# How would you change old armies?



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

This isn't what would you add to the armies, but what would you change about the existing rules to bring them in line with the newwer ruleset.

Bretonnians have come up frequently, and I think the best one I could come up with was to make all Breton Knights Monstrous Cavalry, and to simplify Lance formation into Devastating Charge and supporting attacks up to 3 on the charge.

Perhaps also making Knights Lances +2 Initiative, as currently Elves armed with short swords strike before 8-10 feet of wood coming towards you at 20mph with the force of a mounted knight weighing over a ton behind it.


----------



## kickboxerdog (Jun 2, 2011)

give lances the always strike first rule for bretonninas and other mounted units that use them.


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

OK, let's state the obvious: give Wood Elves a real Ward save.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

I suspect that almost everything wrong with cavalry (of any army) would be solved if lances granted impact hits & Heavy Cavalry caused Terror on the turn they charge infantry.

Suddenly, it's possible (albeit far from certain) for cavalry to sweep away infantry blocks and even if they don't that charge will hurt bad.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Lances causing impact hits makes so much sense its almost silly... just make them work like the stonehorn: +2S impact hits on the turn they charge instead of their normal attacks. Could add similar rules for bonus attacks if you get a high charge roll...

WE need their magic fixing and a few rules updating, but I think they are pretty solid. Hard to play, but still fairly groovy if you can get them working nicely. They do need a rebalance against things like WoC though: relatively high T and good armour saves laugh at WE... we just can't do any damage and have bugger all high strength except for treemen/treekin.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

The topic is too broad to really address on the one hand or could be very narrow (What issues are arising in 8th edition that still require an amendment to the Army Book rules?). Just throwing some stuff out for discussion:
In general, the points costs of most cav units need to be amended in the older army book given 8th edition rules and the changes in points costs and rules in the new 8th edition army books. In the alternative to recosting cav units in general, one could adjust the rules for cav units (depending on the army and type of cav) to allow cav the ability to generate an impact hit on the charge against infantry units (for example, barded steeds might give this benefit; possibly excluding spearmen); allow to strike first on the charge if equiped with spears or lances; allow more supporting attacks from cav units; or allow cav units to have ranks with 3 or 4 models instead of 5 models, sort of like bret lance formations. Another idea would be to count cav models 50mm deep as though they were two ranks, not one, given their greater size. 
Similarly, chariots could have ranks of 3 and have supporting attacks per the new Tomb King book rules (Chariot legions) in order to allow for more ranks and units and count as two ranks per model width. 
Allow Look out sir for characters in cav units, chariot and monstrous units with 3 or more rank and file models due to sizes of models for certain units or certain types of units in general. 



Dwarves: organ guns should have to roll to hit like empire batteries other similar multi-shot guns (but with decent BS and no multi-shot penalty; pivoting does not count as moving) with BS penalties for range, shooting at units with cover, and skirmishers, could offset with say two artillery dice, instead of one; possible limits on rune spamming; limits on extra dispel dice generated and spellbreaker runes
Wood Elves: need to be substantially recosted and given a new Athel Loren magic lore or allow spellsingers to choose a common lore; lift the BSB restrictions on the use of a shield, longbow or magical weapon and on being a member of a kindred to conform to other army books; reduce cost of standard glade guard and eternal guard, give ASF to these units and similar characters (highborn and nobles), and/or give a 6+ ward save benefit for evasive abilities; give eagles an evasive ward save to shooting attacks and possibly in combat or something else to make them worth their points; consider allowing the forest spirit ward save to apply to certain types of magical attacks. 
Brets: core infantry (men at arms and bowmen) need to be reduced in cost (1 point per model each); slight reduction in points costs for cav as being done with 8th edition OnG book or give lances ASF on the charge
High elves: cav units all need to be reduced in points costs; desperately need access to better rare options; consider reducing points costs of core infantry models (-1 for spearmen, -2 for archers, -1 or 2 for Sea Guard); clarify that RBTs have 3 wounds, not two based on two crew; possibly lower points costs of eagles or 
Vampire Counts: skeletons should have their points costs reduced to be consistent with Tomb Kings; zombie points costs should be reduced given 8th edition magic and rules; black coach needs new rules to fit within winds of magic concept for generating power dice; prohibit duplicates of certain vampiric powers such as master of black arts extra power dice boost; revise rules for necromanser to be more like hero level wizard; consider revising the bound spells rules specific to this army
Lizardmen: I would restrict the number of dice generated by focused rumination to fit within the wind of magic system; reduce cost of cold one cav per 8th edition
Dark Elves: modify the khanite rules regarding non-khanite characters joining khanite units; clarify that RBTs have 3 wounds even though they have 2 crew; lift limit on size of black guard; limit number of times per turn the sac dagger can be used given winds of magic; consider reducing slightly costs of dark riders and cold one knights per 8th edition rules and trends
Warriors of chaos: reduce points costs of marauder horsemen and chaos knights to account for 8th edition magic and cav rules
Empire: core unit point costs need to be slightly reduced; great swords point costs reduced; cav units point costs reduced or rules changed per above; limit number of extra dispel dice generated by warrior priests and arch lectors but allow them to have +1 and +2 to dispel, respectively; consider revising the bound spell rules for prayers of sigmar and casting costs (such as considering the casting value as 2+ power dice roll for arch lector and 1+ power dice roll for warrior priests)
Daemons: limit daemonic items to a max of two of each item per army; lower points costs of seekers and possibly bloodcrushers (compare with mournfang cav in new OK book)
Just some ideas and thoughts to throw out.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

