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.
2015/07/04 12:01:29
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
Now then, the rules for Age of Sigmar have hit and, whether you like them or not, there’s no doubt that they’re vastly different to all previous incarnations of Warhammer, incarnations which I know many people will want to continue playing, whether they dabble in AoS or not. Please be aware that this thread is not for discussing your opinions on the AoS rules or why you think 8th is good/bad (unless it relates to improvements, of course), but rather for providing constructive feedback and ideas and facilitating the creating of a fan-made 8th edition ruleset.
With that in mind, I’ve decided to kickstart something here on Dakka I like to call Project 8. Simply put, it’s a fan-made, community-driven update to 8th Edition WHFB that will attempt to fix some of the few issues with the edition as well as update the army books that didn’t see a hardback update (i.e. Bretonnia, Beastmen and Skaven – probably in that order of priority), as well as anything else the community feel needs tweaking.
Now obviously this is not official in any way and, as such, it may be hard for individuals to push this to potential 8th edition opponents. Obviously, you can’t really rock up to a pick-up game and declare you want to use the “Dakka ruleset” or anything like that. Still, if you, your friends, your gaming group or whoever it is you usually play with are happy to try out a tweaked version of the rules and of certain armies then they are more than welcome to use whatever we create here, as well as help us playtest it. It’s a lot of work but, if, like me, there are people in the community that want to continue to play an improved 8th edition and enjoy tweaking and creating rules, then I believe this will be a fun and engaging project that will improve the gaming experience of, at the very least, some gaming groups.
Why 8th?
It’s been asked before why 8th Edition is the best building block for such a project. Whilst many people may not like 8th edition and will prefer other editions (and no doubt take the opportunity to go back to playing them) 8th edition, without doubt, remains the edition the majority of us are most familiar with and hence the easiest to adapt. Presenting an adapted version of the most recent Warhammer ruleset to anyone else you want to engage in Project 8 will also no doubt be easier than trying to sell them an updated version of a ruleset that is a decade old.
It is also for this reason why I don’t believe that the End Times should form the basis of these rules. Whilst people can still continue to play End Times, perhaps incorporating any changes Project 8 makes, I know a lot of people did not really engage with the End Times and preferred to stick with normal 8th edition and so I feel that the regular version of the game is a far better place to start, especially when you compare its relative simplicity and “normalness” when compared to End Times.
Adapting the Rules
Spoiler:
So, with all the drivel out the way, let’s get down to business. Whilst I believe that 8th edition is a good edition, there are still several issues which need tweaking, as I will list below. If there’s support for getting another aspect of the game changed, then I will add it to the list here. So, what to tweak:
- Steadfast
- “6th spells”
- Cannons
- Monsters
- Cavalry
- VP Denial
- Random Scenery
- New Missions
I will list my own suggestions for dealing with these issues below. These are by no means concrete, nor the direction I expect Project 8 to take, but will act as a good starting point for any discussion regarding the rules.
Steadfast
I would have it so that if a unit is engaged by two or more enemy units that have two or more ranks of five models, that themselves are not engaged by another friendly unit, and that at least one of these enemy units is in the flank or rear, the unit would lose Steadfast. So the most common situation would be a single unit that is being attacked by one enemy in the front, and another enemy in the flank. The criterion that these units must have two ranks of five more models is to stop people using fast cav and chaff units to break steadfast when, really, a unit of five direwolves in the flank wouldn’t really make much difference realistically.
I also think it’s worth discussing the possibility that a unit loses Steadfast if it suffers more than 25% (of its starting size) casualties in a single round of combat. This could be against everything, but could also be limited to only suffering those casualties from Monsters and/or Terror-causing units. For me, this makes sense, as a unit of state troops, no matter how large, is not going to want to stick around if a dragon is wiping out a quarter of the unit each round of combat.
6th Spells
Unlike many, I really don’t have much of an issue with 6th spells, as I believe they’re a good counter to large, deathstar units (though I suppose these units may not be as popular if the Steadfast changes go ahead). However, as one main criticism of 8th says, the magic phases certainly are boring when someone 6-dices Purple Sun, gets irresistible, and calls it a day.
Whilst I don’t think the 6th spells should be made less nasty or harder to cast, I do believe they should be more dangerous to cast. I would propose a change in the Miscast table (irresistible still causes a miscast as normal) where, instead of rolling 2D6, you roll a D6 and then add either 1 for every dice you used to cast the spell, OR, the number that the spell is in that lore (so you would add +3 for Soulblight, for example, and +6 for Purple Sun, with signature spells adding +0). I would say that 10 on the chart is when things start getting really bad for your Wizard, with him perhaps being killed outright (plus big explosion) on a 10 too. So, if your wizard is 6-dicing/casting a 6th spell, there’s a 50% chance he’s a goner if he miscasts, which is a considerably higher risk than whatever the chance is currently of rolling Dimensional Cascade and then rolling a 1-3.
