Switch Theme:

Warhammer CE - the real deal for all Warhammer Fantasy veterans  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Charging Orc Boar Boy





Germany

pidaysock wrote:
I've got a rule question...

Pursueing into new enemies...
We can't find the paragraph about being "immune to fear and terror" anywhere.

Does that mean, that if I pursue into a new terrifying enemy who , I still have to test and if worst comes to worst, flee myself suddenly?

If yes, do I make the test prior to the 1" stop in front of the unit, or after I actually enter BTB?


edit.... Fear doens't require a psych-check anymore when I charge? Oh dear. But terror does.... so the question above is limited to the subject of terror...
2nd edit... The Bretonnia Armory is unclear about the Hardwoodlance/Kernholzlanze: One rerolls hits in German, but wounds in English.... the 6th Edition book said "to-wound" rolls... please clarify.
Also: under: Characters march with units.... the example has a heavy cav model marching with infantry. However the march is reduced to 7". This must be a left-over from 1.05 or 1.06 ruleset, since heavy cav can now march as well.


As you don't declare a regular charge, no terror test is required when pursueing, whether you decide to attack or to stop in front of rhe enemy.

On the other subjects: The English version is the correct one.

And concerning the example of marching. you are right, definitely a left-over from before the rule changes for Heavy Cav!

Thanks for the great feeeback! Greatly appreciated.

Did you have a chance to play already?

   
Made in de
Fresh Meat



Berlin

Here are a few more rule questions (in German).

For those who prefer the English language, here is the short version:
A.1:Terror causing characters in units: Is there a test when you attack (when you are attacked by) the unit?
A.2: Attacks: 7th Edition: if not otherwise possible the defender is alligned to the attackeing unit. Why not here?
A.3: Why is it forbidden for a magician, a BSB and a general to join a unit?
A.4: Shallow Lakes and springs... why are they impossible to overcome during an attack?

V.1:Lahmia on Witchthrone: Why can she gain the 5+ Saving throw, when that is only useful for characters on foot?
V.2: Strigoi rules reference magic items, when there are none.

W1: Flying woodelves: are the destroyed when they flee into a forest?



and now... the longer German version:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allgemein:
A.1: Entsetzen verursachendes Charaktermodell.
Auf Seite 22 steht, dass die Immunität von Entsetzen sich auf die Einheit überträgt, der sich das Charaktermodell angeschlossen hat.
Auf Seite 23 steht, bzgl. Reittier und Charaktermodell, dass das gesamte Modell Entsetzen verursacht.
Unklar ist, ob ein Entsetzen verursachendes Charaktermodell in einer Einheit auch dazu führt, dass auf Entsetzen beim Angriff getestet werden muss oder nicht.
Bitte um Klarstellung.

A.2:Angreifer
Ich finde keinen Passus, dass sich auch der Verteidiger nach dem Angreifer ausrichten kann, wenn sonst absolut kein Platz ist für den Angreifer.
Beispiel: Angegriffende Einheit dicht hinter einem Haus im 20° Winkel. Angreifer 2" vor/nebem dem Haus mit Sichtkontakt zur ganzen Front des Angegriffenen (und auch im Frontbereich des Angegriffenen).
Warum ist dies nicht berücksichtigt?

A.3: Warum gibt es die Beschränkung für maximal zwei Charaktermodelle pro Einheit? Ist nicht ein Magier, ein AST und ein General (immerhin alle in W:CE schwächer) in manchen Einheiten üblich (z.B. Lanzenformation).

A.4: Fluss oder (seichter) See: Ein Angriff von Kavallerie oder normaler Infanterie ist durch die Unpassierbarkeit beim Angriff ausgeschlossen. Was machen Armeen die keine Leichte Infanterie oder Plänkler in der Armee haben (oder einfach nicht eingepackt haben)? Das macht einen Fluss mit einer breiten Fernkampfeinheit dahinter besser als a Festungsmauer.

Vampirfragen:
V.1: Eine Lahmia Vampirfürstin reitet auf einem Hexenthron, kann aber die Vampirkraft "Blitzschnell" (Ausweichen 5+) erhalten.
Gilt Ausweichen auch bei Modellen auf Streitwägen, oder ist diese Vampirkraft erst aktiv wenn der Hexenthron zerstört ist?
Ist also eine Lahmia Vampirfürstin auf ihrem Streitwagen einfacher auszuschalten, weil sie hier nur einen 6+ Rüstungswurf hat?

V.2: Beim Strigoi Ghoulkönig sind bis zu 150 Punkte an magischen Gegenständen und Vampirkräften möglich...
Welche magischen Gegenstände sind hier gemeint?
Des weiteren fehlt die Fledermausgestalt (wie in der 6. Edition).

Waldelfenfragen:
W.1: Seite 19: Flieger die ihre Fluchtbewegung in unpassierbarem Gelände (einschl. Wald) beenden würden, werden zerstört.
Seite 174: Flieger dürfen ihre Flugbewegung in Wäldern beginnen oder beenden.
Werden also fliehende Flieger der Waldelfen wenn sie den Wald erreichen zerstört oder nicht?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Otherwise we feel that some armies are unneccessarly downgraded.
Bretonians are (almost exclusively) Heavy Cavalry - together with the anti-cav rules of spears makes it appear as if the authors don't want to see the army on the battlefield at all.
Maidens lack the Grace of the Lady... .. all in all, is a debuffed army without fancy "new" 8th edition units to counter the debuffs seems rather terrible. New (and fitting) units would have gone a long way.

Vampires lack saving throws... A Carsteinring is not what's missing here... but a single 3+ saving throw (of any kind) should be availble. They pay for a CC profile and can't use it for fear of running around without (magic) armor. Some units were rightfully debuffed, yet the flying monsterous infantery wasn't. Some changes are rather odd: The Corpse Cart is only useful to Zombies now.

Elves when compared to 7th Edition: High Elves lost ASF, Wood Elves lost the saving throw for forest spirits... yet Dark Elves seem to have lost nothing. Together with Demons and Vampires the DE dominated the tournament scene.

We will play our first battles on the 10th of April... and not all of us are looking forward to it yet.
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




A.1: Terror causing characters in units:
A unit charging a unit comprising a terror causing model has only to pass a terror test if the charging unit would get in BTB with the terror causing model after the charge is completed, e.g. there is no terror test if a unit rear-charges a unit with a terror causing model in the front rank (and with more than 1 rank).

A.2: Attacks: 7th Edition: if not otherwise possible the defender is aligned to the attacking unit. Why not here?
Since units can usually activate in the turn before they are charged, they get to position themselves in a way to take the charge.
As charging is very powerful in (classic) WFB, the ability of the charged unit to be able to dictate the facing and therefore the direction of possible pursuits/overrun moves is a way to balance combats.
Therefore, aligning the charged unit to the charging unit to maximize contact is not intended by the rules.
If it is not possible to align the charging unit at all, align the charged unit against the charging unit in a way that requires the charged unit to move as little as possible, in the same way as in the case of “Charging multiple targets” (p.6).

A.3: Why is it forbidden for a magician, a BSB and a general to join a unit?
The limit of two characters per unit is manly for balancing reasons.
It incentivizes to field more (rank&file) units and limits death star units.
Also, since there is no limit to the number of hero level characters in an army (apart from points), this rule prevents units with a front rank made up entirely of characters which could be especially powerful if they are ethereal, e.g. a block of skeletons with a front rank of wraiths.
Further, there is usually no need to displace command models of the unit to the second rank which improves the aesthetic of the unit/game.

A.4: Shallow Lakes and rivers... why are they impossible to overcome during an attack?
Depending on what picture you have in mind when you picture a shallow lake or a river, it just does not seem feasible that charging through such a feature would make sense for most units.
These terrain features have a severe effect on the game and therefore should only be used with due consideration and are not recommended for competitive play.
However, if you prefer to play with a lot of water features you are free to amend their rules to fit with your intended playstyle.

V.1: Lahmia Vampire on Coven Throne: Why is Quickblood (Dodge (5+)) an option, since Dodge is only useful for characters on foot?
The Coven Throne grants the vampire a 5+ ward save anyway so she is well protected on the throne and Quickblood only comes into effect after the Coven Throne is destroyed.
Quickblood is a very thematic power for a lahmian vampire, so the option was included. However, the power is 50% cheaper than for other vampires to compensate for the limited use.

V.2: Ghoul King rules reference magic items, when there are none.
The term “May take up to 150p of magic items (incl. Bloodline Powers)” is the standard term used to describe the options of a character.
Even though the Ghoul King has no access to any magic items (other than Bloodline Powers) at the moment, some might be added in a future update of the rules (although there are currently no plans for this).
The Ghoul King has no access to the power Bat Form. This is intentional. A strigoy vampire with flight (Bat Form) can be created by using the generic vampire option, if you really want one.
Btw, the generic vampire option can be used for any bloodlines and was the only option in the beginning of the ruleset before other vampire options were added to implement specific mounts or traits.

W1: Flying woodelves: are they destroyed when they flee into a forest?
No. The special rule Children of the Wood also prevents flyers from being destroyed when they flee into a wood.

Otherwise we feel that some armies are unnecessarily downgraded.
Bretonnia is(almost exclusively) Heavy Cavalry - together with the anti-cav rules of spears makes it appear as if the authors don't want to see the army on the battlefield at all.
Bretonnia is very competitive, at least in our group and even before the recent change to the heavy cavalry rule which now allows marching at 1.5 pace.
Also, the anti-cav rule for spears is only a small buff to spears and has no significant impact on the effectiveness of Bretonnia.

Maidens lack the Grace of the Lady... .. all in all, is a debuffed army without fancy "new" 8th edition units to counter the debuffs seems rather terrible. New (and fitting) units would have gone a long way.
My advice is to play a few games to get a feeling for how the army performs and how the different options synergize, in particular with magic.
Overall, bretonnian cavalry units are very competitively priced.

Vampires lack saving throws... A Carsteinring is not what's missing here... but a single 3+ saving throw (of any kind) should be availble. They pay for a CC profile and can't use it for fear of running around without (magic) armor.
The limited option for armor is intentional to prevent vampires from being unkillable and to make their ability to regain lost wounds an integral part of their playstyle.
Also, vampires are far from a pushover in close combat, even without any protective gear. Keep in mind that slain models do not get to attack back in close combat. Thus, a vampire is only in danger when it fights an opponent which the vampire can’t kill in a single round of combat, like large monsters or powerful characters. However, in this case, a 3+AS would be of limited use as those opponents usually attack with S6+ anyway.
If you want more protection for your vampire, the Blood Dragon is a good choice, even though it lacks the option to regain wounds for balancing reasons.

Some units were rightfully debuffed, yet the flying monsterous infantery wasn't.
If I remember correctly, Vargheists have less WS and are more expensive than their 8th edition counterpart. Also, they are frenzied which is a major disadvantage, especially against a savvy opponent.

Some changes are rather odd: The Corpse Cart is only useful to Zombies now.
Well, it is a cart full of (fresh) corpses, so it fits thematically that it benefits Zombies which are (fresh) corpses.
When the lists were designed great care was taken, to prevent too many effects to be stackable so that synergies would be reasonable and not unbalance the game.
Thus, the corpse cart was put in a role where it benefited an army based around multiple units of zombies the most.
However, I do recognize that this limits the use of the corpse cart, at least from a competitive standpoint.
If prefer the corpse cart to be more flexible, try house ruling that the spell part of Vigour Mortis also applies to Skeleton Warriors and Skeleton Spearmen.

Elves when compared to 7th Edition: High Elves lost ASF, Wood Elves lost the saving throw for forest spirits... yet Dark Elves seem to have lost nothing. Together with Demons and Vampires the DE dominated the tournament scene.
Although the core rules are based on 7th edition, the army lists are based on the 6th edition army books. Therefore, it is usually better, i.e. more favorable, to compare the army lists to the respective 6th edition army books.
Since there have been changes on multiple levels (point cost, magic, options), it is best to play a few games to a feeling for the game first, before jumping to conclusions with regard to the powerlevel of various armies.
However, while I am confident in the current state of the ruleset, there is always room to refine army lists and improve the balance.

Thank you for your interest and I am grateful for any feedback which helps to improve the ruleset.

Warhammer CE the definite ruleset for Warhammer veterans 
   
Made in de
Fresh Meat



Berlin

Hello Seelenhaendler, and thank you for your reply.

We are about to play the first battle... and will see how the units perform.

Since I do have 10 armies at my disposal, I try to look at all the armies in the CE rules and hope to judge them correctly early on. Yes, playing is important... but writing army lists for each army is currently all that I can do before the 10th of April.

Our Bretonian player is rather unhappy, since the core rules punish heavy cav when compared to 6th or 7th edition.
As I wrote before hand... most armies have new and fancy (8th edition) units to compensate the new downsides... the Bretonians lack in this department.
I would suggest a falcon/crows swarm (similar to the bats)... to give them an "anvil unit", which the knights can use to charge into flanks (if the terrain allows). Make the second unit very expensive (not steam tank expensive... but I guess, you know what I mean)... it doesn't matter. Some "new juice" goes a long way to reach out to the noble knights.
And no, the knights on foot don't compare to units such as the flying chariot for the high elves, the ghostly riders for the dark elves, the demigryph knights for the empire... or so on.
We are well aware that the Bretonians were very competitive in the 7th edition. But when compared the the Dark Elves (who seem to have lost rarely anything) it seems rather one sided adjustment.

Looking at the undead armies, I cannot begin to imagine, why some changes were made.
I have nothing against higher costs, or adjusted rules (in fact, I rather welcome that the scythe wielding riders are no longer ethereal, or that the bloodknights are monsterous cavalry now)...
But as I said before: a 3+ saving throw (let it be an armor throw - which isn't overpowered) would go a long way to make the vampires (lord and hero choice) more playable. cutting the extra wound would be fine as well. Cut the lord choice for the wight king, while you are at it. And give back the whight hero (both BSB and without) the extra wound back. The eternal hunger rule is from the 8th edition and should not be a reason to claim that vampires are resilient. Please cut the rule (it's from the 8th edition anyway), allow the invocation to be used on characters again - that way, the cost of the spell reflects the abilty to "heal" characters as well.
Again in comparison (to other armies), it seems that vampires can't be protected for balancing reasons, yet treemen ancients with 'annoyance of netlings' can be.
most lords can gain a decent armor save and a ward save on top while not being the crux of the army that makes it fall apart.

Speaking of the hero vampire... why is s/he unable to use the invocation? This was a spell that was available (for free) to every vampire in the 7th edition. Taking a hero vampire now is only useful if you want to have a close combat character - and for that, a ghost or whight seneshal is a lot more cost effective. Even taking both,a necromancer and a ghost is more useful.
Let's talk about lower point game than 2k Points. Try 1k: Would you use a vampire hero at all in a "Vampire Counts" army? (Your reason can't be "CE was written for 2k points." - if something is not worth playing in 1k points, in not worth playing at any scale.)

Also both undead armies lack a BM spell to summon a small unit. That only a Masternecromancer (in the vampire army) is able to summon skelletons is simply not thematic at all. Yes, Heinrich Kemmler was the greatest necromancer... but that doesn't mean that Vlad, Mannfred or Zacharias were unable to summon anything on the fly.
I humbly suggest a 8+ BM Spell, to summon D3+4 zombies for 50 Points (for all Undead magicians, or even for just a subset of them), as well as the same spell with D3+2 Skelletons for the Tomb Kings. Let both units be worth 50 Points in the field... When compared to the summon skeleton unit-spell, it seems right.

An undead army (no matter how balanced in armor throws, point costs, and the core rules of fear are) needs to have the ability to summon the dead.
It may be annoying if a small unit pops up in front of the opponents unit - but it is a line of defense for the undead. Ranged attacks will cut down small units quickly, thus giving the opponent more victory points anyway.

Having spent hours with the undead, I will move on to more armies in the next days... but so far, I haven't found an army where the soul was missing so much.

Another question that came up today, the rules say that a remains in play (RIP) spell ends when the caster dies, chooses to end it, or the game ends. Of course it can also be banned... but let's skip that part.
Does that mean that the caster can cast something else and still uphold this remains in play spell indefinetly (should s/he so chose) and even cast a second remains in play spell (should s/he have one)?

Last question for today: Plans to include Amazons or Fimir? Is new army input welcomed?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/29 18:32:34


 
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




pidaysock wrote:

Our Bretonian player is rather unhappy, since the core rules punish heavy cav when compared to 6th or 7th edition.
Heavy cavalry was quite powerful in 6th and dominated in 7th, so a slight downgrade of this unit type helps to level the playing field and makes the various unit types viable.

As I wrote before hand... most armies have new and fancy (8th edition) units to compensate the new downsides... the Bretonians lack in this department.
New units were not added to compensate any downside but rather to make new and old (i.e. Oldhammer) models playable which have no 6th edition rules. Great care was taken to ensure that these new units do not unbalance the game. Therefore, they are usually more expensive or less point efficient than “old” units, in particular if they add new option or playstyles to the army.

I would suggest a falcon/crows swarm (similar to the bats)... to give them an "anvil unit", which the knights can use to charge into flanks (if the terrain allows). Make the second unit very expensive (not steam tank expensive... but I guess, you know what I mean)... it doesn't matter. Some "new juice" goes a long way to reach out to the noble knights.
And no, the knights on foot don't compare to units such as the flying chariot for the high elves, the ghostly riders for the dark elves, the demigryph knights for the empire... or so on.
There are currently no plans to add any new units to the Bretonnians (or any other army), especially if there are no official models for them.
As for an anvil, the Grail Reliquae is a solid anvil. Also, Questing Knights with the Valorous Standard, a full unit of Knights of the Realm, or a solid block of Men at Arms can function as anvils for different point costs. Do not underestimate the power of static combat resolution, i.e. three ranks, a banner and musician, outnumber + a war banner and BSB if you really want to go overboard.


