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:
    1,090
    So my thinking is that cavalry units tend to be so much more powerful than infantry for a couple of reasons.

    1 - They are faster. Duh.
    2 - The tend to feature superior stats.
    3 - They tend to feature superior armour saves.
    4 - They tend to feature super characters because of points 1 and 3.

    So even if they get bogged down in a unit of infantry, they can grind them down over several turns, relying on their superior stats and character support to carry them through. Just look at the popularity of our own Black Knight bus.

    So my thoughts are that removing the +1 armour save will:

    1 - Make cavalry mounts less attractive for characters
    2 - Make cavalry less powerful in extended combats.

    This should make it less attractive to put all your characters in cavalry units and charge willy-nilly across the board. The counterpoint being that they are no less killy, and players now have the option to remove Steadfast by flanking enemy units.

    I think it would make cavalry units more of a calculated risk instead of the no-brainer they currently are.
     
  2. Undying Scourge

    Undying Scourge Blood Knight

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    But they aren't a no brainer, they are inferior to infantry because of steadfast. Cavalry can't grind through several turns unless it's chaos knights vs peasants, because they're much smaller in number. Also riding a horse does realistically make you harder to kill because it's harder to hit you since there's the horse in the way and you're higher up.

    Also it wouldn't nerf characters at all because you'd just take magic items with +1 AS so you'd have a 1+ anyway, it would just make things like Blood Knights even worse and supremely easy to kill, with a lousy 3+ armour save, so then it would be 50 points for a knight with only a 3+ AS. Think about this. If anything Blood Knights should have a 1+ AS since they're so expensive.

    "Super characters" aren't the fault of the main rules it's the fault of the army books and the players themselves.
     
  3. Regis Von Carstein

    Regis Von Carstein Skeleton

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    95
    Like someone said, BSB's are way too good and it is basically auto include for all armies (except undead I guess). Right now adding a Battle Standard to a hero is simply a 25 pt upgrade.

    I wish we could return to the rules for BSB's from 6th. Yes you can take a BS for 25 points but now you cannot have a shield or great weapon. This would make BSB's more vulnerable ( and less killy).

    Making cav -1 AS is really pointless I think. Calvary is not very good as is. But I guess this depends on local Meta...

    I also think the number of power dice/ dispel dice generated should be more proportional to the number of points per side. having a grand 6k vs 6k battle with 2d6 PD does seem silly. Perhaps letting level 1 wizards generate on 6+, level 2 on 5+... and level 4 on 3+ solve this.

    Also, we've already made a house rule that a wizard can not throw more than his level +2 PD per spell. So a level 1 can only use 3 power dice and only a level 4 can use 6 power dice.
     
  4. LordTobiothan

    LordTobiothan Crypt Horror

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    583
    If your going to try to balance power dice to point level ive always liked doing 1d6 per 1000 points (d3 per 500). This keeps the big spells out of smaller games, normalizes for regular games and makes it epic in big games.
     
  5. Regis Von Carstein

    Regis Von Carstein Skeleton

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    95
    The problem I find is that sometimes there is a point in the game when someone has 7 PD you have 6 DD and they 6-dice a nuke spell hoping for a miscast... I think miscasts need to be improved if a player can get into a situation where they are hoping for the miscast
     
  6. Undying Scourge

    Undying Scourge Blood Knight

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    293
    Just use the 6th edition magic system...

    The main thing that needs to be changed is the way cavalry works, the overpowered spells, and the over-prevalence of infantry blobs.
     
  7. Infernal Skull

    Infernal Skull Wight King

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    442
    I really think that getting rid of Steadfast's "Stubborn" and awarding half VPs for a half-destroyed unit will help curtail large infantry "death stars."

    Part of the lure of taking a 70-100 man unit is knowing that it will almost never yield VPs because it practically cannot be completely destroyed in 6 turns. Your opponent will spend the entire game chipping away at it and get nothing in reward. If they can get 500 VPs because they brought your 1000-point unit below half, that will at least be something. Even if it doesn't completely discourage death stars, it will help balance them out because you can get some significant VPs out of them without having to kill them completely.

    And yeah, with the 6th Ed magic dice generation, wizards can only roll one more dice than their level. If we keep the 8th Ed spells and casting difficulties, the unit-deletion spells can only be cast by high level wizards. and 5 dice is the most they can roll, so even then they need a lot of luck to cast a value 25 spell.
     
  8. Quinten

    Quinten Grave Guard

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    The thing with cavalry is they are below average when you take just units of them. But stick a bunch of characters in them and they become unstopable. Therefore we need to find a way to boost regular cavalry and de-buff the cavalry star. About magic, why not make it so that you roll a D6 for every 1000pts of game you are playing (Eg. 1250pts gets D6, 2500pts gets 3D6) the caster gets the D6 total and the dispeler gets the D3 total. Surprisingly enough this yields almost the exact averages of dispeler/caster dice levels as the current system (at 2000pts). I don't know the sixth edition magic system so could someone please explain it. I totally agree with the disabling nuke spells for lower level wizards but then you need a different way of dealing with deathstars.
     
  9. Regis Von Carstein

    Regis Von Carstein Skeleton

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    95
    I like your idea of a proportional increase in PD but I don't get your example. would it be like 0-1499 = D6, 1500-2499 = 2D6, 2500 - 3499 = 3D6?

    In my gaming group, the convention is that no more than 2 heroes/lords can go into 1 unit and cav must by 5 wide. These rules were never discussed but everyone seems to adhere to them.

    I have never had to face Cav death stars so I don't really know what if feels like. I know that when my dwarf friend decides to use a horde of GW dwarf warriors, I usually chaff/avoid it or try to flank it. But with Cav I can see it might be much harder to deal with due to the mobility.

    6th edition worked like this: Army = 2PD, level x wizard = x PD So if you had a level 4 and 2 level 2 wizards you would get 2 + 4 + 2 + 2 = 10 PD.

    For dispel dice it was: Army = 2DD, level 1/level 2 wizard = 1DD and level 3/level 4 = 2DD. So in the example above you would have 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 6DD

    I did not like this system because Magic phases were really predictable.

    I would actually like to see some sort of a hybrid dice generation.
     
  10. Quinten

    Quinten Grave Guard

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    This is exactly how it would work.
    I think this would just make magic problems worse. An army that spammed wizards could have nuke spells going off left right and center and I agree that magic needs to have a random flavour.

    Building on the idea of limiting units to only so many characters. What about putting in restrictions on the number of duplicate lords in an army kinda of like the number of duplicate rare of hero choices now. (Eg. No more than one duplicate lord choice or two duplicate hero choices (This could scale up in larger point values)). Additionaly I would like to see their be a restriction of 50% Lords AND hero's in games. This allows players to field powerful characters in smaller games while helping disable some deathstar taking.

    Infantry need steadfast. Without it most army's infantry would just crumble as soon as a monster looked at it funny. However, not being able to take steadfast away is also ridiculous. Therefore I agree with people that think that Steadfast should be taken away with rear and flank charges with units that are at least two ranks deep but I think that any model with the Large Target special rule should also be able to remove Steadfast to give monsters a bit of a break. This means that infantry is powerful when facing units head on but will likely break when flanked.
     
    Dragonet likes this.
  11. Regis Von Carstein

    Regis Von Carstein Skeleton

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    95
    Interestingly enough that is how we "home-ruled" the steadfast. If a unit gets charged by a ranked unit of at least 10 models (or 5 cav) then it is not steadfast anymore. Also, we never duplicate Lord choices. This is not agreed upon, just something no one ever does.

    The only problem I see with your system Quinten is that a 2400 point battle will play much differently than a 2500 point battle when it comes to magic.... Perhaps there is a way to scale it more "smoothly".
     
  12. Quinten

    Quinten Grave Guard

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    I thought that too but couldn't see a way to do it without having way more math than necessary. If anyone can think of something simple it would work very well. that being said I don't really see the jump being that much of a problem. Most people already play point values divisible by 500pts. Personally I have never played a 2400pt and I don't think many people do but it is still a legitimate concern.
     
  13. Blutsauger

    Blutsauger Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,090
    I also didn't like it, because some armies (Daemons) completely broke the system. I also like that currently, I still get a meaningful number of dispell dice even if I take little or no wizards myself, whereas under the old system not taking wizards was a guaranteed way to get slaughtered in the magic phase.
     
  14. Quinten

    Quinten Grave Guard

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    I think that armies without wizards or any magical defense have it to easy right know. I think a system that is both random and allows for more extra dice generation from wizards than just channeling (maybe channeling once for every wizard level not just every wizard) might be in order.
     
  15. Blutsauger

    Blutsauger Vampire Count True Blood

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,090
    The old argument about magic used to be that the only way to deal with it was to bring your own magic. Like, if someone invested heaps in warmachines you could mitigate their impact through clever use of your units, positioning of terrain and taking advantage of it, target priority, etc. But none of that mattered against magic. It didn't matter where you put your units or how you used them, you were getting blasted by spells no matter what. Unless you brought your own wizards. People then felt like taking wizards was mandatory, and a lot of people didn't like it.

    Currently, if you don't take any wizards then the magic phase isn't going to be kind to you, but you've still got an oar in the water.
     
    Dragonet likes this.
  16. Quinten

    Quinten Grave Guard

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    I agree with you just think the oar is a bit too deep.
     
  17. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Was thinking back to the Ao$ rumours surrounding formations; if this is to be the Ultimate Edition could we employ some of those ideas to encourage more complex interactions between the units? Marching in column (2-3 wide) +1", +2" on roads? Square/Hedgehog +1T vs cavalry, 1" move, no flanks? Allow units size 10 or under to Skirmish?
     
  18. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    On reflection I take back the marching column idea, nobody would march in column once battle is joined; maybe one for special scenarios like ambushes.
     
  19. Count Vashra

    Count Vashra Lord of Shadows True Blood

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,536
    Like, if an army was ambushed it would deploy in a marching column, and perhaps the ambushers would deploy on either side of the column.
     
    Dragonet likes this.
  20. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Exactly! It's not exactly original, but it's one of the most basic strategies you can employ to slow an army on the march, or to cut off reinforcements. I'm sure there's a dozen of these scenarios in White Dwarf alone, but I like the idea of the defender struggling with discipline as opposed to fear or panic. I understand we can change formation if we have a musician and pass a Ld test? Simply remove the General's bubble in Turn 1 before he's had time to reorganise his troops; units caught in column or out of formation have always been sitting ducks, just like fleeing units.

    I'm very interested in infantry having recourse to a defensive formation like the testudo, hedgehog or square, it seems to make a ton of sense given the large number of cavalry and monstrous creatures in the Warhammer World, and might make the core spear options a more competitive option? I imagine hand weapon units would find their place in the grand scheme as an anti-spear unit, which I think they generally were historically?
     
  21. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Perhaps a combat penalty for being Disordered could be applied, stackable with Fear and Flanked? This would make it possible to employ a variety of tactics to bring a big unit down, like harrying them with skirmishers or tempting them out of formation using Feigned Flight.
     
  22. Count Vashra

    Count Vashra Lord of Shadows True Blood

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,536
    I agree with this. Maybe remove Steadfast/some defensive bonuses in the first turn of an ambush, and perhaps the first turn after regrouping from Fleeing (the unit needs time to reorganise itself properly etc.).
     
  23. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    It could be a cool rule to apply if the musicians can't signal the troops and have them form up in time! I really think this could extend into general combat situations; perhaps a unit becomes disordered following a pursuit or failed charge, or as a result of being charged in the rear, and has the opportunity at the start of turn to regain control of its troops.

    This could really punish strong units that roll over an initial unit, then allow themselves to overrun to an exposed location, safe in the knowledge that nothing can dent them sufficiently? Even a poor unit in good order should have a chance against a foe in disorder, no matter their quality when formed up.
     
  24. Count Vashra

    Count Vashra Lord of Shadows True Blood

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,536
    Yes. Disorder should factor in. The best soldiers in the world can't fight if they're scattered all over the place. Guerilla warfare says it all.
     
  25. Dragonet

    Dragonet Wight King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Awesome!! Don't know if Warhammer Ancients has any hidden gems for us? I know tons of people have revisited Dogs Of War and pikes, palisades etc over the years.

    I have to admit, I had a twinge of regret, I don't know if pursuing realism will be everyone's cup of tea? Do you imagine there'll be enough consensus for a single Ultimate Edition, or maybe we'll see a variety of mods to 8th, or even to other editions, each geared towards different preferences or goals?
     

Share This Page