8th Ed. Proposed 8.1 Fixes

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

On an unrelated note. I am reconsidering the point increase on Scar Vets and Oldbloods. It's Cold Ones that the ETC limits. Maybe a modest increase in Cold One character mount costs.

Agreed. The cold one gives pretty good bonuses, and it's not that many points. For 5 points more than light armor and shield you get higher movement, fear, immune to psychology and just as much protection, the downside of course is stupidity, but it's not that bad with cold bloodod.

 

[Rettile]

IMO if we really wanted to have a balanced game we should reset both the core rules and all the armies and think:
- which armies should have some things (monsters, yes or not, hordes, yes or not, warmachines, yes or not);
- in which way anyone of the armies could deal with any of the threats any other army could field.
If we keep basing changes, either small or big, on a unbalanced system, we'll just keep playing an unbalanced game, just an unofficial one

 

[The Sauric Ace]

IMO if we really wanted to have a balanced game we should reset both the core rules and all the armies and think:
- which armies should have some things (monsters, yes or not, hordes, yes or not, warmachines, yes or not);
- in which way anyone of the armies could deal with any of the threats any other army could field.
If we keep basing changes, either small or big, on a unbalanced system, we'll just keep playing an unbalanced game, just an unofficial one

This would be how to create a better system, that's not really what we're doing though; we're just slightly tweaking warhammer

Kidding aside: I must say that this feels like the best way to go about it, though. We only need a few play tests with other factions fans, to see whether or not other changes should be made. Like decreasing points further for carnosaur and trogolodon, or increasing for Cowboys cold ones.
So starting slow, feels like the best way of steadily getting a better game/gameexperience.

 

[Gary_M]

I put in a similar thread that Cannons in general need rules changes.
Taking the Empire as an analogy to Renaissance Europe, cannons have to have clear firing lanes and would not shot through their own troops for fear of hitting them. This talk about True Line of Sight is nonsense.
Simple enough to change - Cannons have to physically see their target with no intervening friendly troops in the way. the current rules re walls / buildings should remain, but I can't remember what effect forests/woods have. These might need looking at.
Making this simple change would, in my opinion, mean that cannons are heavily restricted in their ability to fire, and would force cannon using players to think about deployment more.
If they decide to do a boring gun line, then Comet it to death!

 

[Putzfrau]

IMO if we really wanted to have a balanced game we should reset both the core rules and all the armies and think:
- which armies should have some things (monsters, yes or not, hordes, yes or not, warmachines, yes or not);
- in which way anyone of the armies could deal with any of the threats any other army could field.
If we keep basing changes, either small or big, on a unbalanced system, we'll just keep playing an unbalanced game, just an unofficial one

A balanced game is an impossible task. It would be foolish to set out to attempt something like that.

8th edition is very balanced for a miniature game with so many options.

 

[pendrake]

A balanced game is an impossible task. It would be foolish to set out to attempt something like that.

8th edition is very balanced for a miniature game with so many options.

What is possible is to: nip away at a set of rules that is not far from hitting the right balance, fixing the most egregious problems.
Fix a few things, observe for effect, evaluate, and repeat cycle.

For 8th: Cannons, Uber-spells, etc.

 

[Putzfrau]

What is possible is to: nip away at a set of rules that is not far from hitting the right balance, fixing the most egregious problems.
Fix a few things, observe for effect, evaluate, and repeat cycle.

For 8th: Cannons, Uber-spells, etc.

I agree completely.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

How's half a point going to work? @Scalenex

 

[Scalenex]

How's half a point going to work? @Scalenex

Two half points together makes one point.

No one buys one shield. If you buy 0.5 point shields for a unit of 30 it's 15 points.

If someone spends 1999.5 points for a 2000 point army it's not really any different playability from play 1997 point army in a 2000 point game.

 

[pendrake]

The officially published Skaven book used 1/2 points for several things ... last time I looked.

 

[Scalenex]

What is possible is to: nip away at a set of rules that is not far from hitting the right balance, fixing the most egregious problems.
Fix a few things, observe for effect, evaluate, and repeat cycle.

For 8th: Cannons, Uber-spells, etc.

That is the plan. Though my tweak on uber spells is pretty small, allow ward saves. My tweak on cannons is purely points based. If it's not far enough I'll nudge it more, but I don't want to seriously rewrite 8th edition. That's what the ETC is doing.

The officially published Skaven book used 1/2 points for several things ... last time I looked.

Don't own a Skaven book, but Goblins have 1/2 point upgrades so it's not a new concept.

I'm just taking something rarely used and making it common. The Empire forum had been clamoring for it. Pointing that a lot of their Core options were too weak (or too strong in the Halberdiers' case) but changing things by a whole point would imbalance it the other direction.

 

[pendrake]

Don't own a Skaven book, but Goblins have 1/2 point upgrades so it's not a new concept.

I'm just taking something rarely used and making it common. The Empire forum had been clamoring for it. Pointing that a lot of their Core options were too weak (or too strong in the Halberdiers' case) but changing things by a whole point would imbalance it the other direction.

This illustrates what is inherently wrong with the existing points system: it is not refined enough. If rating a creature at 4 points leaves it undervalued, but rating it at 5 points makes it overvalued, the scale of one 'point' is all wrong.

Solution: make the creature 9 points.
But, in tandem, a creature that was 50 points becomes 100 points; armies that were 2500 pts. have to go to 5000 points.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

Two half points together makes one point.

No one buys one shield. If you buy 0.5 point shields for a unit of 30 it's 15 points.

If someone spends 1999.5 points for a 2000 point army it's not really any different playability from play 1997 point army in a 2000 point game.

Oh, that seems very simple. I've just always assume, that GW worked in only integers; so it just seemed a tad odd to me.

This illustrates what is inherently wrong with the existing points system: it is not refined enough. If rating a creature at 4 points leaves it undervalued, but rating it at 5 points makes it overvalued, the scale of one 'point' is all wrong.

Solution: make the creature 9 points.
But, in tandem, a creature that was 50 points becomes 100 points; armies that were 2500 pts. have to go to 5000 points.

That's really just re-scaling it, and it wouldn't be easier then just saying "Oh, by the way, you have to say x2 to every thing!", or if we agree on half points that's not really going to make the difference.
I mean 1 point doesn't need to be the minimum amount, only if we dislike the notion of it and prefer it to be like this. I will say that only integers makes it easier to calculate in your head, but if we stick with just half points along side that, it's not going to be much more difficult.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

That is the plan. Though my tweak on uber spells is pretty small, allow ward saves. My tweak on cannons is purely points based. If it's not far enough I'll nudge it more, but I don't want to seriously rewrite 8th edition.

I agree with most of this and I share the sentiments of keeping most changes point based, but I feel that cannons should be the exception. I really think their damage output should be reduced to d3 wounds. Simply increasing the costs of cannons creates a very strict rock-paper-scissors situation. Lots of monsters... the cannon is still well worth it's points. No monsters (or single characters), the cannon is a complete waste.

 

[lordkingcrow]

I'd have to disagree with you there Nightbringer. I don't think a cannon is ever a waste, unless it explodes on the first shot. Increasing the point cost is probably the best way of balancing the game. The problem you have with reducing wounds to d3 is that you then run into the situation where a character on foot takes a cannonball to the face and walks away with a single wound (or with ward saves and whatnot, no wound at all, which happens in the game now.) I don't think you can take away d6 and keep a cannon a cannon and not some piddly warmachine not worth taking. Hits need to go back to being randomized between rider and mount and points need to be increased. I thought Scaly was actually very lenient with the point increase to be honest.

Another thing is that people don't realize that a cannon ball is very effective against infantry blocks with ranks. Say you fire into an elite unit of... I don't know, Longbeards with GWs. They are ranked 5 deep. At 14 points a model you effectively took out 70 points in one shot. Two turns of shooting and you earn your points. It's all about prioritizing your targets and focusing fire. I think another thing people don't think about when they think of cannons is that they can still blow up and there is nothing you can do about it but take the model off the table and mourn... Unless you're Dwarves... Then screw that hogwash, put some expensive runes on that bad boy and make it a 200 point cannon.

 

[n810]

Another thing is that people don't realize that a cannon ball is very effective against infantry blocks with ranks.

well that was what they where used for IRL,

 

[Qupakoco]

I personally think there are too many point reductions in the LM army. I've never had the feeling that we are being outclassed by other armies so there shouldn't be a reason to make us cheaper. These changes should be to balance the game rather than to fix an army.

More specifically, I really don't think that anything in Core needs to be adjusted except the 0-1 magic banners on Saurus thing. I also think that 40pts is far too much for the Trog. I'd sooner give him another ability than a point decrease. Making the his Roar ability a constant effect would do the trick. That or make him nullify one magic item with 6"? They're made to search out those things and reclaim them. Could really make him useful against Chuck Norris and the like. Maybe both abilities though that might be too much.

As for the PF issue, I don't think that most people will be onboard with that. Lizard players like it. I'd like to reexamine the Supporting Attacks rule for a better solution.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

As for the PF issue, I don't think that most people will be onboard with that. Lizard players like it. I'd like to reexamine the Supporting Attacks rule for a better solution.

We don't get that much more from having Predatory fighter work for supporting attacks, so why not? It makes it easier to play with, and it's really only the odd time it will have an effect worth noting, but that could more or less happen before anyway.
With the supporting attacks, we get what? usually about 1-2 attacks extra, and only half will statistically hit.

 

[Scalenex]

Solution: make the creature 9 points.
But, in tandem, a creature that was 50 points becomes 100 points; armies that were 2500 pts. have to go to 5000 points.

I thought about that but I wanted to keep it familiar to 8th edition players. Doubling the scale would be more jarring than including half point increments. Using half points lets veteran players have a strong point of reference for how things have changed.

I personally think there are too many point reductions in the LM army. I've never had the feeling that we are being outclassed by other armies so there shouldn't be a reason to make us cheaper. These changes should be to balance the game rather than to fix an army.

My original draft was less generous to LM, but when multiple people suggest something I tended to cave.

 

[Qupakoco]

I tended to cave

Cause everyone on here <3's lizards!

Less changes the better for the first submittal, I say. Address the big problems and we can fine-tune the rest later.