• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

8th Ed. LIZARD-Hammer (building on 8TH-hammer)

Which name do you like better

  • LizardHammer

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • NinthHammer

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Write IN: see my post

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Warhammer 8.5

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • Warhammer: Ninth Age

    Votes: 13 48.1%

  • Warhammer 8.1

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • Total voters
    27
Putzfrau said:
Agreed on all counts! Although i really would love to see carnosaurs be the unstoppable killing machines they should be....


toughness 7 with a regen save??


that sounds fair ;)
Click to expand...

NIGHTBRINGER said:
Only if my Kroxigor can replace their ASL and initiative 1 with ASF and initiative 10! :D
Click to expand...

I think you would be looking at about the most expensive monster and monstrous infantry unit. They would be BRUTAL! :mad:
 
I see no reason at to why Swedish Comp would make 8.1 and then follow up in half a year with 9th. It doesn't make sense - why spend time on something that might be irrelevant soon after?
Check the list in the thread I created if you're unsure what they're aiming to do.
 
Then we could send ALL of our ideas and they can choose from them?
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
I think we'll have to streamline and organize the ideas at some point, but for now it's all about idea generation.
Click to expand...

I sneaked a proposed 8.1 list into the House Rules forum incorporating criticisms and ideas from my first draft. If you guys still don't like it you can reply to the new thread or simply ignore the thread altogether (as people do with most of the House Rules forum).
 
Scalenex said:
I sneaked a proposed 8.1 list into the House Rules forum incorporating criticisms and ideas from my first draft. If you guys still don't like it you can reply to the new thread or simply ignore the thread altogether (as people do with most of the House Rules forum).
Click to expand...

That list looks pretty good. But the scope of it feels more like 8.3 or 8.4 TBH.

Scalenex said:
Line template attacks that strike a character riding a monster are randomized between the rider and monster (1-4 monster, 5-6 rider).
Click to expand...
This is a step in the right direction. But it seems like not the whole answer.

I am wishing for something different.
How about scrapping Look Out Sir for cannons? but replacing it with Innaccurate:

Innaccurate --- cannonballs are horribly innacurate. To hit a character with a cannonball: roll a D6 for each full 6 inches the cannonball travels. Any 5+ indicates the character will be missed if it is man-sized. For characters Ogre-sized and larger any 6 will indicate a miss.

(more dice to roll, with more distance, will work out to worse accuracy at larger ranges -- that is the intent)
​
For characters on mounts: if the cannonball misses the character, roll an additional D6. The cannonball also misses the monster on a 5+ (carnosaurs, thundertusks) or a 4+ (rhinoxen, juggernauts) or a 3+ (wolves, cold ones, warhorses) depending on size of the mount.​

What do you guys think?
Trying for gradually worse accuracy...
If it is too difficult or easy how could it be adjusted?
Hoping that is not too complex?
Is there a better way to phrase it?
Trying to factor in target sizes as well.

I am trying to be fair to my Empire, Orc, Chaos, Lizards and Dwarf armies with respect to the operation of cannon.

Last question: what is the maximum range of cannon in 8th edition?
 
Last edited:
Scalenex said:
I sneaked a proposed 8.1 list into the House Rules forum incorporating criticisms and ideas from my first draft. If you guys still don't like it you can reply to the new thread or simply ignore the thread altogether (as people do with most of the House Rules forum).
Click to expand...


I'm not quite seeing why though. We're splitting this up way too much in my opinion. Unless of course what you're suggesting is stricly house rule and nothing to do with the swedish comp thing.

Because otherwise we're talking 8.1, 9th edition AND the LM army book.

I'm not saying you shouldn' do it I'm just curious as to why. Unless of course I misunderstood everything :D
 
Hi all,

I'm currently in the process of tweaking the core rules and every army book. For each army I have done a SWOT analysis to determine their strengths and what units fir them for playability and lore. (So some armies will lose units, have units altered slightly or gain a new unit which fits their older fluff).

Got most of what I want done for Lizardmen (as has been posted previously)

Most of my plans for BRB changes are done but not typed up. Some things I have done (I know they won't all be popular but I don't play beyond close friends and family so meh)

-Game phases changed to
1. Position (normal move) 2. Shoot 3. Movement (march or charge) and 4. Combat. Magic is rolled for at the start of the turn and spells happen in relevant phases.

-Hit and wound charts modified. Now harder for low WS and S troops to hit and hurt high WS and T troops and easier for high WS and S to wound low WS and T.

-All Monstrous cavalry and Monsters do a number of impact hits equal to their current wounds value at their strength

-All Monstrous cavalry and Monsters do a number of crush/stomp attacks equal to their current wounds at S-1.

-MI and cavalry get 1 impact hit and stomp.

-Frenzy is reroll misses rather than +1A.

-Magic is generated differently, more a mix between 8th and 6th edition.

-Spells are not as devastating (most off the vortex spells have been removed and many other spells altered or changed for previous edition versions). but they fit the lore and are slightly easier to cast. i.e. Fire is mostly DD spells, shadow is mainly hexes, beasts has some augments etc.

-ASF + equal or higher I gives reroll 1s to hit, not reroll all miss.