olderplayer said:


> High elves: cav units all need to be reduced in points costs; desperately need access to better rare options; consider reducing points costs of core infantry models (-1 for spearmen, -2 for archers, -1 or 2 for Sea Guard); clarify that RBTs have 3 wounds, not two based on two crew; possibly lower points costs of eagles or


I'd have to disagree with a couple of those points.

I suspect most armies would kill to have WS5 I6 A2 ASF cav with a 2+/2++ against flaming attacks Dragon Princes for 30 points a pop.

The only reason High elves don't use them all the time is because our other specials are so awesome.

Not that Asur cavalry doesn't need tinkering with, but just slashing points for all isn't the best answer.

I'd make both Silver Helms and Reavers 15 points and move Silver Helms to core. Keep Dragon Princes at 30 and move them to Rare. That gives us a cav option in each slot, makes all three attractive and makes the Rare slot more than just Eagles.

Silver Helms should really have the option of a magic banner, too.

Certainly, Eagles don't need a point cut. They're already one of the best units in the book, and with our ability to take more the two of the same unit cutting the cost of Eagles would be madness.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Limits on dispel dice for dwarves? Sure if you limit the number of wizards you have. Everyone else has an advantage that we must spend just as many points as they do to get it to negate it and too often that does not even work. It's not like our runesmiths can do much more than wizards who get dispelled every turn and most wizards are cheaper.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Its not 7th ed anymore... having loads of wizards isn't of much benefit: 1 Lv4 wizard is better then 4 Lv2s. Of course there are exceptions, such as vampires with black arts and DE in general, but not everyone can do that.

Then again, I don't rate super anti-magic dwarves. Sure they cut the magic phase out of the game, but against any balanced/low magic army they'll be horrendously outnumbered and will get utterly smashed.
I've played quite a few heavy anti-magic dwarf armies when I've either not had any magic or had a token lv2 for magic defense (spellsingers are almost totally defensive)... worst case was a pre-arranged 2k game of my ogres vs dwarves. He took almost 1k of magic defense and I had no magic whatsoever (just couldn't be fussed with the effort of trying to cast something)... that game didn't last very long.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

Figured I'd get some reaction. Excellent. 

The dispel dice suggestion was in the context of the extreme versions of a runelord, anvil, etc plus mulitple spellbreaker runes that would not be allowed in ETC comp rules also limiting the Slann and sac dagger and similar items and limiting empire dispel dice. Thus, the suggestion was in the context of limiting armies that can generate excessive extra power dice. 

As for high elf eagles, my friends that play them complain that they get shot down too easily and have too few attacks to be reliably effective against war machines and skirmishers and fast cav. They are not one of the better units in the book; they just happen to be the only option available to fill a required need for the army. As a dark elf player, I find they are simply not points efficient. Compare an eagle with a fiend of slannesh in terms of points cost and stats (WS, M, I, number of attacks, and ward save) and the relative points efficiency is obviously in favour of the fiend. 
Similarly, HE cav are definitely not cheap. Silver Helms and Dragon Princes suffer from being S3 and T3 and being equipped with lances (only bonus when they get off the charge). If they can't break the unit they charge on the first round of combat, they will get tarpitted and die too quickly to earn their points back. A 2+ AS is not much in the face of S3 shooting with AP or S4 shooting with AP or S5 or S6 attacks. Too many attacks in the magic phase, shooting phase, and combat phase ignore armour saves or can effectively reduce armour saves for a 2+ AS to be reliable. Thus, the HE cav units are often neglected in favour of the three special infantry options (swords, phoenix and white lions) that are not undercosted.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Take this:
Runelord with rune of spellbreaking
High elf level 2 mage with channeling staff

Dwarves now have spent 15 points more on something that may or may not negate the magic. 
High elves get: Decent chance of killing more than a few guys (depending on lore) and cruddy hero.
Dwarves get: Mediocre Hero.
Dwarves are already behind for more points. The higher points you go the more disadvantage they get because of all the crazy stuff like slann. Now go to storm of magic where one failed dispel can cost you hundreds of points of models. Aaaand oh wait they have limited anti-magic so they get pounded.

