Rules patch: Steadfast v8.1 (so many things that can be changed...)

Oh, this one has been aggravating me personally, ehehe, and it's surprising how much people disagree with how GW made the rule in this edition, but nobody seems to be willing to address it in a practical manner. At least as a gentleman's agreement in casual games.

PROBLEM: charging a ranked unit on its flank or rear with another unit (with at least 2 or more ranks of five or more models) disrupts the first unit's ranks. This negates that unit's rank bonus (GOOD!) but does not negate steadfast (REALLY!?).
SOLUTION: disruption negates steadfast. (I can't make this any simpler.) EDIT(6/06/15) A unit cannot be steadfast against any model that can Thunderstomp them.
This rebalances the steadfast mechanic, especially considering the significance of flank charges in a combat. Furthermore, it grants more stability to Monsters, which can struggle severely against large blocks of infantry, and have the odds stacked against them in terms of breaking the opponent.

PROBLEM: undead units gain no benefit from being steadfast, which is a huge benefit to most other races in Warhammer, and often the reason why many terrain pieces (such as buildings) are beneficially exploited by generals.
SOLUTION: undead units that are steadfast suffer 2 less wounds due to Unstable. This stacks with any other effects that modify the Unstable rule (such as a -1 to Unstable wounds granted by a BSB).
Despite the fact that undead are mindless, and the strength of their numbers should not impact their capacity to fight effectively, the combat pressure a large body of corpses provides should be taken into account. Generally, this will mostly come into play with units such as skeletons and zombies, which are easily destroyed anyway, so it simply mitigates how crippling this mechanic is to such units.

Hopefully, neither of these two changes are too powerful, but make the game more logical and coherent, and ensure that some races don't get the short end of the stick when it comes to certain situations, SIMPLY due to a game mechanic particularity (such as undead gaining no benefit from steadfast from being inside buildings).

Warhammer Fantasy revised Terrain generator (8th edition)

This is the Terrain generator I use in my games.

Revised 8th Edition Terrain Generator: download here.

I took the 6th edition terrain generation tables, with the diverse environments such as Realms of Men, Badlands, Mountains, etc, and rammed in them the 8th edition terrain options, and changed things up a bit as well.

I also curbed a bit the probability of a terrain piece to be mysterious: only some forests have a chance to be mysterious, and then only on a D6 roll of a 6. No more deathtrap tabletop: terrain is to be used to a general's advantage without (too) much of a surprise.

I tweaked a bit the options you can get if you are a defender in the specific scenario you're playing, and if you're a native of the environment.
For example, Empire and Bretonnia can turn 'walls' and 'fences' they roll on the table into 'Blessed Bulwarks' if the battle is fought in the Realms of Men, and High Elves can turn them into 'Blazing Barricades' if the battle takes place in the shores of Ulthuan.
Also, I included what I call 'shrines': if a defending, native player rolls a settlement or encampment (can be anything from a few houses to a double-building Elven Hall), this includes not only obstacles but also a shrine, which is a magical focus which benefits the defender. Empire defenders can pick 'Sigmarite shrines', Bretonnians can pick 'Grail Chapels', Dwarves can pick 'Dwarven Brewhouse', Undead can pick 'Charnel Pit' and Dark Elves of course can pick ' Altar of Khaine'. The list goes on.

As a little bonus, the last page includes a quick reference of all the terrain pieces from the table, so you don't have to flip through the Rulebook. Some of these include small changes I made, such as the 'Sorcerous Portal' having a max of 24" on its spells, and they can be dispelled as normal.

Enjoy!

Rules patch: spears v8.3

This one is mostly a realism fix (for the narrative/roleplay-inclined out there), as spears themselves do not perturb the balance of the game in any way.

PROBLEM: although the "fight in extra rank" ability of spears nicely recreates the 'phalanx' combat technique, spears do not provide any additional benefit against charging cavalry (which was one particular usage in which the spear shined, particularly during the middle ages).

SOLUTION: a spear-wielding model on foot gains an additional benefit if it has not marched during its turn (it can however 'swift reform' and still gain this benefit). If such a unit is charged on its front by a unit of warbeasts, cavalry, monstrous cavalry or a monster, it gains +1 Strength during the first round of combat against those particular models only. Any attacks directed against enemy models that are not in contact with the front of the unit, or that did not charge this turn, do not receive this benefit. 

