Saturday, 4 July 2015

Brainstorming for "8,5 Ed"

So, more rules for Age of Sigmar are out, and as expected, they are pretty much unusable for any semblance of balance. Many people on the forums seems to be thinking about a community effort and make a Warhammer 8,5 ed, which is something I have been contemplating myself for quite a long time. So, I would like to dedicate this post and the following comments to see what people in General are not happy about about the current edition, and what they would like to see in an 8,5 version. As for myself, I would plan to rework the following:

Basic Rules: 

  • Line of Sight is divided into different heights for various troop types and terrain instead of true LoS.
  • Terrain is basic without special rules by default, "magical forests" is an optional rule that the players decide on.
  • The player who gets to choose table side starts to deploy first.
  • Magic Phase before Movement phase.
  • VP's are rewarded for killing 50% of a unit, 50% if the unit is fleeing at the end of the game.
  • No more than 2 characters may join a single unit.
  • Add "medium armour", which would give a 5+ save. Heavy armour would grant a 4+ save, and full plate a 3+.
  • Remove +1 to AS for being mounted. Mounted models *might* get To Hit bonus against Infantry instead, to reflect them fighting from "higher ground".

Movement:

  • Failed charge = move the result on the highest dice.
  • Distance when charging is measured from the centre of the front rank, not the closest point.
  • Units may not move within 3" on an enemy unit's front voluntarily, unless they are charging. This gets rid of the problem of cheap redirectors blocking the movement of a bigger unit completely. It can still be used to try and flush enemies out, just not to the same degree.
  • Units with less than US5 that are charged realign towards the charging unit, not the other way around. This means you cannot use single characters or single-model units too steer huge units into deathtraps as easily.

Magic:

  • No +x to cast depending on Wizard level.
  • Channelling = roll 4+ for each wizard level to generate extra Power dice. Half when determining dispel dice, rounding up (Lvl 1-2 rolls 1 dice, Lvl 3-4 rolls 2).
  • Possibly change casting values of all spells to reflect change in channelling and +x to cast.
  • Miscast result depends on number of dice used.
  • Number of allowed dice when casting spells are Wizard Lvl + 2.
  • Wizard chooses spells rather than rolling for them. Wizards are allowed to choose spell level equal to their wizard level +2. This means a lvl 1 can choose between spell 1, 2, 3 or signature spell, and only level 4's can use the 6th spell.
  • "Look Out, Sir!" applies to instant kill spells that effect the entire unit.

Shooting:

  • War Machines can only fire at targets in it's front arc without moving (same as move-or-fire weapons).
  • Cannonballs scatter D3" before bounce. "Hit" equal no scatter, same as stone throwers. 
  • Cannon direct hit = S10, D6 W; bounce = S6, D3 W. Great Cannon, S10, D6W on both direct hit and bounce. No armour save.
  • +1 to hit on short range (25% of maximum range), no penalty for long range.
  • Riders on Mo are hit by cannons on a 5+, Mo on 1-4. With Stone Throwers, they are hit (under the hole) only if the rider model is actually in the middle of the template, otherwise they just suffer the smaller S. Alternative: combine Mo and Rider profiles, like MC.
  • Bolt Throwers allow armour saves, have Armour Piercing rule instead.
  • Fast Cavalry and skirmishers can fire 360 degrees, with no penalty for firing through their own unit.

Close Combat:

  • Remove supporting attacks for everything except spears and pikes (making spears and additional hand weapons more useful, and great weapons and halberds less of a no-brainer). 
  • Remove Horde formation. This only encourages  models with few high-strength attacks, same as supporting attacks, and encourages deathstars. Cheap weak troops still benefits more from keeping their rank bonus and minimise the number of attacks back at them.
  • Bring back Unit Strength, Steadfast determined by this rather than ranks. In/WB = US1, Ca = US2, MI/Sw = US3, MC/Ch = US4(+1 for each additional steed pulling the chariot after 2), MB/Mo/Un = number of Wounds, ridden Mo = number of Wounds + 1 for each rider.
  • Charging a unit in the flank or rear with a unit with a US of 10 or more and at least one complete rank causes Disruption.
  • A unit must have at least US10 to be able to be Steadfast.
  • Steadfast is lost by being Disrupted or being Outnumbered. This premiers flanking and punishes Deathstars with no flanking support, meaning player's wont be able to solely rely on their expensive unit to win the game for them. Large units will still be steadfast as before as long as you can protect their flanks.
  • Rank Bonus = total number of complete ranks of all unit involved in the combat, not just the unit with the highest.
  • Regular troops can always be attacked in combat, even if not in direct base contact. Champions can not be attacked directly, but follow the same rules as standard bearers and musicians.
  • Charge = +1I, +1 CR. For every unit with US10+ that charges the same unit, +1 CR.
  • High Ground always give +1 CR, not just when charging.
  • +1 CR for wider frontage than opponent (can be combined with multiple units). This an updated version of "lapping around", which used to give flank bonus.
  • +1 CR for each flank attacked.
  • +1 CR for friendly units [with US10 or more] within 3" (maximum +3 CR). This represent troops getting a morale boost due to having supporting troops nearly.
  • Fleeing units suffers a W (with no saves) for every attack that the pursuing unit has if "caught". (Example, unit of 4 Ogres with additional HW's causes 16 Wounds). The pursuing unit is then placed 1" in behind the fleeing unit. This keeps small units from instantly killing huge units in one go, and encourages the use of light infantry with multiple attacks.
  • Redo Weapon Skill table to allow elites To Hit on 2's vs poor troops (WS 2x+1).

Special Rules:

  • ASF no longer allow re-rolls to Hit, remove ASF from Elves.
  • Fear = -1 Ld, Terror = -2 Ld. No roll at the start of combat. Multiple units are not cumulative, but Fear plus Outnumber = -2 Ld. Terror only have this effect if the Terror-causing unit outnumbers the enemy. Terror still forces panic checks when charging.
  • Flaming Attacks = re-roll 1's To Wound. (no Regen). In the case of Missile weapons, -1 To Hit as well. Unit that can already do this re-roll both 1's and 2's To Wound.
  • Impact hits [at the mount's Strength] for Cavalry and MC, +1S if barded.This will be a trample rule that is resolved at the mount's Initiative, before it makes its normal attacks.
  • Immune to Psychology units will be able to flee from chargers, also immune to spells/attacks that force Leadership tests.
  • Units can Killing Blow riders of the same Troop Type.
  • Magic Resistance applies to spells that "do not allow any save". 
  • Regeneration works like the new Hydra rules, except at the end of each close combat turn.
  • Stomp only applies to Monsters (still D6 hits).
  • Skirmishers are not steadfast in Forests.
  • Stupidity test before movement rather than Start of Turn.
  • Volley Fire allow all ranks to fire, but with -1 To Hit. Can only be used at long range (maximum range/2).
  • Additional (optional) hand weapon types (to be used with shields): swords = parry, axes/morning stars = +1 S first round, hammers/maces = armour piercing.
  • Spear (mounted) = +1S, +1I (on foot, fight in extra ranks, +1I when charged).
  • Pike = fight in extra ranks (3), +2I when charged.
  • Lance = +2S, +2I.
  • Great weapon = +2S, -2I.
  • BSB only allow re-roll of Break Tests, not all Leadership tests. Alternative: increase cost to 50 pts.
  • Cavalry get rank bonus for being 4 models wide rather than 5.
  • Champions no longer allowed to do challenges (will allow re-rolls to redirect charges, march within 8", reform or restrain from pursuit). Will be "Officers" instead.

And probably quite a few things. In essence, I would prefer 6th-7th edition with its focus on tactical manoeuvres and static combat as opposed to a battle royale where armies compete in who can cross the table the fastest, but with clear rules, equally balanced armies and less clutter. This could mean revamping some of my army books too to streamline them a bit.

Lots of rules that take place in situations where you often forget them (Stomp, Stupidity, Fear) are fixed with these changes.
Steadfast is a bit more complicated, but means that Elite Infantry can break huge units without being bogged down all game, while weak Infantry still benefit from being in great numbers.
Greater emphasis has been made towards flanking, especially with multiple units, which encourages the use of multiple smaller units against Death Stars.
Magic now scales better with larger games, and there is more reward in taking multiple wizards and using lower level wizards to cast due to removing +x when casting (x = Wizard lvl).
War Machines will now have to be placed in strategic position defending key points rather than doing 360-flips to shot everything.
Missile weapons are now more efficient with basic weapons. Some points cost revisions might be necessary.
Charges are now more important, and spears and lances have a better chance of striking first, which is logical. Charge distances are more similar to 7th ed, but still with a bit of the randomness of 8th ed.

Note that none of these suggested changes are set in stone, and is subject to change depending on community suggestions.

What changes would you players like to see in an updated Warhammer version?

154 comments:

  1. - getting rid of irresistable force (just make two or more 6es beeing a miscast which will inflict damage to the mage)

    - all cannons and stonethrowers should not be autohits again, so people should aim again

    - impact hits for heavy cavallery

    - no immunity for heroes on monst. cavallery concerning killing blow

    - no "bus-building", which means, that you cannot attack regular troops within a unit and mages hide e.g. in row 2

    - ASF does never ever let you re-roll hits (they strike first, thats fine)

    ReplyDelete

  2. I believe that one important thing is, to create the rules as much kompatible to the existing armiebooks as possible. If you want to chage the rules of generating power dices for example, we have to watch for conflicts with special rules in thee armybooks.
    Another thing which seems to be important to our group is, that there will be an easy Option to convert rules of new gw-miniatures to 8.5 because outherwise er will have a system without inovation which could get bored after a while.


    Great work, Mathias another time, thanks for protecting our hobby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea is of course to not change too many things that would cause huge imbalances within the army books. I would like 8,5 ed to be fully compatible with the existing books, and as such, most of the rules would be changed in a way that would effect all armies equally.

      Regarding the new GW--models, that should not be harder to convert than making up rules for the fan-made books.

      Delete
    2. Sounds good. Probably it ll not soluvh a huge project as it seems to be if you creat it as an update to the 8th rulebook. Like a grand errata.
      To concert rules of the 9th models constantly to the 8th would be a project which could keep 8th alive. If possible, dont know what scary stuff GW will bring out

      Delete
    3. For the brainstorming:
      - if Monsters or war machines lose life, they ll get weakend . its a good rule in the 9th i think

      Delete
  3. I think that cannons need to be dropped in damage output a bit. Like maybe D3+1 wounds rather than D6 or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or maybe D3 wounds +1 for every previous turn you spent aiming? I like the way cannons work, but their presence stops people from bringing the big stompy monsters that are fun to play around with. At the same time I know that you cant nerf them too much, because then the monsters take over.

      Delete
  4. Remove the Horde rule. Normal supporting attacks should be removed also. Although its not a delbreaker it still favors some units and weapons over others. The extra bodycount can be fun sometimes though even if its not that balanced.

    With Cannons, as long as Empire are the only ones who can get D6W Great Cannons its ok, the balance can be in the armylist then. Nuln makes them big.
    Cheaper cannons for others that do D3 is fine.

    Reworking charge sounds great. Maybe allow supporting attacks on charge to represent warriors smashing through the front. Dedicated guard units should be immune to this (like Ona Bushi already are f.ex.) I dont mind the charge distance being a bit random though. Static charge distances gives a veteran player a huge advantage since measuring within 1" is easy by eyesight after a few hundred games.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some possibly awful ideas:

    Reducing the number of dice rolled (akin to Warmachine) to simplify math and speed up play.

    Avoiding situations where sometimes rolling low is good, sometimes rolling high is good.

    Adjusting ranged combat to give shooting lists a bit more gusto.

    Avoiding piles of conflicting modifiers/penalties. D&D and Warmachine could both offer ideas here; D&D 5e's advantage/disadvantage system is simple and effective, perhaps something like that could be adapted to Warhammer (eg. each modifier on a roll is an additional die to be rolled, if it's a negative modifier you discard the best die rolled, if positive you discard the worst).

    Support for cross-faction guest units. Perhaps allow a given armylist to use either their Rare or Special army allowance to select Core units from a same-aligned faction (possibly with a point premium added if required for balance). Or perhaps same-aligned factions have no point penalty added, where non-aligned can also be used but at a harsher penalty?

    ReplyDelete
  6. With a group of friends, we play a homemade 7.5ed, wich is core 7ed, with the good idea from 8ed. This give that ;

    PU are back, but we use the unit type (cavalery, infantery etc..) rules from 8ed, exeption for the flyers and the skrimisher, wich are 7ed.

    Movement phase is 7ed (charge is M*2)

    Charge give ASF and +1 at the combat resolution.

    Magic is 8ed, with these two changes ;
    http://whfbnarratives.blogspot.ch/2015/03/rules-patch-winds-of-magic-roll-v81.html

    http://whfbnarratives.blogspot.ch/2015/03/rules-patch-miscasts-v81.html

    Shoot phase is 7ed edition (no measure, canon and stuff shoot first), but shoot is on two rank, like 8ed

    Combat phase is 7ed edition, with fight on two ranks, like 8ed. The dead can't retaliate. Combat resolution is 7ed. Horde is a special rules for army that make sens to have (O&G, Skaven, Beastmen)

    ASF no longer give reroll to hit.

    Fear, Terror, Steadfast and all the psychology stuff is 7ed

    Weapons and common magic item is 8ed.

    Characters, Army Battle Standard, Musician, Champ' and Standard Bearer is 8ed.

    Army building is 8ed (% points).

    For the moment, this run well, if we find confilct between the army books (We used 8ed for the army books) and the rules, we speak of it, and find the more logical solution.
    If you have some question, go ahead.

    Sorry if my syntax and grammar is vague, english is not my mothertongue :x

    Greeting from Switezland, we are 100% with you !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to mention, but the commun special rules is 7ed, and if the rule in question don't exist, we simply use the 8ed version of this rule.

      Delete
  7. I think those points are great! I would like to see a bit of a reworked system particularly about ridden monsters which I feel have been getting very little love in 8th (With templates hitting both character and mount).

    I would like to reinstate unit strength and the old rule: if the unit has unit strength 5 and charges you it denies rank bonus, and if the unit is ranked it will also remove steadfast. This will mean one doesn't have to put as many points into units of knights to make use of them as effective flankers, and yet making it almost impossible to do a full frontal charge with knights.

    And with the reinstatement of unit strength I miss outnumbered. Especially outnumbered by fear causing enemy in order to buff Tomb kings a bit.

    I have read some of your works Mathias. I believe in you! Save the hobby!
    People need a rulebook to refer to and I believe in that a renowned hobbyist as you would be the person to produce it.

    Warhammer fantasy depends on you Mathias.

    The best of regards from Denmark!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think magic would be better off using a system similar to the one in age of sigmar. Each caster is able to use a number of spells each turn, the more powerful spells require you to roll maybe 9+/10+/11+ on two dice while the weaker ones require 5+/6+ and so on. I would prefer it if anti-magic simply made it harder to cast these spells. I definately think the lores should stick, not the spells in them, but the idea of lore of fire, beast and so on.

    Cannons should work like bolt throwers. Hiding monsters behind wooden fences is nuts. Furthermore I think they should do D3+1 wounds to remove the insane variance.

    I think BSBs should be nerfed. Like level 4 wizards they are a must have in every army, the downside is far smaller than the power they bring. They should allow you to re-roll rallying tests or break tests.

    I don´t like the idea of being outnumbered by fear causing enemies. Instantly losing a unit just because you flobbed your attacks and lost by 1 isn´t really my cup of tea. By not allowing BSB re-rolls failing fear tests should be far more likely.

    I think you should reconsider removing supporting attacks. It would have a huge impact on a large number of units and unbalance the game a lot. Not that the game is particularly balanced, but I think big units a key part of warhammer fantasy. I really don´t fancy another edition which shits heavily on all but the most elite infantry.

    I think all templates should be removed from the game. You could simply roll to-hit and then multiple hits 2D6/D6. It would be a lot smoother, templates are kind of OP ATM IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Personal and humble opinions on Mathias ideas ;

    Remove supporting attacks for everything except spears and pikes.

    Yes !

    Line of Sight.

    Need deepening, but not a bad idea.

    Remove Stomp and Cavalry impact hits.

