Monday, 15 February 2016

Warhammer: 9th Edition Beta out now!

Updated to 1.01 February 19th.

Finally finished the beta version! It might look a little bare-bones and unfinished at the moment as there's still quite a lot of things left to be finished in regards to the layout, diagrams, artwork etc, but I will hold that off while I gather some feedback for the rules themselves, and can work on the army books in the meantime. For now, please refer to the 8th ed books in case you need a graphic representation of the various diagrams. As far as the rules text is concerned, this should be pretty much complete, except any future update content of course. I plan to add rules for both campaigns, sieges and more scenarios later on as well.

9th Edition is somewhat of a "Best of" collection of Warhammer rules, using a mixture of 6th, 7th and 8th edition all in one, as well as several additions. These rules will not make everybody happy, and that's fine, satisfying every single player would be impossible. I therefore leave it to the community to pick and choose the rules changes they like, and ignore the rules changes they do not like. I aim to have all 8th Edition books be compatible with 9th Edition as much as possible, so there will not be a need to change everything in all of them as well.

This book focuses solely on the rules of the game. For simplicity's sake, I have mainly used the rules as written in the 8th ed book and simply rewritten the rules changes. I do suggest both new and old gamers to read through everything carefully, as there are quite a lot of small tweaks that might otherwise be overlooked if you just assumed everything works the same as 8th Edition.

I've added nearly all things from the official errata and the FAQ, and I've added several small tweaks here and there that removes a lot of straight up cheesy tactics like conga lines, corner-to-corner charges, rail-roading, double flee etc. This means that a lot of old tactics will be invalidated, just as they should.

In general, the game will allow for the use of more smaller units, similar to 6th ed, while still keeping the infantry in the fighting with steadfast. Flanking and manoeuvring is now much more important, war machines need to be positioned more carefully, and basic missile weapons have gotten a needed boost. Monster Lords are more resilient but not overly so, and spear-armed basic infantry will be more useful compared to great weapon wielding elites. Panic will be a lot more important factor to the game, making ItP units more useful, as is keeping your leadership high due to no re-roll from the BSB.

In short, I think you will find the game will be a more about tactics and less about exploiting the game mechanics. Of course, there might still be a holes that needs plugging, which is why I hope you guys will playtest the crap out of these rules and let me know how they work out for you.

I'm going to get to work on making the Ravening Hordes lists soon as well, so you can start using them as quickly as possible.

Warhammer Download
Press cover to download
Below you can see most of the changes, there are some minor ones besides that I have probably forgot to list here. Some of these changes are not yet uploaded.

Basic Rules:

  • For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace an unblocked line from its base to the base of the target. 
  • A unit may never have more ranks than it has files, i.e a unit must be at least as wide as it is deep (no more conga lines, enforces frontage rather than columns.
  • Unit Strength (US) is back, affects several factors such as aligning, steadfast, panic and so on. 
  • Max 2 duplicate special choices, no duplicate rare choices in less than 3000 pts. Certain characters are likely to lift that restriction to allow making themed lists.

Movement:

  • Charges cannot be completed unless you can get at least half the models in the front rank into base contact with the enemy (avoids corner-to-corner charges). The exception to this is if the enemy unit have too few models in the arc you are attempting to charge for this to be possible, in which case you may charge as normal.
  • Charge distance is 2D3+M" for infantry, 2D6+M" for cavalry (still measured from closest point with free "close the gap").
  • Units with less than US5 align to the charger rather than the other way round (removes lone models from directing the entire flow of battle).
  • Units that fail to roll high enough to reach their charge target may still complete their charge against another unit as long as they roll high enough to move into a new unit in a straight line ahead (makes double-flees less abusive).
  • Units may turn/pivot on the spot within 1" of an enemy unit, as long as they won't end their movement within 1" of an enemy unit. You may also nudge your unit so this is not the case (removes rail-roading of units like Abomination and Steam Tanks).

Magic:

  • Wizards roll D6 for each wizard level, 4+ to channel extra dice. Wizard level divided by half for dispel dice.
  • Wizards choose spells instead of rolling for them. Spell level availability = wizard level + 2.
  • The number of power dice allowed when casting = wizard level + 2.
  • Miscast is based on number of dice rolled. Miscast result = D6 + number of dice used, the higher score, the worse result. 
  • Wizards do not get bonuses to cast/dispel based on wizard level (makes lower-level wizards more playable).

Shooting:  

  •  Long range penalty removed, +1 To Hit on short range (4" or less)

Close Combat: 

  • Supporting attacks and horde is gone, making spears and additional hand weapons more useful, and nerfs halberds and great weapons.
  • Models with more than twice the WS of their opponent will hit on a 2+.
  • Rank and file models may always be targeted, even if only characters are in direct base contact (removes character walls).
  • Steadfast does not work when disrupted, requires US10+. It's based on the unit's unmodified Leadership value (so no more Goblins or Slaves being steadfast on Ld 9/10, and makes placing several close combat characters spread out over multiple units more important).
  • Outnumber is back, gives additional bonuses the more you outnumber your foe.
  • Flank attack can be gained twice, one for each flank.
  • Rank bonus is combined for each unit involved, as long as they are fighting in different arcs.
  • Units with wider frontage gets CR bonus (basic replacement for lapping around, and means having bigger bases is not always negative in combat).
  • In combats involving multiple units, the Break test modifier for each unit involved must be calculated separately based only on the enemy units they are in base contact with (this will be described in more detail in an upcoming diagram). This means that if you choose to charge a unit in the flank while that unit is already engaged to its front and your two units lose the combat, the flanking unit will only suffer a Leadership penalty based on its combat result vs that of the flanked unit for example. This means that you will no longer suffer a Leadership penalty to your main unit due to the smaller flanking unit taking too many casualties (though it could still cause you to lose the combat as normal), and Unstable units will no longer crumble based on the performance of a weaker unit.

Troop Types:  

  • Cavalry/MC/Mo uses the highest number of W and T value available. They also cause impact hits (D6 for Mo). No longer receives AS for being mounted.
  • Monsters work like MC (means you won't require separate on foot models in case mount dies, is easier to keep track of, and makes Lords on Monsters more resilient).
  • Shrines (Sh) added a unit type, replaces Unique Units.