And one more thing: Magic: always useful. Anti-Magic only useful if enemy relies on magic.

Nuff said.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I don't like how everyoe moans how cavalry have taken such a nerf in this new edition.

In military history sure Cavalry were the shock troops but expecting them to ram a huge block of infantry and destroy them is near madness. The knights would get surrounded and eventually unhorsed despite whatever damage they may do and the current edition does this beautifully. What you need to do is to get 2 Knight units to charge the same target at the same time to squash them flat. Cavalry rely on the kills in the first round and as a player you need to ensure they do.

Obviously this affects Bretts most seriously since they rely on Knights. I do agree that giving them the Devastating Charge rule when they charge would be an improvement.

As for moaning that a 2+ armour save is not strong enough to stand up to much. All my guys in my army (All Pestilens Skaven) have absolutely no armour at all. Not to mention we are a lot slower, have worse weapon skill and suffer from S3. Although this is mitigated by having T4.

No offence to you but sending anything against something that is S6 is going to put a dent in said unit. However Dragon Princes should do well on the charge against such targets (I assume creatures with this strength are most commonly monsters) and as such get a nice load of attacks that are likely rerolling to hit and get a nice +2 S bonus.

As for Skaven I would only suggest giving a BSB option for a Plague Priest and perhaps giving Clan marks to Warlords/Chieftains to show allegiance to a greater clan (For example a Eshin supporting Warlord is likely to have a dodge ward save, have a higher Initiative value and higher movement) in a similar vein to having Bloodline powers or a Mark of Chaos.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

olderplayer said:


> As for high elf eagles, my friends that play them complain that they get shot down too easily and have too few attacks to be reliably effective against war machines and skirmishers and fast cav. They are not one of the better units in the book; they just happen to be the only option available to fill a required need for the army.


Obviously, not everyone agrees on every point, but I congratulate you on finding the only High Elf players in the world who don't like Great Eagles.

That might be because they're using them for warmachine hunting, when that's actually the least of their many jobs. (A Great Eagle can pay for itself five times over without ever actually getting into combat)

Whilst no High elf player would be unhappy to see such a great unit cost less, the very fact that everyone uses multiple Eagles should demonstrate the fact that 50 points is not too much.



olderplayer said:


> Similarly, HE cav are definitely not cheap. Silver Helms and Dragon Princes suffer from being S3 and T3 and being equipped with lances (only bonus when they get off the charge). If they can't break the unit they charge on the first round of combat, they will get tarpitted and die too quickly to earn their points back. A 2+ AS is not much in the face of S3 shooting with AP or S4 shooting with AP or S5 or S6 attacks. Too many attacks in the magic phase, shooting phase, and combat phase ignore armour saves or can effectively reduce armour saves for a 2+ AS to be reliable. Thus, the HE cav units are often neglected in favour of the three special infantry options (swords, phoenix and white lions) that are not undercosted.


As you yourself said - this is not 7th. If you're expecting your heavy cav to be a magic anti-regiment wand, you'll be disapointed. For their stats and effectiveness, they are already a bargain.

The fact that they don't appear in _every_ list (unlike Eagles) is not proof that they are a poor choice, simply proof that High elves do not necessarily require cavalry. Our Special Infantry is fast enough and can be deployed in regiments small enough to perform the roles for which other armies need cavalry.


I am a High Elf player. I already get dirty looks because of ASF and powerful magic. I really can live without two of my best units getting cheaper.


There certainly are units in the High Elf book that are overpriced. Our two _other_ cavalry choices spring to mind. but thereagain, are Silver Helms and Reaver Knights truly overpriced, or are they just not quite as good a bargain as Dragon Princes?

Repeater Bolt Throwers are too expensive for what they are (particularly since they lost wound with eighth) - but some of us still find them an accepptable investment, so they aren't too overpriced.