Cannons/Monsters
The overpowered-ness of cannons and the underpowered-ness of Monsters is something I think is linked, so I will deal with them together.
Cannons I feel are far too accurate, able to “snipe” characters out of units and (outside of a misfire) rarely miss big-based Monsters. This is in comparison to Stone Throwers, which scatter, and bolt throwers, which have to roll to hit.
(EDITED) Currently, the change we'd make on cannons would be to either have them act as S10 bolt throwers (i.e. roll to hit and pierce ranks with reducing strength) or have them operate as they do currently, but inflict less wounds (either D3 or D3+1).
Whilst brings me on to Monsters. Whilst I believe this cannon change will go a long way to making them useful, I still think they need a little leg up against infantry. No matter how many ranks a unit has, a bloody great Dragon should still be a scary prospect for them to face. I’ve already mentioned the 25% casualties breaking Steadfast, but another potential change (which could be done in addition to or in place of the 25% casualties) is something akin to the old 7th edition unit strength rules. Essentially, Monsters would count as having a certain number of ranks (perhaps 2 or, taking inspiration from AoS, ironically, a number of ranks equal to half their number of remaining wounds) for the purposes of determining whether a unit is Steadfast or not. This would not give them Combat Res for having ranks but would represent the non-monster unit needing even more bodies for them to feel brave enough to stand up against Monsters.
Cavalry
Now while every unit type has some sort of bonus (Infantry can easily attain Steadfast, Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry have stomps, Monsters, despite their shortfalls versus cannons, have thunderstomps), Cavalry really don’t get anything aside from charging bonuses from spears and lances and are still vulnerable to killing blow. With this, and realism in mind, I’d like to give Cavalry a special rule. Essentially, all models on the front rank of a cavalry unit have the Impact Hits (1) special rule, resolved at the strength of the mount itself, with the following bonuses: +1S for barding (or any other rule that gives +2 to armour save, such as Boar Boyz, Cold Ones etc), +1S if the mount’s rider is equipped with a spear or a lance and +1 if the unit charged more than 18”. This I feel adds another realistic and, dare I say it, cinematic, element to the game, and may make cavalry units a bit more popular.
With adding new elements to the game in mind, I’d also like to consider introducing pikes as a weapon option. Essentially, we would say that any unit that can currently take spears (with some exceptions, such as Skeleton Warriors) can take pikes instead for one point extra per model than whatever it is they pay for spears. Pikes have the exact same benefit as spears but, if a unit equipped with pikes declares a Hold charge reaction against a charge by a unit of cavalry in their front, the cavalry unit loses its Impact Hits (and potentially bonuses from lances etc) and, in addition, every model in the front rank of the cavalry unit must take a dangerous terrain test (which would be in addition to any taken due to charging through terrain etc). Whilst this is not a change that is needed to improve the game, I think it adds an interesting new element to it, which people may want to see.
VP Denial
It's a common house rule that many people implement but, in order to mitigate VP denial, I would make it so that any unit which is fleeing and/or under half its starting strength (in terms of number of models) at the end of the game is worth 50% VP. This could be expanded so that a unit under 75% of its starting strength would be worth 75% VP, and the same for 25%, if people feel this is a good change.
Random Scenery
Random Scenery, for me, isn’t much of an issue since, in my experience, most people seem to just ignore it, but I know it’s an issue that a few people have raised. Essentially, we would most likely simply make the scenery less random and tone down the effects of certain scenery (such as blood forests) which have a little too much impact on the game. Random Scenery is nice, but it shouldn’t have too much effect on the outcome of the battle.
New Missions
Finally I feel as if we could revamp some, if not all, of the 6 rulebook missions. None of them have much variety with the exception of Blood and Glory and Watchtower which aren’t the most balanced of missions. This may be interpreted as people simply finding Battleline-type missions more balanced and suited to the game – which is fine, as people can continue to play them - but I feel that missions along the lines of holding the centre of the board, or other objectives; or perhaps missions that place more emphasis on killing enemy leaders; or even one that is Storm of Magic-esque would add some more variety to the game.
Adapting the Armies
As I mentioned, I think it’s necessary to give Brets, Beastmen and Skaven a new, fan army book. Obviously people can continue to use the old ones but as these armies missed out on an 8th edition update, I think it’s only fair to the players of those armies that we try and give them one. However, as these new rules may incorporate any changes Project 8 makes to the core rules, the core rules should be dealt with first, so I’ll leave this section blank for now.
I also think it's worth creating 8th edition rules for Age of Sigmar models to be used in 8th edition games. They are nice models, to be fair, and it would be a shame for people who want to stick with 8th to miss out on the inevitable nice models that will come from this new release.
Conclusion
As I say, I don’t expect this project to be the next big thing in the wargaming world, but I think that it’s something that many people will be both willing to contribute to and grateful for once it’s done. All that’s left to say is thanks for reading (I know it's a long post!), and please feel free to post with any ideas you have, the more ideas the better! Let's do our best to keep traditional Warhammer alive and provide a good alternative ruleset for those that want it
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/07 23:57:29
I like the look of those rules so far and im glad that there are people willing to keep going with 8th edition as ill much prefer it to age of sigmar i think!
However i would advice that you dont introduce loads and loads of new rules. I really like the new cavalry rules and the pikes and would be happy to play them but the more rules you introduce the more different your fan edition becomes from normal 8th edition and the harder it will be for people to accept it
Dark Elves Rule!
Dark Elves - 4000pts
Chaos - 1500pts
Eldar - 1000pts
2015/07/04 15:53:35
Subject: Re:Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
In regards to the monsters and stead fast I say if the monster has the Terror special rule and charges the unit then it looses the stead fast, unless the unit is immune to psychology.
Magic: I feel as though in regards to the magic phase and should be moved to the start of the turn instead of after movement. What spells you get off really determine what sort of units move, how you position them or even how you play them.
Monsters again: I think that there should be about 5-10 scrolls of binding in the fan rule book to allow players to field monsters that they wouldn't get a chance to otherwise.
Some campaigns special rules would be welcomed. In addition siege scenaries as well. A system to allow for multi-faction battles between 3+ different forces to smooth out the game I think is necessary.
-
With the army books I have an idea. Given that this edition is a fan edition we are allowed a little bit more freedom in what we can do. One idea that I like is the 40k idea of supplements. Imagine if you will a vanillia army book for example the Bret's, this army book allows the player to field a straight up bretonnian army. But imagine if you will the ability to play as 'out and out' evil brets with Black Grail brets that are chaos influenced.
Or an Empire army book that allows you to play straight up Imperial Forces. Then you have a trio of supplements for Nuln (Gunpowder), Sigmarites-Altdorf (Faith) and Middenheim (steel).
Again this can be applied to more armies and not just the ones I listed.
-
Fluff, this needs to be discussed.
One idea I've had is that at the End Times the world is destroyed but at the same time Sigmar uses the core of the world to travel back in time with the other incarnates to 25 years before the end times. They are weaken but reborn onto a world not yet fallen into the land of chaos. Then there is a chance, despite Chaos knowing how close they came to the end. Both sides pull out all the stops and new warriors are brought out of the shadows or the forges of the old world.
2015/07/04 17:39:57
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
@ Druchii, that is a very good point about not introducing too many new components, it has to be said. Still, if people like the rules, I see no harm to include them, though I guess we should prioritise what really matters. Danno, I feel that your suplpements, siege and binding scrolls suggestions would fall into the same camp. Whilst they'd be awesome, it's only worth doing if the community calls for them but it's certainly worth thinking about!
As for Terror negating steadfast completely, I feel this a little too far, especially considering there's a Terror-causing enchanted item in the BRB. Terror could perhaps make the unit count as having one less rank for the purposes of steadfast, or perhaps -1 ld, even if they are steadfast, but I think negating it completely is too overpowered.
As for fluff, I'd really not given it that thought, considering that I imagine that these games would be set "back in time" before the end times happened. I'm really not that bothered about any chronology GW put in their games. I just ignore it. I'm not bothered about good fluff - I have proper fantasy films and literature for that - I just want a good wargame. That said though, if people want fluff that takes them from the Age of Sigmar to pre-end times then I'm happy for it to be incorporated into Project 8
Rihgu wrote: Just make cannons be bolt throwers that use the black powder table for misfires and are S10, no armour saves allowed, multiple wounds(d6).
... I actually really, really like this. And it's simple. Why didn't I think of this?
I guess the only problem is that a very high chance of piercing several ranks of large-based models as base size makes no odds to bolt thrower piercing, whereas it does matter for a cannonball bounce. Still, it's a small price to pay for what I think is a simple and effective rule. Any other thoughts?
Hmm, why not make it a little more un predicable? As much as I do love my arty I think that is a good idea to use some mechanics from the bolt throwers.
I don't mind the misfire and rolling to hit, it makes perfect sense to me. But how about we have it so that if the arty dice does not roll a mis fire (with various engineers able to re-roll it) that the cannon ball bounces that many ranks through the unit that is rolled on the arty dice. The cannon ball doesn't go through the unit and out the other side but it will tear through the unit at the same time depending on what you rolled for how many ranks it goes through. If the total rolled on the arty dice is over the ranks in the side of the unit the cannon ball has hit, then it stops at the last rank.
Also to make it easier to determine how many hits it causes per rank, why not 2 for infantry and cavalry based models and for anything larger based it would be 1 hit per model.
