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.

Sorry for the bad editing

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.

I'm fine with the D3+1. since there are guns which are only D3 in smaller calibers. But lets keep the rules for the average 'bounce' then. In the Nuln Army book though I've got an idea or two about Hellcannons.

I'm no expert, but how about monsters counting as having a number of ranks equal to their current wounds? Makes units run away from monsters they can't effectively hurt, but not from monsters that are obviously barely staying on their feet.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm no expert, but how about monsters counting as having a number of ranks equal to their current wounds? Makes units run away from monsters they can't effectively hurt, but not from monsters that are obviously barely staying on their feet.

This is something I've thought of and mentioned, but with them counting as having a number of ranks equal to half their current number of wounds (rounding up - or maybe not rounding up, hmm??). But anyway, otherwise Monsters would start with an effective 6 ranks, which is a hell of a lot. With ranks equal to half wounds, that would give monsters a range of 1-3 ranks, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In regards to blackfang's qualms about monster and rider dying separately, above, I can see you point but I think that the two components are just so radically different that they should be independent of one another in some way. I mean, otherwise you have an effective 9ish wound model that loses no power whatsoever right up until you take off its last wound. Also bear in mind all the bonuses the rider might have (Inspiring Presence and being a Wizard are the ones that spring to mind) - these abilities are not shared by the monster and so these abilities shouldn't be benefited by the monster, if that makes sense. You shouldn't have to get through all 9 wounds in order to stop IP or spellcasting, because most of those wounds don't belong to the model with those abilities. So, essentially, giving a wizard a monster mount would not only give them the combat prowess etc that the monster would have on its own, but it also gives the wizard +6 wounds. That, with the proposed changes to cannons and monsters negating steadfast is something I feel is a bit too powerful. I think a combined toughness is good enough to be honest.

Steadfast and Outnumbering:

Making steadfast work properly, 2 units of infantry both same frontage and one has 5 ranks the other 4. Why does having one extra rank matter: compare 2 hordes 50 vs 40 or 45 vs 40? How does a unit know he has 5-10 more men? Now consider this combat with RAW: 5 frontage of skaven slaves with 10 ranks vs 10 frontage of swordsmen with 5 ranks, both have 50, however the skaven receive steadfast. Why? Large Monster vs 10 infantry 5 front 2 ranks, again why are 10 infantry men so confident they will win?

Steadfast is granted to a unit when outnumbering a unit 2-1 or more (rounding down) after combat resolution is calculated but before it is resolved. This will be easy for most combats, since most are normally very close in number. Skirmishers may not have steadfast when outnumbering a unit by any 2-1, however they may claim steadfast if they outnumber by 3-1. Thus is the penalty for a loose, fast moving formation. Demons and undead and outnumbering: should they outnumber their opponents by 2-1 the combat resolution damage is reduced by one additional point for any bonus rank (i.e. max 3). This doesn’t apply to the combat resolution score it just reduces your combat resolution damage, in the same manner as a battle standard. If a demon\undead unit outnumbers by 3-1 they may reduce combat resolution damage by the total number of ranks they have. In the case of multiple unit combats each side tally’s every unit then applies the outnumbering results to all units.

Infantry equals 1 per base, so 40 infantry would be 40

Cavalry equals 2 per base, 10 cavalry would be 20

Monstrous Infantry equals 3 per base, 8 monstrous infantry would be 24

Monstrous Cavalry equal 4 per base, 4 monstrous cavalry would be 16

Squad Chariots or unit of chariots equals 3 per base, 3 bases in a chariot unit would be 9, tomb kings chariots are great examples of squad chariots

Single base chariot or independent character on chariot equals 4 per base, in some cases independent characters can take chariots and thus are allowed to join other units of chariots, forming a unit. In this case the independent character simply adds 4 to whatever type it is joining. examples: tomb king joining a squad of chariots with 3 bases equals 4+9=13 total, While a chaos herald on a chariot joining a gore beast chariot would equal 8, the gore beast chariot is a great example of a single base chariot it can only be purchased as a single model, however it can be joined by the herald on a chariot.

Monster 40x40 base or swarm 3 per base, swarm of 4 bases is 12

Monster small base 50 x50, 5 per base

Monster medium base 50x100, 8 per base

Monster Large base (Terrorghiest size, Nagash, Glotkin), 10 per base


Victory Points:

Also Half VP should be awarded for units that have been reduced to 50%





Automatically Appended Next Post:
My maginc phase idea

Magic Phase:

Doesn’t matter if you have 1 wizard or 5; having a set amount of dice does not work. Side A has 1 LV 4 wizard while side B has one lv 4 and 2 lv 2. Side B should have more magic even if it is a limited source. The problem is how to represent this without over powering one side too much.

The player whose turn it is generates 1D6 magic dice in the phase. Each wizard will generate his own personal power poll equal to his level and may not be shared with another caster. The generated magic dice maybe split anyway the player decided as he cast spells, no need to divide dice before casting. Any dice channeled by wizards are part of their personal power pool. The dispelling player dice pool is equal to the power die roll. Each wizard then adds 1 for each 2 levels (level 1-2 +1, level 3-4 +2). Unlike the power pool these are shared dice and focused through the highest caster until he fails, as described in the rulebook.