Our Core is overpriced by a point or two - but it can be argued that that's the price we pay for our fantastic Special infantry. If that is the case, I can live with that.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

Bring back +1 to hit for large targets, I know it's not an army specific rule but it makes bolt throwers a lot worse especially my gobbo crewed ones with crap bs.
My Empire handgunners really miss the bonus as well as BS 3 and short range of 12" means unless the enemy are close I'm needing 5's and if they are in short range the unit has at best 1 turn left alive, Which means I either load up on guns to have any effect or don't bother and just overload on artillery that doesn't need BS.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

> In military history sure Cavalry were the shock troops but expecting them to ram a huge block of infantry and destroy them is near madness. The knights would get surrounded and eventually unhorsed despite whatever damage they may do and the current edition does this beautifully. What you need to do is to get 2 Knight units to charge the same target at the same time to squash them flat. Cavalry rely on the kills in the first round and as a player you need to ensure they do.


1. This isn't miitary history.
2. Mounted troops were much more effective than what they are currently. Horse Archers essentially are just mounted Infantry, while heavy Cavalry cannot be used to break enemy blocks. Random Charge distance (Dwarves can now charge 14", while at the same time, Silver Helms can have an 11" charge distance, really?), lack of Charge based Striking Order, Step Up, supporting attacks, smaller points costs, and hence more models and ranks, cheaper and easier access to models, all make Infantry capable of outclassing Heavy Cavalry.

Rely on kills? Really? You think that two units of 10 knights (22 attacks from knights, 10 from horses), costing a minimum of 400points for the two are going to be able to go up against even the most typical of combat units?

using Empire Halberds as an example - Knights attack - 22 S5 Attacks, hitting on 3's - 14 hits, roughly. S5, wounding on 2's, about 12 kills. horses - hit on 4's, wound on 4's, save on 6's - be lucky to get 3. So that's 15 kills from 400points. Right.

Empire Halberds strike back - if the Knight's flanked, then it's 5 knights with 25m base - or 125 - so 7 halberds in base contact twice - so 14 - 4's to hit and 3's to wound - about 4 wounds. 1+ Save becomes 2+, maybe take one death.

Come to combat resolution, Halberds typically outrank as unit sizes on cheap infantry is around 30-40 in size, so if we say that 30 Halberds (150points?) is down to 15 in size, but with 1 more rank. That means that despite causing 15 wounds, outnumbering, getting all the benefits of a lance armed charge, that with the support of a general and BSB nearby (typical combo of a Ld10 General+BSB reroll comes under 200points), you're facing 15 Halberds, facing a Ld10 Rerollable Break Test - comes out as 99.7% or something silly like that success rate.

In a 6 turn game, when you've spent those 400 points, including 1 turn of closing with the enemy, your second turn charge (or if you roll poorly, even a 3rd turn charge), to then spend your 3rd turn (or even 4th) locked into close combat with a unit that's barely a 3rd of your unit cost, also potentially having lost some models, just in time for your opponent to then counter charge in the flank, while you've lost all your benefits of charging, so no S5 attacks.

So, 150points of Halberds have faced off a unit of Charging Lance armed Knights with the best armour save in the game costing nearly 3 times their own amount. Even out of reach of the Inspiring presense or hold your ground, you're facing a Ld7 unmodified ld test. While it's easy to fail, it's also just as easy to pass.

Those 15 kills, 2 standards, 2 musicians, charging bonus, possibly that war banner bonus, have all come to nothing. A +16 or +17 Combat Resolution has turned into shit all, because the enemy unit of 30 Halberds decided to go into a 5x6 formation. 

Now, i could use Better Cavalry, like Chaos Knights, or Dragon Princes here, but I could also use Better Infantry - Chaos Warriors, Saurus, Phoenix Guard, White Lions.

Monstrous Cavalry are slightly different, due to the number of their wounds, but they're fairly expensive and few and far between.

Cavalry suck, especially combat cavalry, as their one trick pony they're riding is complettely nullified by the most basic tactic which works against Infantry.

Consider previous editions -

To face cavalry, you needed narrow blocks of massed troops, or other cavalry - if you expanded your frontage, you reduced your rank bonus, and increase the number of knights capable of hitting you.

In 6th, there was the lap around tactic, which allowed large blocks of infantry to engulf smaller units in combat with them if they held the charge.

now, you can simply load up on High initiative medium strength troops (aka halberds), with low numbers of attacks, keep them as cheap as possible, and put them in front of enemy units. in the past - such sacrificial units were called Roadblocks - to redirect a charge, or hold it up for a unit. Now such units are capable of holding up more than twice their own value in points simply because of how shit the rules are concerning combat resolution.

Why was it introduced?

Not for any reason whatsoever - as Infantry were more than capable of holding their own - apart from the ability to sell more models - in conjunction with reduced numbers in a box, and increased prices.