-
Another special rule I want to address is multiple shots. I feel as though it really slows down the game that you have to roll separately for the first and then the following shots. Either the shots all shoot at the same BS, or the firer may have the option to instead fire single shots at full BS or all shots at -1BS.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing I think would be helpful would to have it so that there is only 1 unit profile if a rider is atop of a mount. Like if the rider was originally a infantry model but was up graded to cavalry, he would be granted the extra stats and special rules granted to the mount.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 18:25:30
2015/07/04 22:21:45
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
Problems with 8th edition.
1) Magic. IMO, all of the lores could use with an over-haul. I'd like to see more spells that can target multiple units, and more spells that hit every model in a units.
2) Death Stars/VP denial. It makes the game pretty dull. Possibly a change in victory conditions making death stars and VP Denial less attractive. I've played quite a few games now using the 40K objectives deck, and it's awesome.
3) Monsters. Beautiful models, generally terrible on the table. Age of Sigmar has done a wonderful job with balancing monsters out, making them very viable. I don't know if something like that can be adapted to 8.5
Maybe having flying monsters lose fly when below half woulds would really help. Along with a balancing of the warmachine vs monster issue.
HawaiiMatt wrote: Problems with 8th edition.
1) Magic. IMO, all of the lores could use with an over-haul. I'd like to see more spells that can target multiple units, and more spells that hit every model in a units.
2) Death Stars/VP denial. It makes the game pretty dull. Possibly a change in victory conditions making death stars and VP Denial less attractive. I've played quite a few games now using the 40K objectives deck, and it's awesome.
3) Monsters. Beautiful models, generally terrible on the table. Age of Sigmar has done a wonderful job with balancing monsters out, making them very viable. I don't know if something like that can be adapted to 8.5
Maybe having flying monsters lose fly when below half woulds would really help. Along with a balancing of the warmachine vs monster issue.
Here's an idea in regards to death stars.
If a unit consisting of at or more than your quarter army point cost is destroyed then all friendly units in 12" of that unit must take a panic test. After all it is the heart of your army, and it has just been torn out. Its an idea and I doubt it can go far, but still its a solution.
2015/07/04 22:31:52
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
HawaiiMatt wrote: Problems with 8th edition.
2) Death Stars/VP denial. It makes the game pretty dull. Possibly a change in victory conditions making death stars and VP Denial less attractive. I've played quite a few games now using the 40K objectives deck, and it's awesome.
Make it so that no unit can cost more than 50% of the points you would be allowed for that category? I think it's too clumsy to actually implement but maybe the idea is there.
Example, for 2400pts:
No Special unit can be over 600pts.
No Rare unit can be over 300pts.
No Hero or Lord unit could be over 300pts.
No cap on Core units.
This would even further cut out a lot of the more expensive characters on dragons and the like, making them even less likely to be seen in any games, but then again you could always make special exceptions for that ("hey, mind if I take Nagash today?" "sure, just count him towards your Lords AND Heroes allotments" or something)
3) Monsters. Beautiful models, generally terrible on the table. Age of Sigmar has done a wonderful job with balancing monsters out, making them very viable. I don't know if something like that can be adapted to 8.5
Maybe having flying monsters lose fly when below half woulds would really help. Along with a balancing of the warmachine vs monster issue.
Attack modifiers and to wound modifiers. For every 25% of it's wounds taken, the monster makes 1 less attack and takes a -1 penalty on to-wound rolls. In return they get some amount of extra wounds (blanket +6? double?)
HawaiiMatt wrote: Problems with 8th edition.
2) Death Stars/VP denial. It makes the game pretty dull. Possibly a change in victory conditions making death stars and VP Denial less attractive. I've played quite a few games now using the 40K objectives deck, and it's awesome.
Make it so that no unit can cost more than 50% of the points you would be allowed for that category? I think it's too clumsy to actually implement but maybe the idea is there.
Example, for 2400pts:
No Special unit can be over 600pts.
No Rare unit can be over 300pts.
No Hero or Lord unit could be over 300pts.
No cap on Core units.
This would even further cut out a lot of the more expensive characters on dragons and the like, making them even less likely to be seen in any games, but then again you could always make special exceptions for that ("hey, mind if I take Nagash today?" "sure, just count him towards your Lords AND Heroes allotments" or something)
3) Monsters. Beautiful models, generally terrible on the table. Age of Sigmar has done a wonderful job with balancing monsters out, making them very viable. I don't know if something like that can be adapted to 8.5
Maybe having flying monsters lose fly when below half woulds would really help. Along with a balancing of the warmachine vs monster issue.
Attack modifiers and to wound modifiers. For every 25% of it's wounds taken, the monster makes 1 less attack and takes a -1 penalty on to-wound rolls. In return they get some amount of extra wounds (blanket +6? double?)