A dwarf army with no Runelord or Runesmith is granted +2 to dispel attempts, with Runesmith +1, with Runelord +2 with any combination of 2 or more +4



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Terrain and making skirmish useful:

Fixing terrain and making skirmish units viable. All movement is halved to units that require tight formations…. ranks and files. Rank and file troops may not march into terrain nor declare a march while in terrain, if rank and file have declared a march they must end their movement at the edge of the terrain. Models that must test for dangerous terrain must still do so, with exceptions noted below.

Chariots may not voluntary enter dangerous terrain. Any chariot pursuing or overrunning a unit stops at the edge of terrain that is considered dangerous or impassable. During an overrun they would still remove the any unit caught in an overrun. When a chariot hits dangerous terrain it suffer 1D3 automatic hits no armor saves allowed, when hitting impassable a chariot suffers 1D6 hits no armor saves allowed.
Units with the skirmish rule or single unit model such as a monsters and independent characters on their own do not half their movement and may march while in terrain. Any non-infantry unit with the skirmish or monster special rule does not test for dangerous terrain.

So....Monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry, Cavalry all still test for dangerous terrain. Specialized army book may have special rules that suspend this (Wood Elves, Beastmen)

Line of sight and terrain: Jungles, forests, and similar: No unit may see beyond 3 inches from the edge, nor may a model see out of a forest if it is wholly outside of 3 inches. Use common sense with large targets and towering models. If it is possible to hide they will always attempt to do so. Do not let the models impressive pose dictate what can or can’t be seen. Even floating and hovering models will attempt to lower down below the tree line. (Damn cannons need a little nerf)

ALL MATH HAMMER STATS USE SIMPLE STAT METHODS AND ARE ROUNDED UP OR DOWN APPROPRIATLY

The first couple of examples are giving to standardize the size of both units, a more 'real world' example is given at bottom, assumptions: all units pass fear test. you'll also notice that this was also written to express my concerns with steadfast and outnumbering problem

Monstrous Infantry and Monstrous Calvary

Normal infantry with multiple attacks must suffer penalties to attacks in 2nd and 3rd ranks, while monstrous units don’t. This has been argued that the cost of monstrous units warrants the rules, while normal infantry is restricted and unable to attack through their companions effectively. Maybe so however if I enlarged a ghoul to the same size as an ogre, how does that problem go away? Being bigger does not negate the fact that attacking from a second rank is just as hard when your 8 foot tall vs 5 foot tall. Under the current rules a hoard of ogres has 54 attacks with a total of 54 wounds, 2 bonus ranks and cost 540+ points vs a normal infantry unit of infantry with same frontage and depth has 36 (48 if you have 2 attacks or spears, 60 for high elf spearmen) , 72 wounds and 3 bonus rank. The cost of infantry varies widely 216+ to 792+ with special rules varying widely. Now some people say that the 288-792 units have a huge advantage over the ogres, because of steadfast. How does that really matter? And does steadfast help all units? Compare some combats:

standarized combats with normal 8th rules


Average leadership is not high enough to warrant steadfast being considered an equalizer to this combat. The elves have a high advantage compared to the empire swordsmen but they are more expensive and have special rules with spears. I propose we change monsterous Infantry bonus rank attacks to thus; each qualifying rank in a monstrous unit suffers -1 attack per rank to a minimum of one. In the case of ogres 2nd rank gets 2 and the 3rd gets 1. The results change significantly.

Standardized combats with proposed changes


As you see on average the Ogres will still win but not to a degree that with some luck the empire could win. The elves win on average, after all the unit cost more than the ogres, 540 to 792 points. Consider now Real game/world combats: since we are never going to see 72 high elf spearmen in a unit or 72 empire swordsmen lets change it to a practical number: Assumption both units past fear test.

'Real world' combats without changes


Skaven have lost 3 ranks and number 22 vs the ogres who are still 8. Question why are they steadfast? It is clear to the slaves they are outmatched even with low leadership they still might flee; however the ogres clearly own this combat. Halberdiers do rather well they still outnumber so steadfast makes sense in this case.

Real world combats with changes to Monsterous infantry



Nothing has changed for the Skaven, they are outgunned and should be they cost a lot less than the ogres (105 to 240). Still there are 24 Skaven left vs 7 ogres; do they significantly outnumber the ogres? The combat between the ogres and empire is changed drastically. The ogres still win by one, but this is not significant. The empire cost 280 and the ogres 240. This is a good result for units that are so close in points. The point is at leadership 8 the -1 has less effect on them than -4. Should steadfast apply here? An ogre is 3 time the size of a man just how confident do you think they are? 10 men dead 3 ogres dead, seems more like a deadlock


FORMAT CORRRETED

Yeah as Druchii, commissar and everyone else have pointed, the idea of a new type of infantry may be too much, but I would like to explain my reasoning for this. I tought it while trying to find a way to power up Orc and beastmen units. The other units with similar bases are The Saurus and WoC and they have a statline that works similar to what I had propossed. Another reason is because 2.5 X 4 = 2 X 5, which would leave the ranks matching perfectly. All things said I also I agree that we should keep new rules at a minumum so I think that it's ok to discard this idea.
About the interaction of always strike first and always strike last, as everyone has pointed in the paper it's ok, but the problem is the Elfs that abuse them to bully lesser species XD , but hey Elfs have always been abusers
So this could also be discarded.