    This need serious playtest, but I really like the image of cavalry smashing some skavens just by walking on.

    Additional (optional) hand weapon types, charge, weapons and ASF reworking.

    Yes, really goods ideas here !

    War Machines can only fire 45 degree angle without moving.

    Not sure about this one. Why don't simpley use the rules from 7ed ?

    Standard troops can always be attacked in combat, and the champion's challenges.

    For what purpose ? Is there some game breaking shenanigans that I don't know ?

    Killing blow possible against riders on monsters and MB.

    No real opinion about this one...

    Remove Horde.

    While simpley removing horde is a good idea, I suggest trying to make Horde a special rule.

    Steadfast stuff.

    Uhm... I like this idea, even if I find it odd at first.

    Fear, terror and Unit Strenght (That I called PU in my last post...)

    I'm 100% for the returns of unit strenght, but I find these version of fear and terror kinda weak. The units that have fear or terror rules usually paye a heavy taxe for it.
    I'm stubborn for this, but I think the fear/terror of 7 edition is the best rule for it.

    Cannons cause D3+1 W, Great Cannons D6.

    Good idea.

    Generating Magic, miscast and Irresistible force
    Miscast on double 1, Irresistible Force on double 6 and other magic stuff.

    Need serious test, but that's a good start. I suggest to rework the miscast table, in a way like these ;

    http://whfbnarratives.blogspot.ch/2015/03/rules-patch-miscasts-v81.html

    Stupidity test before movement rather than Start of Turn.

    I have never play stupid model, so I have no thoughts.


    Magic Resistance, look out, regen and +1CR for each flanks/widers units.

    Sound legit.

    Flaming Attacks.

    I prefere not to touch this, cause this may be complex to balance all the numerous source of flamming attaques.

    Fleeing units suffers a W for every attack that the pursuing unit has if caught.

    Yes, perfect.

    Redo Weapon Skill table.

    No idea about this.

    my two cents

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Line of Sight is because people might use proxies, in which case true LoS favour smaller models, which put them at an advantage.

      Cavalry could really use a boost, since most is too expensive at the moment. Removing supporting attacks means that Cavalry will lose a whole rank of lance attacks too, where the Impact Hits will replace them.

      Regarding the War Machines, this means they require more thoughtful placement, and limits their target range. This means that you can move more freely with your monsters, without being completely safe from Cannons and the like. 7th ed guessing was not an ideal solution, since it took up a lot of time to try and figure out whether you were in range or not.

      7th ed Fear was too much all or nothing, as just one skeleton would be the difference between victory and total failure. In 8th ed, it's just a test at the start of combat that is usually either forgotten or passed with General + BSB. A constant -1Ld when in combat means passing break tests against Undead is more difficult. Fear-causing units have really dropped in price anyway compared to 7th ed.

      Do like the idea of miscasts being based on number of dice used though, makes it more useful to be a bit careful with the dice. Will look that part up!

      Right now, flaming attacks are only used against Regen or flammable units, so I would like to see them get a boost and be more widely used. +1 to W might be a bit too strong though, re-roll 1's to Wound might be better.

      Delete
    2. About the "attacking standard troops" though, it means you cannot tank a unit with a bunch of near-unkillable character to deny the opponent combat resolution. With this change, you always get the chance to attack rank and file instead.

      As for the Champions, this is to get rid of the annoying "champion sacrifices himself to stop enemy character from causing a lot of Wounds in the first turn". Challenges should be for characters only, champion challenges are just clutter.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your fast and wise answer !

      I was unaware about the LoS, "attacking standard troops" and the champ-meatshield, and I am okay with yours ideas. May I suggest to leave the champin ability to take a challenge, instead of give and take challenges ? That allows for the champion to bodyguard other character. As a main Empire player, my heroes have a buffing role, not a SMASH one, and without the champion to protect him, well, empire cap'tain will die to the first no-goblins heros.

      About the fear and terror stuff, I suggest to give terror the -2ld a bubble of 6'' (12 if it's a great dude). This give utility for little "cheap" terror flyer, who can disturb the line. Otherwise, I'm now for this idea.

      Finally, for the cavalry, war machines and flaming change, I still think these need some playtests, but I don't think these ideas are bad. Indeed I do like the flaming re-roll 1's to wound.

      As usual, I'm sorry if my syntax and grammar is not clear.

      Greeting from Switezland

      Delete
  10. 8th was pretty good, and in my opinion only needs some very minor tweaks. Some of the stuff suggested here seems a bit radical. Overall, here is all that needs to happen IMHO

    - Cannon damage nerf
    - Cavalry needs a buff to be viable
    - You always need to be able to hit the unit, even when blocked base contact because of characters
    - Irresistible force should be able to be dispelled on a double six. Stopping the spell also stops the miscast
    - Unit Strength should make a return, but not to the full affect that is was in 7th. Just for breaking ranks. It just doesnt make sense that a huge monster rams into the side of your formation and the unit proceeds not to care because the monster doesnt have a "rank"
    - And last but not least (unless I am forgetting something crucial) MR needs to either return to being free dispel dice when a spell is cast on the unit with it or have the ward save still apply to spells that dont allow saves of any kind.

    Everything else in 8th I feel worked very smoothly. Yes you had the unkillable Tzeentch lords every now and then, but I feel that is more of a problem with the army book rather than the base rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unit strength should just be equal to current wounds across the board, regardless of what unit type you are. This will give the scaling strength feel that people were saying that they liked from Age of Sigmar. It makes sense that a monster is less scary the more it is hurt, the same goes for characters. Then you can just apply that to killing blow and say that it can be used against any model with a unit strength of 1 or 2. 3+ would be heroic killing blow. This means that your killing blow dude cant 1-shot that big beasty from full health, but as it gets weaker he can.

      Delete
    2. I added a paragraph regarding US and W. I think using the W on profile is easier, since you won't have to recalculate for losing W all the time. The monster does not exactly get smaller by being wounded, and would in certain cases be even more feral near death. W on profile is easier to remember.

      Did add paragraph about monsters now being allowed to cause Disruption.

      Delete
    3. Cavalry should break ranks on the turn they charge unless the defending unit has spears or defensive stakes.

      Delete
    4. That would be too good, especially for Cavalry armies like Bretonnia. Historically, massed Infantry facing Cavalry had a good chance to the front, but attacked in the flank, they would quickly break. I want the emphasis on Cavalry to lie as hardhitting flankers, while the Infantry forms the main battleline.

      Delete
    5. Just throwing out a few ideas.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Charge distance is M + 2D3" for models with >M7, model with"
    Just seeing an incompatibility with an GW codex here ;

    Ogre special rules -> if the roll for the charge if superior than 10, they have bette impact hit. Or with 2D3 this is kinda hard.
    I suggest to simply change the rule for M + 2D3" for models with >M6, and M+ 2D6 for the rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that just makes the fast armies even faster. I think charges should be left alone.

      Delete
    2. Well, outside Orge, where that's make change ?
      Skinks is M6, but who care getting charged by skins ? All the cavalry, even the slower, is -at my knowledge- is M7.
      If you, or anybody, have an idea to apply a patch for that Ogre special rules, I will gladly hear it.

      Delete
    3. That would mean ogres, cav, some monsters, and anything flying would just get even faster. I truly believe that the charging rules are fine how they are.

      Delete
    4. I guess there is a mistake in the actual rule for charges.

      In the last version (before the rules is classified by theme), the ruling was "Charge distance is M + 2D3" for models with M lesser than 7, model with M equal or superior than 7 is M+2D6."

      The actual rule is "Charge distance is M + 2D3" for models with >M7, model with". I think that a ctrl+c/ctrl+v error, because that sentence as no sens (Or I'm worse at english than I thought...)

      If Mathias as changed the charge rule, well I'm sorry for being such stubborn. Otherwise, if the actual rule is an error, so the cavalery, some monster and all the flying stuff is already fast. If we change the threshold to M6, only the Orge (and skinks) will win the 2D6+M charge, and it correct the bug with the Orge special rule.

      Delete
    5. Noticed a bit of the rule disappeared there (blogger does not like "><" signs for some reason". Models that have swiftstride (usually M7 or higher, mostly bipedal creatures) get 2D6, others get D3". This is the same as it was in 7th ed regarding fleeing/pursuing with 3D6, the limit was at M7. It also put more emphasis on speed for certain units which sets them apart from other troop types.

      As for the Ogres, simply replace "10 or more" with "6 or more" (two 5's or higher = 3 on a D3) and you have the exact same result. Very simple fix.

      Delete
    6. Not exactly the same result. Dice rolls of 4 and 6, will give 5 under 2d3, so would not give the extra impact hits in your system but would under the current rules. Reduces 6 in 36 chance to 4 in 36 chance. Now that could be okay, odds don't need to be exactly the same between the two systems, but just so you are aware that it would reduce the odds.

      Delete
  13. Thinking about it a bit more, the US 5+ for rank disruption isnt right as it will cause 2 ogres to be able to break ranks. I was talking it over with a friend and we think we have something that might work. Basically if you are infantry, you require 2 total ranks of whatever the minimum is (I.E. 5 or normal and 3 for monstrous). If you are cav, you require 1 total rank of whatever your minimum is (again, 5 for normal and 3 for monstrous. Monsters just auto disrupt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's how it worked in 7th ed, which was fine in my opinion, but your suggestion isn't bad either. Seeing as they can still be steadfast, killing just 1 ogre will get them their ranks back. But having one complete rank might be better actually. I am contemplating having In require 5 models, Cavalry 4 models, and MI 3 models, giving it a nice transition that way.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I remember that was how it worked in 7th, but 7th had it's obvious flaws too. *Cough* outnumbered by a fear causing enemy *Cough*

      Delete
  14. Great that there are so many good ideas here, guys. Much Vetter than aos .
    I would be careful removing supporting attacks, because it could slow down the close combat.
    In my opinion it wasnt anything dusturbing, i would keep it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slowing down CC is actually a part of the plan. Is casualties go down a bit, it means people won't have to take quite a huge units in order to not break immediately, and can field multiple medium-sized units instead. Combat will be closer to the same pace as 6th-7th ed, which will balance out a lot of the weapons with high S.

      Delete
    2. How about just the first two ranks can attack. Period. +1 rank for spears because long sticks. It's a good general rule that would streamline combat a bit, make sense thematically, wouldnt slow down combat, would fix some of the weapon choices being not worth it, and you wouldnt have to make the supporting attacks exception for monstrous infantry.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  15. This have nothing to do with the 8.5 brainstorming, but I have found an error on the Kislev army book, the page 47 is empty.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Will you be producing an actual book (as you have done with the other army books) or will you only be doing it point by point as done here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ideally yes, though it might not be quite as fancy as my army books or the current BRB. I would probably skip all the fluff and pictures and just have it be as easy to navigate as possible.

      Delete
  17. Yes, i would also prefer a book with fokus in the rules or writen as an errata of the 8th

    ReplyDelete
  18. What about new magic items (e.g. Weapons that aren't melee-based etc.)?

    And I think cannon should be allowed to keep their devastating shot, they should just be less accurate (I'm using an additional D6 scatter atm, but I could see other stuff working).

    Also I'm unconvinced with a complete removal of supporting attacks (at the very least if your frontage is broader than your enemies).

    Otherwise a good first draft, I'd like to see more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New Magic weapons might be possible in the future, but they are not on the list of immediate fixes.

      Cannons scattering D3" before bounce sounds better actually, so I've updated the list with that.

      As for supporting attacks, I've yet to see them being an actual improvement to the game. It makes spears and 2 HW:s as well as frenzy worse, and great weapons and halberds much better, while the points costs have been the same. On the whole, supporting attacks makes the game a lot more unbalanced, and only serves to make the combat go faster.

      Delete
    2. I dont think we need MORE general magic items, the amount we have is about right. However, I do believe that they need a breath of life blown into them. They all feel a bit stale. In specific, the magic flags need a bit of help. The other option is to follow the 7th ed trend and have a very small general magic items section and update all of the books with their own fluffy stuff.

      Delete
  19. Greatweapons causing - 2 Initiative, wouldnt this be a nobrainer for Allways strike first models ? seems a bit badass . But really loving the suggestions for updated rules. looking forward to "the new book" ;) thanks alot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a planned change for the army books, namely removing ASF from Elves completely. They already have I5 or more, ASF is hardly needed for them. It's like giving cannons a special rule that allows them to wound on 2+, when the cannon already have S10.
      Elves with GW's will now strike at I3-4, which is still faster than most armies.

      Delete
    2. While I'm 100% for removing ASF for the Elves, we need to give theme another special rule for two reasons ;
      Add variety between the elves themselves (ASF didn't do that, but 7ed ASF/Hate/Skirmisher was perfect).
      Justified points costs.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, Elves already have Murderous Prowess and Martial Prowess (plus that boring WE rule that's just a mix of the two), which I think is enough to set them apart.

      Delete
  20. How about dispelling Remains in Play spells in subsequent rounds on the actual value it was cast on, not the minimum to cast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What it it's cast with IF? Plus then you would have to remember the original cost, the standard casting value keeps this a lot easier to keep track of.

      Delete
    2. If it was cast with IF then you can still count the casting total to know what you can dispel it on the next round. I just dont like the idea that you put all of this power into a spell and all your opponent has to to is wait a little bit and he can dispel it on like an 8+. As opposed to the 16 or 20 you might have gotten while casting it. I dont think it feels as bad with vortexes and direct damage spells as it does with augments. In my opinion, augment spells shouldnt be remains in play anyway.

      Delete
  21. Can I suggest that the charging rules be that swiftstride is M+2d6 take the highest? The extra movement gap there is a bit much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. M + 2D6" is actually lower than cavalry charging distance in 7th ed, so overall, the gap is smaller now than it was then.

      Delete
    2. 7th edition charging was bad anyway. I had too many times where my opponent and I both had guys with 4" movement, so we sat just outside of 8" of each other because neither of us wanted to get charged. Charges need to be random. However, swiftstride in 8th just increases the average charge distance that can be rolled, it doesnt increase the maximum like this suggestion does currently. The way you have it right now, infantry can only charge a maximum of M+6 and cavalry (swiftstride things) can charge M+12. All that is doing in increasing the already present mobility gap. The cavalry speed comes from that they usually have twice as much base movement, and they have a higher average on charge rolls. I feel that slowing down the infantry like you have here will have detrimental effects on the game. Now, this is only my opinion, but it is these kinds of things that we need to at least consider.

      Delete
    3. Wont they get m+4 and m+7 on average? that is not to big a difference IMO. 2d6 using the highest would give you m+4 average aswell? . Cavalry really has to be way better at getting the charge if you ask me :) I 2. Mathias' solution.

      Delete
  22. Is the lance +2S and +2I just on the charge like normal? Same for mounted spear?

    ReplyDelete
  23. While I am all for the cannon nerf, it either needs to be all or nothing. As it is right now, the dwarf cannon is nerfed in damage but the empire one isnt. I never understood in 7th why they had two different profiles, and I dont think they should now either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure about this one. Currently there isn't much of any difference between great cannons and normal cannons (though to be fair, there's not profiles for different kinds of stone throwers either).

      Delete
    2. The only difference is that the Empire calls their cannons "Great Cannons"

      Delete
  24. I'd like to see the high ground rule from previous editions giving you a +1 to combat resolution make a comeback. Never made sense to me that defending the high ground didn't give advantage in 8th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's already in the main post, isnt it?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. My bad, must've missed it the first read through.

      Delete
    4. You're good, just pointing it out.

      Delete
  25. On the cannon changes. I think that the damage nerf is enough to bring them back into line. I dont think they should be limited to a 45 degree arc of fire. I dont believe they need to be kicked in the teeth that hard. I would say on or the other in terms of a nerf, either the damage or the arc, not both. I have done the math on the D3+1 wounds (which is why I suggested it in the first place) and it comes out feeling about right. Cannons can still feasibly 2-shot things, as is their due, but they cant 1-shot the big monsters anymore. Which, unless I am mistaken, was the whole goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, however I do feel a 90/180 Degree angle is in order. It seems a cool idea that it is possible to flank the cannons/warmachine, namely in order to avoid the cannon blasting its supposed assasins to smithereens, a problem I often have vs Dwarves. No matter our positioning we are unable to stop the damn things from blasting us apart...

      Delete
    2. The idea is that cannons will have the same front arc are normal missile troops, meaning 45 degree either left or right. Their total sight arc is actually closer to 100 degrees.

      Delete
    3. But cannons arent normal missile troops. They are normally on swivels or wheels.

      Delete
    4. And Mo and skirmishers still have normal LoS and cannot charge/shoot what they cannot see. Stone throwers are not on any wheels for the most part, but can still be spun around like a dreidel. Even if they have wheels, turning a cannon around on its heel takes a while. It's a bit strange that a handgunner won't have time to turn to the left and fire his gun, but a cannon can turn 180 degrees, load and fire all in the same turn.

      Delete
    5. at the end of the 19th century- a unit of cavalry where able to outflank a cannon battery and kill them because even at this stage, the cannon was difficult to turn, prepare, and then fire

      Delete
  26. I vote in favour of a stronger variation of Steadfast Solution 1. Not to a maximum of -3 but perhaps for every rank a unit has more than an opponent it nullifies -2 leadership to its break test?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Removing supporting attacks swings power away from Skilled-to-Elite infantry and towards monsters and hero-bunker units (does that sound right to the rest of you?). I personally hated having 20 guys deliver 6 attacks. This creates more emphasis on those CR modifiers as actual damage won't do as much (remember only one quarter of 4+/4+ make it to forcing a save).

    I think I see an argument that supporting attacks over emphasize Halberds and Greatswords. The real problem comes down to armor. Attacking up one tougness level with no armor still favors the 15-2hw attacks versus 10-halberd attacks, and attacking up three toughness level with no armor also favors the 15-2hw attacks.

    s3 attacks suck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been toying with the numbers. And feel reinvigorating to support my own side. In the 7th edition system, 2hw/spears outclass halberds until you reach the break even point of Human Soldier fight a Chaos warrior with 4+ (for s4 models this would be attacking a 3+ armor dude). The 2hw human then does better in the nigh-hopeless scenario of hurting a Chaos Knight.

      You're right. The expected value curve does look much better in the "without supporting attacks" scenario. I just don't want to go back to 6 attack bloodletter units :<

      If you want a quick chart of my calculations against a variety of enemies just ask and I can output it. (in other news I couldn't think of a t3 unit with a 3+ save without getting overly specific)

      Delete
    2. How are you feeling on removing models from the front?

      With the current suggestions of initiative modifiers on/against the charge makes me wonder if it's really going to come into play.

      Delete
    3. I am against removing models from the front. That was one of the nay things in 7th that I feel were bad. As far as your concerns with the 6 attack bloodletter unit, I think the solution is easy. Remove the concept of "supporting attacks" all together and just make the first two ranks able to attack. That would also address the issue that is being raised with halberds too. This also gives value back to the 2hw build because everyone that can attack is attacking fully.

      Delete
    4. Removing models from the front is not an improvement imo. It makes it more fiddly having to recalculate the number of models allowed to strike every turn, and favour elite units that will kill of the normal grunt before they can strike, making their greater numbers useless. High initiative is useful for elites taking on smaller units, where they actually have a chance of causing enough casualties to remove some attacks back. For Cavalry, this means that models armed with lances will nearly always strike first, as they should, which increases their damage output since they won't lose any models before attacking.

      As for second ranks being able to use all their attacks; it makes the weapons more balanced sure (except spears), but I fear that it also encourages bus building due to multiple ranks being such a huge boost.

      I would rather see units being built wider (which would be more historically correct as well). Units 7-10 models wide will both get the +1 CR for wider frontage, as well as more models into combat. IIRC, the whole idea with supporting attacks was to get models more fighting, but a better way to do that would be to actually put more models into base contact rather than just having arbitrary rules saying that they can attack through each other.

      Delete
    5. There are problems with that solution too. It starts to edge out static CR and do the opposite of Mathias's objective of slowing down combat. Chaos Warriors of Khorne start to go bonkers.
      ~~~~~~

      Status quo (1 rank attacks, 1 rank supporting attacks): Under emphasizes 2-handweapons and spears (better only in situations where the opponent wouldn't even get a save at all). Static Combat Res usually only important in "fair" fights (I'm personally happy with its relative effectiveness).

      7th edition way (1 rank attacks): Increases power of characters, monstrous cavalry, monsters, chariots, and static Combat Res. Less model losses.

      Winning way (2 ranks attack): increases power of multi-attack Elite infantry (also minimally Dragon Princes and Cold One Cav), might encourage smaller frontage units, decreases relevance of Static Combat Res with affected units. Units will tear eachother up.

      Delete
    6. And it wont encourage any more ranks than 8th already does. I mean you are already attacking in 2 ranks now, it's just that supporting attacks are bad. Also, spears can continue being good by having them just let you fight in an extra rank like normal on every turn that you didnt charge.

      Delete
    7. Right now, deep ranks are encouraged because steadfast rely on that. Make it based on US, and units can start being built wider instead, while still retaining their steadfast bonus.

      As for characters and MC etc being powerful in combat because ranked units lose damage output, that's true. At the same time however, the new outnumber bonus will most likely mean most Infantry units will have a larger CR bonus that will outweigh their offensive output. A unit of S3 spearmen for instance, will most likely even have a better chance at winning against 3 demi-gryph knights if they can out number them by 4 then they have with the current rules.

      But as OreoGolem put it, making both ranks use all their ranks mean elite infantry will cause huge amounts of damage. 2 rounds of combat could be enough to decimate a 40+ unit, and would make the combat even faster. I think it's better to have spells, magic items or special rules that can increase the damage output instead of just having it be a standard rule.

      Delete
  28. You are underestimating knights. They really aren´t as bad as you, or everyone else, seems to think they are. 6 empire knightly orders will outgrind a unit of halberdiers. I don´t really know what exactly it is you expect of knights? You all seem to be super duber generals, who got tons of flank charges off in 7th. The fact is you didn´t need a flank charge with knights in 7th, you just needed to find a unit in charge range and then you could delete it. Sure there was a lot more tactical manouvring in 7th, however there was an overabundance of knights and chariots. There was no hammer and anvil tactics, it was just hammers and hammers. What we currently have in 8th is a system where knights won´t eliminate units the turn they charge, although a lot of knights actually outgrind other units, they need to set up flank charges and have support from a bigger unit. If you really wanted to get back to a maneuvering game you need to get rid of redirection of charges. Not only will it promote tactical maneuvering it will also heavily punish deathstars and horde units, which actually don´t need to be removed entirely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way knights work right now if pretty close to right in my opinion, though they do hang a bit on the weaker end of things since you arent just going to break things on the charge turn like in 7th. That doesnt mean that I think that we should bring back that for cav from 7th though. I am also against the cav having the 2d6 charge range where infantry only have the 2d3, but I have voiced my opinion on this already in other posts.

      Delete
    2. I don't want knights to break through all Infantry units on the charge like 7th ed, but I definitely feel they should be able to do so if charging the unit's unprotected flank. Steadfast won't disappear without a good replacement, it will just mean that there will be a better chance to stand against the knights.

      Currently I'm leaning most towards steadfast solution #3, meaning those 40-something halberdiers will have a +3-4 CR against those knights in addition to their ranks, meaning the Knights have to kill 6-7 Halberdiers every round to just not lose the combat themselves.

      Delete
  29. If I can bring up a point about the cannons though, 3 nerfs is too many. I think the scatter should be removed if nothing else. It's just a bit much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 nerfs are not planned. I think the scatter is actually what will balance out cannons the most (and can decrease their cost too), since their accuracy is what most people have a problem with. Damage will probably be kept the same, them only being able to fire to their front arc means you have to cannot deny the whole battlefield with them. Other than that, cannons will work the same.

      Delete
  30. 8th edition imo is a terrible game. please dont make a warhammer game on that

    I'd rather go 5th or 6th edition

    though I find it ironic that people finally think "oh wow I can finally make my own rules or use old rules!" when they could have always done so for years, yet they felt like they were forced to subscribe to what gw says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue was that people wanted fo stay current and gw was constantly updating the game. It is hard to homebrew your own stuff and edit an edition while it is still getting active updates. You just have no way of predicting gw's next releases.

      That being said, why are you being so negative? Thee post says 8.5 ed and that is what everyone here is helping to brainstorm for and I'm sure is eagerly awaiting its completion. I dont mean to be rude, but if you didnt like 8th, then why are you here?

      Delete
    2. I started in 7th. What aspects did I miss out in 6th and 5th?

      Delete
  31. I would love to be of assistance in this endeavor if there is some way I could do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same, but unless he asks for the help, all we can do is brainstorm I guess.

      Delete
    2. Playtesting and offering suggestions/ideas is the best thing you can do for now. I still need to go through everything to see what unforeseen effects these changes might have, as well as put everything together into a alpha-version for playtesting.

      Delete
  32. I would like to use the To Wound table of 40k, that is to say, no auto-Wound on the roll of 6. For example a model or weapon with S4 can no longer wound a model with T7.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good point, I never really liked the idea of S2 Gnoblars being able to destroy a steam tank by just poking at it enough times. It's not a huge change per say, but I would say a welcome one.

      Delete
    2. I liked the idea of s2 gnoblars poking it to death- not because thats what they were actually doing but instead they swarmed over it, opened the hatches and massacred the crew

      Delete
    3. or with a dragon, getting eaten and causing the dragon to choke to death on a terrefied goblin

      Delete
    4. I think the current "always on sixes" works well for what the game has become.

      This is a game with Skin to Stone and TK Monsters. If we feel those units are too easily hurt (they aren't) up there armor/wounds. The game's more fun with a 1/36 or 1/18 chance to wound (which is in a practical sense nigh invincible).

      Delete
    5. I had this argument with my friend the other day. The to wound table is fine how it is. That was one of the many improvments of 8th.

      Delete
    6. Seems most people prefer always being abel to wound on 6's, so I will let that one be as it is.

      Delete
  33. somethings some of my friends have mentioned:
    Keep thunderstomp- it means theres more of a point to monsters
    Change skirmishes back to the way they used to be- having them have to rank up is just weird

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally think Thunderstomp is just a hassle to remember (but better than normal Stomp at least), though I perhaps make it D3 in that case. Or just increase the number of attacks the monsters have.

      I don't mind the new skirmish rules TBH, since single models don't ahve 360 degree LoS. This one merit some discussion though.

      Delete
  34. I am looking forward for the alpha Version. Probably we should reccomdend this strategy to create a balanced system which results from the ideas of the players to GW one day. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Cray idea, maybe terrible.
    Change dispel scrolls: One use only. Caster gets a +10 to dispel. (number can be adjusted).

    So my thought behind this was that a dispel scroll currently kinda becomes not so much a nullify spell but a nullify phase item. I feel +10 is sufficiently powerful to make sure that the spell gets dispelled and puts SOME more power in the dispeler's hands. BUT it requires the use of at least 1 die, and practically 2 (to avoid the Dispel-side of "Not Enough Power").

    Note the idea came from a personal experience that the Dispel scroll allowed undue amount of control of the opponents phase. Where a Dispel scroll, since it doesn't use dice, would regularly gain control of the whole phase.

    I fully welcome critique or simply disagreement. This change would of course make the Dispel Scroll worse, so its cost might need to be adjusted to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I usually get hit with irresistible force when my opponent really wants a spell to go through and uses max dice. I will often sit with my dispel scroll through the whole game because of that. As long as they dont work against IF I certainly dont think they are OP.

      As a related note on that, I have thought about a specialized scroll that ONLY works against IF. That kinda works against the whole "irresistible" thing i know, but it can get annoying watching that night goblin shammy get IF after IF while your dispell dice gather dust.

      Delete
    2. Dat free mushroom dice though

      Delete
    3. Don't even get me started on that dice. And they even removed the free dice from the Slann, making them a joke.

      Delete
    4. But on a 1 they hurt themselves, that's fair, right? No in all seriousness, they are balanced out by the fact that they can only use one very average to lower lore and nothing else.

      Delete
  36. I would like to make a point for the name. Warhammer Fantasy 8.5 Edition: The New Old World

    ReplyDelete
  37. I went through this list with a friend to try and come up with a build for our group to use, and this is what we decided on. I dont know if it will be any help but here it is.

    Basic Rules:
    Terrain is basic without special rules by default, "magical forests" is an optional rule that the players decide on.
    The player who gets to choose table side starts to deploy first.
    50% VP's are rewarded for killing 50% of a unit, 50% if the unit is fleeing at the end of the game.
    Movement:
    Distance when charging is measured from the longest distance a model [in the front rank] has to travel, not the shortest.
    Units may not move within 3" on an enemy unit's front voluntarily, unless they are charging said unit. This gets rid of the problem of cheap re-directors blocking the movement of a bigger unit completely. It can still be used to try and flush enemies out, just not to the same degree.
    Magic:
    Miscast on double 1, Irresistible Force on double 6. If both is rolled, miscast takes precedent.
    Innate bound cant Irresistible
    "Look Out, Sir!" applies to instant kill spells that effect the entire unit.
    Shooting:
    Cannons do D3+1 wounds
    Riders on Mo are hit by cannons and bolt throwers on a 5+, Mo on 1-4. With Stone Throwers, they are hit (under the hole) only if the rider model is actually if the middle of the template, otherwise they just suffer the smaller S.
    Bolt Throwers allow armour saves, have Armour Piercing rule instead.
    Close Combat:
    Remove supporting attacks. Everything fights in 2 ranks. Spears add 1 extra rank on turn they didnt charge.
    Remove Horde formation.
    Bring back Unit Strength, Steadfast determined by this rather than ranks. Unit Strength = total number of W on a model's profile, including riders/mounts. (Example: Cavalry = US2, Dragon ridden by Lord = US9).
    Charging a unit in the flank with a unit with a US of 5 or more and at least one complete rank causes Disruption. Monsters with W5 or more always counts as having a complete rank.
    Steadfast: For each 1x times that you outnumber an opponent, you can ignore 1pt of negative Ld modifier for losing combat.
    Regular troops can always be attacked in combat, even if not in direct base contact.
    High Ground always give +1 CR, not just when charging.
    +1 CR for each flank attacked.
    Fleeing units suffers a W (with no saves) for every attack that the pursuing unit has if "caught". (Example, unit of 4 Ogres with additional HW's causes 16 Wounds). The pursuing unit is then placed 1" in behind the fleeing unit. This keeps small units from instantly killing huge units in one go.

    Special Rules:
    ASF no longer allow re-rolls to Hit, remove ASF from Elves.
    Failed Fear test is -1 to Hit
    Flaming Attacks = Melee attacks re-roll 1's To Wound. (no Regen). Unit that can already do this re-roll both 1's and 2's To Wound.
    Impact hits [at the mount's Strength] for Cavalry and MC, +1S if barded. Defensive stakes remove impact hits.
    Units can Killing Blow other models and riders of the same size/Troop Type.
    Magic Resistance applies to spells that "do not allow any save".
    Regeneration comes into effect at the end of each combat round, so set it apart from Ward saves. Negates if dead.
    Stupidity test before movement rather than Start of Turn.
    Volley Fire allow all ranks to fire, but with -1 To Hit. Can only be used at long range (maximum range/2).
    Spear (mounted) = +1S, +1I (on foot, fight in extra ranks, +1I when charged).
    Pike = fight in extra ranks (3), +2I when charged.
    Lance = +2S, +2I on charge.
    Rider's Ward Saves apply to mount.
    Great weapon = +2S, -2I.
    Cavalry get rank bonus for being 4 models wide rather than 5.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That formatted horribly but there it is.

      Delete
  38. - Forests need to block LoS like in 7th and maybe some difficulty terrain movement penalties. Only keep dangerous terrain for really dangerous terrain or chariots going through woods and stuff.

    - Cannons and Bolt hrowers are fired and resolved the same way. Like before but when you place the marker roll it like Stone Thrower except you can modify the Artillery Dice inches with the crew's BS. Cannonball's strenght is reduced like Bolt Thrower's. Bolt Thrower doesn't really "Bounce" but it's replaced by "Low Fly". Both don't have no armour saves rule. Bolt Thrower can get armour piercing.

    - Spears, Pikes and Halberds better against Cavalry. At least they should count as Defensive Obstacle against them. Halberd fight in second rank without the strenght bonus. Maybe need to modify halberd points.

    - Skirmishers maybe back what they used to be or some bonus tweaks for them

    - Fast Cavalry shoots 360 and can see through their models in the same unit

    - Rank Bonus from 4 models wide. This is how many boxes were sold and some are still sold.

    - Keep up the work that the CC gets closer to the 6/7th but still not everyone breaking instantly always.


    All in all you seem to think what I've been thinking for couple weeks now. I even made some very rough scanned and edited rules but I guess I'll scrap that and start to follow this and give some feedback!

    FANTASY BATTLE WILL JUST BECOME BIGGER AFTER GW TRIED TO KILL IT!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I forgot that when there are movement penalties from terrain we could still march through them but the movement is just halved.

      Also I haven't ever felt that challenges were any good in this game. Needs some nerfing or completely remove and introduce something better. Champions could also give some other bonus.

      Delete
  39. Like the ideas but it is making a complex game even more complex. I liked most of the ideas you had initially posted except for 2. Using a D3 anything is not a good idea. Keep things stupid simple when it comes to dice. Bolt Throwers should ALWAYS take away armor saves and stay the same as people rarely use them as is. Making them AP just makes them basically useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A S2 Bolt Thrower completely ignoring armour is a bit silly though. As for using D3's, I've made some changes to try and keep it to a minimum. Simpler is better in most cases.

      Delete
  40. I completely agree with most of the rules changes mathias suggested but I have a few remarks.
    1. Adding more weapon options would be realistic but would also overcomplicate things in my opinion, plus it gets harder to get things WYSIWYG.
    2. As far as I am concerned Elves can keep their ASF, but I would be glad to see the re-rolls go.
    3. Instead of complicated scatter rules perhaps just nerf cannons to D3+1 wounds as suggested above. Simple is better.
    4. The Horde rule never bothered me that much, I have been able to defeat and outmaneuver them on several occasions (and they are especially vulnerable to templates). If the issue is about Elite hordes perhaps the Horde rule could be limited to Core troops only? This could give the poor infantry some extra power.
    5. I’m not sure if removing supporting attacks is such a good idea, this gives the units who can cram a lot of attacks in the front rank a huge bonus, such as Monstrous Infantry. It also weakens Cavalry which is already struggling in 8th.
    6. Using Champions in challenges to prevent powerful Heroes wreaking havoc on a unit is just part of good tactics in my opinion, that’s why you pay the extra points.
    7. Being obliged to move 2D6” forward on a failed charge sounds like a massive penalty for rolling bad dice. Also, logically, why start running towards an enemy and then stop a few yards away? Reluctantly shuffling D6” towards an enemy makes a bit more sense in my opinion.

    8th was a pretty good game, and I think we can make it better.
    Greetings from Holland!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. I probably won't add these to the book, since it opens up quite a few issues with models without shields, and causes issues with WYSIWYG as you say for some units.
      2. I don't see the need for ASF for Elves at all TBS, striking in Init. order is good enough. ASF for Swordmasters is okay though.
      3. Cannons should be very destructive, but they should be harder to Hit with. If the scatter does not work out, Solution #3 (less damage on bounce) could work as well.
      4. Chaos Warriors are core units too though. The problem is mainly the same as supporting attacks...
      5. ...which premiers elites over grunts. Example: Empire Halberdiers gain much more from supporting attacks than spearmen does, making the latter mostly useless by comparison. The problem with Halberdiers in 7th ed was that they had less armour, and thus more easily suffered casualties that did not allow them to strike back as much as swordsmen/spearmen. With Step Up, that problem is gone, and high S are the troops of choice, especially with supporting attacks. Great weapon wielders gain the most from this, while models with add.HW or spears suffer the most. People make the argument that it increases the damage output of weak units which is true, but in actual casualties, it increases the damage output of high-strength elites more. Step Up is more than enough. Cavalry will gain impact hits to offset their lack of supporting attacks (which frankly never made sense anyway, since the mount is not allowed to attack).
      6. I personally think it's just a cheap way of nullifying the enemy's monster lords, and just makes the first round of combat extra boring. I'd rather see Champions have a more active morale role, like the rest of the command group.
      7. The failed charge distance merits discussion sure, and 2D6" might be too rough. Will think on this one.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't say 2D6" is too rough. You will still be short the minimum of your movement value. Even more if you roll badly. That was also the case in 7th and further back. So it's more forgiving than in 7/6th but still failure hurts more than in 8th.

      Cannon scattering shouldn't be that hard really. Scatter, move the marker and make the line from the cannon to the newly placed marker from there. Nothing harder than with Stone Throwers.

      Delete
  41. Love nearly all your ideas.

    A few modifications:

    1) Spears + Pikes only get additional ranks and I bonus when receiving a charge.

    2) Failed charge should be the highest D6 of the charge!

    3) Yeah cannons need a good nerf if they remain basically an auto-hit every shot. Personally I always thought every model in the bounce path should get an initiative check before it even takes a hit.

    4) Agree with the above poster re: Champions. The challenge mechanic is awesome. Overkill might be tweaked down though.

    5) Additional ranks fighting for a horde should only be for regular infantry and cav. Not monstorous inf/cav.

    4)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Already in there.
      2. Will probably change it to that one.
      3. Init. test for everyone is a bit much, and does not really help the expensive monsters.
      4. I feel challenges should be interesting showdowns between mighty heroes, not an exercise in smashing a lowly grunt for one turn before getting to do some damage. On Unbreakable units, the overkill does not even have an effect.
      5. The problem with hordes still lies with In using GW's and halberds. It's not a bonus that effects all units equally.

      Delete
    2. The Dutch poster here again.
      I can see your reasoning at point 5 now about removing supporting attacks, you've convinced me it's better for the game.

      Though I still believe champions should be allowed to make and accept challenges. Here are two examples where I used this rule:

      My Grave Guard Senschal has defeated several Heroes in duels over the years thanks to his Killing Blow, including a Beastmen Shaman, a Bretonnian Prophetess, and a Chaos Knight Champion. Plus, if he fails he can always be resurrected.

      There was also an occasion where my Bretonnian's flank was threatened by a Chaos Lord on a Daemonic Steed and a Slaughterbrute. I multi-charged both these units with a unit of Men-at-Arms and a unit Pegasus Knights. Normally they would not have stood a chance against these monsters, but I challenged the Lord with my Warden to blunt his attack. Then caught most of the Slaughterbrute's attacks on my knight's armour. Ranks, banner, charge, and a few wounds inflicted by my knight's lances meant I won the combat. And both Lord and Monster had to Break test on a 6.

      Whether you consider this cheap tricks or good tactics is up to you. But I believe the champion's challenge adds an extra layer of depth to the game.

      Delete
    3. Oh, I'm not saying Champions don't have their uses, it's usually just that they are used in a rather cheap way where they die the first turn. I'd rather see actual Heroes do the challenging is all.

      Delete
  42. Personally I hate the 2D6 charge distance and wish it would go back to 2xM, or at least M+D6 to make M have some sort of effect on charge distance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charge distance in 8th is M+2D6, so movement values already play a role.
      If you have trouble with the random factor remember that the chance to roll a 7+ with 2 dice is approximately 50%.
      For cavalry with 3 dice and choosing the 2 highest the chance to roll a 9+ is approximately 50%.

      Based on these numbers you can estimate how much risk you wish to take when charging.
      Perhaps this guideline could be added to the rulebook?

      Delete
  43. Any thoughts on a change on unstable...or at least vampiric units. I feel they get stung quite harshly by unstable rules. Also there is no benefit to being steadfast in unstable, aside from breaking enemy steadfast, which won't matter as any unit big enough to do that will be getting murdered in CC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haven't seen Vampires suffering that much in the game TBH, so I'm not su sure that's something that needs changing. I might play up Fear + outnumber in the update though, but not to the level of 7th ed ofc.

      Delete
  44. It seems we have reached a critical crossroad. I would recommend sticking with the eighth edition book as is. By contemplating a rework of the BRB I think you risk fracturing the community even further. I believe we need a rally point, not another point of contension. Updates for Beastmen, Skaven and Dogs of War are wonderful and welcome but I think an independent rule book would be too much. All of your work is balanced for 8th and has gained a lot of credibility with the community and could easily become the standard for the inevitable indy 8th GT scene. I believe a rework of the main rules would only peal away yet more players and for every one we lose to other games and versions we speed the death of warhammer fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good point, but 8th as it is could use a little tweaking.
      I'm personally not too concerned about fracturing the community as 8.5 is not hugely different from the original and armies should be equally valid for both versions.

      Delete
    2. I intend for the current books to be compatible with both official 8th ed as well as 8,5 ed, so that should not be a problem. 8,5 would be for those who don't like everything about 8th ed, and some rules can be pick and choose with your gaming group. As for tournament play, that will depend on how they will go ahead with the rules in general.

      Delete
  45. I agree with the above, I would worry about fracturing even more. Skaven, Brets and Beastmen absolutely need updates, and the new armybooks you have made are absolutely fantastic, but the complexities of changing some of the basic game rules in the BRB could have dire unintended consequences.

    The only problems I personally have with 8th rules are cannons are overpowered (D6 W is too much variance, discourages bringing monsters), heavy cav are underpowered, and people using cheap lone models to redirect huge units is game-breaking. Other than that I like 8th. However, I would still be concerned with changing standard rules. Of course this is your show here, but just words of caution.

    Personally I would not play a ruleset that removed hordes and supporting attacks. The games would just take too long, and it already takes an entire afternoon and evening to play larger battles as people quibble over everything else. That's just my opinion though. Fantastic job so far, I really hope this takes off. I would sooner quit the hobby than play AoS so I am banking on this to keep some sort of community going. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding hordes and supporting attacks, in what way do they actually make the game better? Personally, I like to see units break faster instead of killing all the troops (more realistic too), which they will if Steadfast is nerfed, similar to 7th ed. Interestingly enough, I found that combat actually take longer in 8th ed due to big units being stubborn now.

      Delete
  46. I still feel like a clever player can easily deal with GW and halberd hordes. They are so hard to maneuver, so easily flanked or caught on scenery/forests where they don't ge their horde advantages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, they can be dealt with, but does that make it a good design choice to begin with? I feel a rule should actually add something positive to the game, and hordes only favours certain weapon types atm.

      Delete
  47. l like the idea of give our lose I with weapons and action. Like WFB2 and 3.

    Maybe the use of the result of dices charge could be give bonus to I. For example add the best dice to I bonus

    ReplyDelete
  48. l like the idea of give our lose I with weapons and action. Like WFB2 and 3.

    Maybe the use of the result of dices charge could be give bonus to I. For example add the best dice to I bonus

    ReplyDelete
  49. l like the idea of give our lose I with weapons and action. Like WFB2 and 3.

    Maybe the use of the result of dices charge could be give bonus to I. For example add the best dice to I bonus

    ReplyDelete
  50. You can work on those Beastmen and Skaven, then save everything you've here for 8th edition and start to work for 8,5th and make separate entries for 8,5th rules and armybooks so 8th players can be happy.

    I believe there are many people who want some change to the 8th to bring it more closer to the "perfect experience" that IMO lies between 6/7/8th and with some small additional tweaks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The plan is to have the army books be compatible with both systems, so I shouldn't have to make different versions. Some weapon costs might change though.

      Delete
  51. "Some weapon costs might change though." So the army book will no be compatible or the change of cost will be to the "v8.5" changes document?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the most part, it will be. About the only issues would be Chaos Warriors with great weapons, which probably needs to be a little more expensive. Nothing gamebreaking though.

      Delete
  52. What do you think about this project http://www.openhammer.org/index_en.html ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been in contact with the author. It's commendable, but I have yet to take a good look at it.

      Delete
  53. About Regeneration working at the end of every turn like the Hydra. I like the idea of regenerating monsters and characters being able to heal fully if left alone, and also gets rid of the clash with Ward, but what about units with 1 Wound and Regeneration?
    Do they come back from the dead? And if they dont what about Trolls? It would be a major nerf if they dont get to save against wounds on downed members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I need to take a look at how to resolve the rule for those units. I won't nerf trolls into oblivion, promise ;)

      Delete
  54. Oh, and rule changes I'm exited about:

    Get rid of supporting attacks. Love it. I like having lots of spearmen, historically it is the go-to weapon, yet in WHFB it is now basically a nerf. Doesn't stop me from having them, but would be nice if it wasnt an outright handicap!

    Get rid of Stomp. Nice one. Giving them impact hits would make way more sense. The game needs more focus on charging as it is.
    Thunderstomp is still good though. There SHOULD be casualties every turn infantry has a rampaging monster in their midst. Monsters need the love.

    Cannon-nerf. Not really a problem for me personally, but a return to seeing more great monstermodels would be awesome. Cant remember the last time I saw a Giant headbutt a Dragon, must have been more than a decade ago...

    BSB only working on break tests. Awesome, never even thought about that! I am sooo sick of it being in every...single...army. I am a sucker for balance and logic and it seems ludicries that the army commanders personal standard would be present at every minor engagement.
    A very good solution. Still a powerful tool but no longer such a meta-gamer no-brainer.

    Changing the Champion from a challenger to a buffer like other command-models. Sounds good but I have given it some thought and cant come up with anything suitably unique and balanced.
    Historically champions would either mince their way through their less talented opponents or stop other champions from doing the same. Thus they are the realistic alternative to WHFB's Heroes and Lords and are thus wildly outclassed at what they are supposed to be good at.
    Good luck sorting that one out, I will be glad to comment on any suggestions :)

    And thanks for your hard work, it is much appreciated. It is an exiting time for the hobby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw champions always as the most experienced warriors that lead the units. So they are more like the lower guys in the command chain, passing on the orders from the generals, shouting stuff like brace, charge, march, etc.
      In 40k Imperial Guard (or Astra Militarum) sergeants have 1 higher point of Leadership as well as an extra attack. Perhaps something similar can be done here?

      Delete
    2. +1 leadership might challenge the usefulness of generals, but if BSB are reduced to only re-rolling break tests, then maybe champions could allow reroll of panic.
      Of course that dos nothing for units Immune to Psych, hmm.
      Btw, in older editions of WHFB, a unit would always have a designated "Leader" that didnt have to be the champion (you could have both). Cant remember what it did, probably just for reforms.

      Delete
    3. How would the new BSB rule affect lower leadership armies (e.g. goblins)? Seems some really need those rerolls to stick around.

      Delete
    4. Champions will be more like "Officers" rather than challengers. I have a few ideas I am tinkering with, such as allowing re-rolls of march, redirect and so on, which all armies can use. Essentially some of the things that will now be lost due to the BSB nerf.

      As for Goblins and the like; they have large numbers which will mitigate the amount of panic tests they need to take, and Break tests will still work as normal, so it won't be a huge nerf to them. With an Orc boss, they will still have Ld9 like other armies.

      Delete
  55. Rerolls on march and/or re-direct sounds good. Will probably need more to have the reliable usefulness of music/standard.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hi!

    Not sure it's not too late, but a friend and I thought of something it might be worth to include in the "new rulebook":

    As it is in 8th edition, only one magical object of each type can be selected per character. It is not quite realistic, especially for armors... I mean, I understand someone can't wear two shields, but why not a magical shield and magical helm? Maybe 8.5 edition could be a good opportunity to fix this. A simple solution would be to add the part(s) of the body covered by a magic armor.

    As for magical weapons, I guess it's pretty normal you can't use two at a time (because you only have a limited number of attacks to execute, and how to share them between you weapons would quickly become a problem). But why wouldn't it be possible to take multiple magical weapons and choose the one to use at the beginning of melee phase?

    My opinion is that these changes are not to much of an overload for the players, and really can bring an additional dimension to the way players can use characters. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Something that has bothered me more than a few times and isn't mentioned:

    Allow potions to be used in the beginning of any phase, not just the beginning of a turn.
    It is annoying to forget, and even more so to take a potion and then fail a charge, seeing it completely wasted.
    Most annoying of all is of course taking a potion and seeing the enemy flee/not charge BECAUSE you took the potion and they just want to wait it out.
    How could they possibly know? And why take the potion unless you are sure you will need it? You only have the one ffs.

    Hope you will take it into consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Another project
    http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/10/warhammer-8-5-im-not-dead-yet.html

    ReplyDelete