Create a free forum in seconds.
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Da Warpath. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

Newz: Da Warpath's 9th Conversion Competition: Chariot Edition Edition - ENTER HERE!

Pages: (3) [1] 2 3  ( Go to first unread post )

 9th Edition Wishlist, (Yes really)
theorox
Posted: Feb 6 2012, 08:11 PM


Decidedly Average
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,144
Member No.: 5,753
Joined: 21-April 10



I've been watching a lot of batreps recently from Tom Richards ( http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tma..._1rOg_zGTa8lanw ) and I've seen some things about 8th edition that I would want changed to balance things out. I'm very happy with 8th overall and love the game, but some things are a bit wonky and poorly balanced. I'm sure we won't see 9th for many years yet, and I hope that when it comes it's just a cleaned-up version of 8th. It's therefore a bit early to wishlist, but I want to hear your thoughts anyway! smile.gif What I'd want:

Major things:

*Chargers strike first in the round they charge, or at least get an Initiative boost. Helps out cav, doesn't make much of a difference to infantry.
*ASF re-rolls only if you have higher Initiative, not equal or higher.
*Wardsaves (And MR) to apply against everything, including the "Big Spells". No instagibs!
*Remove Mindrazor. Stupid spell wich encourages no-skill play. There are other buffs!
*Be consistent, GW! (lol)

Minor things:

*Full supporting attacks for swarms, 1 SA is just not right...xD
*Boltthrowers Str7.
*Undead should be immune to poison. More of a AB/Errata thing really...
*No "Long range" penalty for missileweapons.
*You should be allowed to charge more than one enemy unit at once with one unit.
*Warbeasts never causing panic in friendly units when they flee or get destroyed etc.
*Handguns: 18" range and Str5. (This is more fitting for unrifled guns and separates them from crossbows.)
*All extra power/dispel dice have to be generated at the start of the magicphase.

That's all I can think of right now. What would you like changed, and what do you think about my suggestions?

Theo
Top
Warboss Gorbolg
Posted: Feb 6 2012, 08:28 PM


Orc
*

Group: Members
Posts: 369
Member No.: 6,649
Joined: 12-December 11



Number one on my wishlist would be for GW to start considering army books as being "living documents". For instance, now that Tomb Kings has been out for a while, revisit the book and try to make some minor tweaks that would bring it more in line with other 8th edition books. Could be as simple as some point changes for stuff. I think in the long run, this would have a great positive impact on the game as a whole. Other companies supposedly do this.

Other than that, I would like to see ridden monsters and other unique units more resilient to warmachines. I don't want dragons, griffons, marticores etc to be rampaging across the board, but nor do I like that some of most inpirational models are considered best left on a shelf.
Top
Gork Morksson
Posted: Feb 6 2012, 08:34 PM


Orc
*

Group: Members
Posts: 391
Member No.: 5,801
Joined: 3-June 10



Quite early for this yes.

anyways major nerfing of magic is prefered, at the moment the tactic part of the game is sometimes tossed out of the window in favor of a more yhatzee styled game where a lucky roll which even Luke Skywalker would call lame smile.gif

I would however like for the magic items to make a return. This is however not an edition question but rather a army book question. Besides it seems only we and TK got the really short draw since both ogres and vampires gets more magic items althou they are poorly disguised as Big names and such.

Mabye nerf steadfast a bit when flanked and reared to give movement some added punch.

Oh well lots of issues both minor and small, let's hope GW acctually plays the game so they can see what does and does not work before they start tampering with a new rule book laugh.gif
Top
Craze_b0i
Posted: Feb 6 2012, 08:46 PM


Warboss
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,515
Member No.: 5,714
Joined: 12-March 10



Having waded through about 40 pages of this wishlist stuff already on warseer I should perhaps keep away. But hey, since it's Theo posting... biggrin.gif

QUOTE
*Chargers strike first in the round they charge, or at least get an Initiative boost. Helps out cav, doesn't make much of a difference to infantry.


I don't really see a fluffy reason for this to happen. More realistic would be just give it to guys with lances and cavalry spears.

QUOTE
*No "Long range" penalty for missileweapons.

Again seems a bit unfluffy.

Otherwise your points are faily reasonable.

Here is the list of suggestions I sent to Jervis Johnson:

Infantry vs cavalry charge distances: To make cavalry playable again there is a need enlarge the difference, cav should be covering roughly double distance for an average charge. The easiest fix is to say units without Swift-Strider roll 2d6 but only use the highest die. Infantry would then be roughly 8" or 9", whereas cavalry would be 16" or 17".

Charging against single models: When your massive unit charges a single model then align the single model to the unit rather than vice verca. This cuts down some of the more extreme 'redirecting' tactics.

Flee & pursuit:
Make it more bloody. To get away clean without any harm the fleeing unit must roll double the pursuers' total. If it fails then it takes 2D6 wounds from that pursuing unit (1D6 wounds from a single model).

Cavalry flee & pursuit: They should revert to a simple 3d6, as was used in previous editions. Using 2 of 3 dice produces only 8.5 average, little different to infantry.

Watchtower Scenario: Use VPS. The Watchtower is worth +200 VPS.

Steadfast: Nice rule in principle but needs toning down, or at least create more ways to overcome it. One solution is that it (steadfast) can only reduce the breaktest modifier by up to 10. So for example if you lose combat by 15 points you still get a +5 modifier. Alternately say a unit that takes 50% casualties in one round gets jittery and loses steadfast. Alternately say steadfast allows you to reduce the breaktest modifier by the number of ranks you have, so for example a unit with 5 ranks and steadfast reduces breaktest modifier by 5. *Also Large Monsters count as having 1 rank.

Horde Rule: Again needs toning down to nerf all-powerful deathstar units. You could ditch the 3rd fighting rank rule (did they grow longer arms?) and instead have some moderate buff like +1 to your rank-bonus score. Alternately say rank bonus is based not on ranks but number of models behind the front rank ie. +1 for every five models counted, up to +3 maximum. Also on a related point it would balance combats more if 2 units in the same fight can add their bonus together, up to the +3 maximum.

Lances and cavalry spears: Strike first on the charge. Even striking before High Elves.

Cannons sniping:
Maybe some rule for single models or flyers. eg. there is a chance the shot goes off-target or simply does not register a hit. Flyers ignore the 'bounce'?

The Battle Standard: Any unit entitled to a magic banner should be allowed to carry the Battle-standard. It shouldn't need to be restricted to hero-level characters. Alternately have a rule where if the BSB dies then another model in the unit may pick up the flag (providing of course it is the sort of unit that would be able to carry a banner). In 'real life' if the BSB got sniped by the enemy then the guy next to him would pick up the flag. It would only be lost if the whole unit was killed or routed.



Top
Arfa
Posted: Feb 6 2012, 10:35 PM


Da Warpath's resident mad scientist of conversions
Group Icon

Group: Veterans
Posts: 4,471
Member No.: 2,092
Joined: 17-March 05



QUOTE (Craze_b0i @ Feb 7 2012, 07:46 AM)
The Battle Standard: Any unit entitled to a magic banner should be allowed to carry the Battle-standard. It shouldn't need to be restricted to hero-level characters. Alternately have a rule where if the BSB dies then another model in the unit may pick up the flag (providing of course it is the sort of unit that would be able to carry a banner). In 'real life' if the BSB got sniped by the enemy then the guy next to him would pick up the flag. It would only be lost if the whole unit was killed or routed.

Well thats the rules for regular standards sure, but a bsb rules arent just for the standard itself but also the heroic warrior underneath, the kings personal standard bearer who follows him to death or glory. If the BSB dies its not just about the standard falling, its about the demoralizing death of one of the armies greatest heroes. I dont agree with that change both in fluff, and in rules. Ld rerolls permanently unless you destroy/run down the unit of 100 skaven slaves? No thanks.

The only couple of changes Id make are as follows:

*Give certain weapons bonus' to initiative in the first round of combat. Lances would get +3I (only on charge), spears (both cav & foot) +2I & halberds +1I, although this extra initiative doesnt apply for ASF rerolls. It makes sense for the longer reach to actually have an effect after all.

*Make Magic Resistance applicable to all spells, not just damage ones. If you're resistant to a fireball I'd think you'd be just as resistant to magic itchyness and so on. Would also help lessen the nastiness that is Shadow magic. Say MR2 gives you a 5+ to ignore the effects, with ward saves only being added to magic missiles as is now? Also for vortex' it wouldnt negate the spell, just means that particular unit wouldnt have to take the rolls otherwise required.

*Bring in 40k 'cover saves' rather than having negatives to hit, with skirmishers or lone infantry models getting +1 to said cover. It works best with TLOS, and it means cover is effective against warmachines/magic missiles just as much as regular arrow fire, which makes sense to me. Obviously attacks that come from above (stone throwers, lightning bolts, foot of gork etc) would ignore this save unless you were actually IN the terrain (so, a forest or a building). 6+ for light cover, 5+ for heavy cover. As with 40k, at least 50% of the unit has to be covered to gain the save, and its treated as a regular ward save but cant be boosted by any way (except for being a skirmisher). Maybe even have models in a building count as skirmishers so they get a 4+ against shooting? On that note...

*Bring in maximum unit sizes for what can fit in a building, and describe a size for the 'folding fortress' while your at it (aka how many turrets, what can go in/on it etc). Agree with the Watchtower needing to be VPs in the scenario, although I'd make it worth a LOT of points (say, 500vps for games up to 3000pts, 1000vps after that? It is the entire point of the scenario after all).

*Bring back half victory points for half destroyed units! Noone likes to wade through 39/40 Chosen Warriors only to be denied a single achievement for it at the end of the game because that one lone guy stuck around, clinging to the standard with one hand and raising his middle finger with the other. I know they tried to 'simplify' the whole scenario system and make it more 40k-esque, but fantasy just doesnt work that way, the units are too damn big. Biggest block your going to see in 40k is what, 25 orks? That is a sub-par unit in our system, especially when we're seeing units of 100 gnoblars!

*Champions must pass a Ld test to accept/declare a challenge against a character. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that a NG champion will gladly step up to a Bloodthirster and sacrifice himself just so another character doesnt cop it. Sure its the noble sacrifice, but Im sure bravery would certainly come into it. If the test is failed you cannot call or accept with that character/champ but may choose to with another, or decline. Not sure if unmodified Ld or not, cant really decide there.

I think magic is balanced as it is now, a few of the older book items/characters aside, where spells can be devastating the 2D6 dice a turn is a great balancing tool. Im sure we've all had games where a single Psun or an important Mindrazor has lost them the game, but on the flip side we've all had games where you've really wanted to get that one Warpath off to finish a couple of units or deny a charge and rolled up snake-eyes for the power dice! Hordes, whilst powerful, have their own weaknesses and I reckon having half VPs will fix their overpowered-ness. Steadfast is a good counter to it after all, and you can always redirect it or tie it up with crap if need be, but if you do get stuck in you should get a reward for knocking 300pts worth of models out of the 600pt unit. Same with cannonballs, having cover saves to ignore the shot will tone them down ever so slightly and bring them in line with stone throwers in terms of being able to 'snipe'.

Ultimately though I think 8th is pretty damn close to spot on, and definitely the most fun edition I've played. Theyre fixing up the balance between army books really well and the rules tweaks theyve brought in provide a lot more chance to the game. 7th was very much an exercise in knowing exactly how long a certain distance was and it boiled down to a lot of people sitting roughly 9" away from eachother shouting abuse, and more experienced players landing cannons/lobbas with silly accuracy, whilst going through set motions of spells in the magic phase. 2D6" charge range is great as it encourages people to take a risk and can leave armies with units slightly infront of others, just as would happen in reality. Roll a double 1 on your charge and perhaps someone in the front rank tripped over a rock and the unit's charge halted? Roll a double 6 and they've whipped themselves into such a frenzy that they're litterally sprinting head-first at the opponent with absolute disregard for their own safety. Same with magic, no longer do we have the 'teclis mage council' and lvl2 'battery' wizards just there to charge more dice up for your main mage. Now magic is more devastating, but more random. You cant rely on the winds of magic being there for that one spell you always cast on turn 4 this time, and it makes it more exciting to see what those two dice come up as on that all important turn. Im loving this edition, and Im noticing a lot of people are returning to the hobby because of it, so good on you GW!

Arfa da Grate
Top
BorkBork
Posted: Feb 6 2012, 10:41 PM


also known as Bonapork
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4,307
Member No.: 1,951
Joined: 7-January 05



QUOTE (theorox @ Feb 6 2012, 08:11 PM)
*Be consistent, GW! (lol)


dream on!!! theo!!! biggrin.gif

but apart from that you have drawn up a pretty decent list.
But i dont want chargers striking first by default.....Cavalry needs a boost but they should still be toast if they charge in frontally against infantry (especially when they have spears).

The thing is that the infantry guy can attack the mounts head way before its rider can strike. Perhaps we need a system similar to what is in use by Newbury fast play ancients, where they have big bonusses for having longer weapons (but also big penalties for when you cock things up when you wield stupidly long weapons like pikes). Cavalry charging flanks should get a HUGE bonus though. I think that may tactify things up a lot.

And i largely agree with crazy's list as well.

QUOTE
Flee & pursuit: Make it more bloody


Or make it so that the first rank of the pursuer gets a 'free hack'. And extra round of attacks with some positive modifiers (depending on difference)
Top
Craze_b0i
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 12:50 AM


Warboss
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,515
Member No.: 5,714
Joined: 12-March 10



QUOTE (Arfa @ Feb 6 2012, 10:35 PM)
*Champions must pass a Ld test to accept/declare a challenge against a character. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that a NG champion will gladly step up to a Bloodthirster and sacrifice himself just so another character doesnt cop it. Sure its the noble sacrifice, but Im sure bravery would certainly come into it. If the test is failed you cannot call or accept with that character/champ but may choose to with another, or decline. Not sure if unmodified Ld or not, cant really decide there.



THIS. I love it. I would definately make it own unmodified leadership though. 'Inspiring Presence' can only take you so far. Especially when the boss is asking you to challenge something he's too scared to face himself. tongue.gif

Top
Morkmillian
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 06:11 AM


Orc
*

Group: Members
Posts: 643
Member No.: 6,462
Joined: 12-August 11



like you said 8th is really good.

i also think chargers should get some bonus to help strike first - maybe unit init test to strike first on charge - it just could be a bit much with teh +CR for charging aswell.

would be nice if canons could have the laser targeting systems removed tho.

last change would be some victory points awarded for half strength units or fleeing units.
we play 50% victory points for a unit that finishes below half its starting numbers.



but it all seems pretty balanced overall tbh and wouldnt cry if the above dindt change.
Top
theorox
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 07:13 AM


Decidedly Average
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,144
Member No.: 5,753
Joined: 21-April 10



Yes, half points for units below 50% and half points for units fleeing at the end of the game would bee good. That was actually the reason I started this thread, but then I forgot about it. laugh.gif

As for chargers striking first, maybe just +1I for cavalry spears and +2I for lances when charging? smile.gif Easy to remember, not over the top and helps out about 90% of cavalry. (Who doesn't have a spear?)

That being said, chargers striking first wouldn't be OP at all in 8th, usually. But the idea with the change is to help out cavalry anyway, so giving them an I boost like above would suffice, while yet being very streamlined I think. smile.gif

@Craze: Those charge ranges are too short! Combat turn 2 or 3 is a good thing, otherwise template spam would rule the game. Taking some damage from fleeing from combat is a good idea, but getting caught works pretty good, I think. 2D6 wounds at the attackers' str might be a good idea. I quite like Swiftstride as it is. VP's for Watchtower is good, but 500VP's! I like your steadfast ideas, but if it doesn't give stubborn elite infantry walk all over cheap guys. I don't think Steadfast is OTT at all right now, in like 15 games it has come into play just a handful times for me...xD (Seriously!) Hordes are fine, fighting in 3 ranks is good!

@Arfa: I like cover the way it is. Maximum unitsize in a building is good, especially for the Watchtower! The Champions having to take a LD test to challenge is very characterful. Can just imagine a gobbo boss pulling his hat down over his feet and cowering in front of that bloodthirster. biggrin.gif

Theo
Top
theorox
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 12:28 PM


Decidedly Average
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,144
Member No.: 5,753
Joined: 21-April 10



Oh, also something that I want to mention- when you enter mysterious terrain you roll a D6, on a 1-3 it's a normal forest/Marsh/whatever and on a 4+ you roll on the mysterious forest/marsh/whatever chart. So only half of the terrain is magical, not 80-85%. smile.gif That's something wich I would like.

Theo
Top
Snikpik
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 12:47 PM


Warboss
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 2,221
Member No.: 5,376
Joined: 1-July 09



I'd prefer it to by mysterious on a roll of 5 or 6 only. I like mysterious terrain but do not want it all over the board or even over half the board! The world of warhammer is a mysterious place but I cant see half the forests on the empire being mysterious. A large part maybe.

I agree with craze_boi about the cavalry. I guess coming from a more historical perspective on the use of cavalry I can see his point. Large bodies of men (or goblins or what not) with long pointy sticks can hold off cavalry pretty easily in a frontal charge and will largly hit the horse long before the rider gets in to combat. This is why frontal cavalry charges became obsolete pretty early on in the history of warfare and eventually led to the evolution of pistoliers. I would however agree with the increased initiative of those with lances as its pretty much what they were designed for.

I also agree with Arfa with the BSB. An armies standard was often given to a champion and so it should in warhammer.

I could go with all your other ideas though Theo.
Top
BorkBork
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 12:53 PM


also known as Bonapork
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4,307
Member No.: 1,951
Joined: 7-January 05



QUOTE (Snikpik @ Feb 7 2012, 12:47 PM)
I'd prefer it to by mysterious on a roll of 5 or 6 only. I like mysterious terrain but do not want it all over the board or even over half the board! The world of warhammer is a mysterious place but I cant see half the forests on the empire being mysterious. A large part maybe.


It make perfect sense snikpik. Those imperial twats have cut down all the regular trees to fuel those stanks. wink.gif So only the mysterious forrests remain.

But yeah, either the effects should go down or there should be indeed less of those mysterious forests.

In general i like the effect of not knowing what is in there, but it is also quite conflicting with archers and canons being able to shoot right through it.

Top
Craze_b0i
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 04:49 PM


Warboss
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,515
Member No.: 5,714
Joined: 12-March 10



QUOTE (theorox @ Feb 7 2012, 07:13 AM)
@Craze: Those charge ranges are too short! Combat turn 2 or 3 is a good thing, otherwise template spam would rule the game.

Well I am suggesting reducing the average charge (4" move) from 11" to between 8-9", so that's only a modest change. But one that creates a proper 'gap' between infantry/cavalry. That means you can position your cav so they have a reasonable chance to complete a charge roll. Right now its too hit and miss.

QUOTE
Taking some damage from fleeing from combat is a good idea, but getting caught works pretty good, I think.

I would have both. biggrin.gif

QUOTE
VP's for Watchtower is good, but 500VP's!

Well I think with 500VPS you still have the same problem as before. So long as you hold it then you more or less expect to win. Most games I see are decided by less than 300 VPS. So someone can put 50 zombies in the tower then just defend/sit-back with the rest of their army.

This post has been edited by Craze_b0i on Feb 7 2012, 04:50 PM
Top
Da Git
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 05:07 PM


Orc
*

Group: Members
Posts: 636
Member No.: 6,067
Joined: 1-February 11



QUOTE (Craze_b0i @ Feb 7 2012, 05:49 PM)
QUOTE
VP's for Watchtower is good, but 500VP's!

Well I think with 500VPS you still have the same problem as before. So long as you hold it then you more or less expect to win. Most games I see are decided by less than 300 VPS. So someone can put 50 zombies in the tower then just defend/sit-back with the rest of their army.

I think VPs for the Watchtower is a good idea. But I agree with Craze_b0i that 500 is too much. Especially in smaller battles. Why not make it a fixed percentage of the army size, rather than a fixed point level?

For example 10 %. Then you'd have 250 VPs in a 2500 point battle, and 300 in a 3k battle and so on.

Maybe more than 10 %. 15? 2500 points = 375 VPs, 3000 points = 450.

This post has been edited by Da Git on Feb 7 2012, 05:14 PM
Top
theorox
Posted: Feb 7 2012, 05:25 PM


Decidedly Average
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,144
Member No.: 5,753
Joined: 21-April 10



When I play there's generally not much left on the table at the end. laugh.gif (Usually on both sides, but not rarely just on mine, lol) so 250p in a 2500p game isn't that much. It should be expected that the one who holds the tower is the one who wins the game, the battle is for control of the tower after all, but there should be a possibility for things to turn out differently if a lot of the holding army is wiped out. smile.gif

And 50 zombies in the watchtower? Any day! My savages kill 20 guys and then 20 more crumble. That unit would be blown through in a couple of turns! (Including raising)! 20 Chaos Warriors though...*shrugs*

Theo
Top
« Next Oldest | Orc and Goblin Stronghold | Next Newest »
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free

Topic OptionsPages: (3) [1] 2 3 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0911 seconds | Archive