Saturday, 14 May 2016

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.044 out now!

This update changes the following:

  • All characters that join a unit must be able to fit in the front rank next to command groups (except Bretonnia ofc). This is to prevent character walls and force players to divide their characters more evenly (or at least have a really wide unit that can be charged by multiple units). No longer can you hide your wizards behind a bunch of other characters.
  • Ruby Ring of Ruin 35 pts.
  • Clarified that Innate Bound Spells does not get free power dice (such as Warrior Priest prayers).
  • Strength Bonus/Charge Bonus (*) special rule added. Strength Bonus = extra strength first round of combat. Charge Bonus = extra strength when charging. Rather than having a bunch of different special rules and exceptions for flails, choppas, lances, Juggernauts, War Boars and so forth, they all use these rules instead.
  • Fight in Extra Ranks allow MI to fight with up to 3A.

24 comments:

  1. Both To Wound charts are still messed up :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn, you are right! I did fix that a while back, must have been an error syncing the file through google drive, cause my Word doc was still wrong. I've fixed it now.

      Delete
  2. Response to a previous post.
    -There isn't anything wrong with toughness 6 non-monster models. Bull Centaurs lords would be toughness 6 if they existed and the right roll on the Eye of the Gods table can make a Chaos Lord toughness 6 as well.
    -Chaos Knights were only core in 6th edition if the player has a mortal general. Chaos Knights were special ever since the Hordes of Chaos were split into Chaos Warriors and Daemons of Chaos. In addition, most army books have Monstrous Infantry that are far better than the base Ogre which is why their Monstrous Infantry/Beasts are special instead of core, Brettonia, the Empire and some of your army books also have Monstrous ________ in the rare section.
    -Even if Dragon Ogres and Shaggoths were rare, Dragon Ogres would still appear far more often due to being several times cheaper and able to be taken in a unit.
    -It is a shame about the base size of Blightkings, Wrathmongers and Skullreapers, they were put on a base too large for them so they could make impressive poses. Style over substance. Perhaps have two-sets of rules for them. The current ones on large bases and W1, A2 with a significant points decrease for ones on small bases.
    -In the books, Wrathmongers, Skullreapers and Blightkings are described as "The Chosen of Khorne" and "Exalted Champions of Nurgle" so they are like Chosen but turned up to 11.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - A Bull Centaur Lord would have T5 if they existed, just like the Hero choice. I've made Blightkings T4 by default,s o they are T5 with MoN now.
      - WoC will pretty much always have a mortal general. Chaos Knights were Core in Archaon's Horde as well. DoC have Bloodcrushers as special too, so why could not Skullcrushers be special? If WoC had fewer units it would be easier to move core to special and special to rare, but since they have 8 rare units already, it's harder to justify it. Same goes for the Dragon Ogres.
      - Since the Blightkings etc are Infantry, you could legally put them on a smaller base without breaking the rules. Even if you are using the bigger bases, it's not a huge issues since you can 4 models into base contact with a normal unit, where they can really wreck things. It' better to look at them like Hero-units (like Bladedancers) rather than basic infantry. With 2W each, it's like you are throwing a unit of 4 human heroes against the enemy, which is pretty unique for any army. You are not supposed to use them in multiple ranks.
      - I believe that's correct, but people already have basic chosen for all gods, while Khorne and Nurgle have 2 extra units on top of that now. One thing I would otherwise consider is to remove Chosen as their own unit and simply make it an upgrade to Chaos Warriors/Chaos Knights which would make them a special choice. In that case though, it might be better to make them A1 like 6th ed, and make the Chosen upgrade bring them to A2.

      Delete
  3. The fact that characters can't be piled up inside a single unit is a good idea, but there is a potential problem: the Ogres, and Monstrous Infantry, or Cavalry, units. If the unit has got a full command group, it basically forbids the unit to be used with only three models-wide ranks if joined by a character.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not really an issue, since the official rules would force them to go in the second rank anyway, meaning that your fighters would not get to strike at all. The only thing this really means is that you cannot hide wizards (who you don't want to go into combat) behind other characters any more.

      Delete
  4. - What's the problem with the Nidzilla-like Lizard lists of all monsters and limited infantry that you had to kill them by moving all monsters to rare?
    - With the release of the new Blue Horror models, Pink Horrors should now properly split upon death like in 5E.
    - Are you including Slaughterpriests and Varanguard in the full version?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - Technically, I just moved one and removed one (Ancient Stegadon). Monster lists in general are rather poorly balanced from an army list building perspective. Not broken in the sense that it's OP, but rather in the same an army of nothing but cannons would be unbalanced. A LM army should consist of mainly Skinks and Sauruses, and Mo should be support units, not the other way round. You can still take a ton of Mo through characters in the 8th ed list, and 3 of them in a 2500 game in 9th ed.
      - I'm not aware of any new Horror release, where can I find info on that? I'm planning on changing the old rule, but I probably won't bring back the old split rule.
      - Maybe, I will at least make rules for them in an Expansion.

      Delete
    2. - It's possible to still have balanced play and asymmetrical lists at the same time. Not everyone has to have similar rosters or adhere to rules like 'monsters must be in rare' or something. I don't know; it seems rather artificial to me.
      - Blue Horrors are included in the new Silver Tower boxed game, alongside a new Gaunt Summoner on foot, Ogroid Thaumaturges (Tzeentchian Chaos Ogre wizards), Brimstone Horrors (what Blue Horrors split into upon death), Kairic Acolytes (similar to Soulflayers without Discs) and Grot Scuttlings (mutated spider Night Goblins). You can read more about them in the new WD and here: https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/818

      Delete
    3. - You could say that, though back in 6th ed, all non-ridden Mo were rare units. It's just that in 8th ed there are so many Mo for each army that it might seem artificial to put them all in rare. You are really not that limited though, you could still take 5 Mo in 2500 pts (3 as character mounts, 2 as rare units). It's mainly the Stegadon spam that is nerfed in 9th ed.
      - I see. I think that's too limiting though to make it part of their special rule, since I don't want to force people to buy the Silver Tower just so they can use their Horrors.

      Delete
  5. The rule that prevents mounts from making supporting attacks should be brought back or an explanation for how the attacks of cavalry and monstrous cavalry are divided when making supporting attacks should be added. Fight in Extra Ranks needs to also say that a model can't make more supporting attacks than its attack value because under the current rule it's possible for a monstrous cavalry model with 3 attacks to make 4 attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I will make it so that MI can make up to 3 supporting attacks, other models make 1 attack. It's a rule that is pretty much exclusive to In anyway.

      Delete
  6. Looking at the Spell Selection here. When it says "generate" spells, it could be phrased better perhaps, just to make it clear that you can now choose spells. In addition to this, it is a bit regarding the option to chose from more than lore of magic for a single wizard. Just to make things a bit clearer for new gamers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it now.

      Delete
  7. Posted some ideas for Monster balancing issues under the High Elf army book section Mathias.

    Got a couple of ideas that I'm thinking about, which are sort of fluffy and that might add to the game tactically. Hvaen't worked out the details yet, but I'd be intersted to hear what you think.

    1. One think that I've sort of missed in warhammer, is the idea that the stereotypical heavy Cavalry can sally forth, and break through enemy lines in a desperate act to get to some pieceof artillery or something similar. The idea is that the main focus for the cavalry is to get through a unit, not to get bogged down and break it.

    A tough was to allow Heavy Cavalry, and Monstrous Vavalry a "breakthrough Charge" option, that could only be applied vs infantry, war beasts, swarms, etc. The idea is that if the charging unit wins the combat by say, more than the opponents Rank Bonus (or total static CR f that's better), then they have broken through, and may "pursue", even if the defending unit does not break (an I imagne that they suffer no LD penalties for a Breaktest in this case, as it's rather obvious what the charger's aim is).

    2. With your significant bow upgrades, how about giving units with Shields a +1 Armour save against unts with the Volley Shot special rule at Long Range from their own Front Arc? Pretty simple, and makes a bit of sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. some typos there.. tired.. typing in bed.. sorry..

      Delete
  8. As you already know, I'm a big fan of the vast majority of your rule changes Mathias, but there is one that I really don't like, and that's the removal of both the supporting attacks and horde rule all at once. I consider myself somewhat of a veteran of the old "herohammer" days, and the reason I argue so strongly against this, is that you're fundamentally taking the game several big steps back to those days with this change, and it wasn't a very fun game to play for some armies, and for some more tactically minded players.

    Anyway, as I was thinking about this yesterday, I realized that with the overall increase in point cost for spears all across the board (when compared to the HW+S option), it was probably going to be hard to convince you, becasue you'd have to go though all the units again, and even worse, for two seperate editions, as wel las all your own army books. Which, lets face it, would discourage most people...
    Then I started thinking, what if ther ewas a way to make spear better, to justify this cost increase (with only getting a 33% increased number of attacks, instead of 50%). Then I though initiative bonus when charged. Then I took a second look. you have aldready done this. :-)

    What I'm saying, I think that if you brought beack the Supporting Attacks, I think the justification for the point increase is already there.

    I could go on and on about this issue, but my key issues with it is:

    - It didn't work well in the old days, and I don't see how it will work better now, with an increase in static CR, as well as Steadfast on top. elite regiments are basically useless, unless they have A2, and even then I feel pretty secure that from a point basis, a core regiment will be much less of a gamble and will serve you better.

    -People like to roll dice in the game, and have gotten used to it by now. Rolling 10 dice that can help you overcome the odds, is much more satisfying than rolling 5 dice you know have a slim to no chance for you to overcome the static CR odds against you etc.

