8th Ed. Old World revamp

It might have been yes

 

@NIGHTBRINGER I didn’t make that meme, I just google searched for it using the words @Karnus mentioned.

Others had saved it.

 

To be honest, if all they did was even out all the armies so that lists like the High Elves, Dark Elves and (especially) Chaos Warriors were taken down from "demi-god" status to something a bit more realistic they could make the TOW really good. As in making it so that every win really and actually depended on whether you as a general had looked over the opposing army, worked out a basic battle strategy and worked out your troops to do it with.

Otherwise, as I think I said before, they should just do a huge online survey of the fans as to hates/likes of the rules. If they were really smart, they'd include it as part of marketing the upcoming release as it would build a huge online presence and immense word of mouth.

 

Doing a survey and basing the rules on that sounds like design by committee, a great way to make nobody really hate it but also nobody really like it.

It is really hard to say what will be succesfull. To be really honest, i do not see myself spending a lot of money on warhammer anymore, as i won't ever like the game as much as i used to, i think. So weirdly, it makes sense for them not designing something for me?

 

I think the survey could work. If you surveyed enough players, you would see where unworkabilities are on the rules and you could then make a judgement call on it. I with you on not just doing "what does everyone want changed" and then willy-nilly changing everything, but I think a large enough survey would show them what they SHOULD change to make it really workable and playable for everyone.

Who knows, could be a catastrophe.

 

They could just scour the the Old Warhammer Devoted Forums and collate all the comments by people whinging about things wrong with the rules. The info is already out there.

 

I honestly believe there is no need for this.

They KNOW which rules are broken and which need changing.

Edit: what I mean is I am sure there are plenty of people at GW that have followed said devoted forums and know exactly what’s cracking.

 

I really, REALLY hope so.

 

I just hope that the rules that THEY know need changing are the same ones as those that WE know need changing...

(no more Horde rule, PLEASE)

 

Fun game, list the 3 top rules you'd like changed (in no particular order)...

• nerf cannons so they are not as accurate
• award half victory points for units taken below half their original size
• tone down insta-kill spells (either make them do d3 wounds or allow ward saves, etc.)

 

1. Points increase for the overpowered armies (you know the ones, WoC, Dark Elves, High Elves) so as to make it more accurate as to their worth.
2. Declare charges in any direction (I think it is a ridiculous concept where an individual character can dance around a larger unit and the unit can't charge? Very unrealistic), maybe with a movement penalty for side or back?
3. Give Lizardmen some long distance weapons that don't involve spending over 200 points. (Grrrrr..... very annoying)

 

- nerf cannon and volley gun accuracy/lethality
- allow monsters to disrupt units when charging the flank/rear
- get rid of the horde block meta that you have to adopt in 8th

 

I'm surprised at the hate of the Horde Rule. I like the rule, and the theme behind it (the large unit wrapping around the smaller unit by attacking on flanks...game friendly mechanic to represent). The only change to the Horde Rule is that I would make it not applicable in the first round of combat between the 2 units.

Steadfast was the single best rule added in 8th Ed. I just wish it had a few additional ways to negate steadfast (such as a full front rank of cavalry in the flank AND being attacked on more than 1 flank/rear regardless of that unit's type)

But while we are listing out top 3 things that need to be implemented differently (listing only game mechanics, not unit/army balance, CONTINUED SUPPORT FROM GAMES-WORKSHOP, etc.):

1) Cannons Scatter the initial target location (D6 minus BS inches....or something equivalent).
2) Game-defining magic spells should be limited to only high level mages and be more dangerous for them to cast (Mages can only have spells numbered within their lore up to their mage level plus 2....Miscast Table factors in how many magic dice were used to cast the spell, D6 plus number of dice rolled, with worse outcomes higher on the chart).
3) Victory points earned for killing half of a unit and half of a model (single worst rule removed from previous Edition).

These are just the tip of the iceberg. The game is in need of an overhaul so that the game has half the rules it ended up with.

 

Not so much the horde rule itself, but there isn't much point in fielding a block of 20 of anything which is a shame. It's a more tactical game if two people each play two blocks of 20 rather than 1 block of 40 each that just smash into each other.

 

The problem with this is that you will have a game system without a vision, an end goal of what you want the game to look like. Game mechanics are just tools imho, I think that something like the horde rule could easily be retained (I like how it buffed infantry, why do people hate it?). A game mechanic that has been voted on could easily work in one edition, but be broken in another system. It would also be impossible to balance, could you ever change things that have been voted on or not? Even things like 8th edition cannons could work in some systems, as long as monsters are strong enough in other situations.

I like that people are trying to come up with solutions here though, keep them coming, I just don't think that any individual change or a few individual rule changes matter if the rules do not have some over arching goal/vision.

 

I change my mind about the horde rule. I will swap it for a change to how random movement works with regard to charges and spinning round on the spot etc. ABSOLUTE bull-shit.

 

Yeah, personally, I think that the key thing is getting the game to approximate what would actually happen in real life. I really, really think this is key. Yes, yes, yes, I know that in real life my dinosaurs are not going to be holding spears and ranked up, blah, blah, blah, but I'm just saying that it's like any good fantasy book. It needs to make sense as to how the things work. And especially those things like ranked soldiers, charging, etc. We have enough historical accounts that it could totally be made to work.

For the record, this is the reason why I like the Eighth Edition rules so much. I appreciate that the designers DID take a real, good hard look about how to make the rules as realistic as possible. It's also why I think that if all of the data were gathered by GW, they could easily sift out opinionated statements by players who, in the final analysis, only object to a rule because they haven't worked out a way to counter it or use it themselves. They would be left (I think) with a relatively small list of things to correct.

As an example, I hate the rule that if you refuse a challenge the opponent can send a model of their choice to the back. However, I don't think it's something they should change as, in real life, unless you are a total Rat (yes, this is a Skaven rule reference) you would take the challenge from the opposing champion. Mainly because unless you did go to the back of the unit to avoid them, you would find it very hard to avoid the combat.

Sorry, got on a bit of a roll here. I'll shut up now.

 

Where does it say in the BRB that a horde wraps around a smaller unit in combat? I checked but can't see anything on this, only that they can have an additional rank of supporting attacks (meaning two ranks total).

 

I didn't say that they get a wrap around

I would also like to add to my list - make named characters worth taking or at least make the stat line and rules match the fluff. so many of our heroes have awesome backstories yet only have 2 wounds or do piddly damage or are so over costed they aren't worth taking.