• It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more and sign-up! here.

TMS

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Nov 26, 2008
4,662
Sweden
Complexity and quality doesn't need to go hand in hand though. Often it is the simple and elegant solutions that work out the best, after all. :)
 

Count Lasombra

Vampire Count
True Blood
Jul 10, 2010
1,698
Memphis
A rule should be just as complicated as it needs to be.Simple rules will only ever be a problem if the rule fails to do what's intended.I don't have alot of gamers around me all the time,so I often find myself trying to entice normal folk into taking an interest.It takes a long time to teach someone how to even play warhammer,much less having them design their own list and put forth any sort of resistance.
I am not trying to dumb it down or anything,it is not my M.O.,I just think that there is often a more elegant solution to a given problem that the first one that presents itself-I'm not implying anything.
I was under the impression that we were "fixing" the rules,but that can mean alot of things.For instance;the changes we make in order to make the game more realistic(if that is the goal),won't neccesarily make it more fun.
What I do know for a fact is that rules within a given system have to work well together.The more exeptions and subclauses there are to each individual rule multiplies the likelyhood of there being a resulting inequality or condradiction within the system itself.
The rules of chess are very simple.The fact that they are does not make it any easier to win.
Ease of play is also a very important factor,the game designers at GW had to make some very difficult choices I'm certain.
Imagine if you could make the game twice as realistic...but at the cost of making it take twice as long to play an average game....would you?
Alot of things go into making a good stew.
I vote 5.
 

logan054

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Aug 16, 2007
2,601
Colchester
I agree that rules do not need to be complicated for sake of complexity, the opposite is also true, I am personally not a massive fan of random charges especial when the variables are rather large, infact I think this is one of the biggest issues with 8th ed, as it standards it seems that everything is handled by dice, with this mind I feel I have won most of my games because I am simply rolling more dice than my opponent. So to you point of fun, is option 5 actually more fun than option 2 or 3? how can it be? Option 5 is very similar to the other options, none of these options will take longer to resolve than the other.

With the posts I am seeing here I don't see why you even bothering to try and change the BRB, option 5 isn't all that different from the BRB, you just roll less dice, its still just as random and the difference in charge range still isn't going to be all that massive, at the end of the day its just one flawed system replacing another, I do appreciated however that DoN is tried to make a compromise.

For me however the altered version of Anilar's works better for me, I may well start my own project for 8th ed as clearly I am unable to agree with any of you on the issues here.
 

Count Lasombra

Vampire Count
True Blood
Jul 10, 2010
1,698
Memphis
Don't feel alienated Logan054 :(
Disagreement is good,it sparks ideas.If we all agreed there would be nothing to talk about.There is no malice in my argument,I doubt anyone else is feeling any.
You're cool with me man.
 

Disciple of Nagash

Oldblood
Staff member
Feb 12, 2008
27,732
Well I am glad to see me idea got support! xd

But what do you guys mean by cav 3D6 discarding the lowest?

This would could potentially mean:

8 (M) plus max on 2D6 on 12 plus 3 = 23" charge?

For me that is way too far, or have I got it wrong? At any rate, how cav or swiftstrider etc work in the charge is something we can clarify when we get to those sections.

The basic rule for charging is:

M + D6 + 1


That ok?


@ Logan: We do have to go with the majority otherwise we will be discussing it forever. You will find in some areas your ideas are the same, in some not. It will be the same for all of us - don't give up on us yet!
 

Count Lasombra

Vampire Count
True Blood
Jul 10, 2010
1,698
Memphis
The 3d6 drop lowest is just like auto swiftstride with no number added to it.To allow mv 9 or 10 creatures to reach or exceed double their MV on the charge.
1D6+6 for cav/flyers would do roughly the same thing,but increases min charge distance,reducing the possibility of failed charges.
 

logan054

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Aug 16, 2007
2,601
Colchester
I have no issues with you guys at all, I am starting to think however I am going to try and help you guys and when it comes to the finish thing I'm going to be like "yeah, is that really what I would rather play than 8th ed".

Dwarfs with a possible charge range of 10 and cavalry a possible charge range of 23" just seems silly me, i would never introduce this idea to anyone.

I didn't really have any issues with how charging worked in 7th, a bit of randomness is cool as it does limit the maths hammer a bit but think this is just taking it to a extreme much like 8th ed is currently.

If half variation for infantry and cavalry then you have a happy medium.
 

Montesque

Ghoul
Nov 17, 2010
139
Great state of Texas
I'm not recommending that we change from option 5, as that's the one most people seem to like already, but I am curious about 1 thing:

Why are we considering the straight version 7 rules for charging to be Out of bounds? Most people seemed happy with those at the time, and they were both simple and effective. Again, not recommending we change necessarily, just seeking clarification.
 

Bishop

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Feb 5, 2009
2,683
Toronto, Ontario
One thing (that I think most people like) is the fact that charges are random in 8th.

Most of the time in 7th I could get charges off vs my opponent if my Move stat was only 1" higher then my opponents. Most experienced gamers were able to do this, even at complex angles... (like sniping characters with a mortar/cannon from 50" inches away diagonally)!

The "randomness" is a nice bonus. The problem is that the charge distances for 8th are TOO random and can result in a unit of Dwarves charging further then a unit of Calvary.
 

Montesque

Ghoul
Nov 17, 2010
139
Great state of Texas
Mk. I had seen a lot of complaints about the randomness, and one thing you could definitely say about 7th was that it was very much NOT random, I see now that we're looking for a happy medium. Fair enough.

thanks Bishop :)
 

logan054

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Aug 16, 2007
2,601
Colchester
I don't really mind more randomness in the game however with 8th its to random, you have silly things like Chaos warriors charging 16", whats that about!
 

logan054

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Aug 16, 2007
2,601
Colchester
You guys shouldn't give up on this, while I don't agree with you I am sure you guys will come up with something you are all happy with which is the most important thing.
 

Anilar

Wight King
Sep 1, 2010
424
Skanderborg
Just came up with a crazy thought.
Charge rules as pr. 7th edition.
But but but erhmm but.
A set number of 8th edition random charges pr. army. It could be 2-5-10-1d6. 2 pr. 1000 points something like that.
Which give you the option to say ill make a random charge with these guys, charging those maybe safe cavalry unit over there. But gives you a limited number, so you dont get crazy charges all over the place.
 

Bravo_10

Dark Lord of Eternal Sorrow
True Blood
Jul 26, 2010
1,285
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Hmm...interesting ideas you guys have had so far. I feel like I may be intruding on an established discussion, but anyway...

I don't really think a set number of random charges per army would work. Personally, I would just charge all of my cavalry normally and then charge all or most of my infantry randomly, just to get the maximum possible amount of movement, and I could see others doing the same.

It's a bit complicated, but I think something like this might work:

Models with M6 and below roll D3 + 2, which gives M4 troops 7-9 inches of charge range, and M6 gets 9-11 inches. M7 and up would roll 2D3 + 3, which gives them an average of 12-16. It's not pretty, but it's the best I could come up with. The only problem I see with it is that M6 cannot possibly move double their base speed.

If you think about a real battlefield, most units of the same type of soldiers will charge with basically the same speed. There will however be very slight variation simply because we're all human, so D3 seems like an appropriate amount of randomness.
 

About us

  • Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.

Quick Navigation

User Menu