Special Rules:  

  • Always Strikes First and Always Strikes Last removed, replaced with Init. bonus/penalty.
  • Ambushers may choose to deploy as normal.
  • Devastating Charge does not apply to mounts unless specified. 
  • Ward saves capped at 4+, can be combined with other ward saves.
  • Expendable rule added (for slaves and the like).
  • Immunity (*) added, replaces ItP and covers all immunities like Flaming , Poison, KB, Fear etc.
  • Regeneration more similar to 6th ed, cannot be used if slain (units can regen while some members are still alive). Can be combined with Ward saves.
  • Hatred must re-roll successful rolls to restrain from pursuit.
  • Fast Cavalry can make one free reform while moving. Characters with lower than 5+ AS can join. FC can't have better than 5+ AS.
  • Fear gives -1 to Ld, Terror -2.
  • Monsters and handlers include Monster Reaction chart, rather than ridden monsters.
  • Stomp removed (replaced by Impact Hits).
  • Magic Resistance works against all spells, including ones that does not allow saves. 
  • Volley Fire allows all models to fire with a -1 To Hit penalty. 
  • Frenzied units do not need to test to restrain from charges, but must instead move towards closest enemy within LoS (means less failed charges, and makes screening Frenzied units more important).

Weapons and Armour:  

  • All bows and slings can fire Multiple Shots (2) if the unit does not move. Does not work with stand and shoot.
  • Slings have AP rule.
  • Morning stars counts as hand weapons for simplicity (since there are no units that only uses morning stars anyway).
  • Great weapons -2 Initiative instead of ASL.
  • Bucklers added (tower shield would have no drawbacks for spear armed infantry, and limit model availability) 
  • Pikes added.
  • Pikes and spears give Initiative bonuses when charged.
  • Spears and lances give Initiative bonuses when charging.
  • Medium armour (5+) and full plate armour (3+) added. Most units with heavy armour will have it replaced with medium armour, heavy cavalry will have heavy armour (4+) which makes their save the same as before in total. Elves and Dwarfs will have a mix of medium and heavy armour. Fast and medium cavalry will have lower AS in general, but will get cheaper in return.

Command Groups:

  • Champions can no longer make challenges or be attacked separately, allows re-rolling failed reforms, redirects, marching instead.
  • Swift Reform does not allow decreasing/increasing ranks (avoiding slingshot tactics).
  • "Look Out, Sir!" works against all templates, including spells. Can only be used on one character per missile attack (deters Deathstars with multiple characters, which is now much more risky).

Characters:

  • BSB only allow re-rolling break tests. 

War Machines:

  • War Machines have a front arc like normal units, pivoting outside it counts as movement.
  • Normal Cannons cause D6 W on impact, D3 W on bounce.
  • Cannon balls scatter D3" before bounce, "Hit" = no scatter.
  • Bolt Throwers does not ignore armour saves, have AP instead.

Magic Items:

  • Magic weapons can use Parry with shields and additional hand weapon.
  • Paired Weapon is replaced with additional hand weapon/two hand weapons.
  • Magic Armour can only be taken if the character can take the same type of armour as a mundane option.
  • Several new items added, some are removed. 

 

Lores of Magic:

  • Transformation of Khadon cast on 13+, can only change into one profile for simplicity.

I hope you guys will enjoy most of the changes, and as usual, let me know of any bugs, unclear rules, things you feel should be changed and so on.

111 comments:

  1. dowloading !

    and testing... thanks ^^

    ReplyDelete
  2. Holy shit, unit power is back! :D Praise the Lady! ^^ Can't wait to play my first game with these rules!

    By the way, I don't know if you remember me (won't blame you if you don't), I was the one who contacted you around 6 months ago to offer translating the Bretonnian AB in French. It took me a lot of time, and I had lots of other things to do, but it's almost done (around 10 pages to go !). I will send you a mail as soon as it's done, keep an eye on your mailbox this week ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.warhammer-forum.com/index.php?showtopic=216896

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (je me permets une réponse en français)
      C'est l'ancienne version, ça ;) En plus, ça ne contient que les règles, et la traduction n'était pas top si ma mémoire est bonne.
      J'ai tout retraduit (y compris les textes repris du jeu de rôle ou des LA officiels, pour l'unité de style), historique compris, en gardant le layout de Mathias (qui m'a très gentiment donné le Word :) )

      (for those who don't speak French: I'm just giving info about the upcoming Bretonnian army book French translation ;) )

      Delete
  4. "The chosen dice are then taken from the casting player's power pool and rolled. The results are added together, and then added to the casting Wizard's level to give a casting result."

    This is copied and pasted from the 9th edition book, however, you stated in this post that wizards do not benefit from their wizard level when casting, you may want to edit this passage to reflect the change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also just noticed the same inconsistency in the equivalent paragraph regarding attempts to dispel.
      Btw, thanks for all the work you put in, it made my day when I checked this website this morning.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, appears I missed to edit that! Will post an update with that fix soon.

      Delete
  5. I really find it a shame that you removed supporting attacks and the horde rule. Imo these were great additions to the game. I am impressed by your work, but to me this feels like a huge step backwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In principle this ist not a great change. I see your point, that its great to use more dices, and that larger Units getting more powerful. But thats compensated by the unit size. So with the rule change, GW only created a need for larger units and tried to force us to buy more stuff.

      At the end the rule set decides if the game needs a larger or a smaller model count.
      I personally like the reduction of the unit size. Larger units are looking great, but there is a limit in handeling, painting time and money reservoir.

      Delete
    2. You are absolutely right that it's a step back - to 6th/7th ed that is. The problem with both Horde and supporting attacks is that they favour certain units and weapons much than others.

      Example (basic 5 wide unit):
      Spears/2HW's (7th ed) = 10A
      Spears/2HW's (8th ed) = 15A (50% increase)

      Great weapons/halberds (7th ed) = 5A
      Great weapons/halberds (8th ed) = 10A (100% increase)

      Ergo, high strength weapons (which were already good at causing damage) got twice as many attacks as low damage weapons (in percentage) that require multiple attacks to work. This is why you are hardly seeing anything but Halberd hordes in the Empire or Marauders/Dwarfs with anything but great weapons, the damage output for these weapons were completely skewed in 8th ed. Going back to the 7th ed model, these weaker weapons will be more useful.

      Delete
    3. I really look forward to seeing my spearmen being more useful. I've always used them because I thought it was realistic to have a core of spearmen, historically the weapon of choice for infantry, and it looks great with all the spear tips, but oh boy where they nerfed before!

      Delete
    4. If you want to make spears more useful you should change the weapon rules. I.e as furion did +2 ini and always fight with an extra rank.

      Also units with great weapons mostly occupy the special/rare slots and cost more and strike last, which you changed to -2 ini.

      Removing supporting attacks means that an elite unit can easly kill the first rank, which means the attacked unit can strike back. This is just wrong and unimmersive.

      Removing supporting attacks to make spear viable is very strange. Just change the spear rules... .

      Anyway I really don't like it and it puts me off of these rules.

      But I admire your other work!

      Delete
    5. I have given spears an Initiative boost when charged, so they are better now.

      The problem is also with core units with halberds/great weapons, which there are several of. And models with more than A1 also lose out on suppporting attacks, since they are paying for 2 attacks but can only use them in the first rank. And with GW's giving -2I this means most units with them will strike at I1, which practically the same as ASL. Only Chaos Warriors will strike at I3 with the current rules (Elves does nto count since they had ASF), which is slower than most elites.

