8th Ed. Warhammer 8th Home-Rules

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Okay okay I've made several attempts at this before, but this time I might actually have my play group convinced it could work and willing to try it out, if nothing else then in scenarios (several years of hard work there ).

What I'm asking is not that you use these rules for yourself and playtest them, although you are of course free to do so.
What I would like, is for someone else to take a look outside of my playgroup, as at least in this instance, I'm not so arrogant as to think that I've made no mistakes and it is all perfect.

I've made it possible to make comments in the document, but it might be more productive (if anyone is actually willing to take the time to look through this) if any proposals are posted here to incentivize discussion.

I should also say that it is very much still a WIP and I will also need to make Ogre Kingdoms, Dwarves, Warriors of Chaos, High Elves and Vampire Counts at the very least.

Thanks to any who might spend some of their precious time on this precarious venture.

 

[pendrake]

Not seeing a link or any actual rules. (?) Or an attachment.

Would prefer to view it in a Forum post. Instead of having to dig into a google drive or download a PDF. Or a series of posts.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Okay okay I've made several attempts at this before, but this time I might actually have my play group convinced it could work and willing to try it out, if nothing else then in scenarios (several years of hard work there ).

What I'm asking is not that you use these rules for yourself and playtest them, although you are of course free to do so.
What I would like, is for someone else to take a look outside of my playgroup, as at least in this instance, I'm not so arrogant as to think that I've made no mistakes and it is all perfect.

I've made it possible to make comments in the document, but it might be more productive (if anyone is actually willing to take the time to look through this) if any proposals are posted here to incentivize discussion.

I should also say that it is very much still a WIP and I will also need to make Ogre Kingdoms, Dwarves, Warriors of Chaos, High Elves and Vampire Counts at the very least.

Thanks to any who might spend some of their precious time on this precarious venture.

can do. do you have a link?

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Not seeing a link or any actual rules. (?) Or an attachment.

can do. do you have a link?

Huh, seems I forgot to actually post the link

Well here you go: Document

Would prefer to view it in a Forum post. Instead of having to dig into a google drive or download a PDF. Or a series of posts.

I would agree if it was not for the fact that the document is quite long. I guess I could write the changes for each unit, but to judge it properly then you would need the rules for each of the factions. I can do it though if you'd like.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

ooooh boy that's a moth full ill try to get back to you when i shift threw all of this

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

ooooh boy that's a moth full ill try to get back to you when i shift threw all of this

Just if you want to, there is no pressure
Also you don't need to read all in one go, and you can pick the faction you want too if you are not interested in say Orcs and Goblins you are free to skip them.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

Just if you want to, there is no pressure
Also you don't need to read all in one go, and you can pick the faction you want too if you are not interested in say Orcs and Goblins you are free to skip them.

ah but you wan't us to gage balance and i need the whole thing for that and don't worry i enjoy this kind of thing but it is slow work ill get back to you when i can

 

[pendrake]

So your approach is to make small changes to specific units Army-by-Army rather than adjust the main rules?

By the way, saw a typo: Steagodon. Or maybe it was Steagadon.

My inclination is to adjust the main rules.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

By the way, saw a typo: Steagodon. Or maybe it was Steagadon.

I'll fix that right away

So your approach is to make small changes to specific units Army-by-Army rather than adjust the main rules?

That could be done but part of what I want to do is make each army reflect their lore more, so with that goal in mind, changing each army seems like the best choice.

I do however plan to make some changes to the main rules and have also done so with Magic for instance and am considering changing cannons to use BS, basically making them a stronger version of Bolt Throwers I guess. Also giving Cavalry some bonus when charging to help break enemies on the charge and generally make artillery a bot weaker but giving other options to fight monsters like having spears maybe get +1 to hit against large targets or something along those lines.

Also: Changing the main rules changes every faction as well and it is then harder to judge what is good and what is bad; I also want to be able to use these rules and I don't think my gaming group wants to change the main rules too much if it can be avoided.

Maybe you are thinking of something more substantial; How would you do it?

 

[pendrake]

Maybe you are thinking of something more substantial; How would you do it?

I would keep in mind a metaphor involving a mace.

I will get back to that in a second.

I do however plan to make some changes to the main rules and have also done so with Magic for instance and am considering changing cannons to use BS, basically making them a stronger version of Bolt Throwers I guess.

I noticed you had tinkered with the magic.

Also giving Cavalry some bonus when charging to help break enemies on the charge and generally make artillery a bot weaker but giving other options to fight monsters like having spears maybe get +1 to hit against large targets or something along those lines.

Cavalry being too weak.
Cannons being too strong.
Monsters being unstoppable without cannons.
A few of the Level 6 spells being Game-Enders.
Infantry being too strong compared to Cavalry.

All of these are problems to think about and you had already mentioned 2-3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to the Mace metaphor. The basic rules are the spikey head on the classic Toon style Mace. The spikes represent imperfections and problems with the rules. A smooth sphere would be a set of rules that was perfect and balanced.

So what I would do is try to flatten one spike at time.

Blunt the tip of the spike without even removing it totally.

I would not make a ton of changes all at once.

 

[pendrake]

So what I would do is have a long, hard, think about which is the worst problem:

• Magic (L6 spells)
• Cannons
• Weak Cavalry
• Uber Infantry
• Deadly Monsters
• Goofy skirmisher rules

Fix that one problem; then play at least ten games to see what else broke.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Back to the Mace metaphor. The basic rules are the spikey head on the classic Toon style Mace. The spikes represent imperfections and problems with the rules. A smooth sphere would be a set of rules that was perfect and balanced.

So what I would do is try to flatten one spike at time.

Blunt the tip of the spike without even removing it totally.

Nice metaphor

• Magic (L6 spells)

• Cannons

• Weak Cavalry

• Uber Infantry

• Deadly Monsters

• Goofy skirmisher rules

I agree with all these being problems, I don't know how to deal with all of them, especially skirmishers seems tricky but I will certainly take a shot at them.
I have thought of having a light version of fixes where things like this were addressed and then a more fluffy section with the faction changes that I've made. If nothing else then the light section could always be used and if the fluffy section is not balanced quite as well then it could be used for special scenarios to spice things up.

Since these are the more important ones I could give each a go and post the ideas here to be discussed.

 

[pendrake]

• Magic (L6 spells)
• Uber Infantry
• Weak Cavalry
• Cannon
• Deadly Monsters
• Goofy skirmisher rules

Is that a good priority list ? With problem numbero Uno being: those three army killing, game ending, level six spells.

Should the order be different?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you agree with Spells being the worst; I would suggest make one change and play at least ten games with the change in effect.

Specific idea:

....eliminate all of the Level 6 spells from all the lores. Roll randomly for spells as usual. Rolling a six provides a free choice of spell. No other changes to the rules.

Play ten games.

Example of rolling spells for a level four wizard: he rolls a 2, then a 6, then a 3, then another 6. He gets Spell 2, Spell 3 and can then choose two out of the three spells that remain.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

If you agree with Spells being the worst; I would suggest make one change and play at least ten games with the change in effect.

Specific idea:

....eliminate all of the Level 6 spells from all the lores. Roll randomly for spells as usual. Rolling a six provides a free choice of spell. No other changes to the rules.

Play ten games.

Example of rolling spells for a level four wizard: he rolls a 2, then a 6, then a 3, then another 6. He gets Spell 2, Spell 3 and can then choose two out of the three spells that remain.

If it wasn't for the fact that only making a single change every 10 games would take me way too long, I'd gladly do it like that and it's a nice way of gauging how the individual change affects the rest of the game, it's just not practical for me.

For the vast majority of the time the lv 6 spells are the biggest problem, but other things about magic have always bothered me:
- I dislike how spells are generated randomly, it means you won't know if your wizard is gonna be useful.
- It does not scale at all. For games around 2000 points it's fine, and that is what is played most of the time, but if you were to play 5000 points, or have multiple wizards, there just isn't enough dice; For 1000 point games I'd argue that it's too much.
- A side thing I know, but bound spells are generally not worth taking ever, at least in my experience.

Neither of these are gamebreaking and it's partly subjective, but if I'm changing armies to better reflect their lore and tweak rules in general I might as well try to tackle this.
Besides I doubt a perfectly balanced game could be reached anyway, it might be possible of course but I'm not looking for the 9th age balanced, since I think some of the flavor went out the window, I just want it to be balanced enough that all players will have a good time, while their units perform roughly according to lore.

 

[pendrake]

does not scale at all. For games around 2000 points it's fine, and that is what is played most of the time, but if you were to play 5000 points, or have multiple wizards, there just isn't enough dice;

There is an obvious solution to this ^ problem that requires no modification of the rules at all.

If you want to play at 5000 points per side. Simply take two 2500 point armies. Or two 2000 point Armies and one 1000 point force. Wouldn’t that scale up the magic dice numbers?

If it wasn't for the fact that only making a single change every 10 games would take me way too long, I'd gladly do it like that and it's a nice way of gauging how the individual change affects the rest of the game, it's just not practical for me.

Thus T9A doomed itself. They did the same mistake even GW made.

My whole point is to change slowly ... test carefully.

- I dislike how spells are generated randomly, it means you won't know if your wizard is gonna be useful.

