• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • 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 here.

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

Count Vashra

Lord of Shadows
#51
Of course, realism does have to give way a little. I mean, weather etc. would be extremely complicated, and ammunition and fatigue would be nightmares (then again, as an Undead player, I'd love everyone else to get tired while we're too dead to care, or run out of ammo:vampire3:). But that doesn't mean there aren't some things we can't change.
 
#52
Of course, realism does have to give way a little. I mean, weather etc. would be extremely complicated, and ammunition and fatigue would be nightmares (then again, as an Undead player, I'd love everyone else to get tired while we're too dead to care, or run out of ammo:vampire3:). But that doesn't mean there aren't some things we can't change.
All those things aren't to hard to simulate, here are some examples:
Weather: At the beginning of a game roll 2D6 and consult a chart. Each weather thing has a different effect (Eg. Rain: flaming attacks have no effect)
Ammunition: this one is easy, units can only shoot a certain amount of times.
Fatigue: A fatigue stat on the profile of every unit. Subtract the fatigue stat from the game turn and consult a chart to see the effects it has on your troops (Eg. 1 - Troops move slower -1I, 2 - Troops fighting becomes sloppy -1WS, 3 - Troops weaken -1S)


However this brings us back to one of the main questions of the post - is this going to be a whole new edition of fantasy or a few changes to fix some of the stupid stuff in 8th?
 
#56
I must give Kings Of War a try sometime, I'd really like to play more than one game each evening, especially as it seems to me any given game only comes down to one or two crucial moments; it's all too often time to pack up as soon as I've got my eye in.

I remain a huge fan of 8th, perhaps because I never got to appreciate the other editions, but I have played Napoleonic and DBA/DBM ancients and I really appreciate the character, the flavour and variety in the Warhammer world; I don't think there's another game out there that does its job better.
 
#57
I must give Kings Of War a try sometime, I'd really like to play more than one game each evening, especially as it seems to me any given game only comes down to one or two crucial moments; it's all too often time to pack up as soon as I've got my eye in.

I remain a huge fan of 8th, perhaps because I never got to appreciate the other editions, but I have played Napoleonic and DBA/DBM ancients and I really appreciate the character, the flavour and variety in the Warhammer world; I don't think there's another game out there that does its job better.
I too am a huge fan of 8th. However I'm just far too bitter about how GW left us off to be able to enjoy it anymore. Plus the fact that it's now frozen in stone, and none of the glaring imbalances or rules issues will ever be fixed just makes it all seem so...stagnant.

Kings of War isn't perfect. However if I'm going to pour my heart and soul into a game, I'd rather it be one that the designers are purposely making welcome for me, rather than one where the designers are actively hostile to my entire approach to the game.

Kings of War needs a bit of love to capture the flavour and majesty that I came to expect from 8th. But I'd rather put the effort into making a fair system more fun, than hammering some sort of semblance of even and compelling competition out of a game fundamentally designed to disallow that.
 
#58
Wow that's a blast from the past, I'm sure I remember reading that article in the only Citadel Journal I bought from way back when.

I completely understand the anger at GW, I'm still fuming over Mail Order, Space Hulk 4th Edition and End Times. The thing is, I still like the game they produced and I don't see any conflict there.

To me, allowing them to dictate when and how I use their products by invalidating 8th Edition would be the worst thing I could do. They won't gain any more direct purchases from me in the future and they've stopped supporting 8th Edition entirely, so playing that game's got very little to do with them now. In fact, I consider playing 8th to be just about the best protest against their current policies.

I've spent thousands of pounds on this hobby over the years and it's taken that long for me to fully enjoy it. There's no way I'll be forced into selling (or burning) my collection or buying stuff I don't want so I can be dragged by the hair into the Age of Dollar!

Also remember, half of the guys that run Mantic had a hand in producing this awesome game; it's an institution. I've already supported Mantic by picking up their Skeletons, Revenant Knights and Werewolves, and I only regret one out of those three! They may see action in Mantica one day, but for now they're needed in the Old World where they're handing ass to Orcs, Elves and Ogres whenever possible!
 

Blutsauger

Vampire Count
True Blood
#59
The problem as I see it is that, moving forward, 8th is going to splinter. Every group will have it's own interpretation of what the best elements of 8th edition where, and each player will have to argue his case with his opponent before each game as to what particular set of house rules he wishes to use. I might have one player in my group who really thinks we should use the magic dice generation mechanism from 6th edition. And another might think the magic phase is fine, but really wants to take the re-rolls away from ASF. And yet a third might think both of those are fine, but he now wants to always use the End Times rules for characters and magic and army selection.