In regards to the deathstars I think that would be to clunky and to difficult to implement.
The Monsters: I think the monsters as they are alright through this edition. I havn't really encountered any problems with them to tell you the truth over the past couple of years of gaming table top wise.
That being said I think the giant rolls of 'fall over' need to remove the template. Instead I think that when it falls down you roll a scatter die. Depending on where which closets unit the scatter die points to then that unit suffers 2D6 hits Strength X (equal to the giants Strength) hits.
2015/07/04 23:11:48
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
The biggest issue with points denial is that you don't get points for anything unless the unit is completely wiped or off the table. Just change the VP rules so that every kill counts towards the VP total, with the usual bonuses for killing a general or BSB or something. Sure, it means you can grab more points off of a single ogre kill, but the Ogres can probably nab those back easily.
Some people play to win, some people play for fun. Me? I play to kill toy soldiers.
DR:90S++GMB++IPwh40k206#+D++A++/hWD350R+++T(S)DM+
So Gentlemen I think its safe to say there is at least a core of us who are dedicated to re-creating the warhammer world in a fan 8.5 edition. I purpose that those who want to see the project through step forward and get organized. Since we are going to need a formatter, a general director for the book (sorry mate your going to be herding cats essentially), people to create rules and fluff. Then we need to see about finding a way to create army books for this new edition as well. Preferably at the same time as we are writing the rule book so we can get those out asap.
2015/07/05 08:44:54
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
I wish you the best of luck. I haven't played WHFB since 6th, so I'm really not qualified to help with the rules.
What I can give you is an example of how a rules patch can be efficiently presented. I've done my own edition of 40k, and I think there's no sense in trying to compile complete books from the get go. Have a look: http://potica40k.lordblackfang.net/
It's basically errata by section. This way you don't have to type out the whole book and readers don't have to read a whole book trying to work out what's the same and what's different; you just point out the changes, and during playtesting you can edit things on the fly, section by section, without having to worry about messing up the layout of the entire document.
Once you have the first functional version of the core rules, publish a page of errata per faction to deal with any issues caused by core rule changes, and maybe the most glaring balance issues. Try to stay away from changing points costs at this stage so that playtesters can continue to use their army builder software.
Then play a bunch of games to test and adjust the core rules, then do more comprehensive army book fixes by adding more errata and slowly working towards having a fully original, self-contained document.
I think this is really the only way not to get overwhelmed, both for the developers and the readers / playtesters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 08:46:39
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
2015/07/05 10:00:36
Subject: Re:Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
Thanks for the link and advice, Lord Blackfang! Yeah, what I'd planned to do, once we've established what changes we'll make, is essentially publish a Project 8 Errata. This would go through the rulebook page by page and explain any changes, just like the GW Erratas do, except we'd be changing whole rules rather than just clarifying things. A quick errata for all the army books again, would be a good idea, though I'm hoping that they're wont be too many clashes or balance issues since we're aiming to nerf good things and buff bad things, rather than giving the rules a complete overhaul. Still, I can see things like Chimerae needing changes but, like you say, we won't fiddle with points costs right now.
Commissar-Danno wrote:Another special rule I want to address is multiple shots. I feel as though it really slows down the game that you have to roll separately for the first and then the following shots. Either the shots all shoot at the same BS, or the firer may have the option to instead fire single shots at full BS or all shots at -1BS.
Is this not how it works currently? One shot at normal BS, Multiple Shots (X) at -1 BS? I did always find it weird that firing multiple shots meant you were less likely to hit, but it's far from the biggest issue 8th edition has.
Commissar-Danno wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing I think would be helpful would to have it so that there is only 1 unit profile if a rider is atop of a mount. Like if the rider was originally a infantry model but was up graded to cavalry, he would be granted the extra stats and special rules granted to the mount.
The problem with this is that it is a huge, huge change to implement. There's so many mounted units we'd have to change and playtest, I think it's just more trouble than it's worth.
HawaiiMatt wrote:Problems with 8th edition.
1) Magic. IMO, all of the lores could use with an over-haul. I'd like to see more spells that can target multiple units, and more spells that hit every model in a units.
2) Death Stars/VP denial. It makes the game pretty dull. Possibly a change in victory conditions making death stars and VP Denial less attractive. I've played quite a few games now using the 40K objectives deck, and it's awesome.
3) Monsters. Beautiful models, generally terrible on the table. Age of Sigmar has done a wonderful job with balancing monsters out, making them very viable. I don't know if something like that can be adapted to 8.5
Maybe having flying monsters lose fly when below half woulds would really help. Along with a balancing of the warmachine vs monster issue.
1) More spells that target units is again a nice idea, but like Druchii said, we don't want to change too much. Generally speaking, the Lores are pretty good I think (maybe with Fire being a bit bad) and not altering them will make our fan edition more familiar as well as allowing people to continue to use their magic cards. Besides, if you think about it, many hexes and especially augments have the option to target multiple units and magic missiles and direct damage spells that do the same is something we can implement into the new Lores of the Wild, Plague and Ruin (especially the latter two!) when we re-do those army books.
2) VP denial is a very good point actually and, since my group has been playing it as a house-rule since 8th edition dropped, I do kinda forget that it's a house rule. Essentially, any unit that is fleeing and/or below half it's starting strength is worth 50% victory points. We could expand that to it being worth 75% VP when the unit is below 75% and the same for 25%, if people wish. I'll edit this into the first post.
3) Yeah, Monsters are something we're looking into. Give us your feedback on the Monster suggestions thus far!
Rihgu wrote:
Make it so that no unit can cost more than 50% of the points you would be allowed for that category? I think it's too clumsy to actually implement but maybe the idea is there.
Example, for 2400pts:
No Special unit can be over 600pts.
No Rare unit can be over 300pts.
No Hero or Lord unit could be over 300pts.
No cap on Core units.
I actually quite like this, with the exception of the Hero/Lord cap, which severely limits armies like VC/WoC (who rely on expensive characters) and stops people using characters on monsters (which are something we're trying to make viable again). The only problem is that this rule is more of a "comp" and I'm not sure if it should be included in a normal ruleset for the reason that many people may want to use large units in a non-competitive way.
As for people suggesting that Monsters lose attacks/movement as they lose wounds, like in AoS, whilst it's a good mechanic it really doesn't help us in our aim to make Monsters more viable. If we feel that changes to cannons and any "unit strength" rule we give them makes them too powerful, then it's something we can look into, but, for now, we should concentrate on changes that make Monsters better, rather than changes which are so for the sake of change.
Still, there's some fantastic ideas already so far, and some great discussion going on! Keep up the good work, everyone!
1: Right just looked through it and I am going to have a nice long talk with my buddies over at the game store then about this.
2: I don't think so. I would just put up the rule that the rider gains the special rules of the mount (but still able to make his lance attacks or any other attacks), with the model taking the best profile from both former profiles. But I will say for characters they gain that many more wounds the mount has. This was Done in the end times and our group in the US has done up rules just for it.
2015/07/05 15:04:44
Subject: Re:Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
Commissar-Danno wrote: 2: I don't think so. I would just put up the rule that the rider gains the special rules of the mount (but still able to make his lance attacks or any other attacks), with the model taking the best profile from both former profiles. But I will say for characters they gain that many more wounds the mount has. This was Done in the end times and our group in the US has done up rules just for it.
So you'd essentially have cavalry adopt the rules of monstrous cavalry? I.e. use the best characteristic from the two components for all defensive purposes. To be fair, that could work, though I don't think it's a necessary change? Other people's thoughts?
Commissar-Danno wrote: How about when charging if the model is within 1 inch but in not base to base contact it is still consider having to of made made its charge?
This just seems a bit pointless to me. Why complicate things and what's wrong with simple base to base? And if you're on about buffing cavalry, they already have swiftstride as well as higher movement, so charging is much easier for them.
Commissar-Danno wrote: How about when charging if the model is within 1 inch but in not base to base contact it is still consider having to of made made its charge?
This just seems a bit pointless to me. Why complicate things and what's wrong with simple base to base? And if you're on about buffing cavalry, they already have swiftstride as well as higher movement, so charging is much easier for them.
Well I'll conseed the charging movement but I think it would be better as one profile for cavalry. Or at least include a rule where all attacks against a mounted model must be against the rider rather than choosing to distribute between the two models.
2015/07/06 21:46:22
Subject: Re:Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
Commissar-Danno wrote: How about when charging if the model is within 1 inch but in not base to base contact it is still consider having to of made made its charge?
This just seems a bit pointless to me. Why complicate things and what's wrong with simple base to base? And if you're on about buffing cavalry, they already have swiftstride as well as higher movement, so charging is much easier for them.
Well I'll conseed the charging movement but I think it would be better as one profile for cavalry. Or at least include a rule where all attacks against a mounted model must be against the rider rather than choosing to distribute between the two models.
This is already the case... Well, for Cavalry and Monstrous Cavalry it is anyway. Whilst I appreciate the bandying about of ideas, I don't really see the need for this change.
This is a great idea and I would like to be involved in helping. Not just making this a forum post but actively promoting these rules throughout the tabletop community. PM incoming.
2015/07/07 01:07:55
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
We wrote: This is a great idea and I would like to be involved in helping. Not just making this a forum post but actively promoting these rules throughout the tabletop community. PM incoming.
We: Welcome to the crew We. I want to be part of this from start to finish (I even have my own topic back in the fluff section of WHFB topics here) as well.
I think we need to get organized and decide on who's taking what parts of the project. I know I want to be part of creating at least a brief fluff section and deal with some rules, commenting on them at least and adding input. Also for the creation of army bookssince I've a few ideas for Empire, Brets and Dwarfs
Shadow: Okay I concede the point. Also what do you think of the cannon rules above I added?
2015/07/07 06:00:00
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
What's the structure of governance for creating this update? How are decisions to be made? Is there a brand we can attach to? Without GW's guiding, somebody or something needs to become that (would-be) authority.
Paul Cornelius
Thundering Jove
2015/07/07 15:29:39
Subject: Re:Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
I really like the idea of patching 8th.
monsters could nullify steadfast or flank or rear charges could also do it.
Also I think spears could use a tiny buff.
As for cannons I think reducing the number of multiple wounds would suffice.
i would implement rules similar to cavalry to character riding monsters or a unified profile for them. (also liked the idea of AoS to make them more weak the more wounds they have but with tons of wounds)
never liked always strike first and always strike last interaction due to white lions being ridiculous.
I guess thats all I remember for now, if I have any more ideas I will post them.
Great project guys. Keep up the good work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I remembered something.
I would create a unit type called heavy infantry for the 2.5 mm bases.
This would be something in the middle of mounstrous infantry and infantry.
they would have 2 wounds and 2 attacks and could rank in ranks of 4, with their hordes being 8.
they also would have two supporting attacks.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/07 15:46:17
2015/07/07 16:03:44
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
thunderingjove wrote:What's the structure of governance for creating this update? How are decisions to be made? Is there a brand we can attach to? Without GW's guiding, somebody or something needs to become that (would-be) authority.
If no one steps forward, I really don't want to say this since I know there are people who are more competent, I'll take charge in about 3 days.
Zephyranthes wrote:I really like the idea of patching 8th.
monsters could nullify steadfast or flank or rear charges could also do it.
Also I think spears could use a tiny buff.
As for cannons I think reducing the number of multiple wounds would suffice.
i would implement rules similar to cavalry to character riding monsters or a unified profile for them. (also liked the idea of AoS to make them more weak the more wounds they have but with tons of wounds)
never liked always strike first and always strike last interaction due to white lions being ridiculous.
I guess thats all I remember for now, if I have any more ideas I will post them.
Great project guys. Keep up the good work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I remembered something.
I would create a unit type called heavy infantry for the 2.5 mm bases.
This would be something in the middle of mounstrous infantry and infantry.
they would have 2 wounds and 2 attacks and could rank in ranks of 4, with their hordes being 8.
they also would have two supporting attacks.
Thanks for the great post Zephryranthes, I'll share my thoughts on this with you
1: I think that if a monster has the Terror special rule and if one charges into the side it negates stead fast, if two monsters with Terror charge a unit of steadfast straight on then the unit looses stead fast so long as both or more monsters are in close combat.
2: Eh, I think that Pikes should be included over spears.
3: Not that much of a fan of that. Some times the only way that people have to deal with dragons or other large monster is a cannon or a warmachine
4: I agree with you totally
5: You and me both. You have 3 races who can always strike first. how would you purpose to patch that?
Heavy Infantry: Hmm... I'm going to have to say no to the extra attacks and wounds. I like the idea of them being in smaller ranks and in hordes of 8 though and that can be implemented. Also I would changeyour wording from two supporting attacks to 'up to two supporting attacks'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I was thinking, we can develop the main section of the rules for casual play and then have a small additional section for tournaments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/07 18:47:17
2015/07/07 23:17:11
Subject: Re:Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
Zephyranthes wrote: I really like the idea of patching 8th.
monsters could nullify steadfast or flank or rear charges could also do it.
Also I think spears could use a tiny buff.
As for cannons I think reducing the number of multiple wounds would suffice.
i would implement rules similar to cavalry to character riding monsters or a unified profile for them. (also liked the idea of AoS to make them more weak the more wounds they have but with tons of wounds)
never liked always strike first and always strike last interaction due to white lions being ridiculous.
I guess thats all I remember for now, if I have any more ideas I will post them.
Great project guys. Keep up the good work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I remembered something.
I would create a unit type called heavy infantry for the 2.5 mm bases.
This would be something in the middle of mounstrous infantry and infantry.
they would have 2 wounds and 2 attacks and could rank in ranks of 4, with their hordes being 8.
they also would have two supporting attacks.
- Monsters nullifying steadfast straight away is i think a little too OP. I think like shadow says they should just count as having a certain number of ranks or have to do a certain amount of casualties to negate it.
- Maybe spears could act as shadow's pike rules, if we want to change cavalry rules
- Cannons being reduced to D3 wounds (or even D3+1) I think is a perfect, simple change. Either that or make them use BS like someone else suggested. But not both one of those will do fine
- I also really like the idea of characters on ridden monsters being used as a single model using the highest value like with monstrous cav. This could also expand to character on chariots
- Eh, I think ASF interacts with ASL in a perfectly logical way and that if anything it is the white lion unit that is broken rather than the rules they have. But maybe i am bias about ASF because i play dark elves
As for the heavy infantry like i've said before i think it's a bad idea to introduce so many new extra rules. It would be a nice change but i think for people to want to play this fan ruleset we should concentrate on fixing bad rules and not creating new ones
Good to see this is getting more support though
Dark Elves Rule!
Dark Elves - 4000pts
Chaos - 1500pts
Eldar - 1000pts
2015/07/07 23:55:43
Subject: Project 8 - The Dakka Community's Warhammer 8.5 Edition
We wrote:This is a great idea and I would like to be involved in helping. Not just making this a forum post but actively promoting these rules throughout the tabletop community. PM incoming.
Reply sent :thumsbsup: Thanks for your support!
Commissar-Danno wrote:Shadow: Okay I concede the point. Also what do you think of the cannon rules above I added?
Point me to them? I think a simple cannon change is all that's necessary. Either changing them to work like bolt throwers (like someone said above), or changing them to inflict less wounds (D3+1 or just D3 seems good), like Zephyranthes suggests below. Open to other ideas, of course but I think simple is better. I'll be editing the OP with these suggested changes.
thunderingjove wrote:What's the structure of governance for creating this update? How are decisions to be made? Is there a brand we can attach to? Without GW's guiding, somebody or something needs to become that (would-be) authority.
I hadn't really thought about governance. Perhaps I have too much faith in people that I'd expect them to come to a conclusion by themselves? I'm happy to take charge but, at the same time, don't want it to seem like I'm having the only say. I guess we could form a "council" of sorts who could come up with a shortlist of changes and then we release a poll in which people can vote "yes/no" or "rule 1/rule 2"
Zephyranthes wrote:I really like the idea of patching 8th. monsters could nullify steadfast or flank or rear charges could also do it. Also I think spears could use a tiny buff. As for cannons I think reducing the number of multiple wounds would suffice. i would implement rules similar to cavalry to character riding monsters or a unified profile for them. (also liked the idea of AoS to make them more weak the more wounds they have but with tons of wounds) never liked always strike first and always strike last interaction due to white lions being ridiculous. I guess thats all I remember for now, if I have any more ideas I will post them. Great project guys. Keep up the good work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I remembered something. I would create a unit type called heavy infantry for the 2.5 mm bases. This would be something in the middle of mounstrous infantry and infantry. they would have 2 wounds and 2 attacks and could rank in ranks of 4, with their hordes being 8. they also would have two supporting attacks.
1) Yeah think we'd need a little more to get rid of Steadfast. Either those monsters have to inflict lots of casualties and that you have to be engaged in the flank/rear and then engaged by another unit. My personal opinion though
2) Agreed. Simply allowing spears to work on the charge would work nicely, I feel
3) Agreed (as noted above)
4) This is a good idea, which, in a lot of cases, works perfectly. For example, if an elven prince (T3) is riding a dragon (T6) it makes sense that all missile weapons should roll to wound against T6 as that's the majority of the "bulk" of the model (think 40k majority toughness rules here) and then have the wounds that get through separately allocated onto each component (so 1-4 being the mount, 5-6 being the rider). That works fine. The only problem with having them as a combined profile is that, really, they are two very separate and very different components. I think that the rider and the mount should be able to die separately. Perhaps we could give them a split profile for everything but wounds. So all hits, both in combat and shooting, are resolved against the WS (if applicable) and toughness of the monster. Roll a D6 for all wounds that get through, on a 1-4 the wound is resolved against the monster and on a 5-6 against the rider. Both components can then take their saves (if any) against the wounds and, if any are failed, their own, individual wound count is reduced. If it hits zero, that particular component dies. Thoughts?
5) I think ASL and ASF cancelling them out is perfectly logical. White Lions and Executioners are indeed powerful but I think that has more to do with them being among the stronger units in the stronger books. I don't think it's a huge problem, but could be fixed if people feel it should be
6) Whilst I like the idea of an 8 wide horde, I feel this would make many units (savage orcs spring to mind) too powerful. 25mm infantry functions exactly the same as 20mm infantry in game, the actual models just happen to be a bit bigger, so I don't think any change is needed. Besides, as Druchii says below, we don't want to add in too many unnecessary complications.
Druchii wrote: - Maybe spears could act as shadow's pike rules, if we want to change cavalry rules
I really like this. That stops us having to introduce something as radical as a new weapon type, whilst buffing spears slightly. I'd need more feedback on the cavalry idea though to see if people do want to include it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/07 23:56:04
Chaos - 1500pts
Eldar - 1000pts 
ridiculous.