P.D.: Sorry for my poor english

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Steadfast and Outnumbering:

Making steadfast work properly, 2 units of infantry both same frontage and one has 5 ranks the other 4. Why does having one extra rank matter: compare 2 hordes 50 vs 40 or 45 vs 40? How does a unit know he has 5-10 more men? Now consider this combat with RAW: 5 frontage of skaven slaves with 10 ranks vs 10 frontage of swordsmen with 5 ranks, both have 50, however the skaven receive steadfast. Why? Large Monster vs 10 infantry 5 front 2 ranks, again why are 10 infantry men so confident they will win?

Steadfast is granted to a unit when outnumbering a unit 2-1 or more (rounding down) after combat resolution is calculated but before it is resolved. This will be easy for most combats, since most are normally very close in number. Skirmishers may not have steadfast when outnumbering a unit by any 2-1, however they may claim steadfast if they outnumber by 3-1. Thus is the penalty for a loose, fast moving formation. Demons and undead and outnumbering: should they outnumber their opponents by 2-1 the combat resolution damage is reduced by one additional point for any bonus rank (i.e. max 3). This doesn’t apply to the combat resolution score it just reduces your combat resolution damage, in the same manner as a battle standard. If a demon\undead unit outnumbers by 3-1 they may reduce combat resolution damage by the total number of ranks they have. In the case of multiple unit combats each side tally’s every unit then applies the outnumbering results to all units.

Infantry equals 1 per base, so 40 infantry would be 40

Cavalry equals 2 per base, 10 cavalry would be 20

Monstrous Infantry equals 3 per base, 8 monstrous infantry would be 24

Monstrous Cavalry equal 4 per base, 4 monstrous cavalry would be 16

Squad Chariots or unit of chariots equals 3 per base, 3 bases in a chariot unit would be 9, tomb kings chariots are great examples of squad chariots

Single base chariot or independent character on chariot equals 4 per base, in some cases independent characters can take chariots and thus are allowed to join other units of chariots, forming a unit. In this case the independent character simply adds 4 to whatever type it is joining. examples: tomb king joining a squad of chariots with 3 bases equals 4+9=13 total, While a chaos herald on a chariot joining a gore beast chariot would equal 8, the gore beast chariot is a great example of a single base chariot it can only be purchased as a single model, however it can be joined by the herald on a chariot.

Monster 40x40 base or swarm 3 per base, swarm of 4 bases is 12

Monster small base 50 x50, 5 per base

Monster medium base 50x100, 8 per base

Monster Large base (Terrorghiest size, Nagash, Glotkin), 10 per base


Victory Points:

Also Half VP should be awarded for units that have been reduced to 50%





Automatically Appended Next Post:
My maginc phase idea

Magic Phase:

Doesn’t matter if you have 1 wizard or 5; having a set amount of dice does not work. Side A has 1 LV 4 wizard while side B has one lv 4 and 2 lv 2. Side B should have more magic even if it is a limited source. The problem is how to represent this without over powering one side too much.

The player whose turn it is generates 1D6 magic dice in the phase. Each wizard will generate his own personal power poll equal to his level and may not be shared with another caster. The generated magic dice maybe split anyway the player decided as he cast spells, no need to divide dice before casting. Any dice channeled by wizards are part of their personal power pool. The dispelling player dice pool is equal to the power die roll. Each wizard then adds 1 for each 2 levels (level 1-2 +1, level 3-4 +2). Unlike the power pool these are shared dice and focused through the highest caster until he fails, as described in the rulebook.

A dwarf army with no Runelord or Runesmith is granted +2 to dispel attempts, with Runesmith +1, with Runelord +2 with any combination of 2 or more +4



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Terrain and making skirmish useful:

Fixing terrain and making skirmish units viable. All movement is halved to units that require tight formations…. ranks and files. Rank and file troops may not march into terrain nor declare a march while in terrain, if rank and file have declared a march they must end their movement at the edge of the terrain. Models that must test for dangerous terrain must still do so, with exceptions noted below.

Chariots may not voluntary enter dangerous terrain. Any chariot pursuing or overrunning a unit stops at the edge of terrain that is considered dangerous or impassable. During an overrun they would still remove the any unit caught in an overrun. When a chariot hits dangerous terrain it suffer 1D3 automatic hits no armor saves allowed, when hitting impassable a chariot suffers 1D6 hits no armor saves allowed.
Units with the skirmish rule or single unit model such as a monsters and independent characters on their own do not half their movement and may march while in terrain. Any non-infantry unit with the skirmish or monster special rule does not test for dangerous terrain.

So....Monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry, Cavalry all still test for dangerous terrain. Specialized army book may have special rules that suspend this (Wood Elves, Beastmen)

Line of sight and terrain: Jungles, forests, and similar: No unit may see beyond 3 inches from the edge, nor may a model see out of a forest if it is wholly outside of 3 inches. Use common sense with large targets and towering models. If it is possible to hide they will always attempt to do so. Do not let the models impressive pose dictate what can or can’t be seen. Even floating and hovering models will attempt to lower down below the tree line. (Damn cannons need a little nerf)

I like your ideas specially the one of modifing the Magic phase. But wouldn't they be a little too complex to implement?

