The fan made skaven faq

[Skreech Verminking]

The skaven fan faq

 

Hi everybody as 

Many of you guys probably already know, I wasn’t too happy of the new book.

While it didn’t change much from the last book, many units still felt like having been nerfed for no reason, while certain rules that made the skaven in their own way interesting where removed.

From having been a possible horde army, most of our units decreased significantly in size, leaving clanrats the only horde unit in this book , and even then, only being able to spend 4 reinforcement points, was making that army less of a horde and more of an elite army, something that doesn’t fit with the lore, and even gw seems to consider skaven as a horde faction, although not supporting that into the rules.

I don’t think it is out of place calling the book a disappointment, and the faq didn’t really do much at all, which is why I started making a small fan made faq for the army, that should fix the fundamental mechanics of the skaven, and should return a good chunk of fluff into the army.

Personally this is my first try doing something like this, so if anybody is interested in play testing those rules and giving me feedback, I would be happy to improving my fan made skaven faq.

After all I would be honored to hear you’re feedbacks.

 

Ps: although having made a small faq, me and a friend of mine are currently working on the skaven clan moulder allegiance ability, as we think that it was one of the poorest things done in the book.

Which is why we are interested in bringing back mutations for giant rats and rat ogors.

Although instead of just buffing those units, each mutation will also bring some kind of a negative kind of effect into the play, which should hopefully balance the buff somewhat out

I should also mention that there might be some grammatical mistake in the faq, after all this is just a small first try at writing an faq.

I hope you all enjoy it.

word document:Skaven faq (1).docx

 

 

 

[Skreech Verminking]

Hi all I noticed that not everybody owns word so I made a pdf out of the skaven fanmade faq I wrote.

I do hope that the rest of you can now read it.

 

cheers

Skreech VerminkingDocument (1) skaven.pdf

Document (1) skaven.pdf

[NinthMusketeer]

TBH I doubt most gaming communities would see much pushback against getting rid of reinforcement points altogether. It is clearly a mechanic to fight back against the horde unit discount... which no longer exists.

[Skreech Verminking]

5 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

TBH I doubt most gaming communities would see much pushback against getting rid of reinforcement points altogether. It is clearly a mechanic to fight back against the horde unit discount... which no longer exists.

I personally like the reinforcement point thing.

I just don’t like the fact that the currently biggest horde army like skaven, have nothing to manipulate it, while an elite army like dok has.

in the faq I wrote I just adjusted it to fit the horde style more, so instead of being restricted to obly 4 you can basically have 6 reinforcement point, which should still restrict the numbers of horde units yet is more opened to the way of playing hordes in a skaven army.

basically I’m still keeping the restrictions yet opening the more narrative part of the army to show again, something I found very lackluster with the book that came put 

[NinthMusketeer]

The reality is it gets in the way of armies that should bypass it, like Skaven and Gloomspite, while non-swarmy armies like SCE or Orruks don't care because they weren't pushing the limit anyways. It ultimately serves to heavily restrict the exception armies while having little to no impact on most of them.

Edited January 5, 2023 by NinthMusketeer

[Skreech Verminking]

23 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

The reality is it gets in the way of armies that should bypass it, like Skaven and Gloomspite, while non-swarmy armies like SCE or Orruks don't care because they weren't pushing the limit anyways. It ultimately serves to heavily restrict the exception armies while having little to no impact on most of them.

You mean they wrote those rules to literally nerf the worst armies in the end of second edition.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

I think they created an elite meta with the first GHB, because the point costs they based it off both did not account for base size and were intentionally biased towards 'big cool stuff'. Going into 2nd edition they decided to counteract the apparent preference for elites by buffing large squads--but because there was no analysis of WHY the situation was what it was this made things worse. Many of the units that got the horde buffs already had built-in abilities for making larger units stronger on a per model basis so what we ended up with was...

10 skinks (5+ hit rolls) - worth ~5pts/each on the table, cost 6pts/each

20 skinks (4+ hit rolls) - worth ~6pts/each on the table, cost 6pts/each

30 skinks (3+ hit rolls) - worth ~7pts/each on the table, cost 6pts/each

40 skinks (2+ hit rolls) - worth ~8pts/each on the table, cost --5pts/each--

This is just one (somewhat extreme) example, but you get the point; the most effective version of many horde units suddenly got a discount while many elite units were being increased. Players, being capable of basic math, rapidly picked up on this and lo and behold, people showing up with 100+ skinks for a game. Over the course of 2nd the devs addressed the issue, and this time did it intelligently by slowly scaling back both size-scaling abilities in new tomes and how many horde discounts were being given. Eventually by the tail end of 2nd we had no horde discounts and only a few size-scaling abilities in new tomes that were quite reasonable.

In comes 3rd edition! With monsters and heroes having fallen particular victim to 2nd-eds increases to costs of elite units they needed something to help them stand out and regain their ground, which 3rd has really done well (seriously heroics and rampages are a lot of fun and I thank GW for adding them). But why were those units so bad? Well they were out competed in combat and on objectives by swarms. So 3rd included some buffs to elite models/monsters holding objectives to even things out from that end as well--another good move. The randomness of arbitrary unit sizes was also addressed via the reinforcement system; if you're battleline you can go up to triple, if you're not you just get double. Also great!

Then came the element that pushed things too far; reinforcement points. Elite models were buffed in both combat effectiveness and in objective control, while new limitations prevented hordes from bloating out of control, and that was good so surely MORE restrictions would be better!? Hordes needed to not only be limited in what they could do, players also needed to be limited in how many they could take... except hordes had been brought into line and all the incentive to spam them was gone outside of armies whose individual playstyles needed it. So reinforcement points are pointless because they further restrict limits no one had incentive to push, unless they were playing an army designed around being able to do so! They could be removed tomorrow and half the players wouldn't notice because it doesn't factor into their army builds. Half of what was left would notice but not change anything, and maybe a quarter of players would go 'finally I can play my [army] with proper numbers!'

Edited January 5, 2023 by NinthMusketeer

[Skreech Verminking]

11 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I think they created an elite meta with the first GHB, because the point costs they based it off both did not account for base size and were intentionally biased towards 'big cool stuff'. Going into 2nd edition they decided to counteract the apparent preference for elites by buffing large squads--but because there was no analysis of WHY the situation was what it was this made things worse. Many of the units that got the horde buffs already had built-in abilities for making larger units stronger on a per model basis so what we ended up with was...

10 skinks (5+ hit rolls) - worth ~5pts/each on the table, cost 6pts/each

20 skinks (4+ hit rolls) - worth ~6pts/each on the table, cost 6pts/each

30 skinks (3+ hit rolls) - worth ~7pts/each on the table, cost 6pts/each

40 skinks (2+ hit rolls) - worth ~8pts/each on the table, cost --5pts/each--

This is just one (somewhat extreme) example, but you get the point; the most effective version of many horde units suddenly got a discount while many elite units were being increased. Players, being capable of basic math, rapidly picked up on this and lo and behold, people showing up with 100+ skinks for a game. Over the course of 2nd the devs addressed the issue, and this time did it intelligently by slowly scaling back both size-scaling abilities in new tomes and how many horde discounts were being given. Eventually by the tail end of 2nd we had no horde discounts and only a few size-scaling abilities in new tomes that were quite reasonable.

In comes 3rd edition! With monsters and heroes having fallen particular victim to 2nd-eds increases to costs of elite units they needed something to help them stand out and regain their ground, which 3rd has really done well (seriously heroics and rampages are a lot of fun and I thank GW for adding them). But why were those units so bad? Well they were out competed in combat and on objectives by swarms. So 3rd included some buffs to elite models/monsters holding objectives to even things out from that end as well--another good move. The randomness of arbitrary unit sizes was also addressed via the reinforcement system; if you're battleline you can go up to triple, if you're not you just get double. Also great!

Then came the element that pushed things too far; reinforcement points. Elite models were buffed in both combat effectiveness and in objective control, while new limitations prevented hordes from bloating out of control, and that was good so surely MORE restrictions would be better!? Hordes needed to not only be limited in what they could do, players also needed to be limited in how many they could take... except hordes had been brought into line and all the incentive to spam them was gone outside of armies whose individual playstyles needed it. So reinforcement points are pointless because they further restrict limits no one had incentive to push, unless they were playing an army designed around being able to do so! They could be removed tomorrow and half the players wouldn't notice because it doesn't factor into their army builds. Half of what was left would notice but not change anything, and maybe a quarter of players would go 'finally I can play my [army] with proper numbers!'

Certainly an interesting topic, yet I’m not quit certai how this fits into the idea of writing a fanmade skaven faq for playing the game as is currently.

Should it be removed so too will the faq be updated till then , I don’t think it is wrong to say that the skaven at least if you’re trying to play anything but 6-9 stormfiends and the min. Size required clanrats most people tent to take, that the skaven horde needs more reinforcement points.

personally I think gloomspite could need one too put, they are currently getting a new book at some point so maybe gw will change the book to its better

[NinthMusketeer]

I'd like to see plague monks go up to at least unit size 15, if not 20. Spamming 10-man units is the best way to go right now and it feels pretty cheesy.

[Skreech Verminking]

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I'd like to see plague monks go up to at least unit size 15, if not 20. Spamming 10-man units is the best way to go right now and it feels pretty cheesy.

It’s an interesting concept.

I personally went with the idea of units of 20, to give the ability of fielding units of 40 again.

Which is probably why I made an extra battlefield role, to keep the elite horde units at that size.

After all I’m pretty certain that nobody wants to play against a brick of 60 plague monks or stormvermins all attacking

15 is also an interesting concept as it would give you the chance of fielding 45 when spending 2 reinforcement points.

But I have a feeling that not many players will be happy with that idea.

as they would need to buy a third box of plague monks just to field 5 more monks in their reinforced unit

Edited January 6, 2023 by Skreech Verminking

[NinthMusketeer]

My dream is Skaven getting an Orruk Warclans style book where there is a combined clans army like what we have now, but also focused lists for Pestilens/Skryre/Eshin/Moulder that give a bit extra in exchange for exclusive allegiance.

Also plastic wolf rats.

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

My dream is Skaven getting an Orruk Warclans style book where there is a combined clans army like what we have now, but also focused lists for Pestilens/Skryre/Eshin/Moulder that give a bit extra in exchange for exclusive allegiance.

Also plastic wolf rats.

That’s a great dream.

personally, I just want somebody competent enough to write that book.

this skaven book, and believe me that is just my opinion, is more or less a disaster.

the points decreases and battleline if chances were great but not worth a new book, and the rest was horrible done.

I’m not certain the new skaven rule writers understand the skaven at all.

the rule in three is an interesting concept, but it doesn’t really fit the skaven it feels like as if the rules writer tried to keep some sort of piece and harmony between the heroes.

look.

if you take three clalwords all of them can do a heroic action.

or if 3 grey seers work together, everything works as they planned it.

total nonsense.

the skaven are literally trying to backstab, betray or do somerhing even worse to the other heroes.

they are rivals after all. There is no such thing as harmony in the ranks of skaven we are chaos incarnate. And while we do fight together the backstabbing never ceases.

we kill to prove who the better skaven is.

we make pack-contracts to literally break them after words, or try and abuse the contract of another clan.

this aslo goes for the grand strategy.

If I were a skaven clawlord, warlock, or animything else, why would I want my rivals to be alive.

why would I want to have 3 heroes alive to get the strand strategy.

how does that make any sense.

I’m a skaven. My grand plan is to kill-stab and betray my rival, only if I come out as the last surviver, as the grand skaven of all as the chosen one kf the horned rat have I won the battle, have I mastered strategy, deceive and the so often seen scurry-run away.

at that moment I am the grand strategist, not when I somehow mange to keep my rivals alive. No I want them dead!

this what the skaven are.

and for any future rule writers trying to get an idea of the skaven. 
have a loom at this.

it hopefully will open you eyes.

Ps:

also any thoughts on the faq I wrote?

anything may it be critic or something else any opinions are welcome as ling as something can be done with it.

so for example explanation what your missing in the faq, stuff you think are too powerful, too weak, erc. Anything that helps me create the perfect faq without chancing a warscroll fully is welcome.

ps: and yes the screaming bell is horrible.

 

[NinthMusketeer]

The reality is that every Skaven book going back to WHFB has been a schizophrenic mass of rules seen nowhere else in the game before or after its publishing. The balance has always been excessively random, with both hilariously broken and comically bad options in abundance. Are they the same units as the last one? Will they be the same in the next? Who knows!? Certainly not any of us!

Which is to say that us Skaven players need to learn not to expect the worst or the best, but everything. At the same time. In every book. I feel that the fundamental problem at hand within the thread is not necessarily the literal problems, but the focus on aspects one does not like. Part of enjoying Skaven means laughing off the ridiculous downsides, much like one does with our innumerable ways of killing ourselves, and instead focusing on the potential of what COULD happen if things go well. They almost always won't, of course, but that never stops the Skaven!
 

As a sidenote, to actually address some of the points raised more directly; I find the focus on heroes, both in allegiance mechanics and in grand strategies, makes a lot of sense. Because in Skaven society it is ALL about the rats at the top. The underlings do. Not. Matter. They can (and do) die in absurd extremes to buy their leaders even an ounce of advantage. If your Skaven army hits the battlefield with 3 Grey Seers, 60 Stormvermin, and 200 Clanrats then only 3 Seers return alive? Pat yourself on the back, you suffered no casualties*!
*Of note.

Edited January 8, 2023 by NinthMusketeer

[Skreech Verminking]

12 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

1)The reality is that every Skaven book going back to WHFB has been a schizophrenic mass of rules seen nowhere else in the game before or after its publishing. The balance has always been excessively random, with both hilariously broken and comically bad options in abundance. Are they the same units as the last one? Will they be the same in the next? Who knows!? Certainly not any of us!

2)Which is to say that us Skaven players need to learn not to expect the worst or the best, but everything. At the same time. In every book. I feel that the fundamental problem at hand within the thread is not necessarily the literal problems, but the focus on aspects one does not like. Part of enjoying Skaven means laughing off the ridiculous downsides, much like one does with our innumerable ways of killing ourselves, and instead focusing on the potential of what COULD happen if things go well. They almost always won't, of course, but that never stops the Skaven!
 

3) As a sidenote, to actually address some of the points raised more directly; I find the focus on heroes, both in allegiance mechanics and in grand strategies, makes a lot of sense. Because in Skaven society it is ALL about the rats at the top. The underlings do. Not. Matter. They can (and do) die in absurd extremes to buy their leaders even an ounce of advantage. If your Skaven army hits the battlefield with 3 Grey Seers, 60 Stormvermin, and 200 Clanrats then only 3 Seers return alive? Pat yourself on the back, you suffered no casualties*!
*Of note.

1) personally some of the units were done extremely badly.

while you do mention that the risk playing skaven brings with it is fun for you and the opponent, it gets reluctant sour, when death is a certainty with using an overcharge.

which we currently have in the rattling gun weapon team, if we ignore the fact of rules as written when playing at a tournament.

to tell your opponent that death is undeniable certain is pretty boring when he is expecting a risk in the whole stuff.

now that doesn’t mean that the rest of clan skryre stuff is badly done or so, but if you are that person who took multiple ours at converting and building good looking rattling guns, with the hopes of having some fun with a risky playstyle, it just feels as if you’ve been beaten to a pulp when they announce certain death when overcharging.

at this point its making a decision of doing it or not, rather then overcharging and having a chance of dying.

2) I don’t think the players were expecting the best or the worst.

I wasn’t at least.

I was interested in seeing the new book, the stuff it would bring, the changes and of course the one new eshin unit everybody was hoping would be a box of nightrunners.

and we got just literally the worst for not expecting either.

while there are many people talking about the good things of the book, it is often reduced to:

point chances battleline if changes. 
the thing that could have been done with an faq.  
while those aren’t the only changes they removed a lot of stuff that made the skaven more interesting.

personally the book was more about removing stuff from the skaven then chancing anything.

and even the chances weren’t good.

a good example would be some of the artifacts and command traits that were left.

the command trait overseer of destruction my favorite back in the good days, changed entirely.

from buffing rattling guns to you can keep models alive when the unit they are hidden in dies.

this is personally just terrible writing.

from the small fluff text given for that ability this general is known for taking the killiest weapon team squads from the clans to add to his army, able to deal more damage.

This feels more like sneaky weapon teams and not even that since your general would need to babysit the unit that has the weapon teams hidden.

sounds like a lot of fun.

example like these are spread pretty wide around our new books.

3) while I do understand your point I do must admit something. No it feels so much better when your able to sacrifice one of your heroes to keep the other one you prefer alive.

and for the grand strategies, the could have done better, those strategies are lazily handled.

it’s one kind of strategy repeated for the different clan heroes.

for example for clan skryre:

we have the different warlocks all who are always trying to prove who the better genius is, which often ends up in them sabotaging the weapon of their other clan hero members:

how can we show that well how about this:

if your army starts with at least 3 warlocks you can choose this grand strategy.

at the end of the game when you have a single warlock remaining alive, this grand strategy has been successfully full-filled.

We could do a few more that differ from each other for example clan moulder all about their beast for example having a hell pit come back alive after death for a grand strategy.

for clan eshin maybe something to do about killing at least a certain amount of enemy heroes to succeed.

there are a ton of options that could have been exploited, and while yes they probably aren’t easy to get, it would much more interesting and satisfying then trying to keep three heroes alive that are trying to constantly backstab each other.