      I have still kept the stepping up rule, so even if you kill the first rank, they can still fight back. You are not losing attacks like in 7th ed while you still have models left.

      It's not just spears, 2HW's are also much worse than GW's in the 8th ed rules, and HW&S are not that good either.

      But like it says in the post, if you and your gaming group prefer playing with supporting attacks that's absolutely fine! Just change the rule you do not like :)

      Delete
    6. @ Ano
      Buffing spears is no solution. I've played with extra ranks for spears (so 4 ranks fighting) and 20 str 3 attacks is no match at all against 10 str 5, no matter any Ini bonus. AND you have to pay for twice the troops, while a GW is usually just +2 points. Without supporting attacks its still 10 str 3 vs. 5 str 5, but with less casualties, other factors matter more.

      The bonus to Ini for spears and lances is very nice btw. It is realistic and I always considered it silly that lances could so easily strike last, a remnant for when you automatically hit first when charging.

      Delete
    7. I've been following your work for years Mathias, and I'm a big fan.
      Haviing said that though, I've played warhammer since 4th ed, and I think removing the Horde rule and the Supporting Attack is a bit of a mistake. I understand what you're trying to do, but the consequences is a major steb back to the old "hero-hammer" days where Lords and to a certain extent Monsters ruled the day, to the extent that if wasn't even fun fielding regiments at all.
      8 ed, while I agree it having it's own flaws, did make non-elite regiments gain some value again, and one also got to kill things with them. They were no longer just a big Static CR blob where you stashed your character.

      Removing the Horde Bonus (which I agree GW did to increase sales) I can live with, but I think remvoing the Supporting Attacks is a bad idea. Characters and monsters become next to unkillable again if you do this, and then we're back to a game where having the most overpowered Lord is become the name of the game again, and that's something most "old timers" is not looking to go back to.

      I did love a lot of your other changes though. I just fealth that this one in particular was a bad one, even if well intentioned.

      -Rune

      Delete
    8. One thing that is very different from the early editions though is that you do not lose attacks for models killed as long as you have models left in the front rank. So even if an enemy character causes 5W, you are still going to have 5 attacks back.

      From my experience, the supporting attacks did very little as far as killing Mo and Characters went, since they would mostly just shrug off any strength 3 attack you would throw at them. And as explained above, the only models that really benefited from supporting attacks where the ones with high strength, which is mostly elites. The biggest boost to basic infantry would be Steadfast and "step up", and they are still there. But from a gameplay perspective, the basic troops really are meant to fulfil more of a tar-pit and objective claiming role whereas elites and characters are the ones that are there to dish out the damage.

      Delete
    9. I'm really liking this rules-set and am working to convince my gaming group to give it a try.

      One thing that some of us have already agreed upon is that, if all players agree, Supporting Attacks and the Horde rule can be used in especially large games (4000+ points) as larger regiments and more deadly combat make more sense at that scale.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Mathias,
    thanks a lot for everything. I really like the works you publish and the whole blog.
    Concerning the horde, I have always thought that it is not a bad rule per se, but it should be kept under strict control, meaning that I do not see any unit being able to fight as a horde (in particular the elite troops). So, here comes my suggestion: "horde" becomes a special rule and only certain units can have it. I see, in particular units like goblins, zombies, skeletons, bretonnian pilgrims and peasants, flagellants, several beastmen units, and so on (I think that my idea is clear enough).
    Just for your consideration and thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could see that work, but at the same time, many of these cheap units are/can be armed with spears, which give them that extra rank of supporting attacks. I just don't want spears to be useless, they should rather be the main weapons of cheap troops, who have the numbers to use them effectively.

      You will still benefit from having cheap models in large units; easier steadfast, outnumber and wide frontage can give you a +7 CR against small elite units, which is a considerable boost to offset their lack of hitting power.

      Delete
    2. Then why not including it only for weak units which do not have access to spears? Could make these more interesting and an alternative to others

      Delete
    3. What units would that be though? Zombies with a Horde rule would have the same amount of A as skeleton spearmen, while being cheaper at the same time. But by just putting your cheap units in a wider formation you will still be able to get more attacks in close combat (say, 7 wide vs 5 wide) even without any special rules. Yes, you are losing out of 3 S3A most likely compared to 8th ed Horde rules, but that also means all units are playing on the same level.

      Delete
  8. Question regarding magic resistance. The description of the rule states it can improve a ward save to a maximum of 2+, however, the 9th ed rules disallow ward saves above 4+. Is this an exception to that rule, or simply an oversight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an exception, as is says "unless specified" in the rules for Ward saves ;)

      Delete
  9. Could the failed charge be so you move the M (movement) and not 2D3? This would remind more of the earlier editions because if you failed you moved the normal movement and I'd say it should be like that in here also. Failing a charge would that way very likely make the unit advance more out from their original position all the time and not just the times you need to roll higher charge distance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that would make failed charges too predictable, and they should still be a risk you cannot simply calculate for. However, with the 2D3 distance, your average range will be 4", which is the same as most models' normal M value.

      Delete
  10. Just amazing !!! As always :)
    I'm going to Watch more precisely !!
    Can you send me all the armybook in order to not diturb you later ?
    Thanks !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a bit of a hassle to send all at once. Could you write once you finish translating each book, so I can send you the link to the next one?

      Delete
  11. Question on some magic items and things in general.
    When you say Ward Saves stack, does that mean that if the model has a natural 6+, then buys a 5+ talisman, it gets a 4+?

    Also why'd you make the Ogre Blade cheaper? It was already pretty prevalent, this change might make it even more so. Magic item costs don't need to be linear in my opinion, and on this take I kinda prefer Furion's approach.

    Otherwise love what you did with the Rulebook, especially was magic overhaul was long overdue with lower level Wizards and Bound spells feeling underwhelming in 8th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, just like normal saves.

      After Strength 6, you don't really need anything higher since you will already be wounding most units on a 2+. At 60 pts, it will only be useful in very specific situations. Do you find it OP at 45 pts?

      Glad you like the changes!

      Delete
    2. I think you have me slightly mistaken, the ogre blade gives +2 strength at 30 points now which I personally find a little too strong.

      Commonly taken magic items generally got stronger with some armors now giving 4+ armour saves. Might usher in a new age of hero hammer but if that's the intention it's arguably fine.

      Also about the ward saves, can you stack regen with other ward saves. Do parry saves increase your ward by one? Bucklers by two? Not sure how I feel about halberd wielding chaos warriors with a 4++.

      I reckon the edition can't be perfect, and from all the different rule sets I still like yours the best.

      Can't wait for the other releases, thanks for your response.

      Delete
    3. Oh sry, I had it mixed up with the Giant Blade. Still, if you compare the Ogre Blade to a normal GW, you are essentially paying 30 pts for +2I, magical attacks and the possibility to hold a shield (while at the same time giving up 30 pts of magic allowance). So in that respect, 30 pts is actually kind of expensive seeing as you can cause the same amount of damage for just 5 pts.

