1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Please welcome Irisado and Borgnine to the Moderation team! They have proved themselves invaluable for the past few years and now they may make their efforts to make this forum a great place direct!
  3. The General's handbook has been updated, what fun awaits the undying hordes?

Warhammer: Ultimate Edition OR Fixing the holes in 8th.

Discussion in 'The Necrarch Workshop' started by Blutsauger, Jun 17, 2015.

  1. Blutsauger

    Blutsauger Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,091
    So just in case 9th edition turns out to be poo, and I decide to keep using 8th edition, what fixes and tweaks would players recommend for 8th edition? I mean, using it at all is using house rules so at that point you may as well go whole hog and fix all the little things you don't like about the game in the first place.

    EDIT:

    Ok, so proposed changes are:

    1 - Steadfast relies on rank BONUS, not ranks. Disrupted units are not steadfast.
    2 - Cannons (and other templates) only hit rider OR mount, not both.
    3 - Remove the limitation on the number of times a unit can redirect it's charge.
    4 - Being mounted no longer gives a boost to armour save.
    5 - All spells allow ward saves.

    Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2015
  2. LordTobiothan

    LordTobiothan Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    583
    The only two real big ones on my list are the magic phase and cannons. The former requiring quite an overhaul of the rules and the latter just needing some less reliability and higher point cost.

    The bias in me wants a fear/terror rework too, but being undead, of course i want that.

    The rules otherwise do just about all i want from them as far as the brb is concerned.
     
  3. Blutsauger

    Blutsauger Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,091
    Well, I think there needs to be a return to cannons only hitting rider OR mount, not both, and I think they should really roll to hit.

    The magic phase is a bit of a trick. Not sure how to work that one.
     
  4. Infernal Skull

    Infernal Skull Wight King

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    442
    My friends and I have been discussing the same thing. I guess we're just waiting for 9th to drop to pull the trigger on it. Here are some ideas I've had:

    Keep the army books as-is (8th Ed versions) and just make the changes to the core rules.

    Use the 6th Edition way of generating power and dispel dice, casting, dispelling, and using bound spells, but maintain 8ht's rules for spell types (hex, direct damage, etc). Also have wizards add their magic level to the rolls (to account for the overall higher casting values in the 8th Ed spell lists)

    This will allow consistent (ie: reliable) dice generation. On average, the dice count will be lower, and that will mean that mainly the higher level wizards will be the ones able to cast the super powerful spells. (And remember- 6th Ed only lets you roll one more dice than your level, so a level 4 is rolling 5 dice max (17 average +4 for level= 21). Lower level wizards can't "6-dice it" hoping for irresistible; a level 2, for example could only roll 3 dice.)

    Magic Resistance is back to adding an extra dispel die. Adding to a Ward save is ridiculous; nothing should be able to get a 2+ ward, certainly not an entire unit.

    Skirmishing troops are back to the way they formed up and moved in 6th: Just a mass, spread out. 360 LOS and no formation or frontage. They form up (but still don't get ranks) in combat.

    When charging a single model or a skirmishing unit the charged model "closes the door" to the charger once they make contact. his prevents the unrealistic situation of a single model redirecting an entire regiment. (again, this is back to the way it worked in 6th.)

    For combat, Steadfast only gives a +1 CR (like outnumbering used to).

    Fear: If you lose combat to a fear causing enemy with more ranks, take a break test as normal. If the test is failed, unit breaks, if it's passed you suffer a number of wounds = to difference in CR. (ie: Lose combat by 4, but pass the break test, 4 men are "scared off") Works like a "reverse instability" A compromise between having units auto break and what we have currently (nothing).

    Terror: Test when charged by AND when charging Terror causing enemies. Failed test= flee.

    Victory Points: Controlling table quarters awards +100 VPs each (needs to be a unit with at least one rank). Units consisting of more than 1 model award half VPs is the unit is below half of its starting size (essentially, characters and monsters need to be fully dead to award any VPs but regiments award half VPs for killing more than half the unit).

    I'd consider going back to double-move, non-random charges as well. Anything that eliminated unnecessary dice rolling. But then we need to get rid of free measuring. At the very least, if random charges stays in (I'm not terribly opposed to it) I'd change it so that when a unit fails a charge, it moves forward it's normal move rate, not the higher of the two dice. (It's easier to remember that way.)

    So, that should get you started. Off the top of my head, those are the things that stand out as needing the most attention. There are lots of little tweaks that could be made, but I'd prefer to make minimal changes rather than rewrite everything. The fewer changes you have, the easier it is to meet a new player and explain what the differences are. "We are playing 8th, with these 6 changes, here's a nice short list of what's different."
     
  5. Infernal Skull

    Infernal Skull Wight King

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    442
    Oh, and shooting at War Machines should randomize between the machine and the crew again. I don't mind cannons being super accurate if there was a way to shoot back at them and take them out. Archers practically cannot hurt a cannon because they're always rolling against the toughness of the machine. I've placed large templates (Doom Rockets, spells) that covered the whole cannon and crew only to have it not hurt the machine with the single template hit, so nothing happens. Buuuuuuuulll shiiiiiiiiiit. :D
     
  6. Extroadinary Legionnaire

    Extroadinary Legionnaire Zombie

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Messages:
    11
    Some good ideas fellas. An idea I have thrown out is allowing single models and characters to take an initiative check to dodge a cannonball. That way it makes cannons a bit less accurate at sniping and more suited to taking out rank and file.

    I quite like 8th edition rules for steadfast. Maybe just tweak it so you can't be steadfast when disrupted or against terror causing models.
     
  7. LordTobiothan

    LordTobiothan Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    583
    You cant have steadfast when disrupted. You have no ranks, so you cant possibly have more then your enemy.
     
  8. Blutsauger

    Blutsauger Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,091
    Well, as per 8th you don't have a rank BONUS when disrupted. But you still have the ranks, and that's all that counts for Steadfast.

    That would be something I'd change for sure. I'd tie Steadfast directly to rank bonus. So a single rank isn't steadfast, and a disrupted unit can't be steadfast.
     
  9. Blutsauger

    Blutsauger Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,091
    Ok, so proposed changes are:

    1 - Steadfast relies on rank BONUS, not ranks. Disrupted units are not steadfast.
    2 - Cannons (and other templates) only hit rider OR mount, not both.
    3 - Remove the limitation on the number of times a unit can redirect it's charge.
    4 - Being mounted no longer gives a boost to armour save.
    5 - All spells allow ward saves.

    Thoughts?
     
  10. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Very inteeesting, not sure about losing the armour bonus for being mounted; how about the Toughness bonus used for bikes in 40k?
     
  11. Undying Scourge

    Undying Scourge Blood Knight

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    I like all those changes except the loss of armour save for being mounted. It would make already rather squishy elite cavalry units like Blood Knights and to a lesser degree Black Knights even more squishy. I think maybe having a unit with a single rank being effectively stubborn is a bit silly though, maybe you should change it to a unit with a rank bonus of +2 at minimum? Alternatively, and probably more sensibly, just go with Infernal Skull's idea of +1 or +2 CR unless charged in the flank or rear.

    My main problem with 8th, alongside Steadfast and magic being OP, is that cavalry is extremely ineffective.

    As for magic, again Infernal's idea is the one that works best I think, but I agree with the ward saves for all spells, and I also think MR adding to the ward save is great for protecting against those silly spells even more.

    Eliminating or reducing the randomness of random charges would, again, be a good idea, because having a cavalry unit fail a charge from 12" away is ridiculous, as is having a unit of dwarfs getting a 12" or even 15" charge.

    Something else that annoys me is BSBs. They're too strong, and I think they should only apply to Break tests not Fear / Terror. Psychology is almost pointless in 8th because of what BSBs do and also because of Steadfast.

    Failed Fear tests should also cause the enemy to only hit on 6s instead of giving them WS 1, like in 6th edition, because having them hit you on 5s is silly especially considering how cavalry can't stand up to subsequent rounds of combat very well, they almost always have to break the enemy on the charge.

    Also I think Heroes / Lords in a unit should take the test separately all the time as though they were a separate unit, but still confer their LD to the unit they are in, this way it puts the focus on heroes and their ability to stand up to terrifying opponents more than the common soldier. Also when a unit is defeated by a Fear causing unit, unless it causes Terror or Fear or has a living character in the unit that did not refuse a challenge if one was issued then the unit should auto-break like in 6th. This would give a "stand and fight" approach and would make it, again, more hero based, but not on a stupid "Herohammer" level.
     
  12. Infernal Skull

    Infernal Skull Wight King

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    442
    The main reason cavalry is ineffective is because of Steadfast. Cavalry need to hit fast and hard and break the unit on the charge, but a unit of infantry will almost never have fewer ranks than a cav unit, so they're basically unbreakable.

    With regard to losing Steadfast if flanked, there's fundamentally no difference between Steadfast and Outnumbering except the way you count it (Higher Unit Strength vs More Ranks) and the effect (+1CR vs Stubborn). You didn't lose Outnumbering by being flanked, hence my logic that you shouldn't lose Steadfast either.

    That puts the rule back to what it effectively was in 6th/7th. The only difference is that now we'd be counting who has more ranks rather than who has more models. Counting ranks is definitely quicker/ easier, and that gives a disadvantage to Horded units, who may have more models, but will definitely have fewer ranks. That's the trade off for being able to attack with more dudes.
     
  13. Infernal Skull

    Infernal Skull Wight King

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    442
    Here's an idea-- What if we were to LOSE the "Step Up" rule, but KEEP "Supporting Attacks?"

    So in the fight, models slain in the first rank don't get to fight (like in 6th/7th) but the models behind them still get their supporting attacks?

    That could potentially SLOW play, since you now need to keep track of how many models aren't attacking, but it could be a nice balance between 6th Edition's "you wiped out the front rank before I could attack, so I'm just SOL" and 8th Edition's "Your high initiative is meaningless, because all of my guys still get to fight anyway."
     
  14. MasterSpark

    MasterSpark Nostalgian Staff Member True Blood

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,669
    The thing with steadfast and removing the stubborn part of the rule is that it leaves infantry at the mercy of all the killy stuff that's also around. They'll now be likely to break after the first round of combat just like in 6th and 7th, although they do get the chance to cause some damage first.
     
  15. Undying Scourge

    Undying Scourge Blood Knight

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    That's fair enough, which is why you would want to prioritise getting Stubborn in a unit, there are ways of doing this easily, and with BSBs and a general you would likely stand. You'd also want killy heroes and lords to support your infantry. Also it would make players take more shooting units that can whittle the killy units down before they get to your lines, and don't forget about magic. With the right debuffs you would beat them easily, especially with a more reliable magic system.

    I don't really see a problem tbh.
     
  16. MasterSpark

    MasterSpark Nostalgian Staff Member True Blood

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,669
    I think it would remove infantry from the game more or less entirely, unless it's of the extra killy or tough kind. They'd just cost more points than they're worth and fast & hitty cavalry would be back in undisputed top spot. Static CR isn't nearly enough to counter active CR in 8th edition and that's why infantry needs to be able to stick around despite losing a round of combat.

    Bretonnians would make a big comeback, though, which would be pretty funny.

    Edit: Making disrupted units lose the stubborn bonus from steadfast would probably be a great change, I think. It would make flanking & rear charging a much bigger thing.
     
