FW Rule changes and additions.

[ddeputy]

I've been thinking and TBH I'm really not happy about the treatment of cavalry. I know we're not supposed to be taking the Salute game entirely seriously but if you reduce the WOR of some cavalry and not others, you're creating a huge imbalance in the points costs (which I think are completely wrong anyway, but that a digression for another place and time). If you're not reducing the WOR of cavalry with WOR 2 then you either need to increase the cost of these figures or drop the cost of the other higher WOR cavalry which you're changing.

BTW I still haven't found a definitive reference here for the army building rules that we are using. Have I missed it, or do we need to knock one up? Are we using war engines? Magic? Is anyone going to be bringing figures that don't have rules or stats under the original version of the game? *scratches head*

[UnclEvl]

For what its worth I'll chip in my own 2 bit opinion:

Cavalry - make the change across the board if you are gonna make it, to balance it out.
Worth 1 cavalry are not useless - they are still highly mobile units that must be used tactically to threaten flank attacks rather than just for their hitting power, and a Save, no matter how small, is always a big advantage.
It also means they lend themselves more to the role of skirmishers when missle armed, adding flavour to an army instead of just being obvious powergamer choices.

Missile - Unsure why you have altered the Blacken the Sky max volleys from 4 to 3 for bows.
In all the games I have played I don't think it has ever been an issue that a 4 volley BtS is OTT.
This is one of the main stategic elements of using these troops - get them in position where they can do max damage before they get over run and deciding when to go all out and spud everything off and when to hold back and only loose a couple of shots.
I think the suggested change gives a points imbalance between bows and xbows. As it stands, the extra volley is sacrificed for stopping power and slight range, making xbow and bow armed troops cost the same. Take the 4 volley BtS away and I no longer think it is fair that the bow costs the same as the Xbow.
I' m happy to play the adjustement if you really think it necessary (and it won't affect my troops detrimentally anyway), I just offer that as a thought.

In relation to Mikeys query regarding army lists, I in no way think you should go outside the army lists of the compendium and 'official' FW lists (dark elves). If people have other minis for other armies they want to field then they can do so, but use these original lists (eg use the Orcs list for Beastmen and the Gobbos list for small lkizardmen, etc).
The worse imbalances in the game have always come from newly generated and relatively untested army lists.

My only suggestion for this is the Dwarf lists which I think have proven to be fairly significantly over-pointed. Much of this is largely due to their low Movement, which is not seriosuly considered. It makes them extremely vulnerable to being out manouvred, allowing virrtually every other kind of opponent to pick and choose targets and take them on piecemeal.
I would drop the points cost of all Dwarven Infantry units by at least 1 point as an interim measure.

I would suggest some sort of ratios as to how many points worth of troops a player can field as monstrous, cavalary, Individuals or War engines though - probaly no more than half for any (althoguh since people are limited to 600 points this shouldnb't be too much of an issue.

I wouldn't worry about it too much though - the kick in the balls rule stands so anyone attempting to field a munchkin force will suffer.

[Rev Nice]

My only suggestion for this is the Dwarf lists which I think have proven to be fairly significantly over-pointed. Much of this is largely due to their low Movement, which is not seriosuly considered. It makes them extremely vulnerable to being out manouvred, allowing virrtually every other kind of opponent to pick and choose targets and take them on piecemeal.
I would drop the points cost of all Dwarven Infantry units by at least 1 point as an interim measure.

You see? It won't be because I'm shit genral who arrives late with a life threatening hang over - it's the rules, which are against me at every turn!
(Incidently, I'd like to disembowel the cunt who first started this shit about dwarves being slow. Halflings are short too and the fucking greedy cunts think of nothing except pot, food and gangbanging Rosie at the pub but do they suffer from slow movement? Do they, Jesus Fiddly Cranberry Violin H. Christ!!!!!!!)

[Doc]

Halflings are short too

They usually have longer legs than dwarves, despite usually being shorter. And they are less heavily armoured.

[ddeputy]

My only suggestion for this is the Dwarf lists which I think have proven to be fairly significantly over-pointed.

You see? It won't be because I'm shit genral who arrives late with a life threatening hang over - it's the rules, which are against me at every turn!

I concur. My analysis a few years back definitely indicated the dwarves were overpriced.

[Duff]

I used to think the same thing about the dwarves. One guy who played with us for a while (really annoying cunt, we got rid of him quite quickly) made a statistical analysis of all of the FW armies (see why we got rid of him?) and decided that dwarves were the most overpriced. Then we played a few games with them and they slaughtered everything that came near them. They are one of the reasons for the flanking rules, so opponents have a hope in hell of taking out the basic infantry. I have had units of 20 veteran barbar H&S troops wiped out by 10 dwarf units of fucking Xbows in melee fer christs sake.

Leave all costings alone for Salute. The only new profile I have incorporated into the armies for Salute is a Chariot for the Barbars, for which I used the Orc Chieftains Chariot as a template, costs and profile are almost identical.

All troops on the table (with the above exception) must use an "official" profile.

The Blacken the sky adjustment was to tone down the ability of archers just a tad as we have felt they are a bit too powerful for the points. The addition of parabolic fire more than makes up for this I feel.

How about for cavalry: All mounted troops lose 1 worth after the first round of melee combat along with becoming disorganised. The first round of combat uses the mounts profile for weapon, subsequant rounds uses the riders weapon. This places emphasis on the charge and makes light cavalry like the barbars and wood elfs utter shit against heavy infantry after the first round, which is how it should be.

Roy

[UnclEvl]

Missile troops got to get in position to be able to make the shots that count, and with the new rules which drop missile troops Worth in combat it makes it more crucial they do so and not get stuck into combat until they have.
But the knock back on the BtS is not a problem per se if you reckon missile fire is too damaging (and I can see why you would, fielding lightly armoured Barbars - I've had similar issues fielding lightly armoured 'Savage' orc armies), I just think there is a knock-on to the points relation to other, slower firing missile weapons which thus become relatively more powerful for the cost.


Far as Dwarves go I'd agree - they are hard little bastards if you take em on in a squared up toe-to-toe 'fair' fight.
Especially if you do it with lightly armed troops.
But considering their army as a whole, over-costed - especially if they can't field any of their Ursine Cavalry options and whose got many of them.

Sorry, but I have to say I think the Orc chieftains Chariot, like so many of the big models, is way OTT- Worth of 15 concentrated onto a 5in frontage, plus its strong, fast, hard and second best save in the game.
Sure, it's got the down side of 1 lucky shot or blow can take it out, but that just kind of makes it worse - too all or nothing.
I've never had the audacity to even think about fielding this.
If you've not used it before I'd seriously suggest tweaking it down a bit and cost less.
Still, not as bad as that fucking Mammoth or Rhino.


Still, just opinions offered for consideration and certainly no real need to debate at this late stage. Totally happy to accept your call on things and go with it whole heartedly.

[Duff]

I just think there is a knock-on to the points relation to other, slower firing missile weapons which thus become relatively more powerful for the cost.

The lack of parabolic fire for Xbows and guns balances this I feel.

Far as Dwarves go I'd agree - they are hard little bastards if you take em on in a squared up toe-to-toe 'fair' fight.
Especially if you do it with lightly armed troops.
But considering their army as a whole, over-costed - especially if they can't field any of their Ursine Cavalry options and whose got many of them.

Err...I have 10 Dwarf cavalry and I've only just started collecting an army . I have been impressed enough both playing and playing against dwarves to start a dwarf army myself.

Sorry, but I have to say I think the Orc chieftains Chariot, like so many of the big models, is way OTT- Worth of 15 concentrated onto a 5in frontage, plus its strong, fast, hard and second best save in the game.
Sure, it's got the down side of 1 lucky shot or blow can take it out, but that just kind of makes it worse - too all or nothing.
I've never had the audacity to even think about fielding this.
If you've not used it before I'd seriously suggest tweaking it down a bit and cost less.

Not used it before, you are probably correct about it. I thought the fact that you are putting your warchief in harms way mitigated some of the factors you mentioned but to be honest, I only added it so we could use Brownlies beautifully painted Celtos chariot.

Still, not as bad as that fucking Mammoth or Rhino. .

I've had plenty of Rhinos slaughtered over the years (and won a fair few games because of them as well). Points wise, I think they are pretty spot on. What would you rather have, a veteran Rhino or 10 Knights? I'd say the knights were a more effective use of the points.

Still, just opinions offered for consideration and certainly no real need to debate at this late stage. Totally happy to accept your call on things and go with it whole heartedly.

Maybe we can find time afterwards to go over them during the post game piss up? It would be nice to get a real consensus on the rules for any future events/get togethers.

Roy

[Rev Nice]

Far as Dwarves go I'd agree - they are hard little bastards if you take em on in a squared up toe-to-toe 'fair' fight.
Especially if you do it with lightly armed troops.
But considering their army as a whole, over-costed - especially if they can't field any of their Ursine Cavalry options and whose got many of them.

Err...I have 10 Dwarf cavalry and I've only just started collecting an army . I have been impressed enough both playing and playing against dwarves to start a dwarf army myself.

There aren't many options for Dwarf cav (probably due to the fact that Warhammer refuses to let stunties 'ave 'em.).
Old Glory do various boar riders (I like the idea of the blunderbuss riders, but buying them in the UK is still not as cheap as I'd like for castings of this 'quality'.)
Reaper do a leader atop a bear and Mirliton do the old Grenadier bear rider sculpts.
Westwind do nice (but large) cav in a selection that runs from ram riders to pig riders.
Also large (and rather more pricey) is Rackham's Tir na Bor (or whatever) monstrous boar type creature with rider.
Ral Partha Europe sell old Chronopia beast riders and others turn up on ebay from that Irish company that do Prince August stuff (I think).
Despite all this though, I was stupid enough to want the dwarf cav for Salute fit in with my barbarian dwarf theme and so it's conversions all the way. The riders are BTD slayers (with an exception) and the beasts are...hopefully going to be finished by the deadline. Mounted battle leader and hero are also atop conversions...if the buggers work out!

[Marquis]

They may be a little over large, but Westwind's Dwarf Wars range has a couple of different mounted units:





They do some on ponys too, but I don't recon them too much.