My group has been trying to decide on the minimum, simplest houserules neccessary to make 1.0 figures fully useable and compatible in 2.0. Yes I realize that they are "technically" compatible, but the nature of the rules is that some models are reduced to near uselessness. Our goal has to been to bring these models up to par with as few and as simple rules as possible. Here is what we have decided on:

1) 1.0 models with bound or charge do not take a click of damage for moving with doubletime.
2) 1.0 models with range greater than 0 may participate in a ranged combat formation as though they had the bow attack type.
3) 1.0 models count their ranged combat damage as their base damage score or their number of shots, whichever is higher.

Rule 1 addresses the fact that low move bounders and chargers have an extremly difficult time getting anywhere under the new rules. These figures were priced and designed around being able to move double if not shooting; costing them that deprives them of far too much. This should keep these models useable. However, it avoids overpowering models like Corpheus or the Amazon Drac. With their already high move and long range attack, every time they are not using the move and attack option you are losing valuable attacks with them. As they will not be able to doubletime out of combat there should be few situations where the double move would be a better choice over the move and shoot, and even then they could do it normally at a cost of 1 click of damage.

Rule 2 deals with low power ranged shooters that are primarily useful as fire support. With the rule of 3, these models can no longer effectively combine into larger formations. They have moved into a game where melee troops can surge for better effect, but have not received the missile bonuses of being able to fire into melee and make point blank shots. This will help them maintain some usefulness. As a note, our group has played with conquest attack rules in regular games for a long time now, and has never found adding extra damage from formations to be overpowering. Once again, the effect on already powerful models is minimal; they will be firing on their own rather than in formation anyway.

Rule 3 helps out the models that can no longer hurt all their targets in 2.0. These models, with less damage than arrows, were already of low usefulness due to the difficulty in getting enough enemy models into range and arc before being based. Now, they cannot effectively use their only ability. Upgrading their damage based on shots will ensure they can at least function well at range, and makes them more similar to 2.0 range specialists in that they are more effective at range than close in. Already powerful models generally have damage greater or equal to the number of arrows anyway, and are not improved by this rule.

Is there anything we are missing that really needs to be done to make 1.0 figures useable? Is there anything we are missing about these houserules that would cause problems?
We are also considering the following two rules, but consider them much less essential:
4) Flyers may move in formation as long as all the models have flying.
Once again, we have used the conquest rules in normal games and found they work just fine. Flyers suffer enough from not gaining doubletime as all other models do; no need to penalize them more with the lack of formation.
5) Aquatic models add +2 to defense against all attacks while in water instead of just ranged attacks.
Aquatic is minimally useful to begin with, and it costs the model doubletime. Why not make it a tiny bit better and more consistent with 2.0 wave movement and give the defense bonus against all attacks?

I agree with cancelling the Double Time Penalty for 1.0 Charge and Bound figures. Heck, 2.0 has effectively destroyed my Centaur Archers and Centaur Lieutenants. :( They weren't a major factor in battles, but having only 1 or 2 clicks of Bound or Charge screws them over big-time in 2.0.

Stormknight,

I agree whole heartedly with your 3 main rules--especially #1. Here are two more that I'm offering up for consideration:

1.) Figures belonging to related factions between 1.0 and 2.0 (i.e. 1.0 Black Powder Rebels and 2.0 Black Powder Revolutionaries) can paricitipate in movement formations

2.)1.0 figures with the word 'golem' in their name have damage type:golem:

Here's the rationale:
1.) Enables more unit combinations between 1.0 and 2.0, and while the gang up profiency takes care of this in close combat, it would be nice to be able to move my Magus and infantry golems together (assuming, of course, that I'd actually play infantry golems, but that's another thread . . .)

2.) 1.0 golems can be repaired by any healer, as opposed to just the GolemKore or those with tinker. IMHO, that makes 1.0 golems MORE playable than their 2.0 counterparts (even more so since they have no repair markers). This way, at least, the 1.0 golems are subject to the same restrictions as 2.0 golems. Of course there are golems without 'golem' in the name (like Corpheus), but they can be taken care of in a FAQ of sorts, like all those le skeletons.

Thoughts?

Freebooter,

Glad you think these are good!
The entire "count them as same faction or not" certainly makes for a huge debate...one of the reasons my group isn't going there. Yet, at least. We are planning on seeing how things work out as is, though I suspect we may allow that. I certainly wouldn't have a problem playing in a group that allowed that as a house rule - I don't see any potential balance problems worse than what exists by being able to freely mix factions to begin with.

We also considered the golems counting as golems, but rejected it for a few reasons.
First, there are so many other things that should count...automatons, Battle Queens, Dwarven Stompers, etc.
Second, there are some things that would count that don't really seem like they should, like Bone Golems and Wood Golems. I don't see a Wood Golem appreciating being put back together with a hammer! :D
Finally, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that 2.0 golems receive a discount on price based on being immune to regular types of healing and having repair markers. This might actually be a trade up without repair markers, since they would lose healing and magic healing, but be affected by tinker and golemkore. However, that means a pure 1.0 army can't heal their own golems at all.
Overall the idea, while nice in theory, just had too many problem areas. But it is also not one I would have a problem with if other players wanted to use it.

First, I didn't read the whole post, just the part about all range with greater than zero have the bow attack type. I would just like to point out that the units with range greater than zero in 2.0 have wand, sword, and bow type attacks. I wouldn't give all of the 1.0 range figures that ability personally, but if it works for you, go with it in casual play

Dionysus:

The suggestion was that they be treated as having Bow type attack FOR MAKING FORMATIONS not for all purposes. I like all of these.

For that matter, I like allowing formations with "corresponding" factions between MK1 and MK2. I have still seen no persuasive argument for making them different. I'm stubborn old-school and have always used formations. Very few of my armies have ever done without them.

DragonVenom

I'm tossing around the golem / or metal made figs myself.
I'm giving mechanincs - except boltripper - the tinker or field repair abilities.

I'm with you on the bounding/charging idea. but only for the 1.0 figs if you excluded the golem/metal figs then Copheus cant move 20

i think that the movement formation idea should be in the 'real' rules because that would make the games so much more campatible (1.0 and 2.0)

Whoops, DragonVenom already said what I was going to. I wasn't suggesting actually changing the type or letting them use the bow proficiencies, just letting them get the improved formation attacks. Wands in 2.0 can also use the improved formation rules, but saying they were treated as bow or wand would cause confusion about whether or not magic resistance would stop it. Personally, I think there are some models that really should get the bow type, but that takes individual model houseruling, adds confusion about what SA they should use, and other complexity. Trying to keep it very simple.

On the Golem issue - Just looked at a Skull Golem last night, and it is of the Golem type...there isn't any Wood Golem equivalent though, so no way to see how that would turn out. I still don't see doing this at the moment though - I suspect we will be playing some straight 1.0 armies to see how they fare against 2.0, and other people I know won't be picking up 2.0 or won't be able to afford much. By making them need an ability that's only in 2.0 to heal some of their 1.0 figures, that would just be an unfair handicap. But like I said, I can definetly see others doing it.

I realize that Corpheus being able to move 20 sounds worrying, but I really don't think it is a problem..
Consider that armies start about 30" apart, and 15" from the center of the table. Lets say Corphy doubletimes 20 forward on his first turn, and is now 15" away from the enemy army. Models like Kierin Starsdawn can bound forward and shoot him. More importantly, any 8 move model can doubletime and base him. Remember that charge/bound no longer gives easy breakaway; he needs to roll a 4+ to escape, and can't doubletime so the double time rule doesn't help.
In fact, with just a normal move then a bound next turn Corpheus has an effective range of 32" (2 10" moves plus a 12" shot). Unless your opponent is hiding on the table edge or corner, he can probably get this shot off anyway. Doubletiming just doesn't help him, since he would have to push to attack the next turn he is just as well off not moving as far the first turn.
Once forces begin to engage, I think it will be quite rare that a 20" move serves any practical purpouse. The main area of conflict will tend to be centered in the area between the three objectives, which should be roughly 15" across. There just isn't a reason to go 20 normally. Furthermore, since Corpheus probably CAN get in a shot with just a normal bound, any time you choose to doubletime him instead you are not missing out on attacks that you need to take to get your 128 points worth out of him.
The only times I can it actually being desireable to doubletime Corpheus are to escape a bad situation and to make a desperate late-turn grab at an objective. But, Corpheus in 1.0 usually needed to make that escape run when based. In 2.0, he can't doubletime if based. If he is not based, given his heavy firepower there are very few situations in which it wouldn't be better to run back 10 and take a shot.
In the second situation, the end game objective grab, Corpheus might win the game by making a 20" move. But, remember that this houserule isn't making the difference between being able to move 20 or not - it just determines whether or not you take a click for moving 20. If a desperate 20" rush will win the game for you, you really aren't going to mind that Corphy takes a click of damage from doing it.
With all these things considered, I just don't think there is any problem with letting Corphy move 20. I don't think he's ever likely to.
However, making all "metals" not move 20 really hurts the low speed charging Battle Queens, which are exactly the sort of models I am trying to help with this rule.
One could specifically say that "Corpheus can't doubletime for free", but that adds a specific model change which I have been trying to avoid, and as noted above, I just don't think it makes much difference.
Sorry for the long ramble, just trying hard to explain my logic. :)

Maybe this has been said before but I would like the following houserule concerning old charge figures:
Use the dungeon charge rules for these figs. This would mean their speed goes up 4 points - which gives them about the same speed as the new chargers. (8-9 for the slowest, 11 for the fastest (not counting Lightfout or Skyros)).
One could limit this rule to double based figs only if one is scared of a 10 inch charging Warpath or a 14 inch charging Skyros.
Just a way to not render all the old chargers useless without overpowering them.

I think you can accomplish most of what you want by simply allowing 1.0/2.0 formations, via the subfaction rule.

This allows your 1.0 archers to add to the attack, while the 2.0 archers add to the damage.

I disagree wholeheartedly that 1.0 bounders are disfunctional now. They have their range cushion to protect themselves, while they move into position. They are useful immediately to take and protect the close objective. Even if the close objective is 12" away, most bounders can shoot to that distance and thus affect the close objective, thus they serve a useful purpose. If you give 1.0 bounders abilities, you are hurting the 2.0 bounders, because they will be overcosted in relation to the 1.0 figures. The new figures take the new rules into account in their point cost. They changed the point cost formula to reflect the new rules, then used the new formula to cost the new figures. WK believes bounders were undercosted initially, so since they could not reduce their cost, and they don't want to ban, they reduced the ability, and costed the new stuff accordingly.

I agree about your chargers. If you love your single based chargers, I understand your pain. Personaly, I painted tears on my Centaur LT. Even so, I think doubling their most messes with the point cost of the new figures.

The point here is not that they are useless. It is that they are much less useful in the role you used to use them for. They used to be a first strike weapon, now they are not. Yet they can still serve a very useful purpose. The arguement for the close objective, like I stated above works for these figures. Also, I used most of my chargers as bodyguards anyway, and they still do that just as well. You just can't get the group out there as fast. But if you MUST retain them in their former role, I think allowing them to move 8 inches and allowing them to surge to that distance, protects them and helps make them playable.

The rest of the stuff you mentioned I don't like and don't understand the need for. I mean you can give whatever ability you want to any figure you want, but you are playing your own game at that point, not MK.

If it makes your group happy, then have fun with it. For me though, I want to get good at using my figures as they are intended to be used. I play against guys in different venues and so the only way I can play is by the rules.

Actually this wouldn't accomplish what I want at all, since it does absolutely nothing for an all 1.0 formation, does not accomodate large formations for big games, and requries yet another house rule. It isn't that the need exists to add to damage, its that they can only add to attack up to +3, which means more than 1 supporting model is wasting some of the bonus and more than 2 are useless.

Yes, presumably the new figures do take the new rules into account in their cost. Thus, a figure with bound 8 will be priced given that they can move 8 and still shoot, or take a click of damage to move 16 and not shoot. Supposedly, new figures are balanced against old figures, which were balanced with each other to begin with. An old figure with bound was balanced by points against a similar figure without bound. However, the bounder was balanced under the idea that it can move its speed and attack, or move double its speed without attacking, and can break on a 2+. Now under the new rules, it can move its speed and attack, but has to take damage to move double. The new models do not have these considerations on their cost. If there was an overpowering of original bounders, it is balanced out by losing the 2+ break. Did anyone complain that bounders in general were overpowered? Not as far as I know - just specific bounders, generally the high move models that receive little or no benefit from this rule. The fact that Corpheus could advance 20" did not make him nasty - the fact that he could move 10" and shoot 12", then retreat 20" out of base on a 2+ made him nasty.
I do not believe for one instance that bound or charge was changed to balance old figures - it was changed for simplicity. The printed half move caused numerous problems regarding leaving base contact and moving in formation. For simplicty sake it was changed in 2.0 and the older figures were simply disregarded. There was enough of an outcry regarding cavalry that the ability to move double was maintained and added for all hoof models. WK simply does not want to make any rules that specifically affect 1.0 models, which this does.

Most of the low move bound and chargers are quite expensive for what they do. Using them to protect the near objective is not really viable; it is unlikely that this objective will be threatened that early in the game, and your other models should be in a position to protect it even if it is. The bounders wind up with little advantage over static range, and the chargers potentially at a disadvantage compared to non-charging sword troops who can surge farther.

The only other rule I mentioned is the increased damage for multiple-shot models, which serves to make these models work as they were originally designed to rather than becoming useless.

What does that even mean, when people say "You are no longer playing MK"? Are the rules holy writ, and any deviation from them must be viewed as a heretical offshoot that cannot profane the name of the game?
The truth is, I suppose by your definition I am not ever playing MK to begin with, since we usually use a 5' x 6' area rather than 3x3, and usually play with close to a thousand points rather than 300. This does motivate some of intent on these houserules - a 4 move model is much less useful on a 30' square than on a 9' square, formation attacks matter much more with 3x the points. So does just playing with different points make it "not MK"? Should the game designer never modify their game since to even try to playtest changes would be to be "not playing" MK?

Well, using the figures affected by this change as intended by WK is really easy - take 'em and toss them in the trash because you'll never play them again. Whether due to planned obsolesence or fear of overcomplexity (and I actually give WK the benefit of the doubt and believe the latter) they have elected to make some figures not really compatible with the new rules when a simple fix, such as suggested here, could have done so.

You are certainly welcome to bring up things you feel are problems about house rules to the attention of their designers. In this case, I disagree with your contention that making allowing faction mixing would fix the first problem because it is of no use to players using pure 1.0 armies; which myself and others will still do from time to time.
You comments on the second topic that move 4 bounders and chargers don't really need to go faster might be correct - if anyone has played with them in 2.0, please provide more comments on it. However, I strongly suspect that as points and table size goes up their potential usefulness will drop drastically, and I suspect they are really not quite worth their points even with the doubletime ability due to the other restrictions of 2.0.

These remarks and discussion are welcome. Telling me that I should not be interfering with the holy writ game rules because then I'm not playing the real game is not. If you are going to despise house rules on the very basis that they are houserules and you can't stand that anyone would defy the mighty WK, I suggest staying away from threads clearly labelled as houserule discussions in the future.

<Deep breath>
Ok, ArmyC, looking through my last post I'll go ahead and give an advance apology for flying off the handle a bit. You tagged a touchy spot there. I tend to get annoyed when people talk about how you "can't" modify the rules, or that game designers are all knowing or better than we are. That probably wasn't your intent.
Partly, I'm upset just because I feel annoyed at having to make house rules to fix things that I think WK should have fixed themselves. I spent hundreds of dollars on my MK models, I darn well want to be able to use every single one of them. While I don't mind improving the game, I would rather the company did it for me!
But I've pretty much already had houserules and have been just fine with them. Heck, about half the houserules our group uses are now part of the real rules in 2.0! Not that I had anything to do with that, but they must not have been too bad of ideas.

Well, as my own, I mentioned this in another thread, but to help some of the old chargers/bounders, I made this rule up:

Treat all 1.0 bounder/chargers as if they had 1.5 times their current movement (rounded up) for as long as they have it.

(Partially, I rationalized this out in the way Charge is treated in Dungeons. While it's not perfect, Dungeons uses the exact same point system as MK Rebellion. Thus, the way Charge works there is sort of telling. They simply add extra onto the speed, nothing more, since everyone can do a lesser version of surging in the movement points used for attacks.) Thus, the pointcost of having Charge/Bound is likely near-equal to simply having the points, though perhaps a bit higher. Hard to tell. But that 'basically equal to the double speed' item sticks.

Here in 2.0, that Charge basically becomes a painless surge. Considering there's got to be quite a bit more advantage here, I figured for between the two.

So, digging through my bin I find four basic figures that would be assisted by this rule. Listed is their basic speed (weresaber's is in its second click) followed by the modified speed according to my idea in [parentheses].

** Horned Hatchekrugg 6Ch [9Ch]
*** Weresabretooth 4Ch [6Ch]
** Orc Builder 3B [5B]
* Centaur Lieutenant 5Ch [8Ch]

The idea being, they can then doubletime just as any other figure would, or at least more equally. For the mounted-base chargers, this puts them on at least similar footing to the Rammers and such, if not equal. And for the single-base chargers/bounders, it gives them a chance to equal up. (Only proiblem here is it gives Skyros and Corpheus each a 15 movement, but that's not as bad as before. If it's that bad, it could be capped at 14, but those are the two big exceptions, I think. Does anything else have more than a 7 and ch/b?)

Alternate to this is the idea that we simply cut the Charge altogether, and double speed, but that doesn't help Bounders any, so this is more for both than just the one.