Friday, 17 June 2016

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.051 out now!

This update changes the following:

  • Sw, WB, MB and Mo without riders or handlers may not use Hold Your Ground! or Inspiring Presence.
  • Always Strikes First and Last returns, but will be limited to spells and magical abilities unlike the much more common ASF of 8th ed. ASF only gain re-rolls if the Initiative is higher than the foe, and ASL vs ASL strike in Initiative order. This makes it easier than having to rewrite everything as "strike at initiative 1/10" and "re-roll failed rolls to hit" for characters that would otherwise lose it (since striking initiative 10 for units with I6 or higher is pretty redundant in most situations).
  • Stomp returns for Mo, Impact Hits will only apply to those Mo that actually uses their bulk to charge into enemy formations.
  • Chart added for better balancing different sized battles in regards to multiple choices.
  • Briona's Timewarp give ASF.
  • Sword of Swift Slaying gives ASF.

So now I have 15 different army lists I need to update during the weekend...

Edit: all 9th ed books should now be updated with correct ASF/ASL/Impact Hits.

88 comments:

  1. -Swarms should be included in the list of units that cannot benefit from Hold Your Ground! or Inspiring Presence. Though perhaps add a rule like "Intelligent" that would be given to creatures like Kitsune from Nippon or Spites from the Wood Elves which would benefit from those rules. You should also make it that undead and daemons can still use inspiring presence since in those cases the presence of the general stabilizes the magic that allows it to exist.
    -I've been thinking about how all Monstrous _______ have Fear due to their size and Monsters have Terror due to being even bigger. In the game, Monsters aren't scared of other monsters due to both being of the same size but what about things that are scary due to something else like the mind-corroding influence of Chaos giving Chaos Daemons fear and Phoenix Guard being scary due to how unafraid they are. There should be a modification to the unit types section and the Fear special rule so that Chaos Ogres still fear Daemons (especially ones of equal size), Arachnorak Spiders are scared of Bloodthirsters and other things. For example, a Bloodthirster would cause terror due to its size but an Arachnorak Spider would only feel fear in the face of it due to the Bloodthirster being a Daemon. I would also remove how Terror causes a -2 Ld penalty.
    -Since you have added Strength Bonus and Charge Bonus to the list of special rules, perhaps a rule could be added called Brace Bonus which grants a strength bonus on the first turn of combat to units being charged to the front. Then give spears wielded by infantry Brace Bonus (1) and Pikes Brace Bonus (2).
    -I really think the rules for ridden monsters from 8th edition made the most sense. The fact that the little general riding the griffon is wearing full plate armor won't make the griffon any more resilient while shooting the riders dead is a valid tactic in war. Even under the previous system, riding a monster still significantly increased the resilience of the character since the tougher mount would absorb 2/3 of all attacks. Though I would make it that monster reactions are only done by monsters of Ld6 or less since I don't think there are any non-sapient monsters that have a leadership of 7 or better. It's assumed that a dragon ridden by a High Elf Archmage will still stick to the battleplan despite his partner being shot off.
    -The amount of duplicate rare choices should not increase at the same rate as duplicate special choices. Every 2000 points should allow a duplicate rare choice and beyond 5000 points it should say that every 2000 additional points grants +2 additional duplicate specials and +1 additional duplicate rares.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - Goo point about Sw, I've added that. Most of these intelligent creatures have rules that will allow them to use the Ld of the general in some other form, or they are independent units that would not care anyway.
      - I think that would involve too many exceptions, and many monsters already have ItP anyway.
      - Spears and pikes already have other bonuses, the strength bonus to lances is what makes them different from hand weapons.
      - Made sense might be right, but it was also very fiddly and more or less required you to have two sets of models in case either mount of rider died.
      - I want to keep it as simple as possible, while keeping it in line with the old system. So in 2500 pts games it will work the same as 8th ed, but games less than 2000 pts does not allow you to spam the same choices.

      Delete
    2. Happy to see you agreed with the Monster angle Mathias, although I feel bad that you have to go through all your army books again... It is much appreciated though. :-)

      One thing. Character and Special character Monsters (such as greater demons,demon princes etc) could be an exception as they can be seen as more intelligent by definition (they can issue and exept challenges after all).



      Delete
    3. Happy to see you agreed with the Monster angle Mathias, although I feel bad that you have to go through all your army books again... It is much appreciated though. :-)

      One thing. Character and Special character Monsters (such as greater demons,demon princes etc) could be an exception as they can be seen as more intelligent by definition (they can issue and exept challenges after all).



      Delete
    4. Sure, I can add an paragraph on Character monsters. Treemen still suffers from this, but then again, it kind of makes sense they do not pay much heed to what an Elf General would say.