    -Remember that with the introduction of Medium armour as well, there is an overall general increase in armour saves in the game, which makes casualties a less important factor when it comes to determining the winner of a close combat.

    Keep ut the great work Mathias :-)


    -Rune

    ReplyDelete
  9. The "Charge Reactions" section on Page 90 references a Fear test, though I don't see any mention of Fear Tests in the rest of the rules.

    Is that an oversight, or should units be taking 8th ed. style fear tests?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's an oversight from 8th ed, I'll fix it for the next update.

      Delete
  10. Even if you are using the bigger bases, it's not a huge issues since you can 4 models into base contact with a normal unit, where they can really wreck things. It' better to look at them like Hero-units (like Bladedancers) rather than basic infantry. With 2W each, it's like you are throwing a unit of 4 human heroes against the enemy, I liked your blog, Take the time to visit the me and say that the change in design and meniu?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Before I say anything else: I love 99.9% of the rules and books you produce. That leaves the part about characters on monsters for this little post. Also... If anything is written with a capital letter and really shouldn't be, then that's my phone being annoying. I'm from Germany, so my phone recognizes half of everything as a noun.

    I will use the 8th Edition rules for Karl Franz on Deathclaw from the Imp Army Book. This Karl has 8 wounds with two different profiles. They attack seperately and they are hurt seperately. That was obviously quite annoying. And it only got worse when one of them died. With the current 9th rules that's fixed.

    BUT

    Following the rules for monstrous cavalry as that tiny paragraph under the monster unit type suggests, our new Karl would have only five wounds at toughness 5. That works for monstrous cavalry, because the riders rarely have multiple wounds in the first place. They loose one wound and get all the cavalry goodness. Karl on the other hand used to contribute 37.5 % of the model's wounds. Those are gone! As they still attack in the same way, that's like a smack with a burning nerf bat with maxed out artifact tree.

    One way to simplify ridden monsters would be the End Times Way. Adding up wounds, best toughness. But End Times were broken as hell when it came to attacking. So here's my conclusion: How about adding up wounds and taking the better toughness. Saves would use the same rules as current 9th (Best ward and regen, stacking armor). Attacking would still be split. That would only be a small difference but it would help making the lords noticable. Since ridden monsters are almost always a lord's mount, they should allow that lord to be useful. Lords ARE stronger than your average rider.

    That would obviously make it impossible to just use the rules for MC. But those are another problem: Why would monsters get Swiftstride when a heavily armored Lord choice plants his ass on their neck??? I assume they at least get to keep their monster rules and unit strength.

    To sum it up: I think, that a mix of End Times and 8th Edition would be optimal to keep ridden monsters useful and simple.
    However, that's just my opinion. And thanks for the otherr 99.9 %!

    ReplyDelete
  12. A suggestion for maing Monsters a bit more "grindy", and harder to break after their initial charge (which lets face it, most likely won't make that big f a difference against Steadfast units and the possibility of a BSB nearby), is to add something like this for all Monsters:

    Sweeping Blows

    Whenever a Monster is engaged in aclose combat with one or more units of Infantry, Cavalry, Warbeasts or Swarms, it may chose to direct this special attack towards one of the units in base contact. The unit takes 1D6-the target unit's own Initiative number of automatic hits, at the base Strength of the attacking Monster. This attack is resolved at Initiative 1, and hits are distributed as from shooting. In case of Cavary, use the lowest initiative value when subtracting hits.
    This attack cannot be used in any turn in which the Monster is deemed to be charging, which is represented by the Impact special rule instead.


    It gives Monsters a litle bit more of a chance to stand up to regiments without unduly penalizing them to much from a CR perspective. It also makes sure characters attacking Monsters are not unduly penalized (as the old Thunderstomp did).

    I'd ideally also love to see Monsters not being able to benefit from the Battle standard bearer, unless the monster is a characteror has handlers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have thought about it, and I think I will add back stomp to monsters against In, WB and Sw. Some monsters (like giants) are pretty much just huge MI, in which case they really shouldn't smash into the foe as much as they wade into them. Impact Hits fits better for creatures that actually use their frame to charge head on into the foe (like stegadons and the like).

      Mo and BSB sounds good too, will add that.

      Delete
  13. The above rule could easily be 2d6-target unit's initiative number of hits as well, if that balanced things out better.


    While on the subject of rules, another idea struck me. How about allowing missile troops to fire into close combat, at a range of 4" (with no bonus to hit), assuming that the enemy front/flank/rear one is firing into is otherwise unengaged. There should be some limitations however, to represent the difficulty of not hitting friends that are really close to enemies etc.

    This could make Wood Elves a bit more fun and tactical to play, and I see it as potentially benefiting the tactics of some other armes as well.

    Maybe your Expendable special rule could be tweaked to allow one to target an enemy unit in close combat with them regardless of size/US of the enemy unit (deemed as still worth the risk).

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete