February 18 2020 14:39:07
Navigation
Forum Threads
Newest Threads
· Reclaim The Stones!!...
· Alternative GUO model
· Lost options from RH
· Pitched Battle - Dwa...
· So I finally did it...
Hottest Threads
· Lost options from RH [7]
· Pitched Battle - ... [2]
· Reclaim The Stone... [0]
· Alternative GUO m... [0]
Latest Articles
· THE GODS OF CHAOS HA...
· Posting Content on t...
· A word on Attachments
· Final Testing and Bu...
Users Online
· Guests Online: 1

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 251
· Newest Member: Sherpa1016
Welcome
Welcome to Classic Hammer
View Thread
Classic Hammer » Warhammer Fantasy » 6th Edition
 Print Thread
Ideas on preferences
Just Tony
Discussion on another forum kind of got me thinking about what we consider to be "standard" and what we do that's the opposite of standard. I think it'd be fun to discuss what differences we have, and maybe get ideas from others.

The standard table size is 8'x4'. The table I use the most is 6'x5', as the deeper deployment zones give a wider field to spread things out, and prevents ballistic troops from being blocked in as well as giving fast moving reserve troops room to maneuver and help out where they are needed. This also gives the option of NOT being exactly 24" from the enemy, which limits almost all 1st turn charges and cuts down on the number of cav wipings that are rumored to happen so often.

Supposedly nobody ever ran their regiments with a 5 man front if trying for rank bonus. I did, however, with everything except the 25mm base infantry. Well, Ogre size stuff as well. Also usually went 5 ranks deep as to keep my rank bonuses after shooting.

Also my brother and I usually ran armies where there were never more magic users than non magic users as characters. This flies in the face of the netlist meta as well.

Any thoughts come to mind? Feel free to chime in.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
TinyLegions
My experience was more in line with 6'X4', as the big boards were for 3K armies on up. I like the idea of a 6'X5', and hopefully will try that out one day.

In all of my time that I played WFB, never have I experienced a game where I have ever saw someone bringing infantry with 4 wide ranks. All were 5 or more. This would depend on your meta of course, but I played in two different cities in general, and I never saw that. What I did see was some folks who played cav in 4 ranks with 2 files. It kinds of goes back to "why would you do that?" question regardless of troop type.

As far as new ideas goes, I always wanted to try to house rule some rules from WAB into WFB 6th and see what happens. I can think of a few that may work well, and may actually assuage some of the problems that people complain about, but that is something that I am going to introduce in the rules development forum.
 
Just Tony
WAB? The only thing I'd like to bring in ruleswise would be Insane Courage and the Power Dice rules from 7th. Being able to channel every Skink Mage Priest's die into the 2nd Gen. Slann was a bit much.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
TinyLegions
Those changes were for the better by far, and I would use them. Don't get me wrong, I would play the book straight up and be happy. I think that if I wanted to house rule anything other than already mentioned, I would look at WAB rules first given their similarities with the 6th edition. It would certainly fit the mechanics better than what we saw in the 8th.
 
Just Tony
WAB is Warhammer: Ancient Battles, correct? Never played it. Yeah, ideally I'd have to house rule a better FOC slotting for the Chaos armies as well. I never could understand why they went so over the top with the way they made certain units Core. There isn't a reason on Earth why Chaos Knights should ever be Core.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
TinyLegions
Yeah, WAB is basically the 5th edition only with Romans, Greeks, etc., no magic, and reasonable characters. There are a few cool rules that I like in it that seem like a good fit. It is one of those things that I would like to try with someone but I am not sold on the idea. Using the KISS rule may be prudent.

I totally agree that Hordes of Chaos FOC (or were they called armylists?) needs to be revamped. Chaos Knights makes more sense as a special unit to me easily. Rare may be too much, but I can live with that as well.
 
Just Tony
Yeah, I guess the army list slots were the issue. Here's what I figured would work as far as that goes: Knights become Special, Rare if marked. If the Chaos players MUST have the mixed list, the Core choices of other armies become Specials, the Specials become Rares, and Rares from the other army lists can't be taken except in their own army. Well, maybe take up two Rare slots. I'm not really keen on this whole "Chaos gets everything" attitude GW seemed to cop starting with those books, so I'm not going to be overly lenient when making those sort of house rules regardless.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
ooontrprzes
Even with skaven I played wide ranks (to whom rank bonus was particularly important), typically 6 wide. Magic users were a minority for us as well, but I think that had to do mostly with the armies in our group (Dwarves, O&G, Chaos Dwarf, Khornate Chaos, Undeadand my Ratties). Typically the games between me and the undead were the only real "wizard's duels" (Nagash v Ikit Claw was always fun, Ikit got High Magic!).

Chaos Knights are death on hockey skates, but I never minded much (jezzails FTW, the only thing we had back then that had some decent reliability!).
 
Just Tony
ooontrprzes wrote:

Even with skaven I played wide ranks (to whom rank bonus was particularly important), typically 6 wide. Magic users were a minority for us as well, but I think that had to do mostly with the armies in our group (Dwarves, O&G, Chaos Dwarf, Khornate Chaos, Undeadand my Ratties). Typically the games between me and the undead were the only real "wizard's duels" (Nagash v Ikit Claw was always fun, Ikit got High Magic!).

Chaos Knights are death on hockey skates, but I never minded much (jezzails FTW, the only thing we had back then that had some decent reliability!).


Wait, Ikit got High Magic? In 6th? I don't remember that at all.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
ooontrprzes
Uhh.... Well, my old red skaven book is from '93, so I think that might be 4th-ish, I feel like we might have talked about this somewhere else Grin. Stop making me feel old, Tony!!

("because if Ikit's extensive investigations and research into the realms of magic he may take his spells from any spell deck except the Waaagh Magic spells" -Warhammer Armies: Skaven p.71)

My next armybook update didn't come until 2002, and that thing was a rag in my opinion. I would use my '93 edition every day of the week if I could. Kinda weird, as everybody seems to love Alessio's design. I guess the book took itself too seriously and that wasn't what they were supposed to be about to me.

*edit: I see there's now sections for various editions, awesome! I'll go sit in "4th" and draw circles in the dirt with a stick Wink *
Edited by ooontrprzes on 19-08-2015 12:19
 
Just Tony
Soon as you said spell deck I knew it wasn't 6th. While I think that the book took itself more seriously than the 5th or 4th Ed. versions, I also feel it had enough Skaven wackiness to still work, and with the streamlined approach they were aiming for in 6th, I think was even better. Heck, you got your own magic lore, what's not to love?
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
ooontrprzes
Boneripper became equipment, throt the unclean went from 70 to 285 pts, ratling guns are silly (in the wrong way for me), all of the most interesting characters became non-statted afterthoughts, and it marked the gradual rise of clan skryre to it's ET mary-sue-ness. The magic was pretty much the same as it was, so that wasn't really much in the win column for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they "broke" skaven in that edition for me, I just prefer "skaven classic" to "new skaven" if that makes sense. (let's see, assassins tripling in cost and becoming characters was significant, as well, and taking a screaming bell as a mount option for a grey seer instead of out of a warmachine allowance always felt weird, too). That edition's max-value rule for low end character magic items made the old strategy of "give a 27 point champion the fellblade, hilarity ensues" no longer viable, as well.

...Basically this all boils down to "different bad! Arrrgh! Gotta watch Wapner!" I still love'em, it was just a lot of change to absorb after almost a decade.
Edited by ooontrprzes on 19-08-2015 12:53
 
Just Tony
It also killed the Hydra Blade + Tress of Isoulde + Potion of Strength combo. The OTT characters in 5th were the main reason for the structure of 6th, as well as the only guideline for requirements were 25%+ on Regiments, with even the most elite counting as Regiments. There was no reason to even TAKE the units that were supposed to be the bog standard in an army, because as every edition shows if there's a rule to exploit people will exploit it.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
snyggejygge
I played on 6*4 table, we always played 1999 pts battles (unless training for a tournament or playing a specific scenario), that way we avoided lords & multiple rare-choices, but usually fielded more troops than a normal 2250 pts game usually did.

These days we play using the Ravening Hordes list (exception being Dogs of War & Ogre Kingdoms ofc), as we feel those lists are more balanced.

The armies I brought to the table were Chaos, Empire & Dogs of War, sadly I sold off my Empire/DoW & am currently in the process of rebuilding it.

As for Chaos Knights being core, well they weren´t all that over the top until you marked them or upgraded them to chosen, I can live with them being core if either of those upgrades moved them to special & if using both a mark & chosen upgrade they could be rare.
 
ooontrprzes
Just Tony wrote:

It also killed the Hydra Blade + Tress of Isoulde + Potion of Strength combo. The OTT characters in 5th were the main reason for the structure of 6th, as well as the only guideline for requirements were 25%+ on Regiments, with even the most elite counting as Regiments. There was no reason to even TAKE the units that were supposed to be the bog standard in an army, because as every edition shows if there's a rule to exploit people will exploit it.


Sure there was no reason to take them from an optimization standpoint, but a bell always felt more "right" being pushed by 50 slaves, monks were more fun than stormies, and all my different clanrat paintjobs allowed me to "flavor" my force. I guess I'm just one of those "fluffy" rats. Hell, even my logic behind the fellblade ploy boiled down to it fitting the story of the weapon (made to destroy it's wielder, why would you give it to someone actually useful?)
*edit: I even modified a clanrat mini with the half skeletal head from a monk box, an arm from a skelly warrior, and what I believe was the sword from an elector count to serve as my "fell-bearer", he also saw a lot of use in my Skaven warband. I do understand the oportunity for rampant munchkinry, though, and I suppose something had to be done.*
 
Just Tony
snyggejygge wrote:

I played on 6*4 table, we always played 1999 pts battles (unless training for a tournament or playing a specific scenario), that way we avoided lords & multiple rare-choices, but usually fielded more troops than a normal 2250 pts game usually did.

These days we play using the Ravening Hordes list (exception being Dogs of War & Ogre Kingdoms ofc), as we feel those lists are more balanced.

The armies I brought to the table were Chaos, Empire & Dogs of War, sadly I sold off my Empire/DoW & am currently in the process of rebuilding it.

As for Chaos Knights being core, well they weren´t all that over the top until you marked them or upgraded them to chosen, I can live with them being core if either of those upgrades moved them to special & if using both a mark & chosen upgrade they could be rare.


I'm really on the fence with the whole Knights as Core unless they are rather mid line or worse. The problem is you have the all-cav army if your Core can be satisfied with Knights. Now Fast Cav I can live with as core as it us usually less powerful. Knights Errant I can almost go for, since it's fluffy for the army to be mostly Knights. But when you have something like the Empire 1+ save army of doom, I take issue. And Chaos ranks just as high as those without something like your house rules to dissuade them.

ooontrprzes wrote:

Just Tony wrote:

It also killed the Hydra Blade + Tress of Isoulde + Potion of Strength combo. The OTT characters in 5th were the main reason for the structure of 6th, as well as the only guideline for requirements were 25%+ on Regiments, with even the most elite counting as Regiments. There was no reason to even TAKE the units that were supposed to be the bog standard in an army, because as every edition shows if there's a rule to exploit people will exploit it.


Sure there was no reason to take them from an optimization standpoint, but a bell always felt more "right" being pushed by 50 slaves, monks were more fun than stormies, and all my different clanrat paintjobs allowed me to "flavor" my force. I guess I'm just one of those "fluffy" rats. Hell, even my logic behind the fellblade ploy boiled down to it fitting the story of the weapon (made to destroy it's wielder, why would you give it to someone actually useful?)
*edit: I even modified a clanrat mini with the half skeletal head from a monk box, an arm from a skelly warrior, and what I believe was the sword from an elector count to serve as my "fell-bearer", he also saw a lot of use in my Skaven warband. I do understand the oportunity for rampant munchkinry, though, and I suppose something had to be done.*


You know, add this line "Choose one unit champion from your list to wield the Fell Blade." to the Fell Blade rules and you solve that problem without bringing back unit killer models.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
ooontrprzes

You know, add this line "Choose one unit champion from your list to wield the Fell Blade." to the Fell Blade rules and you solve that problem without bringing back unit killer models.


This is very true, and an excellent way to balance the issue if you perceive it as one, but we actually enjoyed the "crap-shoot" what-the-hell-did-you-bring aspect of building the over the top guys a bit. Just a product of my environment, I suppose Cool
 
Horace
We tend to play on tables just a few inches short of 6' x 4' dictated purely by the size of dining tables we have.

These days I tend to play 8th the only real thing we play that is totally non-standard is no TLoS.. just can't be bothered with it.

Our armies don't tend to follow internet "truths" though, our unit sizes are somewhere between 4th and 8th
 
Just Tony
I'd say 90% of the people in the clubs I played built their list around getting to combat with the full +5 CR. That also meant a full rank of disposables in the back, two if you could afford it. We never once shuddered over cav charges til the Chaos book hit, and I think that had more to do with them having a ridiculous stat line and being Core. Bretonnians were also brutal, but by the time they came around our meta had moved to building units that were made to take a charge. It was incredibly rare for me to see death stars OR MSU in 6th, but I think I was just lucky with the club I had.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
Galadrin
Excuse my ignorance, but what did it take to get +5 CR? I'm thinking 3 ranks and a standard, but that's still only +4...

I never liked the Cavalryhammer that "charger attacks first" always brought. Our house rules at the moment have all attacks in initiative order, but charging models doubles initiative on the turn of the charge. You can also only kill the models you can touch in melee, which balances monsters like the Emperor Dragon or Bloodthirster quite well. We also limit army composition so you cannot field any choice worth more than 33% of your army without your opponent's permission. It's working well so far!
 
Jump to Forum:
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Member Poll
There are no polls defined.
Shoutbox
You must login to post a message.

No messages have been posted.
1,287,582 unique visits
Table 'cmvogan_phpf1.phpf_new_users' doesn't exist