We are well aware that the Bretonians were very competitive in the 7th edition. But when compared the the Dark Elves (who seem to have lost rarely anything) it seems rather one sided adjustment.
Bretonnians now have a very good selection of spells that complement the army nicely.
Dark Elves: their 6th edition army book was not competitive. They even got an update in White Dwarf to improve their power level.
It has been some time since the DE list was designed for WCE, so I can’t tell you all the details but I am pretty sure they are less powerful than in 7th edition.
One of their drawbacks is hatred which forces them to pursue. Just like with frenzy, a savvy opponent can exploit this special rule to pull units in a bad position. How much of a disadvantage this is, heavily depends on the DE player and his opponent, however.
Are there any options in particular that you find overpowered/unbalanced in the DE list?

High Elves:
They gained a new special rule (Speed of Asuryan) and also have access to very powerful spells, like shield of saphery.


Looking at the undead armies, I cannot begin to imagine, why some changes were made.
I have nothing against higher costs, or adjusted rules (in fact, I rather welcome that the scythe wielding riders are no longer ethereal, or that the bloodknights are monsterous cavalry now)...
But as I said before: a 3+ saving throw (let it be an armor throw - which isn't overpowered) would go a long way to make the vampires (lord and hero choice) more playable. cutting the extra wound would be fine as well.
Why do you think that vampires are unplayable without a 3+AS (which by the way would stack with barded nightmare for a 1+AS, no?)? The army list was designed specifically with limited armor in mind, so adding more armor for vampires is not an option.
Still, if you “need” the additional protection, you can use the Blood Dragon rules for your vampire.


Cut the lord choice for the wight king, while you are at it. And give back the whight hero (both BSB and without) the extra wound back. The eternal hunger rule is from the 8th edition and should not be a reason to claim that vampires are resilient. Please cut the rule (it's from the 8th edition anyway), allow the invocation to be used on characters again - that way, the cost of the spell reflects the abilty to "heal" characters as well.
With additional armor and the option to be healed by IoN, vampires would be close to be unkillable. Even without any protective gear or powers, it takes on average 8 S5 hits to kill a vampire lord which equals 16 S5 attacks or about 4 rounds of combat vs the majority of close combat lords of other armies.
This is plenty of survivability in my book, especially for a model that can hide in units and regain wounds.


Again in comparison (to other armies), it seems that vampires can't be protected for balancing reasons, yet treemen ancients with 'annoyance of netlings' can be.
most lords can gain a decent armor save and a ward save on top while not being the crux of the army that makes it fall apart.
What are you comparing vampires to that you think they are pushovers? Kitted out chaos lords, dragons and greater daemons?
Again the Blood Dragon seems to be the alternative you are looking for.
Also, losing the general is no longer the immediate end of the vampire army.


Speaking of the hero vampire... why is s/he unable to use the invocation? This was a spell that was available (for free) to every vampire in the 7th edition. Taking a hero vampire now is only useful if you want to have a close combat character - and for that, a ghost or whight seneshal is a lot more cost effective. Even taking both,a necromancer and a ghost is more useful.
Let's talk about lower point game than 2k Points. Try 1k: Would you use a vampire hero at all in a "Vampire Counts" army? (Your reason can't be "CE was written for 2k points." - if something is not worth playing in 1k points, in not worth playing at any scale.)
A hero level vampire has a profile that is comparable or better than most lord level characters of other armies. Choosing a vampire as your general in a 1k army has the advantage that your less likely to lose your general than when you pick a necromancer as your general. Also, the bloodline powers give you a lot of flexibility in how you can build and use the vampire in your army.


Also both undead armies lack a BM spell to summon a small unit. That only a Masternecromancer (in the vampire army) is able to summon skelletons is simply not thematic at all. Yes, Heinrich Kemmler was the greatest necromancer... but that doesn't mean that Vlad, Mannfred or Zacharias were unable to summon anything on the fly.
I humbly suggest a 8+ BM Spell, to summon D3+4 zombies for 50 Points (for all Undead magicians, or even for just a subset of them), as well as the same spell with D3+2 Skelletons for the Tomb Kings. Let both units be worth 50 Points in the field... When compared to the summon skeleton unit-spell, it seems right.
An undead army (no matter how balanced in armor throws, point costs, and the core rules of fear are) needs to have the ability to summon the dead.
It may be annoying if a small unit pops up in front of the opponents unit - but it is a line of defense for the undead. Ranged attacks will cut down small units quickly, thus giving the opponent more victory points anyway.
As you mentioned before, VC were one of the armies dominating 7th edition. Magic and to a degree summoning was a major part of that.
With the design goal of “what you pay for is what you get” (golden rule #1) spells are no longer “free” but rather cost an appropriate amount of points.
Also, the ability to raise more models or even units is more limited in WCE and a specialty of necromancers which now have their distinct role in the army.
The ability to raise multiple units a turn can easily unbalance a game and thus is not an option in this ruleset.
Why do you think a VC army needs this ability to be viable?
In the last tournament VC placed in the top half, only 4p behind the 2nd place. While this is in no way representative for the competitiveness of the army in general, it at least shows that it is playable and can compete.


Having spent hours with the undead, I will move on to more armies in the next days... but so far, I haven't found an army where the soul was missing so much.
We obviously have very different ideas on how the an VC army should function and thus how it should be designed.
If you still feel that the army is unplayable after a few games, feel free to introduce some house rules.


Another question that came up today, the rules say that a remains in play (RIP) spell ends when the caster dies, chooses to end it, or the game ends. Of course it can also be banned... but let's skip that part.
Does that mean that the caster can cast something else and still uphold this remains in play spell indefinetly (should s/he so chose) and even cast a second remains in play spell (should s/he have one)?
Yes.

Last question for today: Plans to include Amazons or Fimir? Is new army input welcomed?
There are currently no plans to add any further army lists to the LRB. However, there are multiple “unofficial”, i.e. fan made, army lists currently in development, like Halflings, Cathay, Nippon, Ind, Albion, etc. Send me a PM if you want to know where to look and contribute.

Warhammer CE the definite ruleset for Warhammer veterans 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Heavy cav NEEDED to be toned down, that was all anyone ran in those editions and for a good reason.

They were hugely dominant.
   
Made in de
Charging Orc Boar Boy





Germany

pidaysock wrote:
Hello Seelenhaendler, and thank you for your reply.

We are about to play the first battle... and will see how the units perform.

Since I do have 10 armies at my disposal, I try to look at all the armies in the CE rules and hope to judge them correctly early on. Yes, playing is important... but writing army lists for each army is currently all that I can do before the 10th of April.

Our Bretonian player is rather unhappy, since the core rules punish heavy cav when compared to 6th or 7th edition.

As I wrote before hand... most armies have new and fancy (8th edition) units to compensate the new downsides... the Bretonians lack in this department.
I would suggest a falcon/crows swarm (similar to the bats)... to give them an "anvil unit", which the knights can use to charge into flanks (if the terrain allows). Make the second unit very expensive (not steam tank expensive... but I guess, you know what I mean)... it doesn't matter. Some "new juice" goes a long way to reach out to the noble knights.
And no, the knights on foot don't compare to units such as the flying chariot for the high elves, the ghostly riders for the dark elves, the demigryph knights for the empire... or so on.
We are well aware that the Bretonians were very competitive in the 7th edition. But when compared the the Dark Elves (who seem to have lost rarely anything) it seems rather one sided adjustment.


I think it is of course very undestandable that Bretonnia players feel bad about not getting new units at all - but the Heavy Cav rule may feel as a bit of a Nerf, compared to other armies they are not too weak, rather the contrary.

As Dark Elves Player: The Stat Lines and special rules are mostly based on 6th E units after the official upgrade. Magic items are also toned down to a sensitive level (No Chain of Khaeleth, for example...) Harpies have only one attack instead of 2. Killing Blow is less effective in CE than in 6-8E WHF (only one Wound without AS instead of auto kill), so a little downgrade for Executioners. Hydra is on a reasonable power level with strong NX-multiplicators. Black Guard is way less dangerous than in 7E. Assassins are no longer able to be equipped as deadly as in 7E. Reaper Bolt Throwers have 5 shots instead of formerly 6 and have NX-Point costs. Repeater Crossbows are no longer armor piercing. Cauldron of Blood is toned down compared to 7E. That's just what comes right from the top of my head, there might be even more "Downgrades" compared to the ridiculously strong 7E book. And it is fine, really.I have had a great tournament experience against "maxed" lists as well as fluffy beer and bretzel games.
I think I made my point concerning Dark Elves here, it's not supposed to be a rant, just to make the changes for DE visible ; what might not catch the eye at the first glance.

I would also support the statement of getting some games played! I am not a dedicated Undead player, as you are, I own a little army but only played once or twice with it so far - but I have played quite some games against Vampire counts with my O&G, and Dark Elves. I do agree that not summoning new units except for a Master Necromancer somehow feels unintuitive. On the other hand, this is such a strong (if not game-breaking, if available to multiple spellcasters!) mechanic, this would definitely not make the game better.
Flanking, marchblocking, redirecting, threatening war machines...

The way it is designed now, you can try to caste that really strong spell once per turn, if you accept the downside that you Lord is not a powerful vampire but a squishy Wizard.

Overall, I can say that I lost more games to Vampire Counts than I won, I consider it to be about as powerful as it was in 6th Edition, a bit less powerful maybe because of the better fear rules in CE.

Mentioning special Characters: We made rules for Heinrich Kemmler and Krell for our yet-to come La Maisontaal-Scenario with Brets and Skaven - I'd be happy to provide you with them if you like. Also, I would be interested in how you would design a Vlad / Isabella / Mannfred or Konrad von Carstein? I hate Zacharias, so not him






   
Made in de
Fresh Meat



Berlin

Before I endlessly write about Vampire Counts...

here are a few more rules questions:

- Shields and Characters. Do they gain the "blocking" special rule when fighting on foot?

- Terror... is it correct, that a unit test every time they get charged or charge a terror causing unit? (i.e. Beforehand a unit tested once per game for terror, and then only for fear).

-Vampire counts related question: Are "wight blades" lost when the unit chooses a twohanded weapon or a lance?

-Ramshackle construction of chariots: Why is it Strength 8 and not Strength 7 that causes an additional wound?
The amount of Strength 8 attacks (in any edition) is so small, that I cannot imagine that this truely has that much of an effect.
Dwarfs will not take two strength runes for their spear throwers, characters can (almost) never reach that level...
This leaves only cannonballs... And the rule affects four chariots game wide. The extra wound on Strength 7 attackes with any chariot would make more sense in my eyes...
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




pidaysock wrote:
- Shields and Characters. Do they gain the "blocking" special rule when fighting on foot?

No. Reason: Balance

pidaysock wrote:
- Terror... is it correct, that a unit test every time they get charged or charge a terror causing unit? (i.e. Beforehand a unit tested once per game for terror, and then only for fear).

Yes. Less bookkeeping. Also, terror in WCE is much weaker than in 6th/7th edition, so taking multiple test is not a problem and keeps terror in its weaker form relevant.

pidaysock wrote:
-Vampire counts related question: Are "wight blades" lost when the unit chooses a twohanded weapon or a lance?

Wight Blades are equipment and can be used to fight (see p. 13 "Equipment"), just like any other weapon option.
Unless noted otherwise, they don't get replaced if you buy additional equipment.
For example, grave guard with great weapons still have their wight blades. So when you fight in cc, you may declare to fight with great weapons (+2S, ASL) or wight blades (KB, magic attacks).

pidaysock wrote:
-Ramshackle construction of chariots: Why is it Strength 8 and not Strength 7 that causes an additional wound?
The amount of Strength 8 attacks (in any edition) is so small, that I cannot imagine that this truely has that much of an effect.
Dwarfs will not take two strength runes for their spear throwers, characters can (almost) never reach that level...
This leaves only cannonballs... And the rule affects four chariots game wide. The extra wound on Strength 7 attackes with any chariot would make more sense in my eyes...

This special rule has been implemented early on and ended up being not used a lot. Therefore, I am considering of dropping it to streamline the rules.
The intention was to give catapults and cannons (which damage was reduced from D6 to D3) a small boost versus specific chariots, in particular comparatively cheap chariots which can be fielded in larger numbers.
S8 was chosen specifically so that S5 characters with a GW would not get the additional damage boost. Wounding on 2+ with no AS most of the time is good enough. No need to double the damage.

Warhammer CE the definite ruleset for Warhammer veterans 
   
Made in de
Charging Orc Boar Boy





Germany

Just to tell you what I am doing atm;

I have played the classic campaign sets Grudge of Drong, Tears of Isha and The Idol of Gork and adapted them in order to work with the Warhammer CE ruleset.

I made a documentation for it that improved over time from a plain battle report with pictures and army lists to a completely documented campaign with scenario and rules description, troop selection limits, fluff texts and so on.

The Grudge of Drong was the last and most complete of them.
Now I decided to translate them to english, so that people can enjoy and play the campaign internationally (and laugh about the tactical blunders we made).

I am about half way through, let me know if you are interested in it when it's finished, and I will send you a message with a link.


   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




Dear friends of classic Warhammer,

I hope you had a hobby-rich year, in which you could play many Warhammer battles with a lot of memorable moments.

Even if the environment to play battles is still not on the old level, Warhammer fortunately offers enough opportunities to do the hobby, for example by adding a unit to your army or enjoying the background.

As already announced last year, there will be no update for WCE this year, i.e. version 1.07 will still be valid in 2023.

But even without an upcoming update, you are always welcome to share your experiences with WCE and give feedback, so that the system can be improved.

With Warhammer: The Old World (ToW), we're in for one of the biggest changes since 2015 next year (or the year after?), at least in terms of available official WFB miniatures and fluff.

What impact ToW will have on WCE, I can't say for sure yet.
For now, though, I'm assuming that WCE will remain as an alternative rules system alongside ToW and will be updated accordingly, just as it was back in the 8th Edition days.
This means that (selected) units newly introduced with ToW will get corresponding rules for WCE, so that ideally you can use your Warhammer army under both ToW and WCE rules sets.

But until then there is still enough time to finish one or the other project and of course to play some more battles.

I wish you happy holidays and a hobby-rich 2023!

Seelenhaendler

Warhammer CE the definite ruleset for Warhammer veterans 
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




Dear friends of the Old World,

the wait is finally over: Warhammer: The Old World (TOW) will be released in a few weeks!

With ist release, we will enter a new era in which there will once again be new (and old) official WFB miniatures, new background and, above all, a new ruleset for fielding our armies on the battlefield oft he Old World.

From the preview articles, it is already clear that TOW has a different focus than WCE and will likely play in a fundamentally different way.

Even though I find some of the concepts of TOW interesting, WCE will not be amended to become similar to TOW, but will retain the "classic" gameplay and concepts that characterize WCE.
In this way, WCE will remain as an alternative ruleset for those who wish to continue playing or return to it in the future.

The plan is for WCE to continue as an alternative ruleset alongside ToW and to be updated accordingly, as it was in the days of 8th Edition.
This means that (selected) new units introduced with ToW will receive corresponding rules for WCE, so that ideally you can use your Warhammer army according to the rules for both ToW and WCE.

Due to the imminent release of TOW, there will again be no update for WCE this year, i.e. version 1.07 will remain valid for the time being in 2024.

All new units for TOW previewed so far already have appropriate rules in WCE, so that they can already be used in WCE games without any problems.

As soon as new units for TOW are released for which there are no suitable rules in WCE (and which I consider to be useful additions to the respective armies), I will prepare a proposal for appropriate rules.

When the storm around TOW has calmed down a bit, I will evaluate the situation and decide on the further course for the project.

Until then, have fun with Warhammer in the Old World!

Happy holidays and a hobby-rich 2024!

Seelenhaendler

Warhammer CE the definite ruleset for Warhammer veterans 
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




I was made aware that there is a German battlereport for WCE on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/WYc-30V25D8

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/09 09:32:21


Warhammer CE the definite ruleset for Warhammer veterans 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Moscha wrote:
Hi everybody,

I had written a wall of text fanboying and explaining Warhammer CE, but due to being too dumb to keep the right tabs open, I mistakenly deleted it all.
So now in short:

For all fans of Warhammer Fantasy before 8th edition crap rules, AoS and end times,
someone has been rebuilding Warhammer as it always should have been.
The link below leads to a downloadable pdf file, which is fully in English. I hope this works.

https://www.armycreator.de/index.php#downloads


In short:
- 7th edition as basis - but many flaws of it removed, rules streamlined to being clear and meaningful
- New unit types (Heavy cavalry, light infantry) adding to tactical gameplay,
- fair point costs,
- an important but not overly dominant magic phase
- a great army builder tool in english http://armycreator.de/
- possibility to play units not been available since 5th ed (reiksguard,...) til 8th edition new units (Phoenix, Arachnarok spider...)

Update: Link to new Version 1.07 now included! enjoy!!






Not for me. When your entire ruleset is based on either how sharp your vision is so you can accurately measure stuff by eye OR on your being able to cheat and premeasure in any one of the dozens of ways I saw it done prior to 8th without your opponent catching you, it's not for me,

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




 Vulcan wrote:
Not for me. When your entire ruleset is based on either how sharp your vision is so you can accurately measure stuff by eye OR on your being able to cheat and premeasure in any one of the dozens of ways I saw it done prior to 8th without your opponent catching you, it's not for me,

That’s perfectly fine. Just play with premeasuring!
Either way, you are free to use any part of this ruleset you like for your games of Warhammer or any other ruleset that suits you better for that matter.
Have fun playing Warhamner Fantasy!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/10 10:41:01


Warhammer CE the definite ruleset for Warhammer veterans 
   
Made in ca
Bloody Peasant




Canada

Enjoy, but I will stick to 6th, 8th, TOW, and a little WAP here and there because we Use it as part of our Warhammer RPG 4th edition adventure/Nation building hybrid.

But after seeing most of the rules, I’m confident ill mostly be playing The Old World.

Even though i played it, theres no real nostalgia for 7th edition to want to go back to it. 4th and 5th? Sure, once in a while. 4th was where I really got into playing fantasy at higher level. I competed a lot during 5th and 6th. Those were the days I yearn for as a 42 year old man.
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: