dkieft Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Because watching 20 of your friends die and like 1 of your enemy doesn't have any impact on your bravery. Problem being that it was often that 2 of your friends that you could not see died... and you still had 38 more friends. Though, it was not like skaven were terrible in 7th, they were awesome if memory serves. Yeah, because Skaven had a LD bonus that compensated for numbers and Low Ld. But it was everything else that did not... you know like Empire, Orcs, Ogres, etc. Anything with a base of 8 or less was highly susceptible to running after only a couple casualties (and sometimes just static combat res). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savion47 Posted July 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I played primarily O&G and a little OK in 7th. That edition was not perfect and some changes to how combat resolution was calculated could have helped with some of the problems, but goblins, gnoblar, etc had an important place in my armies. Despite my best efforts, it took me some time to realize that my boyz could not face every foe toe to toe and win. These weaker units role was as bait, screening. I miss the days of throwing my goblins out there and just hoping they would get charged, run away (sometimes standing to hopefully get that unit to move and a little bit farther, sometimes just fleeing a charge), and pull that juicy unit into range of units that could kill them. That is all but gone in this edition. This job seemed to fit what a gnoblar was supposed to be to the letter. I know some people did not enjoy this aspect of the game, but it was something I particularity enjoyed. It felt that position and movement mattered far more back then. Yes, that system had problems, but I did not see steadfast as a good solution to solving those. It, and other rules, changed (far to much for me) that aspect of the game. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Not that I have studied this stuff, but I'd rather see less departure from 8th in a base level open source ruleset. Not that it could not change over time, but it seems like the existing rules would be a better baseline than a mostly redesigned system. Plus by making huge initial alterations I think many people will feel alienated by changes to rules they like. QFT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Like I've said in other threads, the places I would start (I think) are: 1) Fixing base-to-base combat so that stupid situations don't happen where alignment issues, clipping, and challenges decide a combat outcome. 2) Cleaning up single model play so that small chaff like sabretusks and goblin heroes don't control the battlefield so much. 3) Maybe everting to a lower % of points into characters (maybe). 4) Eventually taking a stab at better magic system which disincentivizes throwing 6 dice at a super spell. I think that would be a good enough place to start for now, honestly. Any other places to fix broken/clumsy rules come to mind (other than steadfast)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxer Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 1) Fixing base-to-base combat so that stupid situations don't happen where alignment issues, clipping, and challenges decide a combat outcome. 4) Eventually taking a stab at better magic system which disincentivizes throwing 6 dice at a super spell. These are changes I would like to see. I would like to see B2B determined like supporting attacks. You are in B2B with the model and any model in B2B with that model including corners. This means if a flank charge on a single line of troops with a hero on the end in a challenge, the flank chargers can attack the unit because they are in B2B with the hero who is in B2B with the unit. I experience this all too often and it puts Elite armies with powerful characters at a serious advantage. Magic, it'd be nice to see double 1s always being a failure in casting attempts. Also limit how many dice a wizard can throw, maybe their level +2 dice. This still allows for LV4s to 6 dice spells, but with the threat of miscasts on double 6s or total failure with double 1s. This should lessen the impact of 6 dicing spells a little. Also simply allowing ward saves and MR to those spells that dont allow them. Seems reasonable, otherwise MR is only effective against 25% of spells. You could have MR affects hex's and buffs too, perhaps adding a casting value equal to their magic resistance. MR3 is +3 to cast a spell and a ward save vs wounds, that way hexes will be a little bit harder to cast on MR units. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prophecy Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I am not sure if these guys are trying to just power down the entire game or what. In this version crap troops are crap always. Cavalry being messed with seems like a terrible idea. Well you get the starter shield and you can have the big kids shield...No. Losing the armor for being mounted....No. 8th as a base with small tweaks is my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valourunbound Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I think one thing that is being overlooked is that they did start with 8th and make small tweaks. A year ago. This is the document that has been changed little by little to become what it is now. For those looking at 8th + small tweaks, I will create a 9th age thread. . Cavalry being messed with seems like a terrible idea. Well you get the starter shield and you can have the big kids shield...No. Losing the armor for being mounted....No. Regarding the mounted save, it only affected a few units. Silver helms - had no purpose other that core points. Reducing the save makes them cheaper "medium cav". Chaos Knights - OP Empire Knights and Demis (not inner circle) - OP (see 1. regarding the core knights) Characters mounted on monsters/horses - Wizards don't care and combat characters can get large shields. Fast cav - this is the biggest group. To be honest, they were't supposed to have a good save anyway. Glade Riders lost light armor, so they're riding naked. Wild Riders can still get a 5+ and 6+ regen. Dark Riders have light armor, can't get shields. Reavers also have light armor. Ok, I forgot about the 5th bullet when I started this post. 5 cares a lot about losing the mounted save. This is a big change, but it doesn't bother me. Although I don't have any cavalry in my army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Panic Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 oh so i took a look at it. can you guys tell me what you're fuzzy on as in what page, line, translation etc? i can try and translate it better... i know google translate blows when it comes to tenses/words that have multiple meanings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valourunbound Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Page 79, near the bottom. I know what it says, but I want hear/see/imagine your reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Panic Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Page 79, near the bottom. I know what it says, but I want hear/see/imagine your reaction. lol i think you should know my reaction to that.... MOTHER [big bad swear word]ING BEAR CAV!!!!! *runs around room taking off shirt and twirling it around like a maniac doing the pony dance* now waits patiently clicking refresh button every week of this... http://sciborminiatures.com/en_,shop.php?art=1112 i already have the king, but if people make bear cav a real thing. i mean [big bad swear word] id even play the rage of [big bad swear word] more if they added bear cav :P 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prophecy Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Bear cav are a thing in the kislev fan book. They are called sons of ursun I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valourunbound Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I had a feeling you would enjoy that :) But you forgot the best part! They're slayers! On bears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathonicus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I think an easy solution to the Steadfast woes of 8th vs. the everyone runs woes of 6th-7th would be a simple chart for combat minuses, rather than 1 per wound. History is replete with examples of soliders fighting bravely in the face of huge causaliteis, and also running giving the first excuse. My suggestion would be somthing like capping CR for wounds in the same way as ranks, but maybe adding additional mods like; +1 if your opponent caused no wounds to you, +1 if you charged and are cav, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valourunbound Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Table of new units (ignoring Brotherhood and Dogs of War): Great Beast of Nurgle (bigger than your standard BoN) Master Assassin (Dark Elves) Slayer Bear-riders King of Ghosts (VC) Gnoblar Big Boss Gnoblar Shaman Gnoblar trappers as separate unit. Bailiff (Peasant character for Brets) Dragon Ogre lord choice (Mortals) Marauder Chieftain (Mortals) Troll King hero choice (Mortals) Tzeentch Monstrous Cavalry (looks like they ride discs) (Mortals) Slaanesh Monstrous Cavalry (looks like they ride Steeds of Slaanesh) (Mortals) Nurgle Monstrous Cavalry (looks like they ride Beasts of Nurgle) (Mortals) Centaur Hero (Beasts) Beasts get Dragon Ogres too, but not the character Skinks on Cold Ones Plague Arch-priest lord choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkieft Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I played primarily O&G and a little OK in 7th. That edition was not perfect and some changes to how combat resolution was calculated could have helped with some of the problems, but goblins, gnoblar, etc had an important place in my armies. Despite my best efforts, it took me some time to realize that my boyz could not face every foe toe to toe and win. These weaker units role was as bait, screening. I miss the days of throwing my goblins out there and just hoping they would get charged, run away (sometimes standing to hopefully get that unit to move and a little bit farther, sometimes just fleeing a charge), and pull that juicy unit into range of units that could kill them. That is all but gone in this edition. This job seemed to fit what a gnoblar was supposed to be to the letter. I know some people did not enjoy this aspect of the game, but it was something I particularity enjoyed. It felt that position and movement mattered far more back then. Yes, that system had problems, but I did not see steadfast as a good solution to solving those. It, and other rules, changed (far to much for me) that aspect of the game. See, I find this aspect still exists in 8th. Running from the Charge is less of an option (as the failed charger won't move far enough to set up another charge, but a minimal goblin/gnoblar unit can easily be used to screen against charges. It's not as effective due to a reform after the fight (assuming you did not give chase) but you can set up really nice multi-charges this way (or let them overrun into you then counter charge with a support unit). Anyway, it may not be as devastating of a tactic, but it is still there. Say... that's not what this thread is about... I think they need a new name as "OPENHAMMER" implies that it has something to do with Warhammer. How about "GPLWars" or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savion47 Posted July 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Yes openhammer is a terrible name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djellum Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 fixing steadfast is simple, no steadfast while disrupted. done. all of a sudden big units suck a lot worse if they cant afford units to maintain the flanks, wouldn't terribly hurt actual horde armies since they, by their nature, can afford flank protection, and gives the opponent a weakness to exploit. maybe you win maybe you lose, but as long as you have a possible chance to break them I doubt it will make the game lame. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KlawKnee Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Posted it on underempire and got feedback, I wish they would ditch the single model on a single small base, Just make the smallest footprint 50*50mm or 40*40mm or anything rectangle with dimensions between 40mm and 50mm 1) everything is multiple wounds and models on the same base count as just one model. No more models falling over on the battlefield. You can still reform in single file to move through villages or over bridges etc. Gives the opportunity to do some modeling on the bases for command squads. 2) a)Ogre size 1 per base b) Human size 4 per base (can model them on 40*40 to look tight or 50*50 for bigger models to fit together like black orcs or chaos warriors) c) Goblin size 6 per base (that's when a 50*40 rectangle can come in handy and still use the same rules) d) Cavalry 2 per base (you can still make a wedge if you want ... 2 in front rank, 4 in second rank, 6 in third rank etc. 3) add in something special for Giants Curious if they could be adopted to encourage this.. Or could be used for warmaster scale games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.