Top 10 Changes to WHF

This is for rules development, house rules and the like

Moderator: Keepers of the Peace

BigBoss89
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:39 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Top 10 Changes to WHF

Postby BigBoss89 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:22 am

A Top 10 things that would change WHF game for the better (8th being a pretty solid edition as a whole).

10) A) Multiple Charge Bonus + B) Spear/Halberd Change

A) Much like it is stated, Multiple Charge Bonus implies that the controller gains +1 Combat Resolution PER CHARGE even if these charges are made against a single unit. This is to give a sense of the overwhelming force that a rushing force would have on a unit.
B) Other then the current affects that Spears and Halberds have they will also gain the "Pike" Special rule.

"Pike" Special Rule: "If a unit of Cavalry, Fast Cavalry or Monsterous Cavalry charges into the front of a unit of Spears or Halberds the unit inflicts a Impact Hit on its base strength towards the charging unit for each model in the front rank in base contact.

...

9) Warmachine Stats Change

Mortar changes its Strength from 2(6) to 3(6) (Note that Poisonwind Mortar may still have its normal stats).

Cannon gains "No Armour Saves Allowed" (See Nr:1 for full picture).

Bolt Throwers gains +1 BS but has Armour Piercing rule instead of "No Armour Saves allowed" (Note: See Nr:1 for full the picture).

Fire Thrower (including Dwarf-kind) From Strength 5 to Strength 4.

...

8) Fear/Flaming Attacks Change

Fear (which will still take effect on failed Ld-test) will make opponent re-roll Successfull To Hit rolls instead of being WS:1.

Flaming Attacks (which might to some degree be the case) that hit Warbeast, Cavalry, Fast Cavalry, Monsterous Cavalry and Monsters causes Panic tests if one or more wound(s) are caused (no 25% casualties needed).

...

7) Bravery over Cowardice!

Accepting a Challenge is a rare sight in the WHF world. Therefore refusing a challenge should cause somekind of penalty.

A) -1 to Combat Resolution.
B) -1 Leadership until end of turn.
C) Must take Panic test.

...

6) Return of "Guess Range" for Warmachines + Engineer "Artillary" Change.

There is no doubt that this one is most commonly on the top 3 of things that need to change in WHF for most people due to the
killing effect that Cannons have. Therefore the 7th Editions "Guess Range" should return. Making Warmachines the only element in Fantasy that may NOT pre-messure (even if a Charge is declared with a Warmachine).

Engineer does not add +1 BS/or their BS value. Rather you may re-roll the Artillary dice.

...

7) The "Enemy 3 rule" and "No Zone is Safe rule".

This rule should be enforced to avoid what's known as "Deployment shenanigans" that usually happens when a unit places itself within 1"-2" away from a enemy unit in an awkward position. This is, for most, truely against the spirit of the game and should be ruled against. Not that this would only apply towards enemy units and does not affect models that charged or that are engaged in close combat.

No Zone is Safe rule confers that Hero/Lord walls does not work in the way they do now. This could be changed by stating "One Lord/Hero PER UNIT!" or simply you may attack regular rank-and-file models as long as one or more rank-and-file (even counting Command Unit models) model are within 3" of the attacking model.

...

6) BSB revamp

The BSB grants +1 Combat Resolution and +1 Ld to all units within 12"-18" range rather then Re-roll failed Ld-test.

...

5) Wizard Channel Change/Loremaster

Assuming that Winds of Magic remains the same. The Level of the Wizard increases the Wizards ability to successfully channel Power/Dispel Dice.

Lv1: Rolls 1xD6 on 6+ to Channel.
Lv2: Rolls 2xD6 on 6+ to Channel.
Lv3: Rolls 3xD6 on 6+ to Channel.
Lv4: Rolls 4xD6 on 6+ to Channel.

Loremaster (along with the current affect) re-rolls failed Channel rolls.

...

4) Magic vs Magic Resistance/Balance of Eight Lores of Magic

This one is also one of the big deals in the game that really needs to change. Augments and Hex spells need to be more limited (or more balanced) and Damage based spells should NOT be No Armour or No Saves of Any King allowed! Because of this Magic Resistance have all but been forgotten in the game and is refered to as "useless".

More Damage based spells in the game that Magic Resistance have a saying towards!

...

3) Strength v. Toughness meets Killing Blow/Heroic Killing Blow

This one goes hand in hand with Nr:1 change (So read this WITH that one to get the full picture). If a model has higher Strength then its opponent Toughness (Magic, Ranged and Close Combat) the model gains Killing Blow special rule. If the model's Strength is double or higher then the opposing models Toughness it gains Heroic Killing Blow special rule.

...

2) Cavalry Flanking

This rule will only apply to Cavalry models (Cavalry, Fast Cavalry and Monsterous Cavalry) only. On the turn a Cavalry models (of 5 or more models) charges a unit in the Flank and/or Rare it takes away Steadfast on the turn it charged (but not in subsequent turns). This is simply to give Cavalry a better and more prominent role on the battlefield. This way Infantry keeps its Steadfast special rule but may lose it in a critical moment in the game should a Cavalry unit charge it in the Flank/Rare.

...

1) Unmodified Armour Saves.

This to me is the big issue to me in Fantasy right now. Having Strength value remove Armour Value. This should be done away with.
You keep your combined Armour Save reguardless of Strength (Strength is good anyway since it increases the amount of Wounds, and therfore saves, a unit inflicts). And as stated in Nr:3 having higher Strength then opponent's Toughness grants Killing Blow (making 6's on To Wound rolls Ignore Armour/Regen save instead).
This would also make moodels that have Killing Blow (innate) be more of a solid choice to add to your army. (Since Killing Blow would become the most reliable method in removing Armour Saves). Armour Piercing would also be more valued even if it only removes 1 towards the Armour Saves.

User avatar
rawdogg15
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:04 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Kendal, Cumbria

Re: Top 10 Changes to WHF

Postby rawdogg15 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:58 am

This is a top 12...

You put number 6 and 7 twice.

I'll post a more constructive response to the list when I've had time to properly digest it. Couldn't resist that little observation though :D
High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail.

Adam Rawson
Twitter: @WAAAGHdogg15

BigBoss89
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:39 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Top 10 Changes to WHF

Postby BigBoss89 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:46 pm

rawdogg15 wrote:This is a top 12...

You put number 6 and 7 twice.

I'll post a more constructive response to the list when I've had time to properly digest it. Couldn't resist that little observation though :D


Hahah xD Noticed it right now. My bad. Well I guess it's a Top 12 then ^^

User avatar
rawdogg15
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:04 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Kendal, Cumbria

Re: Top 10 Changes to WHF

Postby rawdogg15 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 pm

Okay, I've had more of a think and a reread. This would be my thoughts:

10.
A) Disagree. I think a large part of the skill of the combat phase is knowing when you can and cannot win multiple combats. Weighting them to the charger in this way takes away from that.
B) Agree - this would reflect the way those weapons would be used in reality and I like it when rules directly reflect fluff.

9.
For most of your suggested changes I am indifferent. I'd be happy either way with your suggestions for mortars, bolt throwers and flame templates. I don't think the canon needs the no armour save rule but this couples with the fact that I strongly disagree with your point 1. See below for further response to that.

8.
Would be happy to play fear either way but I'd say the WS1 way is a more efficient method and so the current rule is the one I'd lean towards here.

7. Disagree. Mainly because I don't think that accepting challenges is as rare as you think. In any case, I think the penalties for declining a challenge are strong enough I.e. Your flighty character doesn't get to do what he does best.

6. I don't think returning to guessing the range would work now, especially on a realm of battle board. It would be too easy to guess, especially with lots of practice. Also, engineers and people who work with measurements every day would have a massive advantage. It also opens up all sorts of arguments about whether or not something hits or doesn't whereas if you pre measure and agree before the action takes place - problem solved before it starts.

7. I don't understand your first point for this one. You may need to clarify what "deployment shenanigans" means in more detail. The second part interests me as I think you have written it in the spirit of nullifying certain effects of death stars, which I am in favour of. One of my biggest dislikes is having to allocate attacks when models are only in contact with characters and not the unit. If the characters are part of the unit, I think you should always be allowed to attack rank and file if you want to.

6. Not sure I like the idea of losing the reroll for BSB. I quite like it as a mechanic and don't think +1 LD would be as favourable for some armies as others.

5. Disagree, although I like what you are trying to do with this one. I can see merit in the idea of making channeling easier for higher level wizards. I think the mechanics would need extensive play testing though. I'd maybe simplify it to lv1-2 channel on a 6, lv3 on a 5, lv4 or LM on a 4?

4. Agree to a point. I certainly wouldn't term MR "useless" but I do think it should have more of an application than just damage spells. I'm sure there are ways it could be used against hexes but I would say that the key is changing the way MR works, not reworking the entire magic system.

3. Don't like this at all I'm afraid. In my opinion the strength and toughness rules are fine and the way strength affects armour is also fine as far as I'm concerned.

2. Agree. I like this and think it is a good idea.

1. I know this is your main one but, as I've already suggested, I'm not in favour of this at all. We've already seen a meta involving a whole host of 1+ armour destroying the world. If you take away armour modifiers based on strength bonuses, those dark days will soon be back and worse than ever. I like the fact that heavily armoured units are still vulnerable. As with the point I made for 10 A at the top, i think a primary skill in Warhammer is judging whether or not you can win a combat. Often that decision wins or loses the game. It seems to me that a number of your rules would take away that element of play and make it much easier to predict certain outcomes. Personally I feel this would dilute some of the skill involved in the game. Gaining KB or HKB in the way you suggest would get really annoying I think and, again, it comes down to being able to judge whether or not you can win a combat based on a range of factors, not just whether your strength is higher than their toughness.

There then is my two penneth. It was a really interesting set of ideas to consider and respond to. Thanks for posting it. I think we all have little tweaks we would make if we could and no system would suit everyone. As you say though, 8th is a pretty solid edition. I really enjoy the way it plays so, as shown in my reply, there really isn't much I would want to do differently.
High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail.

Adam Rawson
Twitter: @WAAAGHdogg15

BigBoss89
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:39 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Top 10 Changes to WHF

Postby BigBoss89 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:28 pm

rawdogg15 wrote:Okay, I've had more of a think and a reread. This would be my thoughts:

10.
A) Disagree. I think a large part of the skill of the combat phase is knowing when you can and cannot win multiple combats. Weighting them to the charger in this way takes away from that.
B) Agree - this would reflect the way those weapons would be used in reality and I like it when rules directly reflect fluff.

9.
For most of your suggested changes I am indifferent. I'd be happy either way with your suggestions for mortars, bolt throwers and flame templates. I don't think the canon needs the no armour save rule but this couples with the fact that I strongly disagree with your point 1. See below for further response to that.

8.
Would be happy to play fear either way but I'd say the WS1 way is a more efficient method and so the current rule is the one I'd lean towards here.

7. Disagree. Mainly because I don't think that accepting challenges is as rare as you think. In any case, I think the penalties for declining a challenge are strong enough I.e. Your flighty character doesn't get to do what he does best.

6. I don't think returning to guessing the range would work now, especially on a realm of battle board. It would be too easy to guess, especially with lots of practice. Also, engineers and people who work with measurements every day would have a massive advantage. It also opens up all sorts of arguments about whether or not something hits or doesn't whereas if you pre measure and agree before the action takes place - problem solved before it starts.

7. I don't understand your first point for this one. You may need to clarify what "deployment shenanigans" means in more detail. The second part interests me as I think you have written it in the spirit of nullifying certain effects of death stars, which I am in favour of. One of my biggest dislikes is having to allocate attacks when models are only in contact with characters and not the unit. If the characters are part of the unit, I think you should always be allowed to attack rank and file if you want to.

6. Not sure I like the idea of losing the reroll for BSB. I quite like it as a mechanic and don't think +1 LD would be as favourable for some armies as others.

5. Disagree, although I like what you are trying to do with this one. I can see merit in the idea of making channeling easier for higher level wizards. I think the mechanics would need extensive play testing though. I'd maybe simplify it to lv1-2 channel on a 6, lv3 on a 5, lv4 or LM on a 4?

4. Agree to a point. I certainly wouldn't term MR "useless" but I do think it should have more of an application than just damage spells. I'm sure there are ways it could be used against hexes but I would say that the key is changing the way MR works, not reworking the entire magic system.

3. Don't like this at all I'm afraid. In my opinion the strength and toughness rules are fine and the way strength affects armour is also fine as far as I'm concerned.

2. Agree. I like this and think it is a good idea.

1. I know this is your main one but, as I've already suggested, I'm not in favour of this at all. We've already seen a meta involving a whole host of 1+ armour destroying the world. If you take away armour modifiers based on strength bonuses, those dark days will soon be back and worse than ever. I like the fact that heavily armoured units are still vulnerable. As with the point I made for 10 A at the top, i think a primary skill in Warhammer is judging whether or not you can win a combat. Often that decision wins or loses the game. It seems to me that a number of your rules would take away that element of play and make it much easier to predict certain outcomes. Personally I feel this would dilute some of the skill involved in the game. Gaining KB or HKB in the way you suggest would get really annoying I think and, again, it comes down to being able to judge whether or not you can win a combat based on a range of factors, not just whether your strength is higher than their toughness.

There then is my two penneth. It was a really interesting set of ideas to consider and respond to. Thanks for posting it. I think we all have little tweaks we would make if we could and no system would suit everyone. As you say though, 8th is a pretty solid edition. I really enjoy the way it plays so, as shown in my reply, there really isn't much I would want to do differently.


Thanks for the respons. Let's see here.

10. A) I guess I can give you. The main spirit was to make multi smaller blocks stand against a Horde unit. As many armies uses Horde more to make or break in the number of attacks than anything else.

7. "Deployment Shananigans" are a cluster of things. Setting up a unit 1 wide to gain a distance advantage. Moving the unit within 1"-2" do that you opponent can't move. The main focus of these are the moves that are more "dickish" then actually "tactical" and also make the game look rulebending styled. The 3" rule simply means that you may not make a move (excluding when counting for failed Charge Distance) that would place a unit close enough that the opposing unit may not move forward. (As an example: I've played against Lizardmen once with WoC and Skinks were placed in a 25-60 degree angel 1" away from the front of the unit. From there you have 2 options. Charge the unit, and get screwed next turn. Or move backward, and lose the game because you can't get anywhere within combat. The first choice is not half bad of course since I can reform after i win the cc, I'm WoC vs Skinks after all, but it feels like such a douch move that I can't move to the side due to the 1" rule in the rulebook now),

6. Perhaps the guess range is not the best way to go about things. But as it stands, Cannons (of ca 100-130p) can too easily take out 200-250+p Monsters.

6 (nr2) Re-rolling Ld test is simply too good in my opinion. Armies that need to be defeated by making them flee (I.E. Skaven, Dwarfs, Lizardmen) simply do not run away. Cold-Blooded and Strength in Numbers should stay, but prior and later alongside Ld re-roll just can't be.

5. I like the Wizard channel idea you had (6+.5+ and/or 4+ Channel the better the Wizard is). That way a Wizard only "may" add 1 Pd, but that a Lv4 would do so more easily then a Lv1 Wizard.

3. Adding Killing Blow would be the defacto change to remove armour instead of Strength. 6's removing armour instead of being guaranteed of taking away 2-4 armour on model that may cost up to 30-50+pts. A Cavalry model should feel like a Terminator feels like in 40K. Meaning: It's hard as nails to kill (but in this case) odds say it doesn't get Steadfast so odds say it's going to run away if you defeat it in combat (with Wounds and/or Ranks). Armour should stack to a max of 2+ though, not 1+ as it is now for this to truly work. That way Armour Piercing makes for 3+ save.

1. And I say modifiers do the opposit. They ruin the game because they make it all about Augment-ing/Hex-ing Strength (Hex more so towards Toughness) as it makes for easier To Wound rolls and makes it too easy to kill models that cost twice or thrice the opposition. Example: A Temple Guard with Halberd boosted already has it set over the fact that he (it) wounds all opposing models on 2+/3+. Two Empire Swordsman (roughly the same amount of points) Wounds the Temple Guard on 5+ ( which is fair enough) but now has not armour save (which was a measly 5+ anyway). The To Wound rolls of 2+ is good enough. Let the Empire model keep its Armour Save and grant the Temple Guard KB (for higher Str v. Tough). That way the armour goes away on rolls of 6's instead of auto. Making it more a "dice" game rather then a "math" game. Skill of when to fight and not will still be needed. You just shouldn't be able to bank victory in CC just because you put all your eggs in the "Strength basket".

Again, thanks for the reply, and I'd say I agree with you on most of them. So this reply is not ill ment.

User avatar
rawdogg15
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:04 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Kendal, Cumbria

Re: Top 10 Changes to WHF

Postby rawdogg15 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:57 pm

I know it wasn't ill meant bud. It's pretty clear we have slightly different takes on the flaws of the current rules.

From this post and also some of the others you have put on the Workshop forum, it seems to me that you are more of a 40k gamer? The other reason I'm guessing that is that a number of your proposed rules have quite a 40k mechanic feel to them. Apologies if I'm wrong about that. I'm not such a fan of 40k, although I've not tried the new version yet. Still, your thoughts about armour and movement seem to point towards that type of system. Personally, as I said, I like the strength/toughness/armour rules and would not want to see the "fantasy version of a terminator." I've played against them in 40k and they can be massively annoying! The "movement shenanigans" you're referring to are just what I'd call redirecting. I wouldn't consider those moves dickish or out of the spirit of the game. Controlling the movement phase is the most important aspect of fantasy and being able to do this kind of thing (or avoid it) often plays a large part in deciding the winner of a game. Railroading, redirecting, conga-lining and march blocking are all perfectly legit, skilful moves to me in a game that relies on manoeuvring large blocks to where they need to be.

I would agree, as would most, however, that canons can be a problem. Some tournaments have solved this by saying that they only cause d3 wounds instead of d6. I think something as simple as that is a pretty good fix to be honest. I'd also stop them from being able to snipe characters out of units.

I very much appreciate where you are coming from, even if I see the rules problems a bit differently. I suppose we'll see which ones GW agree with when 9th gets released.
High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail.

Adam Rawson
Twitter: @WAAAGHdogg15


Return to “The Workshop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest