• 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.

Blutsauger

Vampire Count
Apr 10, 2013
1,089
Adam_Barrow said:
@Blutsauger As opposed to the Ogre Blade + Tali Pres + RF + QB pigeon hole that everybody runs? I miss the bloodlines a lot. You could run a caster lord with fewer points wasted on his combat power because the Necrarchs had a - to WS built in, for example.

Team Necrarch 4 lyfe, witches.

Sorry for the late reply. I was angling more at the background side of things, but having a 'free range' approach to Lord design is much better than the needlessly restrictive Bloodline limitations.

Now, GW failed to give us appropriately priced and useful vampiric powers so we tend to see cookie cutter lords, but this is a problem with the execution of the idea. The concept remains sound.

For Necrarchs for example, you could simply have a power that adds a magic level and reduces WS.
 

Kindred

Ghoul
May 12, 2013
113
Crumble is just overly brutal as it stands, I've seen a lot of horror movies and never recall watching the heros shoot half the monsters, then the other half shrug and just fall over dead for no apparent reason. Most undead units should have a crumble cap, like no more than 5 crumble wounds per round from any source, 3 if your BSB is anywhere nearby. Also, anything vampiric should be just plain unbreakable with no crumble, why would the immortal lords of the night turn to dust from looking that their opponents ranks and standard? "I've lived over 500 years but my god, those men are standing in rows and holding a flag! My one weakness!" *poof*
 

Vipoid

Necromancer
Apr 27, 2012
873
Kindred said:
Crumble is just overly brutal as it stands, I've seen a lot of horror movies and never recall watching the heros shoot half the monsters, then the other half shrug and just fall over dead for no apparent reason. Most undead units should have a crumble cap, like no more than 5 crumble wounds per round from any source, 3 if your BSB is anywhere nearby.

I think the problem is the disparity 8th edition created between unstable and non-unstable units. The latter have IP, BSBs, and now Steadfast and Stubborn to keep them in the fight. However, the BSB has a negligible effect on crumble, and the other 3 have no effect whatsoever. So, not only have non-unstable units got big buffs for free, but we're far less able to mitigate the effects of crumble.

Then there's the fact that Fear might as well hand out free Jaffa Cakes for all the good it does us.

Kindred said:
Also, anything vampiric should be just plain unbreakable with no crumble, why would the immortal lords of the night turn to dust from looking that their opponents ranks and standard? "I've lived over 500 years but my god, those men are standing in rows and holding a flag! My one weakness!" *poof*

This reminds me of a game a while back, where Daemons were playing against High Elves. Skulltaker charged alone into a small unit of high elves (his own unit was dead) - he killed a couple of models and they failed to wound him back. However, the rank and standard bonus equalled the number of models he'd killed, tying the combat. Then, the High Elf player pointed out that he had a musician, so he had in fact won the combat.

Despite taking no damage, Skulltaker was forced to take an instability check because an elf blew a horn at him. ;)
 

Aedin

Black Knight
Oct 23, 2011
381
Kindred said:
Crumble is just overly brutal as it stands, I've seen a lot of horror movies and never recall watching the heros shoot half the monsters, then the other half shrug and just fall over dead for no apparent reason. Most undead units should have a crumble cap, like no more than 5 crumble wounds per round from any source, 3 if your BSB is anywhere nearby. Also, anything vampiric should be just plain unbreakable with no crumble, why would the immortal lords of the night turn to dust from looking that their opponents ranks and standard? "I've lived over 500 years but my god, those men are standing in rows and holding a flag! My one weakness!" *poof*

I dont know if I agree with this entirely. If it were only limited to 5 than summon lists would dominate and the ranks would swell out of control.

However, as I pointed out earlier. At a minimum the unit that gives up the CR should be the one who takes the CR in damage.

(example) lets say 5 blood knights cause 8 wounds and have a standard. The enemy has no rank (because of flanking zombies) and a standard and cause 1 wound. The knights charged. The result is in favor of the knights by 8.

Now lets say in the flank of the enemy is 35 zombies who do no wounds but have a standard and a 3 rank bonus but they suffer 16 wounds. So the zombies lose by 11.

Under current rules the total result is a loss of 3 which means the zombies AND the blood knights lose 3 models each.

Under my proposed system the knights did not lose by anything so should not be eligible for crumble. However the zombies lost by 11 and so should be eligible to take up to 11 wounds from CR because that's what they personally lost by. In this example it would be 3 though.

as it is now its too dangerous to bring numbers to your opponent. I once watched a Tomb King charge 5 units into a buffed lizard death star. once CR was calculated the Tomb King had no army. Something about that is just wrong IMO.
 

Kappu

Ghoul
Sep 20, 2012
131
There could also be somekind of rule inside of newly undead (aka zombies), that we don't crumble because of those former farmers/villains. Because now if we wan't to negate steadfast, our mainunit would be ghouls i think and thats just becaue we can't combat with zombies. Or zombies won't generate combatresolution if they are in horde. This would be worth trying. The unit is named "zombie horde" also, I wanna see somekind of benefit for that hordeformation.
 

Vipoid

Necromancer
Apr 27, 2012
873
Aedin said:
I dont know if I agree with this entirely. If it were only limited to 5 than summon lists would dominate and the ranks would swell out of control.

I'd be very surprised if this happened. Even if crumble were limited to 5, zombies and the like still die in droves to a stiff breeze. It would just mean that they're not doubling their losses after every round of combat.

Furthermore, consider the numbers we're talking about - zombies aren't exactly conjured to the field in units of 100+ - it's usually about 10. So, 5 losses from crumble would still be around half the unit - and that's assuming there are any left.

I'm not arguing that it's a great idea, but I really doubt it would suddenly make summon lists broken.

Aedin said:
as it is now its too dangerous to bring numbers to your opponent. I once watched a Tomb King charge 5 units into a buffed lizard death star. once CR was calculated the Tomb King had no army. Something about that is just wrong IMO.

Reminds me a lot of nids in 5th edition 40k. I once lost basically my entire army to a unit of 10 wyches and Fearless wounds.
 

Blutsauger

Vampire Count
Apr 10, 2013
1,089
I think subtracting the rank bonus of the combat from the Crumble result could be a good rule. So if you lose by six, but have at least four ranks, you only take three wounds.

On a different note:

One of the things I really hate in the current rules is the prevalence of 'buses'. And I don't mean just a unit to transport characters, I mean specifically the infantry units, ranked five wide and very deep, whose only purpose is to limit incoming attacks and preserve their own rank bonus. In reality, a unit like that would be lapped around by the wider enemy, and their formation would very quickly crumble. I would like to see rules to redress this.

Say for example, from the second and subsequent rounds of combat, if a unit is wider than it's enemy then it adds a further +1 to combat, or maybe the models on the edges get +1 to hit, or even just bring back the old 'lapping around' rules. For anyone not aware, with the old lapping around rules, if you won combat you could take models from your back rank and use them to expand your frontage. And once you'd exceeded your opponents frontage, you could take models from your back rank and place them on your opponents flanks. This counted as attacking their flank, so you both stripped their rank bonus and got a further +1. I think, anyway, it was a long time ago now.

I'm not sure exactly how that would gel in the current edition of horde formations and steadfast units, I just really want to see an end to these silly long columns of troops.
 

Demian

Vampire Count
Oct 28, 2011
1,245
Steadfast Undead units should not suffer from Unstable. This would actually change something, while wearing Helm of Command! No more crumbling Blood Knights!

And I also like the idea that Vampiric Units (or at least characters) were simply Unbreakable. Or for the current rules's sake, "suffer no wounds from Unstable" (because non-unstable chars can't join unstable units and such)
 

SoulSeeker

Ghoul
Dec 2, 2010
114
The disrupted units remaining steadfast killed the game for me. Any attempt to outflank your opponent is now pretty pointless, just charge into the middle and keep swinging those huge axes. Yawn.
 

Seneschal

Liche
True Blood
May 15, 2008
5,520
SoulSeeker said:
The disrupted units remaining steadfast killed the game for me. Any attempt to outflank your opponent is now pretty pointless, just charge into the middle and keep swinging those huge axes. Yawn.

Agreed 1,000%

8th took away so many tactics from the game that I just feel like people are making bigger units and throwing dice.
This edition dumbed the game down a lot although I have to say the worst thing is that GW fixes armies when they feel like it instead of when it needs to be done.
 

Blutsauger

Vampire Count
Apr 10, 2013
1,089
Seneschal said:
Agreed 1,000%

8th took away so many tactics from the game that I just feel like people are making bigger units and throwing dice.
This edition dumbed the game down a lot although I have to say the worst thing is that GW fixes armies when they feel like it instead of when it needs to be done.

I can see where they were coming from. In 7th edition you just threw a unit of Knights into any infantry unit, and the infantry was screwed. They got hit first, casualties couldn't fight back, they lost their rank bonus (due to casualties) and if they did win the combat by some miracle, they were very unlikely to be able to catch the fleeing cavalry unit.

They had to do something to make the infantry units in the game worth taking. I think having steadfast count even when disrupted was a bit much, though, and only helped to encourage those long silly columns of troops that I hate so much!
 

Seneschal

Liche
True Blood
May 15, 2008
5,520
I definitely agree that infantry needed help and this goes back to my original proposal on this thread about giving spears +1 str when charged by cavalry (and maybe ASF as well).
Let's see what 9th edition holds for the game. Hopefully cav units won't be able to swing in two ranks after the charge as it just doesn't make sense. On the charge I can see it because they break through the first rows of infantry but afterwards, I can't imagine knights swinging at the enemy from so far away.
 

SoulSeeker

Ghoul
Dec 2, 2010
114
Blutsauger said:
Seneschal said:
Agreed 1,000%

8th took away so many tactics from the game that I just feel like people are making bigger units and throwing dice.
This edition dumbed the game down a lot although I have to say the worst thing is that GW fixes armies when they feel like it instead of when it needs to be done.

I can see where they were coming from. In 7th edition you just threw a unit of Knights into any infantry unit, and the infantry was screwed. They got hit first, casualties couldn't fight back, they lost their rank bonus (due to casualties) and if they did win the combat by some miracle, they were very unlikely to be able to catch the fleeing cavalry unit.

They had to do something to make the infantry units in the game worth taking. I think having steadfast count even when disrupted was a bit much, though, and only helped to encourage those long silly columns of troops that I hate so much!

I agree that getting the charge and combat resolution were far too powerful in 7th. But they could have done so many other things to balance things a little. Stepping up works well and immediately removes the old anamoly of standing around not fighting after a few casualties. Steadfast kind of makes sense in that they were trying to give infantry a chance against a powerful impact. But then making steadfast operate even when flanked, reared, it was just a step too far. I play in friendly games with a few changes to the rules and its amazing what a difference just a small change can make. If you play with most of 8th rules, but allow flanking to cancel steadfast, suddenly you need to be more wary of your position again. It's like 7th again, but less static. Warhammer 7.7 if you like. :thumbsup:
 

Martin Q Blank

Skeleton
Jun 7, 2013
61
London
For me I'd change cannons. It's warhammer FANTASY battle. Yet no one really takes fantasy units because they are scarred of being sniped by cannons. Cannons are very non-fantasy things.....

I play dwarfs and for roughly 500pts I can bring 3 pimped out cannons that will ruin most players days. 90pts per cannon.....

I do like the idea of blocking RLoS on to the magic 10" though....
 

Aedin

Black Knight
Oct 23, 2011
381
Blutsauger said:
Seneschal said:
They had to do something to make the infantry units in the game worth taking. I think having steadfast count even when disrupted was a bit much, though, and only helped to encourage those long silly columns of troops that I hate so much!

Ya but then they turned around and made taking infantry suck a liability. So much stomp thunderstomp and killing blow its horrible.

An empire player who beat me had the right idea. All his core was on horse with hammers. two steam tanks and 3 units of griffin knights.
 

Kindred

Ghoul
May 12, 2013
113
Martin Q Blank said:
For me I'd change cannons. It's warhammer FANTASY battle. Yet no one really takes fantasy units because they are scarred of being sniped by cannons. Cannons are very non-fantasy things.....

I play dwarfs and for roughly 500pts I can bring 3 pimped out cannons that will ruin most players days. 90pts per cannon.....

I do like the idea of blocking RLoS on to the magic 10" though....

This is true, my secondary (and FAR more successful army) is dwarves, and if anyone dares take a monster against me its pasted by round 2. Same goes against anyone with a war machine. Big monsters need some kind of cannonball immunity so they aren't wasted points and can take the table with confidence again. Maybe they only take 1 wound at most regardless of whats hitting them? The multi-wound rules seem more about keeping Ogres and other big monster blocks in check than making the impressive (and expensive) large monster obsolete.
 

Corien Sumatris

Vampire Count
True Blood
Jul 3, 2013
1,535
Rockford Il
Yeah! Or even that monsters take half of the wounds rounded up and it randomizes between monster and rider (I know, that last part was a 7th ed rule). Then the D6 from a cannon is now D3 and D3 (Bolt thrower) can still do 2 wounds.
 

AngryAngel

Zombie
May 17, 2013
6
Cannons, definitely cannons...lots of problems there. Cannons are strong, but how are cannonballs hitting two targets at once (rider and mount i mean). In addition, if you roll a 6 to multi-wound it is dealing precisely 12 wounds, that seems a bit off. In addition, a cannon (in ancient terms), was a big, heavy, metal tube strapped onto a couple of wheels with a simple screw for elevation...it had to be aimed by hand: no rifling, no precise control over the gunpowder blast strength...so how are these things suddenly more accurate then sniper rifles. I mean, they can pip-the-ace on a dragon flying over a combat in erratic fastion?!? We have trouble doing that TODAY with computers and hydraulics to aircraft..so here's my though

Thought 1:
When rolling to wound, you must roll to see WHO you hit when firing at a monster/rider before you roll to wound him
OR
roll your multi-wounds then roll that many dice to see who those wounds went on to.
OR
When firing at monsters it hits the monster and rider but only does D3 wounds instead of D6

Problem with this one is it doesnt handle the accuracy problem, and instead just weakens the cannon, and my biggest issue isn't their power, it's their accuracy. So here's my better thought and what i would change

Divide the range of a cannon in half. Choose the point to fire at, if inside the short range, once you have chosen the point, scatter that point by D6, then fire as if this was your original target. IF long range, 2D6 scatter. If you are within 12 inches, you dont scatter at all. If you hit a friendly combat or unit then so be it...thats the risk of firing a cannon across the battlefield with friendly units so close by (happened all the time in ancient warfare).

This would take into account the inaccuracy of cannons at long range, but still leave them the potential to actually KILL anything they shoot at, they just have to earn it.

As mentioned above, this is fantasy, but no one brings "fantasy" things because of the presence of gods sniper rifle all over the Meta
 

VonDookie

Skeleton
Sep 8, 2011
93
Perhaps cannons should have a minimum range, like stone throwers 12"-60"... I once had a unit of knights fail their charge on a dwarven cannon by 2 inches only to have my opponent tell me the point he's choosing to shoot was literally mm's in front of his cannon, looking for the bounce and hedging his distance roll. derp.

I'm not privy on the 'magic 10" blocking LoS shenanigans' - if anybody wants to discuss offline/PM I'd be more than happy to as I don't see how this would prevent cannons firing at our prized big nasties. Send me an argument for using LoS to protect a TG and I'll counter with a way to abuse LoS within the rules to nullify such; especially since I can simply 'choose a point' that lies within LoS but is only restricted from friendly models or enemies locked in CC.