I might be able to play 8th edition every now and then, with some of my good friends who are on the same page I am about the rules, but I think that Mantic and Kings of War is the future of pick-up games, and I expect it to be adopted quite quickly by the WHFB refugees.
 
#60
That's a very good point, it will be hard to play a game with someone unknown with so many rules discrepancies to tidy up, there's too much to disagree on. For that you need solid rules and a well-balanced game, and from what I hear Kings Of War is great for that.

For my part I rarely play with people I don't know, and even then I never play competitively so I doubt I'll ever have this problem. I'm playing in a new group with guys that are struggling with my Vampire Counts, all I need to do is avoid the cheese and play generously until they come up with some neat tricks of their own.
 

Blutsauger

Vampire Count
True Blood
#61
I think even inside established groups there'll be friction. Even if it's as simple as the guys who want to play End Times stuff and those who don't. Let alone those who take the opportunity to push for their version of house rules. I might have to remember three different ways to play 8th edition, just to keep it going.

It's just not worth the effort, IMO. 8th wasn't that good a game. I really played it despite the rules, not because of them.
 
#62
Funny, I just got back from a game with a guy that just will not have me mixing Tomb Kings into my Undead; not Heirotitans and Caskets, or any End Times cheese, just Carrion. I swear I hate Fell Bats so much! But I sucked it up, repped my Fell Bats as Carrion and you know, I had a great time anyway. It's going to be an obstacle for me but I'll work with it because I love the setting and it's common ground for us vets chewing the fat over good old days. Maybe I'll get my archers and catapults back one day... maybe even the chariots!
 
#63
In my city there is only about a dozen active WHFB players with some coming and going, but when organizing a tournament we usually play with some ETC comps and choose and discard stuff at will. Only takes about 1 page of forum posts. Many oldhammerers hate the random charge distance, maybe now is the time to have a fixed charge distance? Nerf or ban spells like dwellers below/purple sun and other gripes.

I don't think fixing the wholes in 8th is that hard, if one takes the time to do it. I don't even think it needs that much time, probably just one evening with beers and pretzels that GW loves so much. Probably depends on the people though, if you have some who just love quarreling and never let anyone but themselves have it their way then there will be problems.
 

logan054

Master Necromancer
True Blood
#64
Keep the army books as-is (8th Ed versions) and just make the changes to the core rules.
Sadly the way points are done is very flawed in 8th ed, I think on of the biggest issues is paying for everything per model. If I was to do a 9th ed I would change it so the first 10 models (5 smaller units) are bought at full price and then every additional model was bought base on how resilient it was. Weapons would be a set value for a unit. MI would have to be different as essentially every model can fight in the formation.

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.
If MoK generated dispel dice again then I'd be good with that, of course the real issue with this is that it means everyone has to max out on wizards to have a decent magic defense and offense, I could see this being far worse than in previous editions with using percentages rather than slots. Magic resistance going back to how it was would then make more sense.

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.
Certainly makes sense.

For combat, Steadfast only gives a +1 CR (like outnumbering used to).
So why not just go back to unit strength then?

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).
Sounds a little extreme, I think if you failed a fear test at the start of combat -1 to hit and then suffering a minus to leadership based on the outnumber ratio might be a bit better.


If honest, I sounds like you want a tweaked 6th ed, I can't really argue that 6th was the most enjoyable edition for myself, I miss all kinda of things like Bloodlines, mono-god armies (proper ones). I feel the only real improvement we've seen with 8th is infantry not being as useless, less of the silly dance between units and magic system that dosen't reward you for spamming wizards. It does kinda make me wonder how 8th ed books would function in 6th ed with a few minor tweaks to 6th.
 
#67
So why not just go back to unit strength then?
Because there's no measure of "Unit Strength" in 8th. And counting ranks is much quicker than counting models. ("1,2,3,4,5 ranks," vs "7 models wide x 5 ranks deep is 35, plus the 4 stray models in the second rank is 39 Unit Strength."

Plus we're still using support attacks and the Horde rule, so using ranks to calculate the bonus rather than number of models creates a counter point to going 10-wide– Horde formations will have more attacks, but fewer ranks, and so won't get the Steadfast bonus. Or, you sacrifice those attacks for the bump in the CR via Steadfast. If you're just counting models, the Horde could get more attacks and still have more models than a unit with more ranks.

Now, the difference is clear: Way more attacks is better than +1 CR (which is why GW probably went with making the Steadfast unit "stubborn" instead). So, maybe it should be a bigger bonus? Like + the difference in ranks? That would help counter the extra attacks.

I'm trying not to over complicate things, though.

If MoK generated dispel dice again then I'd be good with that, of course the real issue with this is that it means everyone has to max out on wizards to have a decent magic defense and offense, I could see this being far worse than in previous editions with using percentages rather than slots.
Meh. It was kind of like that in 6th Edition, and it wasn't such a big problem (although spells weren't as devastating back then, either). Remember, if they're taking tons of wizards, they're likely doing that at the expense of blender lords and such. And if they're taking a bunch of level 2s, they won't have much (or any) hope of getting off the 20+ difficulty "unit deleting" spells. Level 2 can only roll 3 dice. So they'll need a roll of 18, +2 for level to get a 20. Maybe we can drop the idea of adding a Wizard's level to the roll to make it even more difficult to get those spells.

I get what GW was going for: They didn't want the magic phase to be a phase that you can just write off. The magic phase can have a major impact on the game now, so players need to build their lists accordingly. You can't simply ignore it like you used to be able to, and if you do, you'll regret it.

My suggestion is intended to at least make the magic phase more consistent & reliable, and eliminate the extraneous, unnecessary dice rolls.

Sounds a little extreme, I think if you failed a fear test at the start of combat -1 to hit and then suffering a minus to leadership based on the outnumber ratio might be a bit better.
Part of it is to eliminate the need to make the fear roll at the start (which is forgotten more often than not, forcing things to either be re-rolled, or played wrong.)

Since you have the BSB re-rolls, general's bonus, etc, that test is usually passed anyway. So, again, it's a lot of extraneous dice rolling that amounts to nothing (a recurring theme in 8th edition).

And it's far less extreme than the way it worked in 6th: A fear causing unit charged you, no test was necessary. And if you lost combat by even 1 point, and the unit outnumbered you, you broke automatically. Meaning, if you whiffed all your attacks, and they had one more rank than you and inflicted no casualties, your unit was gone without a single model having been slain.

Now to be fair, that was the strategy for the undead with poor fighting ability: Outnumber the opponent and just scare them off. I think this is a nice balance between the two: get rid of the unnecessary (oft-forgotten) tests, and still scare off a few models without breaking the entire unit when hardly anyone was killed.

It does kinda make me wonder how 8th ed books would function in 6th ed with a few minor tweaks to 6th.
I think the 8th books (and their points) are fine, because everyone is on the same footing. If the point costs are bad, they're bad for everyone. One reason I'm loathe to go back to a straight 6th edition is because 8th is pretty tight on the special rules, and I enjoy the things like Hordes and supporting attacks. In "Straight 6th" units like Skeletons and Zombies would be way under-pointed because of the Fear auto-break. I think part of the reason their point costs came down in 8th is because the Fear rule had its teeth pulled (no auto break, no failed charges because of fear tests, no auto flee reaction because of failed fear tests).

The main problem going forward is that there won't be any new models for the armies. And even when they put out new Undead models, unless it can be proxies for an existing VC unit, it won't have any useable stats. (The new stuff will come with AoS- only stats, and in order to fit in an 8th edition list, it will need to be completely house-ruled.)
 

logan054

Master Necromancer
True Blood
#68
Because there's no measure of "Unit Strength" in 8th. And counting ranks is much quicker than counting models. ("1,2,3,4,5 ranks," vs "7 models wide x 5 ranks deep is 35, plus the 4 stray models in the second rank is 39 Unit Strength."

Plus we're still using support attacks and the Horde rule, so using ranks to calculate the bonus rather than number of models creates a counter point to going 10-wide– Horde formations will have more attacks, but fewer ranks, and so won't get the Steadfast bonus. Or, you sacrifice those attacks for the bump in the CR via Steadfast. If you're just counting models, the Horde could get more attacks and still have more models than a unit with more ranks.

Now, the difference is clear: Way more attacks is better than +1 CR (which is why GW probably went with making the Steadfast unit "stubborn" instead). So, maybe it should be a bigger bonus? Like + the difference in ranks? That would help counter the extra attacks.

I'm trying not to over complicate things, though.
While we have no unit strength in 8th it isn't exactly hard to add it based in the unit type. I get what you mean that adding ranks is quicker, but honestly, was it that hard going i have 5 ranks of 4 (20) + a rank of 3 for unit strength 23. If that was cavalry just times by two, it was usually quick and easy. I can see the point when thinking in relation to horde of formation.

With way more attacks being better than +cr I do think it's better moving CR scored from models killed based on a ratio, yeah it slow things down but it does mean that a static combat res of 4/5 isn't going to struggle as much to compete with a unit that had 30 odd attacks.

Meh. It was kind of like that in 6th Edition, and it wasn't such a big problem (although spells weren't as devastating back then, either). Remember, if they're taking tons of wizards, they're likely doing that at the expense of blender lords and such. And if they're taking a bunch of level 2s, they won't have much (or any) hope of getting off the 20+ difficulty "unit deleting" spells. Level 2 can only roll 3 dice. So they'll need a roll of 18, +2 for level to get a 20. Maybe we can drop the idea of adding a Wizard's level to the roll to make it even more difficult to get those spells.

I get what GW was going for: They didn't want the magic phase to be a phase that you can just write off. The magic phase can have a major impact on the game now, so players need to build their lists accordingly. You can't simply ignore it like you used to be able to, and if you do, you'll regret it.

My suggestion is intended to at least make the magic phase more consistent & reliable, and eliminate the extraneous, unnecessary dice rolls.
While that might of been the case with VC, that wasn't the case with other armies, the problem was unless your character was a unit wrecking machine it was very hard to justify taking him over a wizard, because really, whats combat hero going to, kill a couple of models? A wizard on the other hand could really turn a combat in your favor. I've always been a fan on the random winds of magic, it kinda reminds me of 5th ed, as soon as you go back to a system that rewards you for spamming, people will spam. Also remember with 6th any wizard could use the dice generated, it wasn't until 7th that it was limited to the caster. Even then, this didn't make your lvl 2 useless, he could usually cast some weaker spells (even more so with 8th lores) that would atleast draw out dispel dice and could turn the tide enough.

I've always been a fan of magic being more of a support role rather than dictating how the game is played.



Part of it is to eliminate the need to make the fear roll at the start (which is forgotten more often than not, forcing things to either be re-rolled, or played wrong.)

Since you have the BSB re-rolls, general's bonus, etc, that test is usually passed anyway. So, again, it's a lot of extraneous dice rolling that amounts to nothing (a recurring theme in 8th edition).

And it's far less extreme than the way it worked in 6th: A fear causing unit charged you, no test was necessary. And if you lost combat by even 1 point, and the unit outnumbered you, you broke automatically. Meaning, if you whiffed all your attacks, and they had one more rank than you and inflicted no casualties, your unit was gone without a single model having been slain.

Now to be fair, that was the strategy for the undead with poor fighting ability: Outnumber the opponent and just scare them off. I think this is a nice balance between the two: get rid of the unnecessary (oft-forgotten) tests, and still scare off a few models without breaking the entire unit when hardly anyone was killed.
First up why should a big banner give you rerolls to fear or terror, this was one of the worst changes with 8th, it made leadership test have far less impact on the game. I can honestly say unless I've been drinking I tend to remember these things ;) Play it enough it should be second nature, especially if the whole army causes fear ;) I remember fear very well in 6th, it was annoying as hell, as usual GW took it's sledgehammer to a problem :( I think the issue with the method you suggest is things like blender lord in knight buses, It could make them a tad over powered. This is why I think having fear increase the chance of breaking (but not auto breaking) makes more sense. m

I think the 8th books (and their points) are fine, because everyone is on the same footing. If the point costs are bad, they're bad for everyone. One reason I'm loathe to go back to a straight 6th edition is because 8th is pretty tight on the special rules, and I enjoy the things like Hordes and supporting attacks. In "Straight 6th" units like Skeletons and Zombies would be way under-pointed because of the Fear auto-break. I think part of the reason their point costs came down in 8th is because the Fear rule had its teeth pulled (no auto break, no failed charges because of fear tests, no auto flee reaction because of failed fear tests).

The main problem going forward is that there won't be any new models for the armies. And even when they put out new Undead models, unless it can be proxies for an existing VC unit, it won't have any useable stats. (The new stuff will come with AoS- only stats, and in order to fit in an 8th edition list, it will need to be completely house-ruled.)
Well my MoK on my marauders would like to disagree with you, when was the last time you saw additional hand weapons on chaos warriors? problem is these kind of things tend to escalate the points of units very quickly for little gain, this highlights a general issue with pricing everything per model. My view is that things that increase the units survivability are the only things that should be per model.

See I'm pretty much the same, I like supporting attacks, I like step up, I don't mind hordes and I generally like the attempts to make infantry better, that is the kind of stuff I'd like to see translated to 6th ed. I don't think you could go straight back to any editions without changes, I think each editions has had it's good points.

ultimately, if you wanted some super fan edition you would need to sit down and decide what are the best features from each edition, what you didn't like, what could be tweaked and then work from the ground up really.
 
Top