This provides good utility for spearmen units, especially when used defensively, making them more reliable against some of the worst hard-hitters in the Warhammer range, and the perfect answer to heavily armored cavalry. However, to gain this benefit requires them to severely sacrifice their mobility, and still does not increase significantly their ability to Wound their target in the first place, essentially preventing the rule from giving too much power for so few points (spears are normally 1 point/model).

With this rule, which is situational and rarely coming into play in an aggressive (forward-moving) army, the usage of spears in Warhammer becomes more realistic and coherent, and the dreaded 'schiltron' becomes a tool in a Warhammer general's arsenal.

EDIT: originally had the spearmen gain +1S instead of ASF. Although while logical, it ignored the fact that spears should strike the chargers first, regardless of the impact of the charge. But putting in both rules with no change in points would be overpowering, so I sticked with the ASF.
EDIT #2: the idea above was not really good... it rendered (quite obviously, if one wonders for a bit) Elven spearmen with no added bonus (as they already have ASF). So I went back to my original idea (a charge into spears grants extra force to the spear attack) and granted the next best thing to St bonus: +1 to Armor Penetration. 
EDIT #3: bonus from spears returned to +1S, as it originally was. This was inspired by the recent rumours about Warhammer Fantasy 9th Edition. Spearmen on foot are not overpowered as it is, and with the limitation of  not being able to claim this benefit if it marched, it is not an exaggerated benefit.

Rules patch: Cannons v8.1

What better thing to start the "rules patches" section than with trying to fix the rules for cannons.
I am well aware than I am not by far the first, nor will I be the last, to try and do this. Nevertheless, I think it should be done.

PROBLEM: Cannon shots are 100% accurate in terms of lateral accuracy (i.e. they only scatter longitudinally), which is unrealistic and in some situations (like shooting at lone infantry characters) game-breaking.

SOLUTION: When determining where a cannonball will land, after picking the spot you wish to shoot, you must scatter it with a scatter dice and a d3 if your shot is within short range, or a d6 if your shot is at long range. Only then do you roll for range with the artillery dice. All effects (benefits or penalties) that normally affect the artillery dice roll do not affect the first scatter roll.

This keeps the cannon pretty good when shooting at large things, because the scatter is not too much, but it curbs its ability to shoot at small targets. Additionally, it grants advantage to it when the cannon is shooting at point blank.

PROBLEM: When cannon shots hit ridden monsters/chariots, it always affects the rider as well.

SOLUTION: the rider only is affected by a cannonball hit on a 5+, just as for a shooting attack or a template-based attack.

This keeps the monster/chariot mount good for its points, because its death by cannon-shot does not immediately mean the death of the character (it is essentially like a 3+ Look Out Sir save). However, the cannon-shot still successfully eliminated the mount (which is worth a lot of points), fulfilling its purpose, and now the character has to scurry to safety.

Overview

Cannons are generally quite cheap for what they can perform in a game. This includes eliminating high-points monsters, but also characters as well. This has led to a metagame optimization arms-race, which disfavours monsters and characters riding them, as well as characters running outside units. As such, units which are otherwise gorgeous to collect/paint and a pride to field, become a liability in terms of list optimization.

This patch tries to address both the realism issues, as well as balance issues, by giving targets a slight advantage against the predictability of where the shot will land, as well as keeping monster mounts a reasonable choice for characters. However, it does not hamper the utility of the cannon, because the probability to hit a monster with it still remains good.

Not-too-nerfed, I hope.

Narrative the easy way: Scenario diversity

Here I will talk about scenario choice, where to find more scenarios, and their applicability to either pick-up games or more involved campaign situations.


A simple way to introduce new objectives and narrative purpose in battles is to simply play more and diverse scenarios.
It is difficult to overestimate the richness of Warhammer scenarios that are already out there. There are tons. Even if you only take the official ones that Games Workshop has released over the years.

At least in this 8th edition of Warhammer, there seems to be an assumption that "proper/normal Warhammer"  involves generating scenarios from only the Core six, in pgs. 144-150 of the Core Rulebook. They mostly all stick close to "equal points, equal conditions, everything fair" for both players, yet several just enforce rules shenanigans that mess up your deployment (and we know how important that is in this game). And NO core siege rules *cringe*, the Watchtower scenario being the closest thing to it (and disappointingly so). How can a fantasy medieval battle game not include sieges as part of its main gaming experience?

Every other scenario is seen as too "out there", unbalanced and assumed to ruin the fun for both players (or at least one). Now there is truth to this claim: some scenarios are indeed TOO unbalanced, and care needs to be taken when picking them. Maybe their place is more in a Warhammer campaign, where one force is at a disadvantage. One must bear this in mind when judging scenarios: some are indeed unfair to be applied in pick-up games.

So where can you find more scenarios? And are they easy to apply in a pick-up game, or convince your opponent they are worth it? And which should best be saved for more story-driven campaign events?

In this page I will be listing sources of additional scenarios that have been published by GW, so you can know where to look, and what kind of scenarios you can hope to find in each. I will also give commentary on some balance issues I have found.

The trick is: which scenarios are easily agreeable, that you can apply easily to a pick-up game? What if one of you wants to have a chance to fight in a more interesting scenario, but the other (while interested) is wary about balance and fairness (and if he will get his own chance to pick a funky scenario as well)?
I will cover this in the future in what I call "game setup/frameworks": how to set up a game, or series of games, and how/who chooses a scenario, maintaining fairness in the whole process for both players.

The state of the art: the rant that starts it all

To kick this blog off, I'll begin with the reasons that made me start it, and see if you might find some common ground in the following rant.

As some may agree, Warhammer Fantasy (as per the current edition, at least) suffers somewhat from the divide between what players call the competitive (warhammer as a sport) and the fluffy (warhammer as a storytelling/roleplaying experience).

While this has been discussed at length by others, I put forward that one of the biggest reasons that happens is that the core game rules do nothing to bridge this gap. The Core Rules only provide a basic framework for running fantasy battles, and your average basic pick-up game (which is the norm if you don't have a large enough group) runs without invoking any narrative components.
For an RPG player, this is generally no problem, because a rulebook/sourcebook is simply the tool used to build a story, which grows cooperatively between the players and the GM when they meet up.
Warhammer, however, is an adversarial game with no GMs to arbiter it (in most cases), so rules and balance are of much more importance to players (and reasonably so). Therefore, smooth operation of the rules and ensuring fairness is required for enjoyable gameplay.
Additionally, while an RPG session depends heavily on story elements to glue it together, a Warhammer battle has no need of story/narrative elements in itself, and can run simply as a strategy game (the competitive view). Therefore, narrative elements can easily be seen as superfluous add-ons, as they normally have no effect on the game.

From a gaming/strategy perspective, the Core Rules (as they are) have also caused a shift in the game towards a points denial approach to victory. This is fomented by the rules themselves: the battle setup of the 6 core scenarios and victory conditions. Additionally, the game penalizes certain unit choices, because they are simply sub-optimal in these conditions, as well as interaction with some armies whose basic strategy relies more heavily on avoidance tactics (Wood Elves for instance).
I am not by far the first to tackle this: MrMalorian and TheSustainableCenter have already approached this question nicely.

The way some things work (cannons, redirecting, steadfast, conga-lining, undead crumble, etc) is also quite incoherent with what you would expect in an actual battle, and simply become rules gimmicks that are used to great effect in strategy, in contradiction to common sense (especially for newer players).  

These are all points that I hope to cover in this blog.

Thankfully, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!    :)

The solution can be very simple: include more scenarios, adopt house rules, and overall make the game better with our own hands. If RPGs do this ALL THE TIME without ANY problems, there is little reason why it can't happen for Warhammer.

Not everybody knows about it, because it's not official? Well, DotA didn't start official either, and it's huge now. And Erratas ARE official, but not everybody carries them around (and they can decide games).

As said in many Warhammer Rulebooks of editions past, "Warhammer is your game".

What I hope to contribute with this blog is a series of options and "patches", if you will, that you may find interesting and useful to add/modify in your game, that I have put together and use in my games. Mix and match, use what you like, throw away and spit on what you don't.

Whether for gaming among friends (your garage-hammer) or for a framework of standardized rules in your Friendly Local Game Store.

The goal is to bring Warhammer closer together, bridging the gap between army optimization (which is perfectly reasonable that everyone does) and interesting narrative games, with more purpose to the conflict, more variety in objectives and allowing all units to shine and have their place in the spotlight.

Explore, use it, tweak it and have fun.

Future post about campaigns

Placeholder

(under consstruction)