-The order of resolving damage is 1. Roll to hit 2. Roll for armour/ward save 3. Roll to wound.

-In combat, the winner is determined solely by the number of wounds caused. The loser then takes a break test with a negative modifier calculated by combat res.


I'll finish up the BRB changes and post them properly in case anyone is interested. I'll also be working on altering other armies. HElf and WElf and DElf have had a lot done. Bretonnia and Tk and Empire also a bit.

The only thing I'm not touching at the moment is Magic Items and army specific magic.
 
Hmm seems like an interesting mix of 8TH and AoS...
 
1. Position (normal move) 2. Shoot 3. Movement (march or charge) and 4. Combat. Magic is rolled for at the start of the turn and spells happen in relevant phases.

IMO this removes the most important part of fantasy... declaring charges before movement. Its what makes the movement phase of fantasy so special. It's what makes it such a strategically demanding game. I dunno, i think this change would be going much too far.


I realize this is for your personal use, but it relates to the general point of this. I don't think we should be setting out to "create" a new edition. Eighth edition is arguably the best, and most balanced warhammer has ever been. It requires very few, very moderate changes to make certain things (i'm looking at you cannons) a little more manageable.

It just feels like we are doing too much, or at least attempting to do too much. There should be a half dozen tiny tweaks we can apply to 8th edition to make certain pain points a little better.

IMO i don't think this whole community effort works any other way. The more drastic changes you try to implement the more people you piss off. No one is sitting here thinking "yeah i love the way cannons work right now. I wouldn't change a thing." So a cannon change is a nice simple thing to do. The scope of that cannon change might be a little more complicated, but at least everyone is in agreement that something needs to be done.

I think we should try to stick to those changes, and create the best, most inclusive fixes to those specific pain points. It would help to define those pain points.

From my opinion, the few things that need to be touched are:

1) cannons
2) the deathstar/big spell issue. Personally i think this is as easy as allowing characters ward saves on big spells.
3) "railroading" and similar issues
4) Lack of any kind of disruption from flank/rear charges.
5) randomness of winds of magic. I think the possible swing of 2-12 dice in a magic phase is too large, and it makes anything that can generate additional magic dice too strong.

And those are the big ones that come to mind for me. Anyways, i think thats a good place to start. Helps focus the process a little more. Feel free to chime in on what these "pain points" are.
 
Should Skink Priests be able to ride Terradons and/or Ripperdactyls?
 
Scalenex said:
Should Skink Priests be able to ride Terradons and/or Ripperdactyls?
Click to expand...
That sounds like a LM army list enhancement to coincide with BRB 8.6 or so. That said it is a neat idea. A highly mobile arcane vassal.

...and, hey, we know a chameleon Skink can learn to ride a Terradon. ;)
 
Putzfrau said:
From my opinion, the few things that need to be touched are:

1) cannons
2) the deathstar/big spell issue. Personally i think this is as easy as allowing characters ward saves on big spells.
3) "railroading" and similar issues
4) Lack of any kind of disruption from flank/rear charges.
5) randomness of winds of magic. I think the possible swing of 2-12 dice in a magic phase is too large, and it makes anything that can generate additional magic dice too strong.

And those are the big ones that come to mind for me. Anyways, i think thats a good place to start. Helps focus the process a little more. Feel free to chime in on what these "pain points" are.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with your list about the things that should be first on the list.

1) I don't remember who said it or where I read it but the best idea I've heard so far was to make cannons "S10 bolt throwers" meaning you should use the crews BS to shoot. Then think if it should bounce or scatter or just miss completely or whatever.
2) In a way they both restrict each other. I would be completely up to allowing ward saves for big spells - but then again I would like to see the old MR back where you got more dispel dice when targeting the said unit
3) I think ETC has covered this quite nicely atleast with pivoting units by allowing them the "virtual pivot".
4) Agreed, disrupted units should lose steadfast in my opinion
5) Agreed, it's rather stupid now with the current rules that you are almost forced to have a wizard and in most cases that should be level 4 as otherwise you give an edge to your opponent. But it's not worth to invest more in wizards as the magic phase is so completely random that you might roll snake eyes for each of your magic phases with multiple wizards and do nothing.

BR
Agrem
 
pendrake said:
Does that add up to more movement range than normal warhammmer? :cyclops:
Click to expand...

So the idea is that
-if you are marching you get to move up to your move value in the position and movement phases (for a total of 2x move like it currently is)
-if you are charging you get to move up to your movement in the position phase then your move+d6 in the movement phase (total of 2xmove+d6 rather than move+2d6)

Still a bit of randomness to charge ranges but can't be less than marching which makes sense to me.

I also did it this way to allow some tactical repositioning of ranged troops after the shooting phase. I have rules for move or fire weapons to give some drawbacks to this but it seemed like most normal archery needed some love.
 
Finally finished cruising through this whole thread. Tons of great ideas scattered about! Are we consolidating these anywhere?

The only things I haven't seen added that I thought we have discussed in one form or another on L-O:

1. Get rid of pre-measuring. Helps with sniper-cannons and the like.
2. Give the Oracle on the Troggy the Arcane Unforging spell. Matches the fluff and points cost of the model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top