|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Oct 13, 2010 20:23:54 GMT -5
Would anyone propose house rules to help curb some of the more absurd/abusive aspects of 8th ed.
one that Tommy and I were talking about with regards to magic (one of the worst offenders at times):
characteristic tests still allow saves to be taken.
This could curb some of shadow and death etc.... however would do little about lore of life etc.
So what do you think? (feel free to say House Rules aren't needed... we'll sign you up to face Will's lizards at the next tourney ;D )
|
|
|
|
Post by stonecutter on Oct 13, 2010 21:08:43 GMT -5
I'm ready for some magic caps. I think what the Ottawa crew were mentioning is likely the easiest - no casting of any spell with a value of 15+. Eliminates most of the gross spells but still allows a lot of flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by usscott on Oct 14, 2010 8:02:33 GMT -5
i i lending on the 15+ was going to start ack anyone i play if tha what to cap spell at 15+ or not
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Oct 15, 2010 10:09:28 GMT -5
How did people find our first use of magic caps last night? (I was playing with lore of vampires so really didn't come up for me!) any thoughts about these terrain rules??? I'm still finding the concept strange that trees don't block line of sight and apparently running through a forest doesn't slow you down at all.... On Thursdays we don't seem to be using the "special" (if you can call it that) terrain much... should we at least try to include something on the table... or not??? Any thoughts about the whole disruption vs. steadfast idea from the ETC rulings??? It makes sense to me (even as a dastardly skaven player) but what do we all think?  |
|
|
|
Post by usscott on Oct 15, 2010 20:14:11 GMT -5
will i been roll for the nember of piecds then i start go what then i look at the # lest say it a 9 i start what 2 tree 2 hill 2 builds 2 set of obst then i roll one pice of cerzy terran
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesedward on Oct 15, 2010 20:38:41 GMT -5
I like the magic caps but not a fan of the disruption vs steadfast too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Dec 31, 2010 14:39:11 GMT -5
So we've tried both magic caps and eliminating spell #6.... what do we prefer? (or does someone have an even BETTER idea?)  |
|
|
|
Post by usscott on Dec 31, 2010 22:11:34 GMT -5
i like the no 6
|
|
|
|
Post by stonecutter on Jan 1, 2011 21:27:21 GMT -5
With regard to magic, I think eliminating the number 6 spell in each lore is the simplest and most effective method. While there are still plenty of other nasty spells, the number 6 in the main lores seem to be the worst in terms of game changing impact from a distance (getting crushed in combat is something else entirely).
One house rule I think I would like to try is to bring back some utility to terrain as follows:
1. Trees, buildings and woods would block line of sight (LOS) unless a unit/model was in/on the terrain - i.e. no "true LOS" nonsense.
2. Movement through terrain would remain the same as it is now - i.e. nearly nothing except for cavalry & chariots.
In addition to making terrain more useful, I think this would definitely make the game more tactical. I will grant that it is a signficant departure from True LOS of 8th but IMHO, True LOS really dumbed down the game quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesedward on Jan 2, 2011 15:38:59 GMT -5
The 15+ casting cost spell cap was the only one i ever liked. My question is, if we are going to make all of these house rules, why dont we just go back to playing 7th ed then?
|
|
|
|
Post by stonecutter on Jan 3, 2011 8:09:02 GMT -5
The 15+ casting cost spell cap was the only one i ever liked. My question is, if we are going to make all of these house rules, why dont we just go back to playing 7th ed then? Returning to 7th edition is not really an option since we still want to be able to have games with people from outside the Kingston area. Also, while it may seem there are a "lot" of gripes about 8th ed, there are really only two significant areas of complaint - LOS and magic. 8th edition did bring several major improvements over 7th edition: movement & charging are much simpler to resolve, infantry is actually useful in the game, the step-up and supporting attacks allow a player to do something other than just remove models from the table and everything can always be wounded on a 6. The new rules for moving through terrain are much better than in 7th edition as the game generally ended previously for any non-skirmishing unit that went into difficult terrain since it took forever to get through or out of it. Ideally, we would like to meld the best of 7th and 8th but that isn't really completely feasible. Limiting magic removes one of the biggest complaints and while I would personally love to see the proposed terrain/LOS become a standard, this isn't realistic unless it is adopted across Ontario. One of the reasons I am proposing it is to give some feedback to other gaming clubs as many people have expressed interest in the concept. If all works out, it could become a standard but if not, at least we tried to help shape the game for the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 3, 2011 9:39:49 GMT -5
I like the concept of terrain actually blocking LOS (unless you're inside it).... Although I enjoyed 7th more than 8th, some of the changes do actually make sense and have leveled the playing field a bit more... and I'm starting to come around... the magic caps we've been using have made it alot better in my opinion... I'd prefer the no 15+ personally though.... just dropping level 6 doesn't account for the boosted effects of other spells which are just as nasty, nor does it account for the non-BRB lores often being diminished in power in comparison (really, does the level six spell of the goblin lore really have to go?) When we limit the spells to nothing cast at 15+, it takes into account the internal balance that already exists with respect to the higher a spell is to cast, the nastier it gets... by having a cut off of a spell cost, we only limit those spell effects which the game itself already has the "uber" stamp on it by virtue of it's casting cost. just my two cents.... |
|
|
|
Post by stonecutter on Jan 3, 2011 12:07:44 GMT -5
I agree that limiting 15+ spells provides better balance and reduces the ridiculous effects of uberpowerful spells and am happy to continue with it locally and to provide the feedback to WMC, Gamesummitt and other tourney/forum organisers. The number 6 rule is very simple (an important advantage for gamers!!) but I still quake in fear of the ogre, woodelf, vamp and gobbo #6 spells ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by danydaigle24 on Jan 5, 2011 11:00:28 GMT -5
guys I was planning on coming back with my Empire I was working on my army and I saw this forum can you let me know if it will be possible to play with normal rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 5, 2011 11:41:23 GMT -5
Dany, I believe the only house rule we've actually been implementing thus far has been with magic...
.....I'm sure that if you really want to play without magic caps, some of us will be okay with playing you without those restrictions in place, however for our casual games and tournies around here (including Trenton and Ottawa) magic restrictions are the norm... and it would appear even the warmasters tournies (the big ones for Ontario) are looking at magic restrictions as well...
it's the one major section of WHFB that people generally agree is pretty broken....
|
|