  17. Infernal Skull

    Infernal Skull Wight King

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    442
    Yeah, but that's probably okay. Part of the problem with the game is that it drags on forever. And that's in part because combats now last until almost everyone is dead. Having them break sooner would speed things up. And people just need to consider that when writing a list: "Should I field this giant death star knowing that it won't be taking unmodified break tests all the time?

    Losing 15 guys out of a 100-man unit in a round of combat is no problem when they'll have an unmodified break test re-rolled with a BSB.

    Losing 15 guys out of a 100-man unit in a round of combat equals one fleeing death star when when they have to take a "regular" test, even with the BSB re-roll.

    I'd like to see an end to all of the "Immune to Warhammer" exploits. :)
     
  18. Undying Scourge

    Undying Scourge Blood Knight

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    I get what you're saying, and I kind of agree. But you have to think about chaff and redirecting, etc. if they have a big deadly cav unit running around, as long as you keep a cool head and know how to deal with it you will be able to deal with it.

    Another method is that you could give spears a bonus against cavalry, giving them a new formation as well would help, like a phalanx formation where the cavalry take impact hits with a strength value equal to that of the spearman. Alternatively spears could get ASF against cavalry.
     
  19. MasterSpark

    MasterSpark Nostalgian Staff Member True Blood

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,669
    Players and their lists would certainly change if steadfast didn't make units stubborn but I think it's a fitting thing when there are so many killy things in the game. A unit of 3 charging skull crushers would have a good chance of routing an endlessly large unit of non-stubborn empire infantry even if there's a general and BSB nearby. And a mounted chaos list can feature several things like that. There should be ways to remove the stubborn bonus, though, which is definitely lacking today. Disrupting the unit should remove it, and it would make you very careful to chaff or shoot away anything that can threaten your unit's flank.

    Edit: Perhaps disruption should also be easier to cause to give even more incentive?

    In 6th edition an infantry unit's static CR had a decent chance of holding off a unit of cavalry on the charge. Stubborn wasn't needed to make infantry useful there until the inevitable army book power creep started.
     
  20. LordTobiothan

    LordTobiothan Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    583
    I think the issue is, much like 7th, they wont have a big hard hitting cavalry unit, they'll have 7 single rank hard hitting cavalry units, and a bunch of characters running around breaking 100 man blocks by themselves.

    Steadfast was made to combat 5 models costing 250 points wrecking 50 models costing 600, 100% of the time on the first round.

    I think we really just need more (but difficult) ways to break it. Disruption should definitely do it, and ive always played that it does, but more options should exist.
     
  21. Undying Scourge

    Undying Scourge Blood Knight

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    Failed fear test could break it. Losing a combat could break it for the subsequent turn, and unless they win the combat in the next turn they auto break?

    How does that sound?
     
  22. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Re cavalry, I think the mount is underrated in the rules; the power of the charge comes from these large powerful creatures. They're about the height and mass of Ogres, that get Impact Hits in addition to regular attacks. How about mounts autohit on the charge, but only when formed up in a regiment?
     
  23. LordTobiothan

    LordTobiothan Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    583
    The fear test one is actually genius, im surprised it never occurred to me. Losing it just because you lost combat seems to counter its intended purpose though, and auto running for anvil units would just feel bad.

    Wouldn't it be easier to just make them do impact hits? 1 impact hit per horse with +1 strength for every horse behind the first. Of course bretonnia kinda shits on making cavalry better due to usually breaking the game if cavalry get good changes.
     
    Dragonet likes this.
  24. Undying Scourge

    Undying Scourge Blood Knight

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    Yes but I did specifically say that they only lose it on the next turn, so you still get a full turn to get a deadly flanking charge in / cast spells etc. etc. so the unit is bogged down but not for the whole game.
     
  25. LordTobiothan

    LordTobiothan Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    583
    I might try testing it soon to see how it feels, because i can see it working, i just have reservations, ill still probably leave out the auto running for at least the first test run.
     

Share This Page