Here's what I think could benefit cannons and make them less cheese:
- minimum firing range. 12" seems to fit the bill.
- 'Initial Maximum' distance before the cannonball's first potential bounce. This sets a theoretical maximum distance before you see diminishing returns on the cannonball's damage due to bouncing.
- Let's just say that if a cannonball bounces, it's robbed of it's strength. I think that S5 is fair; considering currently a crypt horror can survive a shot and rob the cannonball of all of the rest of it's energy, the ground should be able to do just as much.
- A 'soft' maximum range of 30", can be extended if needed.
- And finally, the BRB states: "Cannons do not use their crew's Ballistic Skill and instead rely on their crew's expertise in judging distance, elevation and the correct amount of black powder to propel the shot the desired distance." Perhaps a player wants to elect to shoot his cannon further than the 'Soft Maximum' outlined above - if that's the case, for each additional 15" in extended range, the crew will obviously have to pack that cannon with more black powder - this thing effectively becomes a bigger controlled bomb, shooting shrapnel in the form of an iron ball. Extend the range of your soft maximum, but for each additional 15" (up to 30" which brings us back to our 60" standard) in range you get a negative modifier on the Black Powder War Machine Misfire Chart. So let's say you REALLY want to shoot 60"... and you misfire... Well, your crew packed so much black powder into that thing in the hopes of firing 60" that now they've got a real mess on their hands... at a -2 modifier, you aren't going to simply walk away with a 'May not shoot' result. You have a 2 in 3 chance of getting Destroyed.
 

geordieclubba

Vargheist
Feb 22, 2011
629
South Shields
regarding the cannon debate.
i think one of the things that makes them harsh is not necessarily there power.

its the ability to pivot 360 degrees without penalty if it wanted to.

standard units are penalised if they move and shoot, where a pivot does not count as a move? WTF!

cannons turn around 180 degrees to allow the crew to pull a moony at their foes before doing another 180 degree turn and blast away.

perhaps i could believe it if the super hero the flash was the engineer operating it
 
Aug 31, 2012
70
Here's what I would like to see with cannons/stone throwers:

Only allowed to pivot up to 90 degrees when choosing a location for the marker

Place marker
Ballistics skill test to see if marker scatters (use scatter dice and D6, as the shot may go wide if the crew fails to aim right)
First bounce/misfire role (with possibility of explosion)
final position of marker
second scatter roll (bounce or buried)

I think this would make shooting cannons more complex but wouldn't cause a huge change in their rules, it would also allow hero level "engineers" to join a cannon and provide more benefit than just a re-roll on the misfire table, they would be able to use their BS skill for the test for aiming.

Just my two bits anways
 

Demian

Vampire Count
Oct 28, 2011
1,245
I want our vampires to be able to ride a non-large target monster.

I want Varghulfs to become mounts! And replace the Abyssal Terror, haha.

We should have Monstrous Cavalry, made of:

- Varghulf
- Crypt Horror
- Horror Wolves (like.. Dire Wolves, but monstrous)

OR (and this is just silliness in my mind, hehe)

Revert the mounting order of models: Zombie Dragon ON a Vampire Lord. Terrorgheist ON a Ghoul King! :D

Sorry guys, I just wanted to say that for a long time, hahaha.
 
Sep 26, 2013
138
I'd change a few things honestly.

I think spears should cause impact hits against cavalry when charged in the front, gain +2 initiative against cavalry and cause fear in cavalry. However if charged in the flank they should get -1 to their initiative and gain none of the above bonuses. This would make spears the go-to anti cavalry weapon that they should be.

Pikes should become more available outside Dogs of War and should give the following bonuses when charged in the front: ASF against all units (due to the sheer length of the pike), cause D3 Strength (user) Impact Hits per model in base contact with a charging cavalry model, and gain Armour Piercing vs Cavalry as well as cause Fear in charging cavalry at a -2 modifier.
However when charged in the flank or rear pikemen should lose all these bonuses, gain ASL, and be unable to use their pikes during that combat.

That being said I think cavalry should get ASF when charging, losing that rule when they charge spear or pike-armed models. Also I think Halberds should be armour piercing as well as grant +1 strength.

Also I think that Defensive Stakes for Bretonnians should do the same thing as pikes, only for just a single round of combat (When the enemy charges).

Fear should go back to how it used to work and cause enemies to automatically break and run away when they lose in combat.

Magic should be far less random and unreliable and should be more easily relied upon, because it's very important for most armies but even moreso for Vampire Counts. You should get a static pool of power dice based on wizard levels (4 dice for level 4, 1 for level 1 etc.) and all these dice go into a pool that is shared between casters. This can be buffed by Winds of Magic which you roll 1 D6 for instead of 2. Miscasts should be toned down, and Irresistible Force should never Miscast. Also remove the thing where if you roll below a 3 when casting a spell it disables the wizard.
 

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