Bob and I are going to try something new and see how it goes, he and I are going to debate certain points regarding the game. This post was created to be a debate but it ended up more as two old guys siting around agreeing with each other for the most part.
1. Parry Save: Good addition or not? Quick fixes/changes?
J. I like the parry save addition, however the full use of this rule bothers me. A skaven clanrat is just as likely to parry as a Chaos Chosen. In a game filled with too many modifications I think parry's need to be modifiable, can't parry an attack from something with double your WS, S or I.
B. I like the parry save as well and the need to make them modifiable. Base should be the 6+ with perhaps 4+ being the max. The 4+ would only be available to the models with the highest chosen characteristic as well as having some form of negative modifier.
J. A regeneration rule if you will. I like the idea
2. To horde or not to horde?
J. Yes- to an extent. I think some armies have to horde to be competitive. I wouldn't mind seeing this being an army specific option or even a points restriction, can't take a horde in a battle under 1500, or if you spend more than 400pts on the unit you can't horde it, I don't know but overall I like it.
B. While I agree that some armies need to horde up for lore or gaming reasons (Skaven, Goblins, etc), I do not like this mechanic overall. Given the scale of models used for Warhammer, and the prices of models rapidly approaching pants on head stupid levels, I don't think the near requirement for hordes in any semi-competitive level of play is detrimental to the game.
J. This is a case where hording should be an army by army basis not a general rule.
3. Shooting, all negatives no positives?
J. Hate that they got rid of the one positive modifier in shooting in fantasy, shooting at large targets. While I am personally not a fan of the all or nothing in 40k, shooting is getting way too difficult in fantasy.
B. Shooting runs into a very similar problem in The Lord of the Rings/Hobbit game. Take Elves for example, they can hit things very easily considering a high BS or Shooting value, but with no Strength modifier to a long bow they usually can't kill anything nearly as easily.
J. I believe this is slippery slope issue, I would like to see the elves get boosted shooting then for some reason the orks and gobbos will get it too, and that makes no damn sense. I would be all for this is they were able to limit which factions got this bonus, all the elves and maybe dwarves that would be it.
4. Steadfast, how broke?
J. Brokest, most broke, most brokest. All of the above. This needs to be modified, I don't care how many skaven slaves you have, when my Carnosaur mounted Old Blood kills 14 of them, they are going to notice (This actually happened) Again I am not saying get rid of it, but this really needs work.
B. Agreed 100%. There needs to be a rule that negates this when a certain number of casualties are inflicted in a single round of combat.
J. I would like to see this as a percentage, maybe 25% losses from a single round of combat. Basically if it would cause a panic test, if they weren't in combat, they don't get steadfast.
5. Random Charge or Fixed Charge?
J. I like the fixed charge distance. I have seen my dwarves roll double sixes and be able to charge 15 inches, while I've had elves roll double ones and charge 7 inches. This is one place i don't like the randomness.
B. I would say I lean more towards a fixed charge range. It doesn't make much sense that a Dwarf can charge farther than a Elf or Skink.
6. Over Simplification, too big of a rule book?
J. They need to stop trying to fit all the rules into one book, it sucks, doesn't work and takes a lot of the flavor out of the game.
B. I disagree. All of the rules need to be in one book. What would be better would be to publish the small, rules only book as well as the brick.
J. I don't like how bland the game is getting because of this fact. While it would be handy to have A book with everything I believe you lose the feel of the game. I believe if they go to one book a lot of the uniqueness is going to get bled out of the game- see magic items. The uniqueness is what makes the game, look at how i have grown armys. Elves - too squishy go to Dwarves - too few dwarves give skaven a try - skaven not pack enough damage try lizardmen - lizardmen 'too strong' try other armies (Chaos and Tomb Kings). Once everything is under one book I KNOW the armies will start to look to similar to allow a lot of variance between armies.
B. I am talking about the core game rules being in one book, not army specific information.
7. If you had one general rule (not magic based) you could change what would it be?
J. Unmodifiable Steadfast, i loathe that rule. You take 25% or 10+ casualties you arent steadfast.
B. Besides the Steadfast bull plop, I would totally rework the way armour works. It is completely unrealistic the way the various types of armour are modeled and still represent the same thing (looking at you Empire State Troops and Chaos Marauders).