You wonder why 8th edition is considered to be the worst one developed, even worse than 5th edition hero hammer, where goblin heroes could decimate entire regiments on their own.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

My points were in the context of taking the 8th edition rules as given, not changing the new rules. Also, I was trying to suggest limits and changes that would make the most units in each army book playable but not unfun to play with or against. The issue is how should the older army books be amended to conform to and adjust to the spirit of the 8th edition rules. Thus, changing 8th edition rules is not in the cards although I did suggest changing the rules for counting ranks to give cav units a better chance but in the context of special rules for each specific cav unit based on its function and character in each army book. Also, look at how GW has changed the points costs and rules for cav units and chariots in the new 8th edition books of Tomb Kings and Orcs and Goblins given the effects of the 8th edition rules on these expensive cost per model units. 

I have posted elsewhere on this site on the issues with High Elf armies in the context of 8th edition. HE armies are struggling to compete and performing below average on average in a balanced tourny environment. My comments are in the context of playing a lot of local one-day and playing in and monitoring a number of regional two-day Indy GT tourneys (typically 25 to 100 players; in a non-comped or only modestly comped environment that restricts "broken" special characters such as Teclis or punishes "unsporting" armies such as bunkering a lvl 4 in a folding fortress ten stories high with 100 archers and a BSB with the world dragon banner and some other characters). ASF and re-rolls to hit are not enough to overcome the effects of the 8th edition "step up", supporting attacks, and stubborn rules in combination with the low T and lower S of most high elf models. A lot of the players that have traditionally played high elves in 7th edition have migrated to other armies or, if still playing high elves, complain that a HE army simply has too many limitations and weaknesess in 8th edition. I would like to play high elves but find those limitations and weaknesses do not work for my play style, so I've played with dark elf, orcs and goblins, warriors of chaos, daemons, and now ogres armies instead. I'm happy some HE players like their cav and eagles but they don't do enough for their points costs and are not potent enough for their points costs to make High Elf armies competitive. A high elf eagle with no AS or ward save should have 4 attacks for its points cost, not 2, and possibly cost less. 

As for dwarves, I'm not saying that the hyper anti-magic dwarf armies are the best, simply that they can be unfun to play against if one's army relies on magic. The modifications suggested were in the context of the winds of magic rules and the general rules limiting common magic items to one per army.


----------



## blackspine (Jun 9, 2010)

Bretonians: 

Lances/ Calvary get Impact hits. 
 lances/ cav. get ASF on the charge round only.
 Peasants drop a point. 
 Lords/ heroes Cav count as monstrous cav. while still getting LoS!
 Banner for one unit that can disrupt steadfast on charge. (reasonable cost)

Beastmen:


Allow gors to take banners up to 40 points
Reduce cost of Gors to 6 OR up str to 4 and increase cost to 8 (9 w ahw)
reduce ungor herd cost to 4
Drop bestigor cost to 10
drop minotaur cost to 40 OR up to T5. 
add 'heavy armor' option for minotaurs
add UNIT MUTATIONS: scaly hide, horns (ap), etc etc...
Give shamans back "Bray staff" from previous edition.
...pretty much reduce the cost of every unit , character by 15%-20% (keeping in line w/ o&g)
Make the rares worth a_ flying f*ck_. signifigant price drop

saves. Higher str. Higher T. 
 ghorgon: killing blow is ONE of the attacks..not all.

Enable Razorgor as a Monstrous cav for characters.
make the banners usable. (ie: no negative)
Raise leadership of gors and bestigors
Remove d6 pursue from Slaughters call/ bloodgreed. 
Primal fury: doubles = frenzy
*change ambush rules:*(or just remove them)

ld test for ambush (similar to previous edition)
Heroes can ambush
Raiders recieve ambush bonuses.
Centigors & hounds can ambush

actually play test the book.
make chariot mounts count toward army total, not lord hero %

I don't think any of this is game breaking. Just cleaning up a mess of a book. It's a horde army theme / stats w/ mediocre to near elite prices. 
Given the complete lack of shooting they have (raiders? buahha) they need to be as savage as WoC. Given their current price, lack of protection and strength, they're far from it.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

Good points on Beastmen. Unfortunately, that amounts to a redo on the book for problems already existing in 7th edition, as opposed to just fixing problems created by new 8th edition rules/game system. Very poorly written book and overcosted models given the lack of saves, although I'm seeing some Beastman armies do okay at tourneys. Beastmen is one of the only armies given points comp in the ETC comp this year.


----------



## Raizer Sabre (Nov 8, 2010)

More movement and initiative in general for Lizardmen


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Raizer Sabre said:


> More movement and initiative in general for Lizardmen


Easily done... collect elves.


----------

