like Step Up as it leaves absolutely no incentive for charges, it wouldn't be a deal breaker if it was included.

Balance is going to be one of my main concerns. I hope GW does not release army books with rules for the main game in them. I would like to see 3 indexes/ravening hordes books have all the rules for units and magic, but no magic items. The main rulebook has common magic items. Once a year update 1 index and release an update for magic casting costs, magic items rules and pts for every faction and updated pts costs for every faction, included is the old price and a percentage change range from cheapest wargear to most expensive wargear (this forces GW to go through their costs and see what changes they have made). Absolutely no rules updates outside FAQ and Errata. I would like to see a public beta for anyone that pre-orders the rules and indexes. New units are released digitally for free until they can be included in an updated index in 1-3 years. Factions are mainly given new units leading up to an updated index, with enough time for an initial test, an update and a bit more testing before printing to iron out issues before launch, that's about 1-2 years before an update, then start working on units and armies from other factions. No FW, everything goes on the main site and in the relevant index, prices be damned. Give the game 5 years and it should be fully matured, with a number of armies with decent ranges and solid balance brought about by tournament results and player feedback and all armies being balanced with a stable foundation instead of on rocky seas as balance is rocketed from one direction to the next with each army book.

Army books contain fluff and guides for creating and painting miniatures and terrain and rules for that terrain that cannot be used in tournaments as well as scenario and campaign rules, no incentive to rush these out, nobody gets mad if they don't get one. Yes I want a bunch of artwork, yes I'd like to read about all the old fluff again and maybe some new stuff, but if I don't get it then that's ok, as long as my army is moderately balanced on the tabletop through the index and gets fluffy magic items in the update/balance book. You don't need an army book to get started or if you're just a tournament player. I don't really care about tournaments but I hope the game becomes healthy enough to have a tournament scene and I believe tournaments should help highlight balance issues for GW to fix.

If GW wants to release a new specialist game they can hike up the price on an army book and include it in said army book. Lustria Campaign rules in the Lizardmen army book, multi-player rules in the Empire army book, skirmish game rules in the Skaven book, storm of magic missions in the High Elf book. No Dyrk Aelves, make it Naggarond instead if IPs have to be protected. Make the Empire into the Empire of Sigmar if IP needs need to be met.

 auticus wrote:
The magic was also obscene. Likely as their counter to mega blobs. It needed tone down. A LOT. Risk needs put back into the game so there are meaningful choices. Six dice for the win strategy was part 2 of why I did not like 8th edition. Just chuck 6 dice at your favorite death star spell and hope for double 6s so it can't be dispelled, your mega spell goes off and does tons of damage, and likely your wizard just bruises a toe nail on a very benevolent miscast chart that made it difficult for anything really bad to happen. Very little risk, almost all reward play needs to go away.

Would you want to go over to something like 40k where you roll two dice and have to get a result instead of having a result and being allowed to throw one to six dice at it? I had some of the same problems as you did, on the other hand, I feel like it's part of Fantasy fluff that there is magic floating around that you can make use of. Adding 1 to the first D6 casting rolls for the phase might be an option. 40k magic dispelling is not global, meaning you sometimes have to get your dispel agent up close and not stand a mile away from the action in a command bunker, I like the sound of that.

You could simplify the rules quite a lot by not having character rules, instead just have a type of bodyguard available for each Hero/Lord choice, I think making the game beginner-friendly would be nice as most of the player base will have to be new and assuming GW doesn't muck things up I'll be one of the people proselytizing and teaching. As long as the game remains technical I'll be happy.

The house rule that I used was that double sixes stayed irresistable force, but double ones were a miscast. Double ones trumped double sixes.

That made six dice for the win tactic a lot riskier and introduced a meaningful choice into the game. Spells can be powerful. I don't mind that. I mind that they are ridiculously trivial to cast and have next to no risk for the damage that they do.

Level four wizards were auto include in every army because of it.

Additionally - I would be happy with more powerful spells simply *really* being more difficult to cast. I say *really* because they have iin the past done this, but then gave you an obvious out to make casting those nasty spells trivial again through some cheap artifact or command ability you get for free.

What I do not want is a beginner friendly happy fun time game 100%. Thats what AOS is. I'm not opposed to a beginner format to be clear. But I don't want the whole game to be a super streamlined game aimed at beginners to be the same competency level as experienced players by virtue of a super random system that takes player agency away from the players. I want a game that you have to take the time to master. That doesn't require a bible's worth of complex rules either (some people will jump on that and assume I mean I want battletech style rules that are very difficult to grasp).

My primary wishlist is that it be very much based on rank and file, using the lore that we knew, the model range that we knew, and at least similar to the rules that we knew.
Specifics I'll admit I'm not too fussed about, but hopefully each of the core unit types has it's place in any given force, infantry, cavalry, heroes/monsters, war machines must all be valid.

I played in both 7e and 8e, and found that both had core rules that pushed one unit type (7e's casualties-can't-strike-back means high-Initiative shock cavalry just run through any unit you put them into, 8e's horde rules mean the game descends into two giant blocks slowly grinding into each other in the middle until someone fails their rerollable Stubborn Ld10). I'd like the 7e revival to try and make the rules not push one unit type over another.

I'd also like the extensive army-specific magic items from 7e rather than 8e's extensive generic items; it makes the game easier to balance if you can restrict some magic items to some armies, and it's a big opportunity for flavour and putting interesting lore on the tabletop.

And I want a game that's about the rank and file/small things rather than what GW's emphasis on named characters/giant centerpiece models.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I played in both 7e and 8e, and found that both had core rules that pushed one unit type (7e's casualties-can't-strike-back means high-Initiative shock cavalry just run through any unit you put them into, 8e's horde rules mean the game descends into two giant blocks slowly grinding into each other in the middle until someone fails their rerollable Stubborn Ld10). I'd like the 7e revival to try and make the rules not push one unit type over another.

I'd also like the extensive army-specific magic items from 7e rather than 8e's extensive generic items; it makes the game easier to balance if you can restrict some magic items to some armies, and it's a big opportunity for flavour and putting interesting lore on the tabletop.

And I want a game that's about the rank and file/small things rather than what GW's emphasis on named characters/giant centerpiece models.

I've talked about it elsewhere, but I'd recommend you check out Warhammer Renaissance over on Facebook. It's a fanmade project that likely hits a lot of points you'd like: It's got 8th Ed Step Up but no Stubborn (it's got a second rank single attack bonus if your unit is 8 wide, however), and is more about the regiments than the characters, especially since defensive magic items are more expensive while offensive magic items have been made cheaper to keep characters from becoming nigh-invulnerable tanks.

Only thing you might not like is that it has a lot of generic magic items and less army specific items.

Have they ever tried non-linear point increases? For example, the first bolt-thrower costs 50 points, the second costs 75, the third costs 125 etc.

Not that I have bad memories of facing masses of HE repeater bolt-throwers or anything.

 WaveyRaven wrote:
Have they ever tried non-linear point increases? For example, the first bolt-thrower costs 50 points, the second costs 75, the third costs 125 etc.

Not that I have bad memories of facing masses of HE repeater bolt-throwers or anything.

Starting with 6th, each one could MAXIMUM kill 1 from each rank or 6, depending on shooting method. At 100 points each, there's no imbalance there.

 WaveyRaven wrote:
Have they ever tried non-linear point increases? For example, the first bolt-thrower costs 50 points, the second costs 75, the third costs 125 etc.

Not that I have bad memories of facing masses of HE repeater bolt-throwers or anything.

Warhammer CE rules have that. But no official rule set. (Some of the worst shenanigans have of course been limited by a cap fieldable special and rare choices in the past).

Some units that are considered to break the balance if used in too large numbers have a multiplier,

for example Chariots, war machines, monsters or ranged combat infantry.

The greater the imbalance it could supposedly cause, the higher the multiplier.

To stick with your example: High Elf and Dark Elf repeater bolt throwers have a basic point cost of 70 points, plus 20 mulitplied with x, amount of units.

So one costs 90 points, if you field 2 it's 110 points each, if you field 3 it's 130 points each.



It is a nice mechanic, not to complicated but effective. If someone wants to play 4 cannons at 2000 points for example, he can do so. But at a high price.

Magic, Cannons and Steadfast, The three things that really disappointed me about 8th edition. The miscast table should be far more punishing and the spells for the most part should be far more subtle. The number of times I saw an entire game won/lost with one spell was truly criminal, in my gaming group we went so far as to gentleman's agreement purple sun, dwellers below etc. Cannons are far too accurate and cost effective, the inclusion of cannons basically invalidated the use of any kind of monstrous mount or dragon. Ogre Kingdom's ironblasters in particular hold an especially loathed place in my memory. Finally steadfast, just a horribly implemented rule that generally slowed down games and made competitive matches incredibly laborious and un-thematic. I agree with the above suggestions that flank charges should cancel the leadership bonus. I also always disliked the meta shift towards deathstars, it feels like less of a battle and more slamming your head against a brick wall repeatedly for 6 turns, unfortunately they were always popular in my area: Throggstar, Minostar, Black Knight Bus, White Lion World Dragon, Gutstar feels good to dance around them spraying arrows and denying VP's with kite builds

 WaveyRaven wrote:
Have they ever tried non-linear point increases? For example, the first bolt-thrower costs 50 points, the second costs 75, the third costs 125 etc.

9th age has that for units.

Units that are optimal at minimum size units (say, eagles, fast cavalry, etc.) have extra bodies at a discount. Units that operate much better in bigger sizes get cheaper minimum size but extra minis will cost extra.

I've always argued for a spam tax pretty much like you're suggesting though.

I’m assuming that when people speak of chariots wiping units in 7th they mean 5 model chaff units, right?

With how steadfast and bonuses went, the average unit would just wipe the chariot instead, which is why they were relegated to hunting chaff and artillery instead.


I’d settle for 6th edition back again as 7th was a nightmare.
Every list was either daemons or teclis in a massive block with dragon banner.
My only issue is unit cost now though.

Back then, prices were high but not insane.

If I’m running blocks of 30 witches I don’t want to have to drop £105 per unit when I likely need 3 to form the core of my army.



Also, it would be interesting to see how stormcasts work.
I’d assume on a similar level to ogres though as they sit on 40mm bases.

My wishlist.

Start from 8th.

1. Steadfast. This works but should have mitigation. Flanking should negate, but the flanking unit should have mass of its own, being monsterous, heavy cavalry or three ranks of infantry.

2. Insane Courage. Should remain.

3. Cannon. They should roll to hit, they should have a targeting penalty for shooting flyers.

4. Flyers. Are wounded on a 5+ by missile fire, with exceptions as noted. Note that this means strength better than this still wounds on a 5+. The reason both ways is because flyers have vulnerable wings, rotors etc, but also weapons lose energy shooting upwards. Some artillery and magic bows will be immune to this rule, bolt throwers in particular.

5. Flying high. Brought back from 5th. Units flying high and those within a radius of a landing flyer can intercept.

6. Countercharge. If charging over half range away the opponent if unengaged facing may declare countercharge. before the charge distance is rolled. If the charge failed advance the opponent to the failed charge position and the charge becomes successful. Both parties are considered charging.

7. ASF. Only applies to opponents in the front arc, or for a character on foot. Racial ASF only applies to the first round of combat.

8 Ranking. Infantry need five models minimum per rank, cavalry four monsterous units and swarms three. Hordes require double this. This marries in old cavalry boxsets with the current rules.

9. Unit size caps. 50 for infantry, 20 for cavalry and monsterous units. Characters not included. Units can exceed this but gain the 'mob' special rule while they do and cannot gain any bonus to their unit leadership (they are too unwieldy). This can be risky as a massive mob can get steadfast but only on its native unmodified leadership, i.e no general, no characters in unit, no banner +1 etc, just the base LD of the rank and file.
Note: It is not necessary to give units individual caps, making maximum size elite units has a cost penalty of its own.

10. Magic. Miscasts occur on double 1 or double 6, with a miscast table for each. If you somehow do both roll on Double 1 table. The table should get very ugly on high dice miscasts.

Double 1 - d6+ dice used to cast
3-5 Spell fails
6-7 Spell fails, caster takes one mortal wound
8-9 Spell fails, caster takes one mortal wound can no longer use the spell attempted.
10+ Spell fails, remove caster from play. Khorne! NOM NOM

Double 6 -d6 + dice used to cast
3-5 Spell cast with Irresistible Force
6-7 Spell cast, if undispelled caster can no longer use this spell
8-9 Spell cast, if undispelled magic phase then ends
10+ Spell cast, if undispelled caster takes d3 mortal wounds, resolve S6 hit on all models within 3", magic phase then ends.

Note that a player can dispel scroll or use power dice to dispel their own spell to avert calamity in some cases. Irresistible Force only directly occurs from low dice casts, for higher dice miscasts the opponent might wish to not dispel the spell.

11. Magic lores. There are two levels of caster adept and master. Each lore should have three tiers of spells. Adept wizards get all 1st level spells, and one 2nd level spell, Master Wizard get all 2nd level spells and one 3rd level spell. Loremasters get all spells. Loremaster should be a paid upgrade for most lord level wizards.
Note that non-Loremaster characters lose functionality at the bottom, some Lord characters gain adept level magic, which may or may not be upgradable. Spells are not randomised so players can plan for their magic. With this set up players need only record one spell on their player aid, or claim to be Loremaster to record all their magic at start of play.

I deeply disliked spells that remained in play but were somehow not Remain in Play.

I deeply disliked the Remains in Play rule that prevented further spellcasting.

Jackal90 wrote:
I’m assuming that when people speak of chariots wiping units in 7th they mean 5 model chaff units, right?

With how steadfast and bonuses went, the average unit would just wipe the chariot instead, which is why they were relegated to hunting chaff and artillery instead.


I’d settle for 6th edition back again as 7th was a nightmare.
Every list was either daemons or teclis in a massive block with dragon banner.
My only issue is unit cost now though.

Back then, prices were high but not insane.

If I’m running blocks of 30 witches I don’t want to have to drop £105 per unit when I likely need 3 to form the core of my army.



Also, it would be interesting to see how stormcasts work.
I’d assume on a similar level to ogres though as they sit on 40mm bases.

Steadfast was 8th. Chariots weren't useful in 8th AFAIK, nowhere near as much as in 7th. It's been aeons and I just remembered units getting run over by Khorne Exalted Champions on Chariots. 7th Daemons were some of the most BS I ever experienced, I kind of want to go back and see what made them so crazy because all I remember was free wins the games in which I proxied Daemons.

Chariots worked well in 8thm, in fact steadfast improved them.

It was no longer a case of I charge with chariot, you die, too bad your faction doesnt get chariots. I saw that a lot in 5th, 6th and 7th.

In 8th you charge a chariot into chaff or in support of infantry. Chariots apply a lot of damage on a small frontage, charge the infantry in and get the chariot in on the corner, preferably not exactly the corner, that's cheesy but on a small portion of the frontage. Full attacks plus impact hits, enough to cause a heavy combat shock.
Chariots in 8th are supportive combined arms units that enhanced tactical play.