The resurrection selection...

[JPjr]

On a nostalgic whim I decided to go back and read the WHFB 3rd edition rulebook, and oh boy I genuinely can't tell if it was a work of unparalleled genius, total madness or a bit of both. Reading through it I cant believe we ever managed to start let alone finish a single game. Still for all the ridiculously granular rules, it is in my opinion a thing of beauty and well worth reading, and there were several elements that I'd love to try out again, even if just as optional add-ons for narrative games. For me the ones that jump out are...

• Baggage Trains (maybe for games over 2000 points)
• Army (not unit) Standards (again maybe for larger games, amazing modelling & converting opportunities, had some great rules and could be a good focal point for battleplans)
• Sappers, I don't think any version of these are still around, but would be a nice ability for some units to be able to create/destroy barricades/terrain during the game. Would certainly be good for slower units.
• Calling out unit champions for one on one duels (not sure this would work at all in a more 'skirmish' style game but it's a nice touch).
• Absolutely MASSIVE gaming tables where no one even gets near the enemy for about 5 days worth of play (I mean look at that beast!).

So the question is what one or two things from any previous edition would you like to bring back in some way, that wouldn't fundamentally break the current system? And I'm thinking more along the lines of rules/features here, so first person to say Brets or Tomb Kings gets a Vortex of Chaos to the face.

 

[HollowHills]

I'd like to see scatter come back. I've been playing shadespire and the new scatter mechanic there is pretty fun. I think it would work pretty well in aos with things like endless spells moving in a random direction. You could have things like objectives that scatter 2d6 per turn or something as well. 

[Dead Scribe]

I never played versions of warhammer before.  I would say anything that slows the game or makes it take longer to complete would get a hard no from me.  Two hours is already pushing my interest past what I like in a game.  

[gjnoronh]

I played 3rd edition and had a great time but quite slow.  Don't forget winning combat pushed your opponents  units back a couple of inches and yours forward IIRC so there was an interesting sort of bending before breaking of the battle line.   

Third ed had a spell called Wind of Death - effected every model/unit (I forget which)  on the board we had one of those giant games going with four players and it killed half of everything present (maybe 5000 points. . .) 

Tons of fun.

The old Generals Compendium for 6th had a ton of fun variant rules many of which I think are in the current siege rules.

What's right for a serious matched play environment isn't always  the same  (particularly for all people) as what's right for having a fun afternoon of pushing toy soldiers with your friends.  

[JPjr]

2 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

Third ed had a spell called Wind of Death

ha, yeah looks fun there are some brutal spells in this book...

[JPjr]

29 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Two hours is already pushing my interest past what I like in a game. 

ha yeah, you would not like this edition at all. I think some turns could last more than two hours on their own as you start messing around with set squares and protractors working out movement arcs and stuff like that.

[XReN]

Definetly morale mechanics, forcing a unit to get lost of objectives would be much more interesting than making it take more casualties, also overrun would be cool. I'm familliar with FB only by playing few games in the 8th edition so not much to add  

[TheWilddog]

I know this might not be the most popular preference, but I loved the old miscast table for magic in several of the old additions.  I always loved the idea that magic was inherently dangerous and magicians were constantly tempting fate by using their powers.  Also I thought it let you have some more high-end spell effects because there was always the chance your wizard got sucked down the hole to balance it out somewhat.  At a basic level I sometimes find AOS magic a little bland and would like to spice it up some. I think Endless Spells were harkening back to this but they do not seem to be getting that much use.

[Arkiham]

templates for breath weapons, some vortex templates for some spells.

 

no rank an file would mean they arent as effective in some instances, but super effective in others. a nice balance 

[Absolution black]

I started with 3rd edition and though my memory is hazy I have fond memories of some truly enjoyable games.  My brother and I used to play over a whole weekend in our 'gaming' shed, where we would start with all of our armies on the table (can't remember the points per side but it was horrendous!).

A single turn took forever due to the mechanics and the number of units on the board.  Wasn't this the edition with different level heroes too? 

One of my most memorable games actually only lasted about three turns each.  We had just entered combat after a couple of turns of movement and shooting, and it was my dwarfs turn to strike.  I recall causing his unit of orcs to panic that started a tidal wave of failed panic tests along his battleline.  Unfortunately for him many of his units never passed their rally tests and simply fled the table!

It was a simple mop up exercise then.

We always used to play until pretty much the last 'man' standing, irrespective of the number of turns it took.

[JPjr]

 

7 minutes ago, Absolution black said:

My brother and I used to play over a whole weekend in our 'gaming' shed

I honestly think that was one of the best things about it. It took so long, was so complicated and had so many tiny details to take into account that I can honestly see no way you could feasibly play that edition against someone you didn't (a) know very well and (b) like to hang out with for hours if not days. It certainly feels like the few times we properly completed games was when a parent had buggered off for the weekend and we had free run of someone's house for a solid 48 hours.

 

[gjnoronh]

Yes Wizards were either level 5, 10, 15, 20, 25  I think to connect with Warhammer Fantasy Role Play as well.   A level 25 wizard was very powerful as I recall.   

I also have 2nd edition Warhammer at home though I didn't play it.   Basically of the era where they just wanted to give you rules to use for your  D and D miniatures including systems to write your own stats.  There weren't IIRC any army lists per se.  

 

[Dead Scribe]

1 hour ago, TheWilddog said:

I know this might not be the most popular preference, but I loved the old miscast table for magic in several of the old additions.  I always loved the idea that magic was inherently dangerous and magicians were constantly tempting fate by using their powers.  Also I thought it let you have some more high-end spell effects because there was always the chance your wizard got sucked down the hole to balance it out somewhat.  At a basic level I sometimes find AOS magic a little bland and would like to spice it up some. I think Endless Spells were harkening back to this but they do not seem to be getting that much use.

Why would anyone pay points for a wizard that could randomly blow himself up?  Is there a balancing mechanic for fighty heroes that can accidently randomly stab themselves?

[JPjr]

5 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

There weren't IIRC any army lists per se

There was a supplement called 'Ravening Hordes' for 2nd ed. that was the first, I believe, attempt at structured army lists

[JPjr]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Why would anyone pay points for a wizard that could randomly blow himself up?

risk/reward surely. So magic can do more damage but there's always a chance that it can backfire on you somehow.

TBH I'd be up for maybe a few more elements like that today. For example I said elsewhere I think there should be a penalty for failing charge rolls, so not just not being able to do them but it leaves that unit stuck in the middle of nowhere and disorganised somehow.

6 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Is there a balancing mechanic for fighty heroes that can accidently randomly stab themselves?

There are/were certainly weapons that had the chance of doing yourself some mischief. I'm pretty sure some of the more cobbled together gunpowder weapons always carried a risk of backfiring, and there were rules for missile attacks hitting your own troops.

[AverageBoss]

4 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Why would anyone pay points for a wizard that could randomly blow himself up?  Is there a balancing mechanic for fighty heroes that can accidently randomly stab themselves?

Fighty heroes were just generally not worth taking in several editions if you had a good wizard available. Wizards had much more impact on the table with access to spells that could completely cripple multiple units. Permanent stat debuffs, spells that deleted whole units in ways the Gaunt Summoner could only dream of, making a friendly unit substitute their strength stat with other better stats on wound rolls (you would see elves sub their strength 3 with leadership 9-10 pretty often with that one). And that was just the tip of it.

Besides the occasional blender lord option (which was pretty rare for most armies), most melee characters could at most kill 3-5 dudes in close combat, assuming they made it there in the first place.

[TheWilddog]

18 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Why would anyone pay points for a wizard that could randomly blow himself up?  Is there a balancing mechanic for fighty heroes that can accidently randomly stab themselves?

For the story. As I said my main fondness for the miscast table was centered on the fluff.  I loved the tension when I tried to cast a spell that would devastate my opponent, knowing I could nuke myself as well.  I have played hundreds of Warhammer games over the years, went to and performed well at numerous tournaments, but some of the moments I remember most revolve around those old miscast tables and the stories they generated.   