      Combat lords on foot are likely to be a little bit more resilient yes. I think I will nerf the magical armours to a 5+/6+ ward save only though, that way you have to take a talisman in case you want to get "the good stuff" in terms of ward saves. Also making one of them a medium armour instead.

      Yes, ward saves now stack like normal saves to a 4+, including regen. How would the chaos warriors get a 4+ of both though? Armed with halberds, they could get a 5+ ward save with MoT and Standard of Shielding (which would cost them something like 60 pts for a unit of 20) and regen would require a spell, unless I'm forgetting anything? Basic Chaos Warriors are also either going to be nerfed to A1 or go up in price a bit in their upcoming update.

      Delete
    4. Think I misunderstood bucklers since you said something about them working with spears.

      The things Festus might do still make me shudder a little but the Lizardman player in me rejoices at the prospect of 4+ armour on the cheap. 1+ flying Skink chief road block here I come!

      Delete
  12. "Otherwise, if you roll a spell twice (whether for the
    same Wizard or for a different Wizard in the army) you
    must normally replace the duplicate spell with another
    of your choice from the same Lore. If you cannot,
    because all the other spells have already been taken by other Wizards, for example, then this extra spell slot is lost."

    We are choosing the spells now so I'm not sure what the rolling here means?

    "DISPEL LIMIT
    As with the power pool, the number of dice in the
    dispel pool can never exceed 18, regardless of how
    those dice are generated. Any excess is lost."

    18 limit in dispel dice pool? I guess a typo :P If not then I don't just get how you could even get that many when the base max is 6 dice plus bonuses and channel.

    I would've gone with the magic so double 1s are miscast and double 6s are irresistible force. If you roll both then both happen. More of the feeling from the earlier editions.
    Though i got to say I'm not a fan of the too random magic that the 8th edition brought.


    Always strike first and last:
    I'd go with this as far as removing these rules completely except maybe keep the always strike last for the zombies. Then tweak every initiative so that you just watch the hitting order from (I) stat. No reason for elves to have ASF when they could just have high initiative. If a magic item gives always strike first then change those to "+X initiative" or "gives wielder X initiative"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, right you are! Not sure how I missed those bugs.

      Yes, ofc it should be 12, 18 will hardly ever be used.

      I think you are right about the miscast, it would be good to try and avoid having people spam as many as dice possible in order to have IR have a bigger chance of happening.

      I did consider removing these rules completely, but they are good to have as magical effects. A models with a magic ASF sword for instance would not automatically be quicker at dogding the pit of shades after all! Then again, I probably could just make that an Initiative bonus when actually attacking... I will consider it, elves will lose ASF either way.

      Delete
    2. I think that ASF still has a place in the game simply for assassin characters (maybe move to only on the turn they are revealed) to represent a sneak attack. You can't hit someone first if you don't know they're there.
      However, I agree that elves should lose ASF, and possibly remove some other instances such as ASF granted by magic weapons.

      Delete
    3. Good thoughts yeah. Every weapon that give I bonus should only apply that in close combat. Didn't think that at first.
      And yeah ASF that could be some very rare rule for assassin first attack or very rare weapon.

      Delete
    4. Assassins don't really need it though, since their Init. is usually through the roof anyway. The only time they are not practically guaranteed to strike first is against Elven Lords and elite heavy cavalry, which is fair IMO.

      Delete
    5. Losing the attack re-roll is quite a big deal I'd say.. Makes Assassins, all Elves etc quite a lot weaker in the game. I might have missed some rule in place making up for this though.

      Delete
    6. High Elves get to re-roll 1's to Hit instead, so it's not a total loss for them. DE re-roll 1's To Wound, and WE re-rolls 1's To Hit with missile weapons instead. But yes, they are generally speaking a bit weaker in close combat now than before.

      Delete
  13. Sorry for go out the topic but will the fimir codex return again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not as a whole army book, no. If there's time in the future, I will probably give them a smaller booklet with some background and their most unique units, similar to Gnoblars or Zombie Pirates.

      Delete
  14. Some problems I noticed throughout your book:
    *You accidentally wrote "A unit may never have more files than ranks" in the book when describing forming a unit.
    *Close range as defined in the book is less than 4" instead of 25% of the maximum range as described here.
    *There is no explanation of the criteria for a model requiring a 6 To Hit in close combat.
    *Flaming ranged attacks should include a -1 penalty to panic towards units that they cause fear against.
    *The wording of your comment makes me think that Stomp has been bundled into Impact Hits. Ignore this if I'm misinterpreting something.
    *You have forgotten the rule that states that mounted models cannot use two hand weapons.
    *For some reason the Handgun has an explanation of the Move or Fire special rule below it which is redundant.
    *With the change to Champions, I wonder how the Estalian tactical supremacy and Chaos Warrior champions of chaos rules, Temples of Skulls and some champions that can take magic items will work. I suggest changing it back. If you don't decide to change it back a character joining a unit should grant that bonus.
    *The statlines of the beasts that wizard can transform into using the Transformation of Kadon spell are not listed. You should fix that, probably with the almost blank page right below it.
    *Why can't magic weapons be used alongside a shield to parry or magic shields be used to parry? I never understood that rule.
    *The Shrieking Blade should grant terror to models with the fear special rule so that it remains a possible choice for certain models. Same with the Dread Banner.
    *"Wipeout" has been misspelled "WHIPEOUT!". "Roll to Flee' has been misspelled "Roll to Flle". The description of Hatred has "marry" instead of "many" and the description of Hover has "homer" instead of "hover". In the Stupidity entry, the last sentence of the second paragraph has a ? instead of a . The Talisman of Preservation is described as a "Talisman of Reservation" instead.
    *The Unbreakable entry has Immune to Psychology listed instead of Immunity (Psychology).
    *You have accidentally left in the clarification stating that cavalry assaulting a building do not gain a bonus to their armor save.
    *Pages 27, 50 and 69 are blank/almost blank for no reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *I'm also wondering why flee, pursue and overun moves are not 2D3 for infantry and 2D6 for models with swiftstride just like with charging.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the feedback!
      - Yes, noticed that on a forum, has been updated in the blog post already.
      - I had it changed in the rules but forgot to update the blog post list (made a draft a while back). 4" is just easier to keep track of.
      - Added, good idea!
      - Can clarify that.
      - That's because they can use 2HW's now ;)
      - Fixed!
      - Estalia will roll 3D6 instead. Chaos is likely to keep challenges for their Champions, it's going to be part of their special rules.
      - Right you are, will add that.
      - They will now! Also removing the restriction on 2HW's.
      - Will add that to Dread Banner, Terror on the character would be a bit too good considering it's price.
      - Fixed!
      - Fixed!
      - Fixed!
      - That would make cavalry a bit too good at running down fleeing enemies I think. When fleeing, you are not using your normal movement value, hence you roll 2D6 instead. Or do you think it would be better if flee/pursue worked the same as charging?

      Delete
    3. The restriction on a magic weapon not being usable with an additional hand weapon made sense since the additional hand weapon wouldn't have the enchantment that the weapon has.

      I'm also wondering how you making four types of armor will work with the army books. Which ones will get nerfed and which ones will get buffed by that change?

      Delete
    4. There are already several characters that gain plus one attack for using a "paired weapon" like this (Marius Leitdorf for one), so why not just make it an official rule? You cannot use it with great weapons and lose your shield option, so I would say it balance out rather nicely.

      As for the armours, you will have to wait for the Rh lists for a complete run-down. Suffice to say, those that have LA will for the most part have LA still (except Elves) and most models with HA will get medium armour (except heavy cavalry, Elves and Dwarfs, who will be getting HA for the most part on their special units). FPA will be kept at the same level of rarity as before.

      Delete
    5. In the case of characters, you should state that flying units can only be joined by flying characters and that flying characters can only join flying units. With that added, you should then remove the restriction of of arabyan carpets preventing the owner from joining a unit (since riding one will prevent the model from joining non-flying units anyway).

      Delete
    6. Great update! However, you forgot to remove the rule preventing parrying with a magic shield. I'm also wondering why the alternate profile of Great Weapons that are used by mounted models have been removed. That profile made sense. The Armour of Silvered Steel does not have an armor type listed. In addition, the armor that a character can take should provide access to all forms of lower level magic armor to avoid shafting Chaos Warriors, Knights and a bunch of other characters that cannot take the light stuff.

      Delete
    7. Not sure that's necessary, since there's not much of a point of a non-flying character to join a flying unit, unless it is to avoid getting shot for a turn.

      I've removed the paragraph stating that Parry does not work, so not sure what you mean there? Magic Weapons counts as HW's, so there's nothing stopping you from using Parry now.

      The great weapon profile for GW's has not been around since 7th ed, and made GW a much worse option than halberds for cavalry. Keeping it the same for mounted models make for better balance.

      The Armour of Silvered Steel does not have an armour type, so it can be taken by anyone atm. I suppose I could make a normal heavy armour for consistency though.

      Not so sure that would fit though, since a Chaos Lord on light armour would be pretty weird indeed. About the only thing you lose out on is the extra Toughness and -1 to hit (since the Ward saves can be taken as Talismans instead), and Chaos Lords are already really hard to kill. The armies that will be mostly be able to pick them are going to be rather squishy humans and elves, who need them the most.

      Delete
    8. In the Magic Armour section, it says that a magic shield cannot be used with a hand weapon to parry attacks.

      Delete
    9. Ah, completely missed that one! Will upload it with the next update.

      Delete
    10. Perhaps unit champions absorbing the hits from a blender character could be fixed by removing Overkill and making it that excess wounds bleed off into the rest of the unit. That would make the tactic of throwing unit champions at your opponent no longer work. Your new rule is a rather major change, will result in chaos warriors getting starved for challenges and in some cases doesn't match the fluff for factions that decide who the unit champion is based on might rather than leadership ability.

      Delete
    11. Chaos Warriors will get changes to reflect this, but will have to go the enemy's characters rather than their champions. As for factions like orcs, their new rules are reflected more in them being bigger ("do what I say, or else..!") rather than them being skilled leaders per say, but the effect would still be the same.

      Delete
    12. Chaos Warriors are very strong, but even they can't stand up to properly equipped heroes and lords from the other army books in most cases.

      Delete
    13. The Eye of the Gods table will be turned more towards the characters of the WoC army as well as Chosen. Normal chaos warrior champions are not likely to keep their challenges.

      Delete
    14. So after examining pictures of a bunch of units from various army books I think I've largely figured out which will be equipped with which. Generally, infantry get their armor saves improved while cavalry remains the same or gets reduced. The only abnormality I've noticed is pistoliers and outriders. They wear plate armor covering everything except the head and arms which I think would cause them to qualify as being equipped with heavy armor, except that means a 4+ armor save which fast cavalry can't have.

      Another thing, I suggested that change that allows flying characters to join a flying unit because I don't see any particular reason why a Bretonnian Lord on a Pegasus can't join a unit of Pegasus knights or other such scenarios. The character would benefit from protection and the unit would benefit from having a higher leadership member.

      I also hope that you'll give all characters access to every mount that's available to the rank and file troops.

      Delete
    15. Actually, generally the saves will stay the same for most units, the only ones that will get actual heavy armour are human, elven and dwarfen elite unit (like Foot Knights, Swordmasters and Hammerers). Pistoliers and the like will have medium armour (no armour on their legs in 6th ed, no arm armour on the 7th ed models). Medium armour will include models like elf spearmen, dwarf warriors, bestigors, stormvermin, grave guard etc.

      Where's the paragraph about flying characters not being allowed to join flying units?

      All characters? Should a Witch Hunter really be riding a demi-gryph? ;)

      Delete
    16. It says in the "What Unit can I Join?" section that a character cannot join a unit of flyers. Perhaps change the Fly special rule to state that a character can only join a flying unit if it has fly as well. By relation, make it that the arabyan carpet only prevents the rider from joining non-flying units so a rider could fly with the harpies. One could even model a Wargor to be a really big harpy.

      In addition, you should remove the second paragraph of the "Chariot Mounts" section of the "Character Mounts" section since the rules it is asking to refer to no longer exist. By relation, I suggested changing the rules to allow chariot riders to join a chariot unit as long as they don't take the chariot to above its maximum limit and changing the number of chariots that a unit can take to 1-3 for special, 1+ for core and just 1 for rare. This is because the tomb kings can do so and because of that I see no reason for other factions to be unable to.

      Within reason of course. What I mean is that everything that can be ridden in an Army book should be purchasable as a mount for at least one character. To name a few examples, Norse Kings should be able to replace one of the crewmen on a Mammoth, Wood Elf characters should be able to ride warhawks, hobgoblins should be able to ride Hobhounds and replace one of the crew on a Rhinox and etc. etc. It's just like Chaos Warriors whose characters can take every mount available with the only limit being dependent on the god that they are dedicated too.

      Delete
    17. Another thing. When it says that a character riding a monster uses the rules for monstrous cavalry it could be construed that a ridden monster loses terror, impact hits (D6) and large target.

      Delete
    18. I want to keep monster mashing to a limited amount, so I'd rather not see all characters be mounted on them. Certain mounts are not really "royal" enough for a character to go the battle on them (like Hobhounds) and thus they fit better as units only imo.

      Will clarify the part on ridden monsters though.

      Delete
  15. Got a couple more questions lined up.

    1. What do you think about making combat res. causalities only applicable on the unit on it's own? So if a Pikemen unit is fighting a large Ork mob in the front while a cavalry unit has flanked it, the Outriders don't care about Pikemen dying and vice versa. This would incentivize flank and rear charges and make deathstars even weaker (which, considering disruption isn't as important anymore, might not be the worst idea). I
    m not fully convinced myself but otherwise charging in with a weak unit is usually a bad move even if the enemy is already tied up.

    2.Is there any place to discuss your magnificent works? I'm aware that there's a forum but it's barely used and I'd love to talk about tactics concerning your books with others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. You know, that's actually not a bad idea! It should really help Undead players out too, as their big expensive monsters won't immediately crumble to dust due a friendly unit of skeletons taking a ton of casualties. Consider it added, wish I would have thought of it myself :)

      2. Apart from the comment section, not really. I could see about creating a Google Group for people to use, should be pretty easy to link to this website.

      Delete
    2. While I agree that this is a good idea, how will you implement a unit both losing and winning a round of combat? If the casualties only count towards the unit that suffered them, in this example the orcs could defeat the pikemen but lose to the outriders. How would this work?

      Delete
    3. You will still calculate the combat res. as normal for all units involved (otherwise you are still likely to lose the combat by charging with 2 small units into one big unit, where you should win if their combat result were put together).
      However, if the losing side has multiple units involved, then you will need to compare each unit's CR vs that of the enemy units they are in base contact with. So, if one unit would "win" its combat against the enemy but still lose the overall combat, they will still have to take a Break test, but does not suffer any Ld penalties when taking it. This will make calculating CR a little more complicated then before, but luckily these situations are fairly rare. The only things it really requires though is to compare each unit's individual CR to determine how much their Ld would be modified, which simply requires you to keep the casualties caused on either unit separately.

      Delete
  16. I believe it's safe to assume that fighting in extra ranks à la Spears and Pikes only confers one additional attack, am I right?

    Also are you sure about completely removing stomps from the game. Theoretically it makes sense, seeing as you removed supporting attacks, so big units lose attacks as well, but as it is right now my Stegadon either completely rips and tears anything it hits to pieces with 2d6+1 impact hits or basically loses stomps while getting nothing in return. Personally I would've gone with something along the lines of giving stomps so long as the monster hasn't been charged itself, as this doesn't penalize infantry charging a monster but still makes a monster more dangerous on the charge. As it is right now, do the impact hits also count against units that would've been immune to stomps?

    Keeping stomps has the added benefit of allowing a trample maneuver by cavalry, by which should they charge and win the combat, they would get to stomp on infantry.

    While we're at rebalancing and rules-meddling, do you think Lizardmen should lose their access to Magic Armour? Maybe paying double the price? As it is I find it both unlikely and unfitting for them to receive rare ore and with a 4+ now readily available it seems too strong. Perhaps the old Scaly Skin rules could be brought back instead to make sure that their armour is never reduced further than a 6+ but then again this change would guarantee more dice rolled per phase, which once again makes everything take longer. Essentially, food for though that isn't well thought out enough yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, though this really only effects Saurus Warriors (who normally uses their shield as a second HW, which is rather tricky from the second rank!). Will add that in.

      The idea is that Monsters that already cause Impact Hits will get a bonus to them. Might not be the double of what they have now, I will have to look into that for each book. The Trample rule should only come into effect once the enemy actually flees imo, unless you mean that it would represent the enemy reeling back from the onslaught? That could be interesting actually, keeping Stomp, but only when winning the combat and after break tests. Does that sound good to you?

      I'm adding a paragraph stating that unless you can pick a particular armour piece as part of your mundane equipment, you cannot choose it as a magic item. Keep LM from having HA, witch hunters from having shields etc, which would not fit anyway. WYSIWYG for everything!

      Delete
    2. Magic item change strikes me as extreme, they're supposed to be rarities and therefore out of the norm. I'd just make lizards pay a premium, but you probably know best.

      That being said, do you eventually plan on buffing the magic items found in your armybooks? They kind of pale in comparison now.
      Thanks for the quick replies, also ward save stacking might become a problem when I build a sword n board toting Saurus unit with the 6+ banner next to an engine stegadon.

      I can see multiple armies abusing this rule as it is right now. Regardless, I have faith in your abilities to make a balanced game, and perhaps Warhammer as is is too convoluted to be balanced anyways, you just have fun with friends laughing at all the dumb stuff that happens.

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't really call it extreme, but don't you think it would look weird for a Saurus to prance around in a knight armour (as a "rare" common magic item?). If they would not wear this armour in their normal equipment, why would they use them as magical armours? For the same reason you would not see a Shaggoth with a magical bow either.

      They are actually based on the same pts cost model, so they should be pretty fair already. Or do you refer to the official books, in which case the answer is yes.

      Sauruses are likely to see a drop in armour though, and it's going to cost you a lot to get all that synergy! Plus, flanking and killing the Stegadon is still possible (as well as killing the BSB carrying the standing of shielding since Saurus won't be allowed more than 25 pts magic banners). So no need to worry, I plan on balancing it all out :)

      That being said, I'm not really making these rules for tournament play (that's more 9th Age's thing), but I do intend Warhammer to be a fun game to play where you don't have to tear out your nose-hair in frustration.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps make magic armor a runic system similar to the dwarves. A single magical effect could be applied to a characters armor from the magic armor list. The armor keeps the non-magical part of its function and gains the effect of what's purchased. This would prevent a bunch of characters from being locked out of equipment purchases while still keeping to the fluff of what's available to each faction.

      For example, if you want an Empire captain with magic heavy armor, a player would have to purchase the heavy armor then apply a single effect from the list to said armor.

      Delete
    5. It's not a bad idea per say, but I feel it takes away a bit from the Dwarfs' uniqueness, as well as that of the magic item. Also, how would you divide them all into different categories when some pieces are helms or gauntlets, that normally cannot be taken at all?

      Delete
    6. Have helms and gauntlets function as they already do. I also think that it wouldn't take away from the dwarfs uniqueness since their system is much better with the ability to inscribe multiple runes to create armor that's far superior to anything that could be created using the system I have proposed.

      Delete
  17. Thanks Mathias, I've downloaded it today and will look at it tonight when I get home, looking at the comments I am glad hordes have been removed, and it sounds like the other changes are welcome as well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wrote a pretty long review on the rulebook as a whole, hope you can dig it.

    Warhammer 9th edition: A Review


    Mathias Eliasson has finally completed it. The slightly belated, never hated, hotly debated 9th edition of Warhammer. But what change does he bring to the table? Will it fix the many qualms people has with previous editions? His army books have so far time and time again proven that he is in fact capable of balancing the rules, but maybe he took a bite too big for him this time? Keep tuned and find out!

    Magic

    Magic has always been an important part of Warhammer, and Eliasson did a very elegant job at fixing the main gripes of it in 8th edition. Bound spells were scarcely seen due to the fact that the bonus to cast meant that it was usually a loss of investment on power dice. Equally, magic had a strict mantra of favoring high leveled Wizards over lower leveled ones, making Lord tier level 4 Wizards borderline mandatory. As it is now, lower casters use power dice just as efficiently, but they have lost access to the most powerful spells and the limit on power dice used makes it difficult to cast the big versions of regular spells. One major gripe remains, which is Eliasson deciding not to revamp the magic list itself. Some lore attributes straight up feel underwhelming and situational (notably Heavens, Metal and Light). Both Furion and the 9th age did a compelling job redoing the 8 basic lores and while I personally prefer Furion’s approach (minor, but important changes allowing for all lores to be competitive at some level whilst removing the worst offenders and replacing them with new spells), I can understand how investing time in this when so much work is left concerning the army books is the wrong move.
    Additionally the change of the miscast table does what many have asked for, which is punishing according to power dice used. Here however, I have to admit I think the 9th age has a better way a handling it, making the strength of hits depend on the power dice directly while keeping the roll the same. All in all though, a major improvement without being nearly as wonky as the 9th age bonus to cast apprentice clusterfuck.


    Rank and File and the Removal of Supporting Attacks

    A bold move for sure, greatly reducing the amount of attacks definitely changes up the game, though this is a callback to older rules, making a strong front, more precisely Characters, to whom we will get to later, very critical. As a whole, smaller units have gained a lot, with units being forced to have a bigger frontage than width (a necessary change, though not elegantly executed in my opinion - hey, I’m not judging). Perhaps it would be better to force units have said bigger frontage at the end of the turn, since otherwise they can’t move through small ridges. With the additional removal of stomp, the biggest losers here are Monstrous Infantry. It will be interesting to see what is done to the Ogre Kingdoms, as they have lost many attacks while getting basically nothing in return.

    Combat Results and Cavalry Charges

    9th edition has added a substantial amount of factors to combat results. Coupled with the fact that Infantry has lost a couple of inches on the charge (poor Dwarves, hopefully we’ll see triple march movement or else they’ll probably never make it into combat) we may finally see Cavalry return to the glory it had in previous editions. The nerf to steadfast and the buffs to shooting certainly make for greater importance of maneuverability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Shooting

      Ranged combat got a major buff in form of the removal of long range and the addition of short range. Was it needed? Hard to say but since warmachines, most notably the infamous cannon were nerfed the fear of gunline armies appearing everywhere is in all likelihood unwarranted.
      Personally I’d have gone with keeping long range on the first 25% and giving short range on the last 25% but one would argue that most ranged units should spend the turn running at the proximity. Bows of all kind also got buffed with double shot which might make them a mainstay in armies with access to them. It would be a shame if Warhammer Fantasy (or at least the 9th Ed. Version of it) morphed into some sort of 40k shot-fest with melee being an afterthought but as is it is probably fine.

      Ninthhammer Herohammer?

      As we have already discussed, rank and file took a hit in terms of dishing out damage. However, heroes are looking better than ever on this front with magic weapons becoming cheaper than ever and with the added removal of unit champion challenges Lords and heroes can wreak havoc among their foes from turn one. Stacking ward saves (up to 4++) and parry saves now applying with magic weapons make Ward saves very easy to come by and with Heavy armour now being a 4+ you’re looking at highly durable one man armies. Arcane items have also obtained some new additions, but the old mainstay of the Dispel scroll is still as prevalent as ever at 25 points. Not only that, but the destroy magic scroll gives you a second one with a chance at removing that spell once and for all. This all seems grave but I’m sure I was overhyping the severity of Lords and Heroes and the new items make for a welcome change.

      Monsters

      With stomp being replaced by impact hits, the charge becomes ever more important with the big fellas. It only seems fair, since infantry lost their supporting attacks, so do Monsters lose their stomp attacks, but for some monsters stomp offered more than half of their offensive capabilities. Removing them might necessitate increasing the amount of base attacks of monsters by one or two. I’m also still missing disruption caused by monsters, hardly any of them have 10 wounds and yet I find it hard to imagine that a gigantic creature spawned by the unholy hells of the abyss doesn’t make a couple of minutemen break a sweat.

      It is important to note that while the review may at times seem to have been written grumpily, I am very thankful for the time and work Mathias Eliasson has put into this rulebook. In conclusion, the 9th edition is a wonderful start, but some aspects can still be improved upon.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the review!

      It's true about the spells, I chose to keep them near-identical to the official ones both because they are playtested that way and also because it would allow people to keep using their magic cards. I have looked at Furion's work as well, but personally don't think he did much apart from swapping out a few spells for new spells that are not part of the official background. I will be going through the lores in more detail later on though, as of yet I've only really changed Khadon and added Look Out Sir and MR saves to the "big bad ones".

      As for rank and files, I will add your suggestion that you cannot end a move with more ranks than files.

      Regarding shooting, I considered making long range 20+" away (to avoid having to calculate 25% of 6" and the like), but it probably would not be used too much, like you say. I don't think you need to worry too much about "bow-lines" either, since they would, at best, be weaker versions of DE crossbowmen (but cannot move and shoot double, and usually only have B3).

      I would not be too worried about HeroHammer, as you still have the step-up rule and Steadfast. It's true though that combat heroes will play a bigger part of the game in terms of racking up the kills, just as they should! This should also lead to more dynamic challenges where you will have to use your own characters to try and stop the enemy from slaughtering the rank and file, rather than just sacrificing a champion you know is going to die the first round.

      As for Monsters and disruption, it's worth noting that the -2 Ld from their Terror is a pretty good boost combined with a flank charge! So while they are not "big" enough to break a unit in the flank themselves automatically, they will be a very dangerous tool if combined with another unit.

      Glad you like most of it though, and I'm sure it will become even better in the future!

      Delete
  19. Unit strength is a little concerning. It looks like we're gonna have trouble with thing slike Ogres, who basically have a +3 combat res bonus against most armies every turn. Is it only based on unit type or are their ways to increase your Unit Strength?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take it you did not play 7th ed? ;)

      Unit Strength is based per model, so 20 Infantry have US20, and 6 Ogres have US18 as an example :)

      Delete
    2. I have to agree, Cavalry against a block of infantry is going to start the combat down 2 to 3 combat res because of unit strength.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I havent play 7 edition. That why I wonder how it gonna effect CC. I worry because I play Dwarfs, that all infantry and warmachine only.

      But do we Dwarfs player to keep Stubborn banner and Stubborn bubble?

      Delete
    4. A unit of 10 Ca will have the same US as a unit of 20 In, so that won't be an issue. It will however mean that big units of 30+ In will gain a good boost against MC (US12 with 3 models), which they need due to the high damage output of the MC.