There's some good suggestions there, Rune Stonegrinder, just a few things I'd like to add/query:

- Whilst I like the idea of unit strength, I don't feel that it's necessary for all unit types. Monstrous Cavalry/Infantry have stomps and more supporting attacks and we have proposed rules for Cavalry, making them a bit stronger (though an effective "unit strength" of 2 would be a good alternative change), so I really only feel it's monsters that need buffing, something which we'll do, possibly by adding a unit strength-like mechanism. I think it's a good idea but isn't needed across the board and so, as it's such a big change, should not be implemented across the board either.

- You evidently disagree but, aside from the problem of 6-dicing (which we'll address), I really don't think there's anything wrong with the magic phase. I do like the idea of wizards creating their own personal dice (and, in fact, I think I would prefer it to the current system) but I don't think the magic phase needs changing and so, as the saying goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the community feels it would be an overwhelmingly positive change to the game, I'm more than happy to see it implemented, but, especially as fears of changing too much have been raised, I don't think we should.

- The change to the supporting attacks is a nice idea but I ask; why suggest to buff Monstrous Infantry through the use of unit strength, and then seek to nerf them by reducing their supporting attacks. Your proposed changes do make sense but, as is the case with some of your other changes, I think we need to be careful not to change too much just for the sake of it, but to only stick to the things that the game needs to be improved.

Perhaps we should find and consult a group of folks who have successfully made living game documents and communities.

 thunderingjove wrote:
Perhaps we should find and consult a group of folks who have successfully made living game documents and communities.

Indeed. I think we should get into contact with the folks at Battle Reporter.

Maybe a Facebook group too (or the equivalent)?

It seems a lot of people disliked low level wizards being the conduit for the 6 spells of doom and the unreliability of power dice generation.

Why not hybridize the pre and post 8th systems?

Roll one D6 and add the power levels of your mages to determine your power dice pool (Capped at 12)

Defending player gets the sum of the D6 plus half their power levels rounded up.

No wizard may roll more dice than their power level +1 when attempting to cast a spell.

 Eldarain wrote:
It seems a lot of people disliked low level wizards being the conduit for the 6 spells of doom and the unreliability of power dice generation.

Why not hybridize the pre and post 8th systems?

Roll one D6 and add the power levels of your mages to determine your power dice pool (Capped at 12)

Defending player gets the sum of the D6 plus half their power levels rounded up.

No wizard may roll more dice than their power level +1 when attempting to cast a spell.

This is decent in theory, but I think it will wind up with the dispelling player having too many dispel dice and that many players will struggle to get off some spells with their level 4, rolling only 5 dice. All that I think would make the magic phase too ineffective.

As for contacting people who have experience in this kinda thing, whilst it would certainly be helpful, I'm not sure it's needed. I think a large community of people who have played this game for the past however many years, all working together towards the same goal, are more than well placed to make changes to the rules. That said, it'd be good to find people who could make any army books we come up with look nice and snazzy

All of the rules suggestions are great but we need to work on organizing this project otherwise we will discuss this in committee until it fizzles out.

I propose the following:

1) we get determine everyone's name together that wants to help.

2)Create some sort of leadership or decision making body. Everyone has ideas of what rules they wants improved however we ultimately need some method of saying "this will be the rule" whether it be a committee vote or one guy who makes that decision. Also, there is more than just writing rules. We need to document the process, organize the project, communicate, play test the rules, write new army books, etc. We can take this far if we work together.

3) Clearly state our goals for the project.

4) Figure out what tasks we need done and then assign/volunteer people to those tasks.

5) Figure out how we will communicate and document this project.

6) Present our revisions to the community and promote the community to play our new game.

Ultimately, I believe GW completely dropped the ball with dropping Fantasy Battles and starting Aos. AoS might be a fine product but it is a completely new and separate game IMO and I think many people in the community feel the same way. So we the community need to pick up where they left off. I have thousands of dollars of fantasy miniatures I have collected over 20+ years in the hobby that I don't want to sit in a closet collecting dust.

There are plenty of talented community members who can come together and not only keep fantasy alive, but make it better than GW ever did. I am sure if we organize our talents, by finding those people who are good at writing rules, or good at play testing, or willing to donate some artwork, we can create a great project to keep this game alive.

Who's with me?

 The Shadow wrote:
There's some good suggestions there, Rune Stonegrinder, just a few things I'd like to add/query:

- Whilst I like the idea of unit strength, I don't feel that it's necessary for all unit types. Monstrous Cavalry/Infantry have stomps and more supporting attacks and we have proposed rules for Cavalry, making them a bit stronger (though an effective "unit strength" of 2 would be a good alternative change), so I really only feel it's monsters that need buffing, something which we'll do, possibly by adding a unit strength-like mechanism. I think it's a good idea but isn't needed across the board and so, as it's such a big change, should not be implemented across the board either.

- You evidently disagree but, aside from the problem of 6-dicing (which we'll address), I really don't think there's anything wrong with the magic phase. I do like the idea of wizards creating their own personal dice (and, in fact, I think I would prefer it to the current system) but I don't think the magic phase needs changing and so, as the saying goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the community feels it would be an overwhelmingly positive change to the game, I'm more than happy to see it implemented, but, especially as fears of changing too much have been raised, I don't think we should.

- The change to the supporting attacks is a nice idea but I ask; why suggest to buff Monstrous Infantry through the use of unit strength, and then seek to nerf them by reducing their supporting attacks. Your proposed changes do make sense but, as is the case with some of your other changes, I think we need to be careful not to change too much just for the sake of it, but to only stick to the things that the game needs to be improved.

Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad you were able to read through all that, writing and composition is not my strong suit. I'm a math also stats and science guy. here is my rebuttle for consideration.

To your:

1st point. If we take a step back and use the old outnumbering rules, abated tweeked a bit, everything will need a unit comparison size thats how we know if something is signifanctly outnembered or not and can gain steadfast. A dragon vs 10-15 guys should not be steadfast now 20+ ok it makes a little more sense now. Empire state troops are a little more confident at that point.

My terrain idea was to help monsters and riden monsters, basically in some cases they can attempt to hide from overwealming warmachines and spells, again this was a old edition idea being brought back. War machines and spells were what made GW go to a single stat line in order to try and make large riden monsters playable. It really didn't work since I could shoot through infinite woodlands and hit a High Elf dragon riding prince. I always like the ridden monster rules, I love it when a riden monster goes on a rampage or wimpers lol. Even if it slams my guys and eats them its a good time.

I think the shooting idea someone else came up with in a prior reply will also help monsters and will be considered at my local group.

2nd point: Well, most players had problems with the magic phase. Most people I talked to stated it was too random, one round you have 3 dice next round you have 10, and it seemd all that power was always focued through on a single wizard making some stupid uber magic combos vis special rules/items (High Elves, Slanns for example). The system I propose is also a tweeked older version nothing really new to the game. It adds more stragety to magic, now you just cant mega cast everything. For example you roll a 1 and have 2 casters a level 4 and a level 1. the level 1 needs a 6+ for his spell, your going to have to give your actions some thought. Less randomness is still better, maybe we should also consider dropping mega casting.

3rd: The reduced supporting attacks makes sense to me. Consider, If I have a unit of ghouls the front line gets 2 attacks the, second line gets 1, and if i have a hoard I get a 3rd line with 1. What is the differece? People have stated 'Monsterious infantry are so expensive its the only way to make them viable is to get all supporting attacks', I just proved that wrong above. Monsterious Infantry/cav was just pushing people out of the game, it became an arms race. The game should be balanced more. An arms race. It just should not be necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zephyranthes wrote:
I like your ideas specially the one of modifing the Magic phase. But wouldn't they be a little too complex to implement?

Not really as stated above it just a tweeked old edition way of doing magic. When it was being used it worked just fine, however I will admit spell casting values were cheaper. maybe thats something to be looked at as well. I'd be ok with dropping mega casting and re working casting values.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

Why not hybridize the pre and post 8th systems?

Roll one D6 and add the power levels of your mages to determine your power dice pool (Capped at 12)

Well what if I wanted to play with 5 necromancers level 1? If I roll low, a couple become usless. If a player pays 75 points for a wizard, a player should have at least a chance of casting it's one spell. Every round!

We wrote:
All of the rules suggestions are great but we need to work on organizing this project otherwise we will discuss this in committee until it fizzles out.

I propose the following:

1) we get determine everyone's name together that wants to help.

2)Create some sort of leadership or decision making body. Everyone has ideas of what rules they wants improved however we ultimately need some method of saying "this will be the rule" whether it be a committee vote or one guy who makes that decision. Also, there is more than just writing rules. We need to document the process, organize the project, communicate, play test the rules, write new army books, etc. We can take this far if we work together.

3) Clearly state our goals for the project.

4) Figure out what tasks we need done and then assign/volunteer people to those tasks.

5) Figure out how we will communicate and document this project.

6) Present our revisions to the community and promote the community to play our new game.

Ultimately, I believe GW completely dropped the ball with dropping Fantasy Battles and starting Aos. AoS might be a fine product but it is a completely new and separate game IMO and I think many people in the community feel the same way. So we the community need to pick up where they left off. I have thousands of dollars of fantasy miniatures I have collected over 20+ years in the hobby that I don't want to sit in a closet collecting dust.

There are plenty of talented community members who can come together and not only keep fantasy alive, but make it better than GW ever did. I am sure if we organize our talents, by finding those people who are good at writing rules, or good at play testing, or willing to donate some artwork, we can create a great project to keep this game alive.

Who's with me?

I am.
The main thing I want to do in this edition is to make it easier for new players to get into the fan edition from us vets. Like introduce unit fillers into the rules and how you can keep track of wounds, add in suggestions of using different sided dice to keep track of wounds.

Secondly to work on the fan edition army books. I have many an idea on how to create new ways players can fight and use their armies.

We wrote:All of the rules suggestions are great but we need to work on organizing this project otherwise we will discuss this in committee until it fizzles out

I think we've made good progress so far, and so I'm pretty happy. We've seen some good suggestions being thrown around, which is the main thing. I think an exchange of email addresses (especially in the latter stage) or some sort of private thread (can you do that?) is all that's necessary for finalising any documents we want to publish, but other than that, I'm liking the approach we're taking here. I'd planned on getting down any potential changes (a committee would perhaps come up with "nominations") and then stick them all in a forum poll to see what the community here on Dakka would most like to see. Then those changes get put into our revised ruleset.