[JPjr]

the more I re-read the old rules the more hilarious the potential for killing half your own army gets.

whether it's your troops having animosity towards each other, war machines blowing themselves and everyone near them up, archers hitting the wrong people, wizards creating uncontrollable black holes, giant war beasts going out of control and running amok, chariots crashing, frenzied berserkers charging your own troops, on and on it goes a veritable litany of self-owns.

the more I think about it the best tactic must have been to hide behind a building and wait for the enemy to murderize themselves.

I'm just amazed now there wasn't a table you had to roll on for your musicians, if they failed and played the wrong tune they got their trombones shoved up their arses.

[gjnoronh]

Wasn't all that bad.   Unless you were playing Orcs and Goblins - that could get quite crazy very quickly in some earlier editions with Animosity.

As others have noted Magic had a bigger pay off and higher risks in previous editions.   In almost all editions of Warhammer you still wanted that magic user in your list.

In terms of fighty lords 4th-6th had a sweet spot for fighting lords on flying monsters.  No Steadfast (8th ed rule) and models with more then 5 wounds breaking ranks meant with a flank charge you often destroyed a unit.

[mastercrafted]

A I'd like to see a bit of build-a-hero come back. I can remember when there was a big selection of monstrous mounts you could choose for your general (i'm thinking 4th or 5th?). With all the plastic kits available these days, the kitbashing potential is going to waste a bit for me

[gjnoronh]

Yes definitely 4th and 5th basically let you put any lord on any monster.  Up to 25% of your list could be monsters ridden or otherwise.   

That being said it was hard to balance - some monsters were very good others not so good.   Also not all had models IIRC.    A frenzied chaos lord (double attacks in 4th-6th IIRC)    with almost any monster was a flying rank breaking unit crusher.   Goblin lord not so much.  

[Kirjava13]

5 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Why would anyone pay points for a wizard that could randomly blow himself up?  Is there a balancing mechanic for fighty heroes that can accidently randomly stab themselves?

Look man, I know that you enjoy a particularly sterile sort of gaming experience where if it's not quantifiable and controllable then you're not interested, but do try and exercise a little empathy from time to time and use some imagination as to why other people might find different things entertaining.

[VBS]

3 hours ago, mastercrafted said:

A I'd like to see a bit of build-a-hero come back. I can remember when there was a big selection of monstrous mounts you could choose for your general (i'm thinking 4th or 5th?). With all the plastic kits available these days, the kitbashing potential is going to waste a bit for me

I agree! I really appreciated that heroes and a lot of units had a load of weapon options & extras that made cool builds (both for gameplay or miniature-wise). Loved making WE Lord builds stacking options with heavy weapon, spears, bows, mounts, shield, armour, Kindred type, etc...  Back then, GW even gave rules to units that didnt have official models. Not sure such thing would happen in AoS since it is so what-the-official-kit-looks-like centered.... It feels quite restrictive and less varied.

Another cool thing  was individual points per model after minimum size. I dont see the point of making bulks of 5, 10, etc,... and  adds to that restrictive feeling  when choosing models. Cant be too hard to make 15 Dreadspears cost 10+5 instead of forcing to use the 2x 10 cost. Sort of absurd even....

[Yoshiya]

Id also like the hero customisation options to come back. Never played the old editions due to money but I remember looking through the Vampire Counts army book making up little back stories for Vampire Lords with the huge variation of options they could have. You could take the same hero and make it fulfill so many different roles based on how you chose to build them. Now it's just a case of slapping the same artefacts on one or two heroes and calling it a day which is really boring when it comes to trying to make your dudes feel like your own.

I know some will abuse the system for that extra bit of advantage and maybe find some broken combo but that's the price to pay for adding some character back to generic heroes.

[Sleboda]

Having attempted to put together a Legions army last night and thrown my hands up in confusion and frustration, I would say that the complexity and difficultly of 3rd is alive and well in 2018.  Grr.

In all honesty, though, I loved 3rd. It was the first version I played and it set a tone for me. I loved the formations, the size of games, and just about everything else. Interestingly, it was suuuuuper simple to make an army list. (Base sizes were even mandated!)

Hmm, thinking about it, things have swapped: Easy list building for complex main rules compared to ridiculously complex army list building and very simple main rules.