      Delete
  2. Good stuff, really liking how 9th edition is coming together. I like bringing Stomp back, I think it makes more sense on most monsters. Will ASF be limited to spells, or will it be more widely available through magic weapons or even the occasional special rule?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will be available through magic weapons and certain special rules, yes.

      Delete
  3. Now that Warhammer Fantasy has wrapped-up I think that Warhammer Armies is better than ever! I especially like the Revening Hoardes lists as they are basic and don't include any special characters.

    My favourite list so far is the new Empire list, it's better than ever! I also really like the new Estalian, Kislev and Dogs of War lists.

    I'm not as keen on the Araby, Norse, Cathay, Nippon and Ind lists as they contain too much cheese for my tastes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh. I don't think the oldschool armies have been updated to 9th yet. Also what cheese are you talking about exactly?

      Delete
    2. Of all the armies you mention, only Empire is updated to 9th. I play a Nippon army btw, and I find it rather fair, certaintly not cheesy. Some of their rare choices, like Great Guard and Kitsune can be hard for an unbalanced enemy to deal with, but they are still too flimsy to win critical victories by themselves.

      Delete
  4. Will you be adding the Dark Emissaries to the Albion book when it updates, or do you consider them to be part of the Chaos line-up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dark Emissaries are more chaos creatures if anything (as corrupted Truthsayers) so would fit better in chaos. I might make separate rules for them later.

      Delete
  5. Thanks for your hard work, it really is the best edition of WHFB ever!

    And nice to see the Sword of Swift Slaying giving ASF again, like it did in the times of yor.

    Also good to see Stomp again, I thought it made a lot of sense for some Monsters whom used their bulk to crush their tiny, yet annoying, foo's. Why use a finger to crush a fly when you can smack its general location with your palm!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding Monster Stomp.

    Maybe characters can be allowed an Initiative test to avoid each "hit" as not to let Monsters "auto-paste" any hero which, well, tries to be a hero... :-P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought about it, and while it would require bit more dice rolling, it would make sense for Elves to be better at ducking from being crushed by a stampeding monster compared to a slow dwarf or goblin. I will make Stomp 2D6 with Init tests, for I3 models it's the same as 1D6 hits.

      Delete
    2. It certainly is a neat idea to make Ini more valuable in this regard, especially since Ini isnt a factor against stomp anyway.

      I did also think about a Ward Save against Stomp in some circumstances, such as special monster-slaying units having like a 4+ WS, units such as Trollslayers, some norse units, etc. Maybe also as magic items, such as a banner or a special rule for some characters. Just wherever it might seem fluffy.

      Delete
    3. Cool. 2d6 with Initiative tests sounds good.

      Delete
    4. Maybee skirmishers could have some benfit. re-roll any 6 on an I test or something. To represent them being more spread out and more menouverable (sort of picturing some cave men hunting a mammoth here).

      Delete
    5. Or maybe Skirmishers could simply be immune to this special rule.

      On as side note. If you consider bringing back the old Stomp special rule for balance reasons, the Initiative test would be a good balance there also.

      Delete
    6. I think that would add a bit too much, Skirmishers in close combat do rank up like normal units after all. Besides, Skirmishers often have higher Init than rank'n'file anyway, so they will still be harder to hit.

      I don't think Stomp for MI was a very good idea in 8th ed though. An Ogre is not even twice the size of a human in height, so it's rather difficult to see them stomp on top of them. It's more important for monsters who completely lack static combat res.

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

      Delete
    8. Not sure I agree with you there Mathias.. The ranking up is for practical purposes only. Otherwise they would have had the benefits of rank bonus etc...
      Besides, without the benefits of rank bonus, only the occational standards, skirmishers typcially being small and expensive units often with limited damage dealing potential, they stand to loose most combats against a Monster by 1-3 points every close combat round, for as long (or short) as thet they can last before they break.. With Thunderstomp, thy'll probably loose by 3-5 points, and almost automatically break. That's without taking Impact into account even...
      Big game hunts have basically always been done by "Skirmishers", to minimize risk after all.
      By making them immune to this particular special attack (which was exactly as you had all units yesterday when you think about it), you give them at least a fighting chance against monsters, without the benefit of rank bonus etc.

      I picture the stomp issue being the likes of ogres wading into e regiment of soldiers, bushing some of them over, then stomping on them with enough weigth to kill, not stomping on them standing up.
      But besides that, it is a balance issue more than anything else. Not needed if the likes of the Ogre Kingdom army list works fine without it. :-)

      Delete
  7. I know what I am asking now is really hard to do, but you have impressed me before. The quest is: Is there any chance that you are going to add picture for the every unit in the books? Let's say Ramhorns, I am really curious how they look, but you got no picture for them. Sorry and thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's on the page right after the Ramhorn, up in the left corner ;)

      Delete
  8. Did you consider the "testudo" idea I posted somewhere mathias? Just asking since I can't recall an answer to it.

    That, and the possibility of firing into close combat at 4" (range optional) towards an enemy unit (from an unengaged arc from the defenders's perspective). It would make Panic tests a bit more relevant, and cause throwing weapons to be more useful perhaps.

    Just throwing a bunch of ideas at you Mathias, to see what can potentially be good, or not, as the case may be.
    I've always found that discussing things, and getting other perspectives on things useful, but I also understand that it might be somewhat of a hassle at times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did consider both brace (with shields) and firing into combat yes. The latter proved to be needlessly complicated though, but I'll see about adding it in an easy way. Shooting into combat is something I've done a lot in the total war series!

      Delete
    2. I've been tinkering with shooting into melee a bit now, but I don't think there's any clean way of adding it in. You would need to have a limitation on both range, arc, unit strength of the unit you are firing at (so you cannot fire at units less than US5) and also randomising hits on your friendly units in case you have more than one in that combat. It's just too many factors to add in in order to make it work well.

      Delete
  9. Hej och hallå!
    I stumbled on to this page a few weeks ago, googeling bret footknights.(playing a siege and all my converted noble footies needed rules so they could give my gobbos a real beating at the walls)
    well now on too the subject of my post.
    on the shoot in to h2h combat. why oh why cant we shoot in to combat? just ad random hits depending on what angle the missiles comes from. A ld pen to the friendly unit shot at in the combat phase or something? several Generals used to give their troops orders to shoot at enemies locked in combat. often from flanks or rear. i dont se why a unit of goblins wont use their bow's on a combat including their own side, or a bretonnian lord giving the order to loose on a poor unit of worthless peasants locked with a enemy unit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has to some extent annoyed me as well. One would assume that if close enough, with no friendly troop blocking LoS, one would just target those unengaged in the rear ranks, assuming one was close enough to had a good view of the melee combat.

      Firing from afar (long range), indiscriminately into the melee is quite another thing though, but not impossible for the more ruthless of generals. In this case, I think accuracy would be poor enough that hits would be randomized though... and provide a morale loss to one's own side.. After all, who would fight and die for the guy that ordered this? In the case of troops with the Expandable special rule, ther ecould be an exception though. :-)

      Delete
    2. The whole game would degenerate into locking enemy units in combat with cheap infantry and shooting into the combat...

      Delete
    3. I don't think so. If one has to get close to have this option, and shoot into unengaged flanks, then not many armies could build a viable tactic around this. Remember, for every archer you buy, you loose one melee solider instead, and thus being able to flank enemies in this way will be difficult. You would also have to have your archers in a foreward position, which is risky in itself.

      Delete
    4. Or did you think of the long range situation perhaps? There is some truth to that, although it would also be quite risky with randomized hits etc.

      But, there should be some serious penalties to doing this, unless the unit had the Expandable special rule... If it is possible, and has in all likelyhood been done more than once in our own history, I don't see whay one shouldn't attempt to make rules for it in WHFB. They just need to be balanced right. There is a reason that this wasn't common practice after all...

      Delete
    5. I'd say one could just add to the expendable rule. Something like:
      "If all friendly Units in Close Combat with an enemy Unit have the Expendable rule, you may shoot into the fray, with the entire combat as a target. Every shot that hits is then randomly distributed to either the enemy or your own troops.
      Bear in mind, however, that friendly fire is extremely disheartening! Any Break Test taken by the Expendable Unit is automatically lost if you choose to fire into the fray.

      That's a long piece of text.. I myself would rather just keep melee and ranged separated, it saved my Sisters of Sigmar a bunch of times in Mordheim!

      Delete
    6. as a history fanatic the prospect of shooting in to a hth combat is valid i som aspects. look on pike & shote era battles. big pike blocks probing each others fronts often got enfilading matchlock or musket fire in the flanks if the opposing enemy missile troops were absent.
      Roman tactics often resorted to heavy infantry locking the enemy to the front while agile skirmishers loosed missiles at the enemy and the ballistae pounded the enemy with heavy shoot.

      all this should be allowed in games(assuming hth combat don't count as a melee)

      give randomized hits: were the number is to hit enemy
      shooting to the engaged front (ie. friendly units rear) random 5+
      Shooting to engaged flank random 4+
      shooting to engaged rear random 3+
      shooting engaged unit from long range +1 on the difficulty
      to shoot a enemy unit locked in hth pass a ld test or the unit intentionally over shoots or under shoots its designated target.
      friendly units shot at count wounds inflicted on them in the next combat result score as if the enemy had inflicted them in the close combat phase.

      im not the best writer but well there goes something to work on.

      Delete
    7. I think people here are forgetting that WHFB has been around for 30-40 years, been created by people who where also great history buffs, and yet, for all its "historical correctness", shooting into combat has never been generally allowed in neither WH or WH40k, not even for warmachines.

      Maybe you should consider why that is.

      This discussion has been had thousands of times before btw. Its still fine to have it of course, but dont expect that you are raising any new points.

      Personally I have played more than 1200 WHFB games and shooting into combat is not something I have wished for even once.

      Delete
    8. Historically the Romans for example did use flankers with Javelins for example to hit tarets in melee combat. I imagine they targeted just about everyone but those in the actual fighting ranks, and probably with only the rarest throw accidentally hitting a friendly soldier. I imagine they went as close as it was safe to go before they let loose in those instances though, to minimize the risk of the javelins straying too much, as to become a danger to one's own side. In any case, I don't think the freiendly soldiers could have minded this risk too much, otherwise it probably wouldn't have been standard practice so to speak.

      Firing arrows from some distance away, and into melee was probably an entirely different matter though. At range, one didn't even really aim at a particular target such as a person. It was volleys, where you basically saturated an area with arrows, in which case one would be at great risk to hitting both sides more or less equally.

      Just pointing out this important distinction, because I don't thing the two vastly different situations should be covered by the same rule. I think two seperate, more simplified rules is a better solution (unless someone can come with a brilliant, simple rule that covers both decently, which I doubt is possible).

      Delete
    9. Ravendark:

      I'm basically open for pretty much anything that opens up the tactical scope of the game, without unbalancing it.

      I don't think theat just becasue GW didn't do it, it shouldn't be done is in itself by definition a good argument. By that measure, one almost can't change or adapt anything. If one can find a good balance to any rule, it can potentially enhance a game, but to find out if it'æs a good idea or not, it needs to be diiscussed, and more impoortantly tested.

      I have actuallty tested the javelins into close combat in 5-6 battles. It worked fine. One basically sacrifices the potential disruption, flank bonus and melee casualties; in favour of some potential casualties and a possible forced panic test.

      The Volley shot into close combat, I would limit to combat with Expendable units in the first place, to test it out.

      Delete
    10. Ravendark:

      I have missed the rule when I have tested Lizardmen for example, and both battle lines crash. The Skinks are often then just left standing with their hands in their proverbial pockets, casue they are too risky to actually bother to flank with etc, as the boost in enemy casualties easily makes up for any benefit that placing them in harms way gives me, and since mist such units are typically fast and light troops, I'd imagine this is pretty common througout several lists.
      Remember that the likes of javelin troops have a pretty short range, and might often only get a single chance to use their weapons throughout an entire battle, if they are lucky. Most often, they are thus not really worth the points, at least not in any damage dealing capacity.

      Delete
    11. Thinking it over, I can see that it could work, although I'm generally conservative about such changes.

      It just seems hard to implement. Only against unengaged flanks, take Ld test, at least -1 to hit, that could work maybe.

      I think there is a problem when it comes to intentionally shooting AT your own(even as a calculated loss). For fluff reasons, its hard to see how a "good" race could accept casualties on their own.

      Brets have their knightly code; sure they might torture and kill peons for the slightest offenses, but purposely killing those they are sworn to defend when those are even fighting FOR them would be a blow to their standing. Grail Knights and, to a lesser degree Damsels, would simply refuse to serve such a Lord.

      In the Empire, the people are free and only serve in army under contract with a liege or commander. Those leaders simply don't have the right to order their soldiers killed, and their could be serious repercussions if it happened. Imagine what could happen back in camp between the shooters and the victims. Or if they meet in a tavern some other time. If it becomes a standard tactic for an army, then all discipline and sense of comradery would break down.

      Dwarfs would of course simply refuse, choosing to meet their ancestors with their honour intact rather than win by base treason of their kin.

      For "evil" races, things are different, but even then any mortal army would collapse in on it self like a dying star if noone trust each other, and usurpers would find easy support.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Ravendark. shooting in to hth combat was allowed in 4th-5th edition. (do think it was allowed in the earlier eds as well. but as I don't have the rules in front of me so I cant say for sure) "evil" armies did this without paus and "good" had to do a ld test. then it was a 50% chance hitting your own troops.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another thing I'd like to so see in 9th ed, is the possibility for Cavalry to for example break thoughunits like infantry, if they charge, and manage to win the combat by lets say more than the enemy unit's remaining rank bonus (or something like that, that makes it a challenge beyond just winning).

    With the vast improvement of general missile infantry that MAthias has introduces (more volley fire, and no long range penalty etc), I think this could be a good counter to people going all out on the missile weapons for example.
    If one could "pursue" through the enemy unit (possibly leaving the unit it moved throug has Disrupted until the start of the next enemy turn?), even though the enemy unit didn't break, and thus threathen the arhers/war mahines behind, it would force people to use such units in a more supportive role, and not abuse the missile units to much. Another benefit is that it would allow knight more charges inn a game in general. Often they tend to get bogged down and remain rather static in most games (especially in 8th ed).

    Food for thought at least..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cavalry and Monstrous Cavalry offcourse...

      Delete
    2. yes cav have some improvements. but still lacks the paunch of a real cavalry charge from the medieval era.

      Delete
    3. I think the punch is there, especially with the imoact rule added. The problem is when facing infantry, with the steadfast rule, one is almost guaranteed to be stuck in that particular fight to the very end.

      Delete
    4. I think the punch is there, especially with the imoact rule added. The problem is when facing infantry, with the steadfast rule, one is almost guaranteed to be stuck in that particular fight to the very end.

      Delete
  13. Cav usualy just ran straight throu infantry and then wheled around to charge Again and again untill the enemy broke and ran for it. Often this happend during the first charge of even befor the charge even hit home.
    In warhammer knights are a expensive suport unit

    ReplyDelete
  14. In all fairness though, it did often depend on the intantry in question, the terrain involved, and numbers on borh sides.
    But yes, they were very hard to stop in general, but historically their non-knight opponents werent, lets just say, warhammer equivalents either.
    I don't want to see knight get more powerful from a damage dealing perspective. I just want then to be able to break through, and not spend an entire battle being stuck fighting goblins with a general/bsb nearby to the end of the battle for example.

    ReplyDelete
  15. When knights had used their lances, they were forced to resort to their hand weapons etc. To do this on a horse, you are forced to move the horse foreward, so that you can strike ti the sides. You are also firced to continue doing this, to make way for the knights begind to do the same. It was when this movement stopped, that one was typically doomed to be surrounded and gradually slaughtered. So by definition, it became a fight to break through or die.

    ReplyDelete
  16. sorry about all the typoes.. I was out in the sun on my mobile..

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have a question, as far as I can tell the 9th Edition High Elf Ravening Hordes book only has Always Strikes First for the Swordmasters and Loremaster of Hoeth, is that intentional or an accident?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MARTIAL PROWESS:
      Models with this special rule (but not any mounts) may
      re-roll all To Hit rolls of 1 when making close combat
      attacks.

      as this replaces the asf on all elves i think its intentional :P

      Delete
    2. Are you sure you are looking at the 9th ed version, because that one does not have ASF in it?

      Delete
    3. I could have sworn I was looking at 9th, but now that I've looked again it's not there, I must have been mistaken. My bad!

      Delete
  18. Do you plan to feature any of these monsters in future army books?

    -Incarnate Elemental of Beasts
    -Giant Spined Chaos Beast
    -Curs'd Ettin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Giant Spined Chaos Beast is already in the RH: WoC book uploaded here.

      The other probably won't be included in any one army book, but I might make rules that allows them to be taken as "allies" or Dow.

      Delete
  19. Mathias

    I'm sure you know about 9th age already, so I'm just wondering if if you have any overall thoughts on rule design for your own 9th ed version?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think I covered most of it: https://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.se/2016/02/warhammer-9th-edition-beta-out-now.html

      Delete
  20. It does seem like a lot of your overall changing of units from Special to Rare are aimed at somewhat limiting what kind of armies one can expect to meet, which I do like. I don't like games that are more or less won on paper, before the game evenn starts, due to some all monster or all.flying list or something similar. It should be about the game itself, and the tactics employed, more than making the unbeatable army on paper.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Have you given any thought to writing tules for the following:

    1. Giving Cavalry/Monstrous Cavalry the ability to break trough units consisting of smaller models, without having to have them fail a Break Test?

    2. Allowing some form of missile fire into close combat, from Javelins being thrown into exposed flanks, to actual volley fire into close combat with the risk to both sides?

    3. Some for of "Testudo" rule for infantry/monstrous infantry with Shields?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for the late reply!

      1. Considered yes, but I would worry that it might make them too overpowered. Feel free to playtest it and let me know how it plays out.

      2. Considered as well, but it did add a lot of fiddly rules exceptions, so ultimately I scrapped it. I will see if it would be possible to add in in a simple way.

      3. The Norse have it as part of their Shieldwall, and Cathay has it as a stratagem. It might be a bit too fiddly to work for a lot of units though, especially those with smaller shields who really would not be able to make a very useful shieldwall.

      Delete
  22. Ijust assumed you had taken a well-deserved vacation Mathias.

    Regarding the following:

    1. Cavalry wasn't exactly overpowered in 8th ed, and with the removal of the supporting attacks, and overall increase in static CR, one can hardly argue they have gotten more powerful, even with the impact rule added. The "problem" is the Steadfast rule, which almost makes it impossible to break large infantry units on the charge, regardless of the damage done. This tends to make Cavalry fairly useless from a point perspective, and certainly not overpowered in any way.
    That said, I wouldn't want to see Cavalry being as powerful in 7th ed either, where they more or less broke everything on the charge by default.
    I think having such a rule (and balancing it out properly) is a good middle ground, and it is more historically accurate as well, which I personally find to often be a good guideline.
    I can try to come up with a "Breakthrough" rule for Cavalry and test it out if you like Matias.

    2. I agree. It would have to be somewhat uncomplicated. I think I would have two different rules so to speak though. One for shooting into melee combat at target's unengaged arcs, and one for mass volley fire into close combat. The second one I'd only allow if your own unit had the Expendable rule. Otherwise, one must make some sort of loss of morale rule etc, and the whole thing becomes very complicated. Forexceptions, I'd rather give some special characters the option of counting certain unit types in the army as Expendable instead...

    The first option can be quit simple.
    -Attacks cannot be done at Long Range, and only from a target arc that is unengaged in melee. Hits can only be distributed to models that are not in base combat with a friendly model, unless the enemy model has a US that is at least two points higher than any model in base contact with him from the player's side.

    The "Volley of Death" option, i'd simply tie to the Expandable rule. Just add radomized hits, and perhaps disallow armour from shields as they are engaged in melee already.

    3. I can see the arugment that it is not equally valid for all units, considering arious shield sizes etc. It could offcourse be made into a general special rule, which could be applied to infantry units on a unit to unit basis. This solution would perhaps be the best, and most appropriate, but going through all army books and applying this rule to the relevant infantry units is quite a bit of work. :-/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you overestimate Steadfast. The unit only test on its own LD, so a group of Nightgoblins would test on LD 5 fx, despite a nearby Warboss. Even with a BSB thats a pretty hard sell. It does mean that cav should not charge, all on their ownsome, into the front of a fully ranked, mid-high-LD unit with a BSB near by, but thats hardly unfair. Heavy cavalry should not be the answer to everything and should not necessarily be easy to use effectively.

      Delete
    2. Further, you could field a unit of cav in a 6x3 (150x150mm) for a US of 36. With the limitations on depth <= width not many units, even frontline infantry, would now field that high a US, and this they would not be steadfast.

      Delete
  23. Ravensdark:

    If you have to go for a LD 5 unit (which is quite rare overall) to sell the idea that steadfast is not as good, I think it becomes a bit unfair... I think one must use 7 as a baseline when looking at overall rules to determine balance, not go with the "fringe" army elements out there.

    I do however agree completely that Heavy Cavalry should not be the answer to everything, but I also at the same time think that it should be a good solution to some things...

    A unit of 18 Cavalry (which is bigger than I've personally ever used in WHFB, by far), would cost what? 500 pts at the very least? For 500 Points, one can easily get an infantry unit that can halt, neutralize (and probably slaughter) any such unit...

    In most cases, one really only need to take a LD test on the first turn (assuming the Cavalry charged), after that the Lance and Impact hits are spent, and most heavy Cavalry die a slow death (assuming they don't break quickly, which is more likely now doe to a slight Increase in static CR due to outnumbering).

    I might have misunderstood something in your last post Ravendark. What limitations on depts were you talking about in particular?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Breakthrough Special Rule (added under Cavalry and Monstrous Cavalry)

    If the unit wins the combat resolution by more than the enemy unit(s) combined rank bonuses added together, and the enemy unit(s) in unit's own Front does not Break and Flee; Cavaly/Monstrous Cavalry unit may decide to break through to the other side.

    In this case, the unit takes an automatic D6 hits, resolved as if hit in close combat from the unit in its front, distributed as shooting, before rolling a normal Pursuit roll. If there are several enemy units engaged in it's Front, the one with the highest US makes the attacks.

    This move may take them into a new Close Combat, in which case it counts as Pursuing into a new enemy as normal. There needs to be space to place the "pursuing" unit's models on the table behind the previous enemy unit(s, for a Breakthrough to be allowed, and even if the distance rolled was not great enough to get clear of the enemy unit(s), they are placed with 1" between them.

    A suggestion in any case. You can probably word it far better than me, but you get the idea behind it Mathias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A bit late to the party I know. Been tinkering with the rule, going through various scenarios it could be used.

      1 cavalry vs 1 infantry - cavalry wins, manage to breakthrough. Here are the things that would happen:

      A) The cavalry unit is allowed to test to reform as if they had pursued down a fleeing enemy. The infantry unit is allowed to test reform from defeat.

      Outcome 1: if the cavalry unit pass and the infantry fail, they will charge the infantry in their front since the infantry is allowed to reform in their turn.
      Outcome 2: if the infantry unit pass and the cavalry fail, they will charge the cavalry in their rear since the infantry is allowed to reform in their turn.
      Outcome 3: if both units pass, the infantry will charge the cavalry in their front since the infantry is allowed to reform in their turn.
      Outcome 4: if both units fail, the infantry will charge the cavalry in their front since the cavalry must first spend one round turning around and infantry is allowed to reform in their turn.

      Result: In 3/4 scenarios, breakthrough is negative for cavalry.

      B) The cavalry unit is left with their rear towards the enemy unit, as if they had failed to catch their target. The infantry unit is allowed to reform from defeat.
      Outcome 1: If the infantry unit fail, they will charge the cavalry in their front.
      Outcome 2: If the infantry unit pass, they will charge the cavalry in their rear.

      Result: breakthrough is negative for cavalry.

      C) The cavalry unit is allowed to test to reform as if they had pursued down a fleeing enemy. The infantry unit is not allowed to reform from defeat.

      Outcome 1: if the cavalry unit pass, they will charge the infantry in their rear or front again since the infantry is allowed to reform in their turn.
      Outcome 2: The infantry unit will get charged in their front since the infantry is allowed to reform in their turn.

      Result: breakthrough is postive for cavalry.

      D) The cavalry unit is left with their rear towards the enemy unit, as if they had failed to catch their target. The infantry unit is not allowed to reform from defeat.

      Outcome 1: The infantry will charge the cavalry in their front since the cavalry must first spend one round turning around and infantry is allowed to reform in their turn.

      Result: breakthrough is negative for cavalry.

      So all in all, breakthrough is really not that great, and Scenario C is not really very fair to the infantry. Now, if you combine breakthrough with another unit engaging the enemy infantry that's another story, but in that case, you are more likely to want to stay in combat anyway so you can break the enemy through static combat res (unless the second unit is chaff). But all in all, I don't think a breakthrough rule will add much to the cavalry's power.

      Delete
  25. A new rule suggestion Mathias.

    Could it be an idea to bring the Horde rule back in a new form, but with some changes:

    -As a special rule, perhaps most commonly given to units of Core infantry armed with spears and halberds.
    -Only 8 models wide is needed, instead of 10.


    Admittedly, I haven't playtested the idea, but it would be a good way to encourage more core units to be taken, especially Spear and Halberd ones...
    The rule could also be used for other units such as Zombies and the like, that move and fight in unorthodox manners.
    It would also serve to make Halberd units a bit more competitive when compared to Great Weapons ones.
    The rule can also be used to distuingish between undisciplined warriors and well trained warriors a bit more.

    Just a thought Mathias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, spears already have "horde" built in, so they don't really need it in 9th ed. There are not many armies in which core units have access to both halberds and great weapons, and great weapons costs twice as much, so this is not really much of a an issue for them either. Zombies will get Fight in Extra ranks instead.

      Delete
  26. When starting your new edition of WHFB rules Mathias, have you given some thoughts to the issue of cost-effective warrior type heroes?

    Traditionally, unless they can provide some sort of unit bonus by default, they tend not to be taken, due to their relative high cost for what you get in return. The BSB is an exception offcourse, and the other tend to be if a multiple heroes Deathstar unit is taken, which from what I understand, is not what you're aiming for to encourage here.

    A suggestion:

    Give a "Inspiring Warrior" abilty to all warrior type heroes (and Lords), which grants supporting attacks to the unit he leads.

    This will encourage the use of warrior characters more, but more importantly, spread them out over more units in the army...

    You already know I'm not a fan of removing Supporting Attacks to begin with, but I honestly think this will do quite a lot for bringing warrior heroes back into the game as a relevant thing. Furthermore, since Supporting attacks (and the horde rule) have been so thoroughly tested in 8th, you're in little danger of unbalancing things too much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, this is actually taken care of in 9th ed. Since steadfast and the like are taken at a unit's unmodified Ld now, it's much more beneficial to add a Ld8 hero to a Ld7 unit, giving them Ld8 for steadfast, whereas they would use the general's Ld in 8th ed.

      The other thing that makes warrior heroes more effective is actually the removal of supporting attacks. With the units themselves inflicting less damage, having a hero in the unit becomes a more important factor since they will inflict a higher percentage of the casualties compared to 8th ed.

      Delete
  27. How about granting units with Shields (not bucklers) an additional point of AS vs missile fire from the Front and Flanks, unless engaged in close combat? Relativly simple. Shields is after all the most effective thing vs arrowas after all (arguably even more so than medium armour or the likes of a thick cloak).

    This would do a little to boost Hand Weapon and Shield,and Spear and Shield units in the game as well, especially with your rather big improvement to bow fire, and other BS based fire in general.


    I think your improved missile fire is a good solution, as it helps provide a solution to high damage dealing elite infantry first and foremost, but if it also makes core infantry less useful, it can become a potential problem I think, especially as you've made infantry Charges slower with rolling D3's instead of D6's as well, which might allow for even more rounds to shoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not a bad idea actually, I did consider something like that a while ago. Would be a simple addition of making their profile the following:

      Combat: Missile: Special Rules:
      +1/6+ +2/5+* Parry (6+)**

      *Only applies to missile attacks in the front arc.
      **Only applies if used with a hand weapon.

      This would also mean that you would not be getting any save at all from the shield if you get fired upon in the flank or rear, which balances out rather nicely with added armour to the front (and makes sense too!). Consider it added!

      Delete
    2. A very welcome addition. I am principally against adding to the weight of the rulebook since it discourages new players and slows down the game, but this rule is very intuitive, something a newbie might even assume to be the case, especially if they are familiar with medieval-style RTS/TBS.

      I'm looking forward to it being implemented in full, a new, intuitive tactical dimension, which puts even more weight on movement, is always welcome!

      Delete
  28. I Only mean for Infantry & Monstrous Infantry btw.. Cavalry can't really use shields in such a fashion effectivly.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Maybe just +1 AS vs missile attacks from the front is enough as well... The shield can't be everywhere if fired at from multiple sources/directions after all..

    ReplyDelete
  30. please change the cannon rules do they either scatter or overshoot as it seems like over kill that their are 2 different roles you must make. these roles in total mean the a dwarf cannon can now miss a target by further then a goblin rock lobba or similar contraption. also scattering to one side or the other is strange as cannons normally go on a reasonably strait line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason I added a scatter roll to the cannon is so that you cannot snipe single models as easily, which was the problem in 8th ed. A cannon shot can at most scatter 3" to the side (and 50% of the time it will even scatter in the direction of the target), whereas a stone thrower can scatter up 10", and only away from from the target, so it's a pretty big difference. That's also why cannons are about 20% cheaper in 9th ed.

      Delete
    2. i rather like the D3 scatter on the cannon.
      cannon from the historical period of witch wfb empire is based, had relay pore aim. why it was used on massed infantry formations and castle walls. (and they even missed these formidable targets quite often)
      artillery first became quite accurate during the later parts of WW I and the formidable killing machine it is today during WW II. before that it mostly served as a morale weapon.

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

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Mathias,
    Two things in the newest rulebook make me wonder:
    -Why is always strike last in initiative order if both combatants have the rule, but always strike first is in the same initiative step. I think it would make more sense to have always strike first in initiative order as well, if both combatants have it.
    -The rules for monsters with character mounts states the following: "Some characters can ride monsters, in which case the model uses the rules for monstrous cavalry." In this case does the Monster then lose Terror, Stomp and Large Target to gain Fear, Impact Hits(1) and Swiftstride?

    I really like what you have done so far :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really think there is a reason to still include the "Some characters can ride monsters, in which case the model uses the rules for monstrous cavalry."-paragraph any longer. It made sense in earlier iterations but I cant really see any use for it now. The only thing I can think of is that the character should add +1 US to the model.
      The model is obviously not less terrifying or a smaller target because it has a rider. Are you being fastidious?

      The part about ASF/ASL makes sense, uniformity would be nice. Also unsurprising to see a HE player looking for more advantage. First born, first served, ey? ^^

      Delete
  33. A question about Destroy Magic Scroll has come up. What effect does it have on bound spells? Since magic items can be destroyed by a miscast I guess it would make sense that the scroll could destroy them too.
    Innate bound spells are sometimes provided by a very expensive model (casket of souls fx) so it might be too powerful to be able to destroy the spell.
    Either way, the scroll needs some clarification.

    Thanks for your hard work!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have a question. Since Characters riding dragons take wounds and toughtness from the riding beast as a cavalry unit. An Elf Lord riding a Dragon would be T6 and W6?

    Thanks a lot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he is riding a Moon Dragon that is indeed the case.

      Delete