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
1st point. If we take a step back and use the old outnumbering rules, abated tweeked a bit, everything will need a unit comparison size thats how we know if something is signifanctly outnembered or not and can gain steadfast. A dragon vs 10-15 guys should not be steadfast now 20+ ok it makes a little more sense now. Empire state troops are a little more confident at that point.

My terrain idea was to help monsters and riden monsters, basically in some cases they can attempt to hide from overwealming warmachines and spells, again this was a old edition idea being brought back. War machines and spells were what made GW go to a single stat line in order to try and make large riden monsters playable. It really didn't work since I could shoot through infinite woodlands and hit a High Elf dragon riding prince. I always like the ridden monster rules, I love it when a riden monster goes on a rampage or wimpers lol. Even if it slams my guys and eats them its a good time.

I think the shooting idea someone else came up with in a prior reply will also help monsters and will be considered at my local group.

2nd point: Well, most players had problems with the magic phase. Most people I talked to stated it was too random, one round you have 3 dice next round you have 10, and it seemd all that power was always focued through on a single wizard making some stupid uber magic combos vis special rules/items (High Elves, Slanns for example). The system I propose is also a tweeked older version nothing really new to the game. It adds more stragety to magic, now you just cant mega cast everything. For example you roll a 1 and have 2 casters a level 4 and a level 1. the level 1 needs a 6+ for his spell, your going to have to give your actions some thought. Less randomness is still better, maybe we should also consider dropping mega casting.

3rd: The reduced supporting attacks makes sense to me. Consider, If I have a unit of ghouls the front line gets 2 attacks the, second line gets 1, and if i have a hoard I get a 3rd line with 1. What is the differece? People have stated 'Monsterious infantry are so expensive its the only way to make them viable is to get all supporting attacks', I just proved that wrong above. Monsterious Infantry/cav was just pushing people out of the game, it became an arms race. The game should be balanced more. An arms race. It just should not be necessary.

1) To the outnumbering/unit strength idea, I am indeed for this idea, but I really think it only needs incorporating where monsters are concerned. And so, instead of introducing a completely different system to what is currently the case by adding in all these unit strengths, I think it's far easier and better if we were to just say that "monsters count has having X ranks". This achieves the same thing, but is significantly less complicated and is more likely to be accepted. That's my view though and, as I say, we can put some of these other suggestions into a poll or equivalent.

2) The magic phase is a little random, I'll give you that, but it does sort of make sense that magic will be random and, whilst many people will not like it, I don't think it's one of the major issues that needs fixing in our fan edition. It is something worth considering but, in my opinion, definitely not something we should prioritise or even explore. Changing the system like this also gives bonuses to every single wizard in the game (Level 4 wizards now have the bonus of generating 4 dice, whilst level 1 wizards have the less potent bonus of generating 1 die) - as a result, we would - or rather, should - have to rethink the points cost of every wizard in the entire game, something which is a huge, unnecessary complication.

3) Again, the reduced supporting attacks does make sense, but I think that very few people have issues with how supporting attacks work. Is it really something we should invest time trying to change?

I will admit I have only skimmed this thread, so if I missed something critical forgive me. Add me to the list people that would be interested in playing/helping design an 8.5 edition, I've always felt a few tweaks could really balance it out. Drawing from what I've read and discussed here and elsewhere, let me toss my ideas into the fray, in no particular order. I'm 'balancing' these rules off 8th as it is, so if other rules are added/taken away they would probably need adjustment.

-Cavalry deal impact hits at the mount's strength, +1 for barding (or an equivalent rule). When charging a spear-armed unit in the front, this rule is negated. If cavalry still needs a bit of a boost give them stomp attacks on the charge as well.

-Cannons deal d3+1 wounds, and against ridden monsters they randomize to see if the rider or monster is hit (rather than somehow sailing through both).

-When casting a spell, double 1's is a miscast and an automatic failure. Double 6's is irresistible force. Double 1's override double 6's (so if you roll 4+ dice and get two 1's AND two 6's, it's a miscast and a failed spell). If used alongside other rules to tone down magic, perhaps change it so double 1's and double 6s just mean both irresistible and a miscast.

-Against unit-wide effects, give characters a look out sir! roll just like they would get for shooting. (Applies to lone models?)

-A unit cannot count more ranks than it has files for the purposes of steadfast. Want to be steadfast with 10 ranks? Well you have to have 100 models in the unit then. Add this to 25% casualties in a single round negation and monsters counting as ranks equal to 1/2 their wounds and I think it would fix up the steadfast issue nicely.

-A model in base-to-base with an enemy can always swing into rank-and-file models. This is to counter issues with people running a front rank full of characters, or forcing enemy troops to sit out by only being b2b with a character in a challenge.

-Perhaps just a personal annoyance, but make characters have to deploy in the middle of the front rank. As-is there is no reason not to put them in a corner, which simply doesn't fit with the theme!



In regards to army books I don't have many ideas, but I will say to give Beastmen the marks of chaos that they got from the End Times (it goes a long way to fixing up the army) and allow Chaos Daemons to swap a random gift roll for any item of the listed points cost out of the main rulebook rather than just weapons. And perhaps do away with the reign of chaos chart entirely since it really doesn't add anything.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

1) Cavalry deal impact hits at the mount's strength, +1 for barding (or an equivalent rule). When charging a spear-armed unit in the front, this rule is negated. If cavalry still needs a bit of a boost give them stomp attacks on the charge as well.

2) Cannons deal d3+1 wounds, and against ridden monsters they randomize to see if the rider or monster is hit (rather than somehow sailing through both).

3) When casting a spell, double 1's is a miscast and an automatic failure. Double 6's is irresistible force. Double 1's override double 6's (so if you roll 4+ dice and get two 1's AND two 6's, it's a miscast and a failed spell). If used alongside other rules to tone down magic, perhaps change it so double 1's and double 6s just mean both irresistible and a miscast.

4) Against unit-wide effects, give characters a look out sir! roll just like they would get for shooting. (Applies to lone models?)

5) A unit cannot count more ranks than it has files for the purposes of steadfast. Want to be steadfast with 10 ranks? Well you have to have 100 models in the unit then. Add this to 25% casualties in a single round negation and monsters counting as ranks equal to 1/2 their wounds and I think it would fix up the steadfast issue nicely.

6) A model in base-to-base with an enemy can always swing into rank-and-file models. This is to counter issues with people running a front rank full of characters, or forcing enemy troops to sit out by only being b2b with a character in a challenge.

7) Perhaps just a personal annoyance, but make characters have to deploy in the middle of the front rank. As-is there is no reason not to put them in a corner, which simply doesn't fit with the theme!

Some great ideas there, thanks for contributing! I've edited your post with numbers just to make my reply make a little more sense:

1+2) Yeah, this is pretty much exactly what we've been discussing and thinking of going with. We did also think that a cavalry model's rider being equipped with a lance should also add +1 to impact hit strength and we also discussed the possibility of cannons working like S10 bolt throwers.

3) Going back to the old system of double 1s meaning a miscast (which overrides IF) is a decent idea, and one definitely worth discussing. It makes 6 dicing a lot riskier, which is really the aim we have in fixing up the magic phase. What do people think?

4) Oooh, 100% this! This is a great idea and one I personally believe we should definitely implement. Again, it reduces the problems a lot of people have with the 6th spells. That said, it does buff deathstars slightly.

5) Again, this is a pretty good idea, and relatively simple too. However, being steadfast with 5 ranks with a 5-wide frontage (what a lot of infantry runs anyway) is very easy, and 5 ranks is normally more than enough to be steadfast against more elite units. It's a good idea, but not one I think will really fix anything.

6) I've never had much of an issue with this, seeing as this tactic involves putting many eggs in one basket, something which comes with its own risk. However, it is worth considering.

7) Ahaha, yeah, I think that's more of a personal annoyance if I'm honest! I see nothing wrong from a rules point of view of having characters anywhere in the front rank, and I don't think changing it would particularly improve the game at all.

Thanks again for your support, hope to see you add some more to the discussion!

Thanks for the compliments!

Anyways, I didn't mean 5 to be good on its own, rather something to go alongside the great ideas already being discussed. Maybe its just local meta but I see 5-wide, 6-8 deep all the time. Worse with Skaven, considering the "slave bus" of 5 wide 10 deep is a well recognized term.

The #6 isn't a huge issue since there are only a handful of powerful ways to do it (though it does come into play slightly with smaller-faced units vs larger-faced units plus corner character in a challenge), but I feel like it becomes much more important to have such a rule present if something like #4 is present, since the two offset each other.

I'm a bit split on the cannons-as-bolt-throwers idea, because on the one hand it works nicely and is simple, but on the other hand its just more fun (imo) to roll the artillery dice for distance and bouncing. Also requires a bit more changes when factoring in special rules for re-rolling bounce distance (probably just re-roll to wound, but its still an extra change).

My firm idea on cannons is this.

When firing a cannon select a model that you are able to shoot. You roll to hit with the crew's BS stat and the artillery dice. If you hit the model or unit, you hit the facing towards the cannon. If you did not roll a mis-fire on the artillery dice then the cannon ball passes through that many ranks, but does not pass through the unit and out of it. Hits are resolves at Strength 9, If the model is wounded and after saves, that wound is multiplied into D3+1 wounds.

It curtails the cannons but it still lets it keeps it's punch at the model you are aiming at.

For me that falls into the category of being more a more complex change than it needs to be. While what you suggest is very balanced, as a gamer I would rather play with cannons working as they are but with reduced damage capability, or have them work like bolt throwers where a to-hit roll of 1 is a misfire.

The method of having the artillery dice indicate the number of ranks penetrated also has balance issues against different troop types; the same roll passes through X 20mm infantry, X 25mm infantry, X monstrous infantry, or X monstrous cavalry. Adding in modifications based on troop type hit just further complicates things.

On a related t note, I think for an 8.5 edition to really succeed the entire errata should fit on one page. One page is so much more attractive to potential players ("oh it's just one page, I can at least read it....") while multiple pages, even if only 2, immediately gives the impression of a more complicated and thus harder-to-implement set of changes. Even if that opinion is completely unjustified, preconception has the uncanny ability to affect people's opinion. Plus, one page is easy to distribute, pin to a wall, etc.

Besides, two pages is like, literally, almost twice as much. And don't get me started on three...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For me that falls into the category of being more a more complex change than it needs to be. While what you suggest is very balanced, as a gamer I would rather play with cannons working as they are but with reduced damage capability, or have them work like bolt throwers where a to-hit roll of 1 is a misfire.

The method of having the artillery dice indicate the number of ranks penetrated also has balance issues against different troop types; the same roll passes through X 20mm infantry, X 25mm infantry, X monstrous infantry, or X monstrous cavalry. Adding in modifications based on troop type hit just further complicates things.

On a related t note, I think for an 8.5 edition to really succeed the entire errata should fit on one page. One page is so much more attractive to potential players ("oh it's just one page, I can at least read it....") while multiple pages, even if only 2, immediately gives the impression of a more complicated and thus harder-to-implement set of changes. Even if that opinion is completely unjustified, preconception has the uncanny ability to affect people's opinion. Plus, one page is easy to distribute, pin to a wall, etc.

Besides, two pages is like, literally, almost twice as much. And don't get me started on three...

Interesting...

Also I'm just wondering but what armies do you play? Infact I think it might be a good idea to get an idea from each of us who are dedicated to creating a 8.5-9th edition reveal what armies do we play with. It will show each of us from where we are coming from with our rules.

I am a Empire, dwarf, warriors of chaos, chaos dwarf, dogs of war and Vampire Counts player.

My main army is Daemons, with Warriors elements if using End Times rules. I am too poor to own more than 1 GW army, but I also have decent proxyhammer/previous experience with Warriors, Vampires, Tomb Kings, and Skaven. Warriors in particular, and as implied I dug into the Chaos rules from End Times a good deal.

I'll say I don't know much about the most recent army books, that being Dark Elves, Wood Elves and Dwarves. Everything before that I'm at least somewhat familiar with.

Perhaps somewhat relevant is that I have both the Storm of Magic book from GW and perhaps more importantly the Monstrous Arcana book from FW, the latter of which has a chart detailing which monster scrolls of binding fit with what armies.

Well there you go.
My main armies (Empire, Dwarfs, Dogs of War, Chaos Dwarfs) all deal with war engines and I have to use them since I don't have an answer to what most of the other players can put out monster wise.

With my chaos warriors and vampire counts I have monsters that I can tear through regular humans and dwarfs with ease. I mean when I field my chasos warriors and depending on how I build the list I usually take 2-3 giants and I can tear through or at least hold up many monsters and other beasts. Then we are not even getting into the characters who are monsters to deal with in close combat.

The cannons give me and answer to deal with the largest of monsters, I may kill one or two beastie a turn but at the same time how many other surprisies do you have coming my way that will tear through my T 3-4 troops? The cannons are the best and some times the only answer I can deliver. Yes I agree to limiting down to D3+1 is a decent trade off since it will kill monsterous infantry and chariots fairly easily but not be able to one shot monsters or monsterous beasts except for combined fire. Also unlike a bolt thrower which has to wound and loose strength with each rank it passes through the idea of the cannon ballplowing through the ranks makes perfect sense, how many it goes through is a different matter.

The firm idea on my cannons is only a paragraph long, is shorter than the entire entry on the cannon's long range damage. It's also simple and fair, as you say balanced. I want to keep it in the 8.5- 9th edition rules as this because we are not going for a single page errata, but rather an entire book.

And I think I can agree with the monsterous arcana idea I own it as well

So, Commissar Danno, your idea for cannons is that they work as bolt throwers but pierce a number of ranks of the target unit (and only the target unit) equal to the roll on the artillery dice? I think that's a decent system. I.e., you roll a D6 and an artillery die, the D6 indicating whether you hit or not and the artillery indicating how many ranks you pierce and if you misfire (in which case the shot fails and you roll on the black powder chart).

I must admit, I do like it. My only problems though are that any roll on the artillery die, other than a 2 and a misfire, will likely pierce all the ranks you need and hence makes that mechanic redundant and also the fact that, whilst a simple change, it's not as blissfully simple as just changing cannons to inflict D3+1 wounds, or even for them to work as S10 bolt throwers.

Would you still have them lose strength when piercing ranks and/or stop if they fail to kill a model?

If they worked like bolt throwers, I think it would be best to have them stay at S10 and only stop if they fail to kill a monstrous model/monster. This is what stops cannonballs currently and I think it works pretty well.

If we change the wounds to 1d3+1 then I don't think there is anything else that needs to be addressed alongside it since the current 'stop' rules work fine with that.

If we go with the artillery dice indicating the number of ranks, how do we balance that against different troop types? 4 ranks of infantry is not the same as 4 ranks of monstrous infantry. I'd say to keep the stopping rules above, but that still has a cannonball somehow bouncing twice the distance when it hits bulkier troop types unless it fails to kill a model.

I made an account just to post this.

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

That sounds like a lot of fun, actually. Just add the scatter dice to the artillery, and a 'hit' means straight forward. I would definitely go for subtracting BS from the scatter distance as well, because otherwise I think they become too unreliable to serve as a decent counter to monsters (which as Danno said, is needed for many armies).

Looks like we have four pretty solid ideas to work with. Maybe in situations like this we could make a poll to see what people think? There might be an overwhelming majority we're unaware of.

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