      Dwarfs probably won't get many outnumber bonuses since they are expensive and good in close combat. High outnumber bonuses will mainly be used by weak units like Goblins, Skaven or state troops to balance them out. But if you have a unit of 20 Dwarf vs 30 goblins, the Goblins are just getting a +1 bonus.

      I have not looked into the Dwarf magic items yet, but I will probably keep all their current options.

      Delete
  20. A question about Crossbow and Handgun. Should it not be better if these can move and fire but get -1 to hit? I thinking on Dwarfs that otherwise stand still and fire a lots and slowest army in game (they should be) but should be nice they can move and fire with Quarrellers and Thunderers but as I say Crossbows and Handguns get -1 to hit ehen move which effect all armies of course . What do you think about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So they would get -2 To Hit then (moving and shooting x2?).

      Not sure about that, since you can't really reload a crossbow or handgun while moving, you would be shaking too much.

      Delete
    2. As a LARP'er, I can assure you that it is very possible depending on your weapon. But I still support the idea of keeping MoF as it is.

      I have two questions though. Firstly, should Look Out Sir perhaps affect all War Machines, including Cannons and Bolt Throwers?

      Secondly, the Ironcurse Icon only specifically give a Ward Save against War Machines, but there are a number of non-War Machine cannons and stuff out there, like the OK Ironblaster and Scraplauncher, and the Hellcannon. In my opinion, it ought to include those things as well.

      Delete
    3. True about it ate hard load crossbow and Handgun. Maybe relpad it first then move and fire? Töso can do that two turn in row.

      Not important maybe, only a idea make units more flexible.

      Delete
    4. *reload first by standing still then next turn can shoot. So cant do that two turns in a row.

      Sorry about that. Shall create a account soon I hope.

      Delete
    5. @ Kadet: reloading a light crossbow and modern handgun sure, but the warhammer handguns and big crossbows that require a winch would be trickier ;)

      I can clarify that for Look Out sir and make Ironcurse Icon work for all missile attacks.

      @ Anonymous: Would be a bit difficult to keep track of what units have fired and which ones had been reloading though, hence it's easier to keep the rules as is.

      Delete
    6. I think the wording ought to be something along the lines of "against all missile attacks from War Machines or attacks that fire like War Machines".

      Delete
    7. That sounds fine, I'll add that.

      Delete
  21. Hey, would you like to have your books translated to Spanish? I sent a mail days ago and I don't know if you have read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like the "Age of Mathias" (unofficial name, but I like it) community is getting bigger, this is great news :D Maybe we should regroup all the translators on some platform, so that they can communicate efficiently... I'll think about it :p By the way Mathias, I sent you a mail too about Bretonnia's French version ;)

      Delete
    2. Yes, I think I got those, just have not had the time to go through all emails and respond yet :)

      Delete
  22. Yo Mathias, I looked at the DoW book trying some new things and the Merchant Prince ability to give Rhinox Riders a 2+ AS seems a bit strong for 2 points a pop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right you are! I will change it to only apply to In and Ca units.

      Delete
    2. While we're at it, Merchant Princes feel a little dull compared to other races characters.

      The 125 points allowance is neat, but very few of the traits are worth taking in my opinion and what would really spice things up is the ability to take special items from other army books.

      That being said some combinations might be too strong, but it'd really add to the flavor of the Merchant Princes.

      Delete
    3. Well, they are essentially the Empire General of the DoW army. Poor fighter, but can give army bonuses and take more items. Imo, he does not really need more than that, it's not like the normal general has any special rules to begin with. Using other armies magic items would be a no though, there would be no balancing involved, not to mention that it would force you to have access to all different army books at all times.

      Delete
  23. What troop type will you give Fanatics and Mangler Squigs? They don't quite strike me as Shrines, but the way they work wouldn't fit with Infantry or MB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will probably just be designated as In or MB, if there are any parts that does not work for them, I will change those in the army book itself.

      Delete
  24. I wonder you did write that Dwarfs lose +1S when charge. Will they get something else instead when Dwarfs charge? And will they keep Shieldwall?

    Btw I love what you have done so far :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dwarfs will get 3x march distance instead, so you will still be able to get them into combat :)

      And yes, they will keep shieldwall.

      Delete
  25. Hi,
    first of all, gj! This is exactly the direction of a rules set I was missing amongst all the different other fanmade WH editions (and I had a look on a lot). It’s the first adaptation of the 8th I actually like, at least judging by the ideas you used.


    Now I had a look on the comments and some are about the Horde rule. Your reasoning here is correct, but I also see the necessity of creating an application for the one or the other 10 wide unit people have at home. Just dropping the rule feels like a step back an the negative sense.
    But striking from more ranks (besides of the balance problems) just because you are standing 10 wide never made any sense in the first place.

    Instead, let’s look at the 6th: There the winning unit (so starting with the second round of a CC) could surround the enemy. I was impracticable and was dropped, but the idea could be used in an abstract way to reintroduce a horde-like rule. Something like:

    “The winning unit (alternatively every unit in a subsequent turn), if fighting in the front, considers the entire front rank, up to 10 models, as fighting, whether they are in BTB contact or not. Models not physically in BTB count as in contact to the same enemy as their nearest front rank comrade.”

    A native speaker can surely formulate it more elegantly. ^^
    But this way, we have a reasonable interpretation (surrounding), no disadvantage for spears (as the second rank profits form the first being virtually in BTB as much as the first), and the “winning unit” condition make passive CR bonuses and CR in general important.
    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Horde/lapping around rule has been partially replaced by the wide frontage bonus, giving you +1 combat res if your unit is wider than that of the enemy. So in addition to giving you more attacks (by having say, 7 models vs 5) you also gain an additional +1 combat res since you are surrounding them to their side. So while a 10-wide unit might not be as useful as before (unless the enemy itself is 8-wide) you will still benefit from having wide units, especially since steadfast is based on US rather than ranks.

      Delete
  26. Any thoughts on Slanneshi cult Dark Elves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considered it, but doubt I will get around to work on that list in much detail.

      Delete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Mathias !

    I tested the rules and I find them very well but I have two questions: if I play bretonnian army and I'm spearhead, am I limited to three rank? and, for impact keys, how many knights in spearhead which will qualify ?

    thanks for your amazing job !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, the Bretonnians will get a 9th Ed update soon, since the Lance formation will work rather differently there. For now, you will get to strike with all models in the first rank, and all knights on the flanks, the same as in 6th ed. So you are losing out on 1 attack from the knight in the middle of the second rank. Impact Hits are resolved for all knight models that get to strike, meaning the first rank and the models on the flanks.

      Delete
  29. That 's what we thought, thanks for your answer !

    ReplyDelete
  30. Found a typo
    "You may only may one "Look Out Sir!" roll per
    attack"

    ReplyDelete
  31. Is this still being supported?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I posted an update for 9th ed last month :)

      Delete