Thursday, 14 April 2016

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.041 out now!

Small update here, changing the following:

  • Vanguard is 6" for Infantry.
  • Removed Wide Frontage bonus, the rule of no more ranks than files is enough.
  • Limited Outnumber to +1 for twice or more US.
  • Added "Legendary Army" for 5000+ pts battles.
  • Bound Spells within Magic Items add 1 free power dice when casting. This will increase the price and power level for some items.

An issue was brought to my attention with elite infantry suffering greatly against "hordes" due them starting with +8 combat res. in some situations (3 ranks, 3 outnumber, 1 wide frontage, 1 banner). This has been brought down to a little bit more sensible +5, just like 7th ed. You will still benefit from big units due to having Steadfast and Step Up, but it gives elite infantry a little bit more of a boost since they lost supporting attacks in 9th ed.

Posted an update with some bug fixes and a change to Bound Spells. An issue with buying magic items with bound spells is that you often pay 30-45 pts for what is just an extra spell with a low casting value (when a spell is normally 15 pts). With this change, bound items are closer to 7th ed, but unlike the automatic bound spell spam from that time, you simply have a better chance of getting them off, and actually increases your magic power rather than just giving you more spells to choose between.

27 comments:

  1. Looking good. Keep up the great work, I'm really liking 9th edition so far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just a very small thing. The rules about challenges on p. 72 still mentions champions as being eligible for issuing and accepting challenges.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think its a good solution to remove frontage bonus and limit outnumber. I did consider that one could get quite the bonus. Multiple cheaper units can still get a severe advantage since rank, charge and banner bonuses are cumulative, but that's only fair since it will require skilful planning and movement, which Warhammer should be all about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Tomb Kings are next then I have some suggestions:
    -My Will Be Done should affect the Ballistic Skill of models in the same unit as well as Weapon Skill.
    -Tomb Kings/Princes should have their number of wounds reduced by 1. I have no idea why they break the pattern of 2 wounds for heroes and 3 wounds for lords.
    -Tomb Heralds should be WS5 T5 I4. It doesn't make much sense for them to be such inferior fighters compared to those they are supposed to protect.
    -Skeleton Horse Archers should not be Scouts. Ambushers works better since there literally aren't any other cavalry scouts in any army book I think.
    -Remove the Strength bonus to Impact Hits that Skeleton Chariots get for the same reason you removed it from Imperial Ogres.
    -The Casket of Souls should be T7 so that absurd things like cannonballs bouncing off or other such stupidity won't happen.
    -Carrion and Tomb Swarms should be WS2. If undead created from humans lose their combat abilities then why not undead created from beasts?
    -Necrosphinxes and Warsphinxes should be toughness 6 just like the Necrolith and Hierotitan. It's absurd that charging chaos knights with lances are just as likely to wound those as chaos knights that haven't managed to charge.
    -This might be an iffy suggestion but maybe Necrotects should be able to ride a Skeletal Steed so that they can keep up with their creations.
    -Necropolis Knights shouldn't have far superior skills compared to Tomb Guard, just slightly superior. Dropping their number of attacks to 1 is reasonable (don't do this to Necroserpents).
    -The Khemrian Warsphinx should be moved to rare. That's where monsters are most of the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - That would give them a BS of 3 right? Don't think they need it, the arrows of asaph makes them good enough as is. Shooting is not their weakness.
      - Planning on it!
      - Then there would be no difference between them and Tomb Princes. It's better to look at them like Hatamoto or Warriors priests in terms of stats.
      - They will have neither of these since TK already have so many ambusher options. Carrion will have Scout instead since they can't fly and march.
      - Planning on it.
      - Planning on that too.
      - Makes them too weak, all Swarms have WS3.
      - Nerfing them to T7 (like War Machines, since they are walking structures). They have less S already.
      - Could probably add that.
      - Planning on that too.
      - Also planning on that.

      Delete
    2. -I know that shooting isn't a weakness of the Tomb Kings but it would still be a nice boon to armies that are tooled towards ranged combat and give a reason for a Tomb King/Prince to be put in a ranged unit. Maybe also make it that a Tomb King/Prince on a Chariot can join a unit of Skeleton Horsemen or Horse Archers.
      -The Hover special rule should allow a model to move on the air when trying to flee or pursue. Unlike normal winged creatures that need time for a proper takeoff a hovering model should have a bit more maneuverability.
      -What do you think of making strength values that are 4 points above the targets toughness wound automatically and strength values that are 4 points below the targets toughness unable to wound?

      Delete
    3. The changes to bows with multiple shots and volley fire being reworked means that tomb kings shooting is already massively improved, as every single model in the unit can shoot 2 arrows at 5+ to hit if they haven't moved. Allowing you to buff this seems a bit over the top.
      It doesn't matter how fast a cannon ball is going, its not going to kill you if it grazes your arm by a millimeter. Also, I think this could really overpower monsters and mounted lords especially. I know that 40k has values that are impossible to wound, but I think thematically the strength values in 40k represent a much larger range of power than in fantasy, and most armies have at least semi-reliable access to S8, so it's not as limiting as it would be in fantasy.

      Delete
    4. -Volley Fire has awkward wording it should say "even if all models do not have" in its first sentence.
      -You forgot the rule where Monstrous ________ can make up to three supporting attacks instead of 1, and the rules that mounts can't make supporting attacks.

      Delete
  5. Mathias, could you please send me the Albion and the Arabia (8th Edition) books as word-dokument download link? I emailed you about that some weeks ago.

    Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure thing, forgot to send those before, sorry about that. Sent them to your email.

      Delete
  6. Is this the best place to make suggestions?

    I think I found a small typo
    page 36 Dividing Attacks: ... or you could take the more heroic path and attempt to `day` the enemy character.
    Change to `slay` I think was the intent

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also I notice that there is no mention of the step up rule in the who can fight section in the Close Combat section. It is mentioned in assaulting buildings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the "step up"-rule is not an actual rule, it's a mix of "removing casualties from the back" and "models in base contact may strike". It's just called that since it worked differently in 7th ed.

      Delete
  8. To Wound chart is still totally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for letting me know, I've fixed it now.

      Delete
  9. Have you been considering making army list bit more like this? http://i.imgur.com/X442MFG.png
    Bit more restricted in the amount of choices in lower point games and less points total on characters, but now the character points are combined. So it's something like 40% max on characters the amount of lords you can have in an army is limited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I plan of making additional rules for skirmish, sieges, borer patrol, warbands etc in the future, which will also expand the army list selection.

      Delete
    2. OK very cool. Can't wait for those stuff. No rush :)

      Delete
  10. Only one post with 9th edition label

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will add more to it as I finish the upcoming expansions like Siege and Warbands.

      Delete
  11. About bound spells. Is it necessary to use a die from your power pool to cast the spell? It seems that way, because you add the free die AFTER you begin to cast, but it not expressly stated.

    I thought about it because Ruby Ring of Rhuin seems vastly powerful if you can use just the free die. It casts the spell on just a 3+ so it is, by it self, a 2/3 chance of 1D6 automatic S4 hits each turn, for just 20 pts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Originally I did not plan on that, but it might be a good idea to avoid spamming too many spells. The Ruby Ring will go up in price in the next update.

      Delete
  12. Thank you Matthias. Looks great. GW will have to give you royalties for putting life back into warhammer fantasy, if they don't I am all over those alternate model companies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, your feedback was very useful :)

      Delete
  13. Hello, I am confused on how to manage Multiple Charge Reactions, especifically with Flee. How many times can a unit Flee if it is charged many times in the same phase? Can it Flee each time it was charged or just once? In the rules I think it´s said just one, runnig away from the enemy with the highest Unit Strength but I think it contradicts the rule "You have to perform and resolve any charge reaction before another charge can be declared.
    Thanks for your amazing work and excuse my English.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, it's on page 18:

      "Once a unit has declared a Flee charge reaction, or if it is already fleeing at the start of the movement phase, it must declare and resolve a Flee charge reaction for every subsequent charge declared against it that turn."

      Delete