That seems like a core feature of the magic system though. Besides a 6 means a free choice. What happens in the existing rules if a two is rolled a second time? I forget.

That could be another excuse to generate another free choice of spell.

A side thing I know, but bound spells are generally not worth taking ever, at least in my experience.

Agreed.

 

[pendrake]

Besides I doubt a perfectly balanced game could be reached anyway, it might be possible of course but I'm not looking for the 9th age [blandness]...

I also doubt that it is possible.

Going back to the Mace-Metaphor: the goal is not to acheive a smooth sphere. The goal is to blunt one spike at a time....And end up with a knobbly sphere.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

There is an obvious solution to this ^ problem that requires no modification of the rules at all.

If you want to play at 5000 points per side. Simply take two 2500 point armies. Or two 2000 point Armies and one 1000 point force. Wouldn’t that scale up the magic dice numbers?

It's an option and not too bad, though it does not seem all that elegant if I may be so blunt, since you have to split up the armies, and what if someone splits them up into 1000 point armies and then get 5 times 2D6 PD?

Thus T9A doomed itself. They did the same mistake even GW made.

My whole point is to change slowly ... test carefully.

Yeah, it's a shame it went like that.
Still, couldn't stat changes for units be seen as small changes since the core rules aren't affected?

That seems like a core feature of the magic system though. Besides a 6 means a free choice. What happens in the existing rules if a two is rolled a second time? I forget.

That could be another excuse to generate another free choice of spell.

It is indeed, still don't like it; There is so much randomness whether you get a spell of anyway that to also not know what spell your wizard will have makes lv 1 and lv 2 wizards very likely to be useless unless you know you can use the signature spell.
I'd rather have wizards know all spells and have each spell be a little weaker or magic resistance be a bit stronger.

Your 6 idea is quite nice, however it does make Loremaster less useful if nothing is done to that, and big units of infantry gets hard to deal with (big infantry units being another problem in itself).

What happens when you roll a spell a second time, is that you get to choose which spell you want, since only one copy of a spell can be know by wizards and they don't want to share their knowledge for some reason. Unless it's the signature which you can have as many wizards knowing as you want.

Regarding bound spells I thought of making them like in 7th (I think) but that does seem kinda strong, so maybe having them be one use only is better, but takes a but of flavor away, alternatively they could have a number of charges and some could buy more or maybe power dice could be used to infuse some magic into them.

 

[pendrake]

...an option and not too bad, though it does not seem all that elegant if I may be so blunt, since you have to split up the armies, and what if someone splits them up into 1000 point armies and then get 5 times 2D6 PD?

They do that ...they are stuck with low level wizards? Because in 1K points L4s don’t fit easily if at all.

But if both 5000 point sides have same the option it will all work out.

...to also not know what spell your wizard will have makes lv 1 and lv 2 wizards very likely to be useless unless you know [they] can use the signature spell.

They were called Scroll Caddies for a reason.

...however it does make Loremaster less useful if nothing is done to that...

Remind me what Loremaster was..?..is that a High Elf thing? Slann ability?

What happens when you roll a spell a second time, is that you get to choose which spell you want, since only one copy of a spell can be known by wizards and they don't want to share their knowledge for some reason. Unless it's the signature which you can have as many wizards knowing as you want.

Not sure I understand the knowledge sharing comment. (?) We always played that each Wizard rolled separately. If you had three Wizards, and each of them rolled a 5 during the Spell generating phase, then in the first Magic Phase your army could potentially fire off Spell #5 three times. That would be reduced to two times if one of the Wizards was KIA.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

They were called Scroll Caddies for a reason.

Yes, but I find that quite boring, essentially a dispel scroll on legs.

Remind me what Loremaster was..?..is that a High Elf thing? Slann ability?

A standard ability, though quite uncommon. It just means that the wizard knows every spell in his chosen lore. (which for some reason Slann lost from 7th to 8th with the exception of High Magic).

Not sure I understand the knowledge sharing comment. (?) We always played that each Wizard rolled separately. If you had three Wizards, and each of them rolled a 5 during the Spell generating phase, then in the first Magic Phase your army could potentially fire off Spell #5 three times. That would be reduced to two times if one of the Wizards was KIA.

Then I have to say that you have been playing it wrong. According to the rules as spell, if generated randomly, only be known once in the army, so if you roll it again for another wizard, you have to choose a new spell that no other wizard in the army has, for which you pick freely; If there isn't any left, the spell is lost.

 

[pendrake]

Then I have to say that you have been playing it wrong. According to the rules as [written?]

That is possible.

I may be half remembering 6th or 7th. (?)
I suppose that is why some armies could choose among different lores and potentially have a different one for each spellslinger.