Thursday, 7 September 2017

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.072 out now!

Updated  16/9:
  • Template weapons can only cause one hit on a single model in a building.
  • Ridden Mo gain +1Unit Strength.
  • Template weapons may not target units in close combat (the risk of hitting your own troops as well as unfair Mo sniping is too great).

Updated  8/9:
  • Fixed bugs with spears getting strength bonus 2.
  • Added strength bonus 1 to pikes.
  • Removed duplicate two hand weapons entry.
  • Stomps cause D3 hits against skirmishers and lone models.
  • Shooting into combat may only be done against units with US5 or more.

Well, the results of the poll are in, and it's pretty clear that the majority want supporting attacks to return! 26% liked the current system of 1 rank fighting, 41% preferred the 8th ed version, and 32% preferred to see a change to some weapons to balance it out. While the most popular option was the 8th ed version, 59% did want another option, and as such, I do think trying to fix the issues that 8th ed had with supporting attacks is the best way to go rather than just bringing them back wholesale.

I personally do not have a problem with supporting attacks per say, the issue with them was only really that it benefitted certain weapons too much, while other were made much worse, especially combined with the Horde rule. As such, this update contains the following changes to attempt to fix this, and more:

  • Supporting attacks are back (Horde is not). 
  • Great weapons get +1 Strength and the Strength Bonus (1) special rule, meaning you only get +1 Strength after the first round. This makes great weapons more like shock troops weapons, but are not completly useless like flails after the first round (other alternatives discussed was +1S and AP, no supporting attacks and no strength bonus for supporting attacks, but I think +2 strength the first round is the best way of keeping them close to their original role).
  • Spears get +1 Strength when charged by WB, Ca, MI, MB, MC, Ch, and Mo.
  • Additional hand weapons get the Parry special rule.
  • Javelins get armour piercing instead of multiple shots (2).
  • Throwing axes no longer get multiple shots.
  • Throwing weapons have range 8".
  • Units within 4" of enemy flanks or rear may shoot into combat. Rolls of 1 results in hitting your own unit. This makes skirmishers and fast cavalry with missile weapons more useful after the first turns, when most units are engaged in combat and their use on the battlefield is negligible.
  • Only Unit Strength 5 is required for +1 Charge combat resolution.
  • Removed Charge Bonus special rule, it is now simply Strength Bonus listed as only working when charging under the applicable weapons. 
  • Charge Distance is measured to the nearest point that you can draw a straight line to between the units involved (rather than the closest distance period, which means you technically can measure the range between impassable terrain, even of the charging unit would have to wheel around it).
  • Models with multiple attacks must allocate all their attacks towards the same target (just like shooting attacks).
  • Clarified that combat reforms are made after any pursue distance is made (in case of combats involving multiple units)
  • Removed "Look Out sir" roll, as long there are 5 rank and file models, you hit one of these automatically instead. This removes character sniping completely as well as avoiding too see your general die from an unlucky roll.
  • Cannons no longer scatters, but work as in 8th ed. Having playtested it more myself, the scatter rarerly has any effect anyway, and so just slows down the game. With the limitation on only firing in a 45 degree arc as well as only direct hits causing D6 Wounds, Monsters already have a better chance of survival compared to 8th ed.
  • Removed Last Stand rule, banner bearers now flee with their unit and keep their banner (unless killed of course).
  • Seized Standards now also applies to units that dies from a sucessful pursuit move.
  • Volley Fire can be used to Stand and Shoot against Flyers and Large Targets. It gives -1 to saves from cover (e.g. hard cover counts as soft cover, soft cover does nothing). Does not apply to buildings or forests.
  • Characters are limited to 35% of the army. Lords and Heroes may be 25% as before, but no more than 35% in total. This is meant to take the game away from Hero-hammer further and focus more on the units themselves. 
  • You may use a maximum of three dice when casting bounds spells (just like level 1 wizards).
  • Fixed bug with frenzy not allowing parry. 
  • Fixed bug with Overkill giving +5 CR.
  •  
I am planning some possible changes to the magic system with the next update if necessary. Are there anything you think needs to change with the current system in regards to casting values and how casting works?

65 comments:

  1. -The strength bonus for spears is 2 instead of 1. It should also apply to pikes though I would give a strength bonus of 2 for pikes.
    -Two/Additional Hand Weapons is entered twice.
    -The upper limit of wounds for Infantry, Cavalry and Beasts is 3 wounds. The lower limit of wounds for Monstrous ________ is 3 wounds and the upper limit is 5 wounds. So that something several times bigger isn't able to take less abuse than something smaller than it, I think Monsters with 4 wounds should either be demoted to Monstrous Beasts/Infantry or get a small boost to 5 wounds.
    -Regarding shooting into close combat, I think the rules for doing that should be a bit more involved. I would make any unit able to shoot into close combat with misses having a chance of hitting your side. A miss would normally have a 4+ chance of hitting your side that is modified by the difference between your units unit strength and your opponents. If your side is cavalry (Unit Strength 2) and the opponents is Infantry (Unit Strength 1) then your side gets hit by a missed shot on a 3+ and so on. Maximum chance of hitting your side is 2+ and minimum chance of hitting your side is 6+.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. -Since you've changed Javelins, I think the Great Throwing Spear used by Ogre Hunters should have Armor Piercing as well. A spear should be harder to throw than a Javelin so I would their spear a 9" range but +1 Strength.
      -Some talk about Stomps was made so here's my two cents. I think lone models and skirmishers should be immune to stomps. The stomp is used to represent a large creature hitting opponents with its movements alone without thinking about it. Against massed units, it's easy for something large to trod on something without thinking, however, against opponents who spread out or are alone, the creature will have to make an active effort to trod on its targets.

      Delete
    2. -There is one more issue with your changes. How would Ironfists and Patas be affected by your modification to additional hand weapons? Now, using it as a second hand weapon is always the superior choice. I would think having those count as additional hand weapons and giving Indan and Ogre units access to shields will suffice.

      Delete
    3. - Fixed the bugs.
      - That might be something I need to go through in each individual army book at a later date.
      - I think that would overcomplicate things too much, but I've added that you cannot fire at units less than US5 as the risk of hitting your own troops is too great then.
      - Yes, I will add AP them. However, the great throwing spear is just like a javelin for ogres, so they do not need to have lower range imo.
      - Made it so they only inflict D3 hits against them instead.
      - Will need to go over them in future updates.

      Delete
  2. I think this is a good list of changes Mathias. I'm excited to try this out on the gaming table at least.

    Your Great Weapon solution will be fun to playtest to see how it does balance out. It is certainly a solution that is within it's traditional point cost, comparable to the halberd etc, as it should be. Overall I think it will work well, my only concern with it is that it makes the flail a bit redundant an option for units where both are an option, but that is not a big thing by any stretch of the imagination.
    I'm generally not formaking to big changes when it comes to weapon balance in one go in general (due to the complex nature of the game), but I think this is a good, safe step to make. If it still proves that GW's will dominate the game, you could always go to +1 Strenght Amour Piercing as a slght nerf, but time will tell if this is needed or not. :-)

    I love that you listened on the spears idea and didn't just make it work against cavalry. It's going to make spears an exitingcore option in many armies again, which I think we both wanted to see :-)

    Happy you liked the shooting into close combatidea, based on your changed missile rules. That is going to be exciting to test out I think. I might regret that as I'll likey play a lot against Wood Elves, but I still think it is worth it to make missile units, especially short range missile units a bit more usefull once the main battl-line engage in cose combat. I lso think this will help change the meta a bit, as unit types such cavalry will be more needed in a support role.

    Interesting that you made characters safe from sniping within units of five or more models, but initially I like it.

    Theonly thing I'm really a bit unsure of, is the 35% character limit tbh, as this might adversely affect some armies in comparison to others. You know Im by far no herohammer enthusiast, so that is not where I'm coming from. I'm considering how it might impact some armies, especially in smaller games. I fear that it will severely limit hero level characters in typical supportive roles such as BSB's, wizards, priests, assassins and the like finding space in some higher cost type army lists. I think it could ecourage people to go all-in on lords, to the detrement of lesser heroes being scattered around in various units, which could potentially also encourage more lords in "deathstar" type units instead ofmoreunits buffed by various heroes. I'm not sure how this will pan out, but this is what I fear. The problem in the Herohammer days wasn't as much the number of heroes, it was how you were rewarded for putting more points in an over powered character, supported by cheap rank and file to give static CR support, instead of puting points into a regiment for it to actually fight.
    So on this idea I'm somewhat reserved, but I'm more than willing to test it out before I judge it to hard, one way or another.

    All-in-all, I think this is an exciting list of changes Mathias, and I think it will be exciting to see what people think once people start to get some games under their belts. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Btw, I posted a suggested list of possible changes in the WAP oogle Group thing Mathias. Based on the idea of adding them on top of your initial changes, without having to do anything with casting values themselves (as many have invested a lot in the excellent cards already). The only spell that needs it casting value fixed is the dark magic spell power of darkness I think.

      As it now stands magic is not cost-effective to go for in my opinion, due to increased miscast risk when casting due to more dice having to weigh up for the loss of the adding of the wizard level to the casting roll, which ultimately also means you end up casting slightly less spells on average, even with increased channeling effect. It also makes some of the 25+ casting values not worth the risk aiming forthem, even on 6 dice roll.

      I do love that you have limited the highter casting spell to higher level wizards though. It makes sense from a lore perspective, plus now that the Deathstar meta is changed, these spells which were in many ways the number one counter to otherwise invincible death star units, will be more of a rare sight which on balance I think is a good thing.

      Delete
  3. New ideas to magic system:
    Each Wizard Channel one energy/dispel dices intead of several but the following modifiers are applied:
    - Level 1 chaneels with 6+
    - Level 2 chaneels with 5+
    - Level 3 channels with 4+
    - Level 4 channels with 3+

    The spells election system I think is already appropiate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about rolls 1D6 and adds the wizards level and on a 7+ succeeds in changeling. It would have the same result but possibly be easier to explain.

      I definitely agree with you on the spells election system.

      Delete
    2. It seems a bit counter productive to what Mathias seems to be trying to do as far as how magic works in the game.

      Do you mean Mathias'es spell selection system or the 8th ed spell selection system?
      I personally far prefer Mathias'es system for more balanced gameplay which is also far more realistic from a lore perspective.

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

      Delete
    4. The proposed channelling system would weaken magicians powers and the only reason I can see for that involves more witch hunters then sound rule changes. Given that I haven't played 9th edition recently I personally think that keeping things as they are is probably best.

      As for the spell selection system I also far prefer the 9th ed one given that it prevents a level one wizard ending up with the most powerful spell in their lore.

      Delete
    5. I,d rather prefer mathias election system to prevent widards level 1 casting too stronger spells

      Delete
  4. I've been looking at your update order Mathias and a thought struck me. Could it be an idea to split Chaos into Warriors of Chaos (those with the mark of chaos in some fashion and a "Northern Tribes" type army list?

    I must admit that I don't particularly follow the Age of Sigmar thing and the new modelrange there, but it does seem to me that a lot of these, alongside some end times models, could be incorporated in a single Warriors of Chaos list to represent the true servants of the dark gods. No Marauders in the list, but other units included to compensate.

    The Northern tribes list could be based mainly on norsca (full roster from the Total War: Warhammer game), but it could also be a good way to expand on other tribes, such as the Hung, the Kurgan, which so far has pretty much only been represented in very generic terms.

    Since you know more about the AOS model range etc than I do, you can likely make a better judgement as to if this is a good idea or not than I can.

    Personally if find the idea of expanding on the various northern tribes and not just having them as the lowest of the warriors of chaos as an intriguing prospect, from both a lore and tactical erspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This may be a good idea but I'm no expert on the norther tribes.

      Delete
    2. Me neither tbh, but Total War: Warhammer has a bit about the norse faction that can be used and I know ther is sme lore out there about the larger tribes like the Kurgan, Hung, the various norscan tribes and the like.

      I seem to recall warhammer fantasy rpg, 2nd ed had a fair amount on some of he tribes, but I'd have to go through the books and see. I assume this information might have been posted in various WHFB sources, but I assume Mathias is more up to date in that regard.

      Personally I think it could be interesting to see if there was enough material and enough in the form of possible units etc to give the various tribes their own uniqueness on the gaming table. The Norse I'm not concerned about, but rather the other tribes. That said, if Maruaders, Marauder Horsemen, Trolls, Ogres, the Giant, (basically the non-mark of chaos type units) were taken out of the Warriors of Chaos list and moved to the tribes, then I think it could be doable.

      This is offcourse dependent on being able to fill the WoC list with enough new stuff from the AoS/End times model range to make up fo the loss.

      The idea intrigues me though, one of the reasons being that it always annoyed me that the generic Marauders on the big 25mm bases didn't really come off in game terms as any real threat to other human armies etc.

      Delete
    3. Mathias: Do you own or have access to the warhammer fantasy rpg 2nd ed books? I assume you do, but thought I'd check just in case.

      Delete
    4. As it stands right now, I'm not planning on making any major changes like that, I'd prefer to make expansions for the gods themselves in that case so players can keep using all their models in the same army.

      I will include some more background of both the Kurgan, Hung and the Dolgans though, but I have not found much background that would really make them have much in terms of unique rules. They would be similar to Huns and Mongols (maybe with some Conan in there), but this playstyle is already in the game with the Hobgoblins.

      Delete
    5. Do you mean having the WoC list as is today pretty much, then stacking an expansion for each god on top of that, or do you mean that the expansions will be seperate army lists on the gaming table?

      In the former situation, I fear it will make the WoC list become a very bloated list in terms of overall unit options compared with all the other army book and constitute a bit of a power creep due to your opponent having a greatly increased unknown to prepare for.

      If these lists are seperate army lists, my initial impression is that it is likely to make them very narrow in scope and lack tactical diversity.

      My two cents on it anyway.


      I'm not sure if that was a yes or a no in terms of the whfrp question Mathias, but If you don't have it, I can search through my books and do some scanning for you if you'd like.

      Delete
    6. Yes, they would get the expansions as an addition to their normal army book. However, most of the units are pretty similar to other others already in the WoC book, so it's not going to be a huge difference including them or not. It will allow you to make mono-god armies of course, but much like Cult of Ulric list, they are meant to be used in addition to their parent book so to speak.

      I have all the WFRP pdf's (except Hero's Call) so there's no need to go scanning :)

      Delete
    7. What's your thought on making having a character with a particular mark of chaos to be able to have units with the same mark in the army list? It could help shape more themed chaos armies, which also makes some sense considering the animosity between the followers of the various gods etc...

      Ok. Good to know. :-)

      Delete
    8. Btw, one of the things that concerned me a little was the huge amount of possible Monstrous Infantry you could have in one list; Chaos Trolls, Chaos Ogres, 1-2 Khorne Units, 1 Nurgle Unit? and on top of that Chaos Spawn and Dragon Ogres. The other gods might have something that I've missed too for all I know.

      Delete
    9. Maybe, not sure if the lore would really demand it though.

      WoC do not have that many MI, Trolls and Ogres are the only ones really. Blightkings and Wrathmongers are just infantry on big bases (or "hero" units), not MI. Their huge number of monsters is a bigger issue in that regard.

      Delete
    10. Oh, the Blightkings, Wrathmongers and the Skull-somethingsomething are not Monstrous Infantry? I really thought they were based upon their base sizes etc. My mistake. I didn't play any during the whole End Times thing.

      Monsters are an easy fix though. Just remove the Giant and hand the War Mammoth over to the Norse. Not every army needs a version of a giant, and both the giant and the war Mammoth is more of a natural fit in a Norse army in my opinion.
      Regarding WoC Monsters btw, is the Mutalith Vortex Beast something that really sees much use anywhere? It seems to me like you'd have to be really lucky with it for it to be worth the points. The Slaugtherbrute has sort of gotten a needed buff with it now possibly hitting on 2+ due to the WS/WS change, so I think that is somewhat usefull (although a bit squishy).
      I might be wrong regarding the Vortex Beast, since I've actually never played it, but it does strike me as a bit sub-par from reading the rules.

      Delete
    11. You could argue the character & unit question both ways I guess, but off the top of my head I can't recall any unit of tzeentch for example following a Nurge general, without some strong (and motivated) tzeentch character taking charge. But more importatly, It could serve as a good way to stop all chaos armies looking like a bunch of handpicked elites from all the goods, i.e Khorne for the front line soldiers, wizards of tzeentch, fast cav of slaanesh etc etc. You get my point :-) It would reign in the diverse tactical options a bit from what will become a very bloated army list overall, even if a few monsters are taken out. It is sort of the same reason why I detested the idea of an High Elf Monster army list for example. It is not fair to expect any opponent to always have to make an army list that can actually counter something so far outside the norm, just in case that is what one will end up facing. Any army list that gets to many options to select from puts any opponent at that kind of a disadvantage from the very start. I'm not saying it will be the same as a monster list, just to be clear, but that to a lesser extent having any army list with such a wide specter of selections will have a little of the same overall effect.

      Delete
  5. Mathias:

    Doing a little "proof" reading if you will of the updates here and I think you perhaps need to clarify a bit when using template weapons when shooting into close combat, if this is also following the 4" range rule and the unit strength of 5 limitation. If not, then catapults and the like can be severely abused for one thing and I also thought a bit about what "accidentally" means in game terms when you take into consideration scatter and/or artillery dice in general.
    I just though this section could be clarified a bit better to avoid misunderstandings and arguments.

    A though about the Unit Strength 5 limitation btw. I liked it and it makes sense, but I think Large Targets should always be a valid target regardless of Unit Strength (not that many monsters has a unit strength of more than 5 after all). Otherwise a nice touch.

    Under Monsters on p.67, under "Character Mounts" it refers to monstrous cavalry in regard to split profile and special rules, while those rules are listed under Cavary, not Monstrous Cavalry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will clarify that. I don't think there are any monsters with US4 nowadays except the Griffon, which really isn't that big anyway.

      Delete
    2. I read through a lot of rules before posting, and mistakingly thought it had said that you could not target unit strength 5 or below, instead of you being able to target unit strength 5 and up. Not that many Large 4 Wound Monsters no, but the Manticore is another one that comes to mind and I suspect the Chaos Dwarfs may have some too. No big deal, I just thought it made sense that you could always pick out a Large Target regardless :-)

      Delete
    3. Easy to fix; I can just make it so that ridden monsters gain +1 US for their rider (same as 7th ed). Voila, all Monsters are now US5.

      Delete
    4. Yea, that solves the large ridden monster issue, but might leave some large targets still in that are not ridden monsters as such. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any, apart from the Demon Prince perhaps...
      That said though, it makes sense to add +1 US to for the rider of ridden monsters.

      On orher topics entirely Mathias, I have some questions, thoughts and suggestions:

      I am assuming that you are not going to do End Times army lists as part of your project, since you are looking to incorporate many of those same models with a new lore. If that is the case, then some of those models won't really have a use, such as Nagash for example, or the Mortharchs (Mannfred, Arkhan & Neferata). While I think the Nagash model is cool and all, I personally am more than happy with limiting him to special, agreed upon scenarioes for gameplay purposes.

      I think the Dread Abyssals model could be "saved" however, and used for the following.

      -Neferata included in the VC army list, on the beast. First off, Neferata doesn't have a very impressive model from previous editions and secondly, due to her skirts/seated positioning, this is the model that seems to be hardest to adapt to anything else of the three that can be built from the set.
      -The Mannfred Model can be used to potentially ride a zombie dragon. So he can be used on foot, on a barded nightmare or on a zombie dragon (or other suitable monster).
      -The Arkhan model itself is fairly cool looking (compared to the old chariot riding one at least) and I think he would potentially fit on some monster (I have several chaos war mammoth sized skeletal mammoths and I'll try to make him fit one of those).

      Btw, I've always wanted to make more of an Arkhan/Nagashizzar based army book myself, based on the premice of Arkhan (and some other/new Dark Lords) working in secret to prepare the world for the return of Nagash. If you look away from the End Times lore, I think it can easily be made to fit and models are not much of a problem either. Would you be interested in at some point consider a "Nagashizzar" based army book? It is not an excuse to field Nagash btw, as I wouldn't really want him as an option in the book anyway and you know my thoughts on herohammer too so...

      Delete
  6. Mathias:

    I did find the additional infor on the Kurgan and the Hung. Tome of Corruption p.151-156. I assume you have read it, but just in case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I have all their background already, but thanks anyway :)

      Delete
  7. I like your current magic system. However, I would consider giving Orcs & Goblins their own miscast table (as per previous editions) as Greenskin magic isn't like 'normal' magic. It could have the potential to be more devestating than normal or even assist the Shaman somehow, in accordance with other Greenskin aspects.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mathias:

    I've been thinking about something regarding your reduction of Overkill bonuses here. While I'm for capping how much a character might affect a combat to reduce the herohammer factor, it might adversely affect Monster type characters and character's on Monsters. If all you need to do to stop a Blodthirster in its tracks is to stack static CR and challenge it with a 1wound champion, cause it can only earn 5 points (1wound, +3 overkill, +1 charge). Maybe such unis could be able to stack up to their unit strength number of overkill CR? Just a thought.

    I'm not suggesting making Bloodthirster auto-break anything, but I'm suggesting a mechanism to make them at least able to win a combat when challenged.

    Maybe overkill could be = Unit strenght, with a minimum of +3?

    Food for thought anyway...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Champions cannot issue or accept challenges anymore.

      Delete
    2. Ah... I had completely forgotten that.. Well, that evens things out a little bit since thre could be more wounds made than just the overkill ones... Thanks Jan.

      Delete
  9. Mathias: I posted some ideas and suggestions as to one can possibly "freshen up" the VC book a little in your WAP forum. I've posted some ideas a long time ago too. Some of them would have to be adjusted to fit the new meta though. I hope you can use some of it.
    I'd be more than happy to help out regarding rules and ideas for that list. Got a lot of experience with the VC lists overall throughout the years so. Happy to help if I can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw that post. I will keep it in mind while working on the book. About the bloodlines though, which powers should be generic and which should be restricted to certain bloodlines in your opinion? Another thing issue with that though is that I have yet to really find a source that mentions Vampires outside any of these bloodlines. Are there really "mixed" bloodlines out there?

      Delete
    2. Adolphus Krieger was portrayed as being of mixed Lahmian and von Carstein blood because his progenitor was a Lahmian and he later joined Mannfred. Presumably there was some blood sharing involved, given that his own spawn was also viewed as being too von Carstein to truly fit in with the Lahmians.

      Also, although it isn't quite the same, the RPG book Night's Dark Masters claims that half of all vampires are "Independent"-although there isn't much explanation for what that means.

      Delete
    3. In earlier editions there was no hintof mixing of bloodlines, but in the later editions there was to a greater and greater degree, at least between someof the bloodlines (the Strigi and necrarch likely being the odd ones out).

      I can take a look at the bloodline powers Mathias, and come up with a suggestion that I can post on the Google group forum, then we can take it from there. Just give me a few days and I'll have something posted. A baseline to start spitballing back and forth from, then you decide what you like.

      Delete
  10. Mathias: ust remembered a rule that I think needs to be tweaked a little, and it regards template weapons against buildings. While the rule is generally ok (d6 hits), it really makes it quite suicidal for single characters garrisoning a building. If a single character was standing on his own outside and he was target by a stone thrower or a dragon's breath, he would only be hit once. If he is stupid enough to take cover in a buidling, he can suddenly be hit 6 times instead... Doesn't make much sense. I suggest a maximum of 1 hit per model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've posted a new update to fix this, as well as templates into combat and ridden Mo US.

      Delete
    2. Nice.

      I've been thinking a little regarding the shooting phase and how tweaks here and there has changed the shooting phase and I wonder if perhaps Handguns could do with the Armour Piercing (2) special rule tbh.

      First off, it would be more historically accurate. for one thing.
      Secondly, with the introduction of heavier armour on average, with Medium Armour (5+) and Full Plate (3+) to the game, infantry has overall become more resistant to these weapoons, compared to previousy.

      Yes, I think overall it will be a boost for handguns, but considering how rare they are in the game I think it is fine. It is not as if they were dominating the game already so, and it will still be a waste on low Armour models regardless.

      Just some thougts before you finish the Empire and Dwarf Books. It might relate to skaven too though...

      Delete
    3. Hmm, maybe, although it's really only a few infantry models that really benefits from the armour changes (Elves mainly)

      Delete
    4. Don't forget that many heavy infantry now have 3+ armour (without a shield) which previously had 4+, and even those hat now have heavy armour (4+), used to be at 5+ etc... So it is not really the case that the armour change is so much more significant when it comes to the elves as one might think at first. I'm not suggesting changing it without a slight increase in the cost of such troops however.

      Delete
  11. I'm working on a little bit of an overhaul as far as the Vampires, their rules and their powers go Mathias. It is based on what you already have done so far, with some tweaks, some new power ideas and the like. I hope to post it on the Google Group thing soon and I hope it can inspire you to do some much needed changes to the VC army list. Feel free to use any and all ideas you think have some merit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just had a thought regarding the Volley Shot special rule Mathias. Perhaps it could only be used at above half the weapon's maximum range. Hard to really volley fire at a target that is too close after all as you need the arch for it to be effective. Drawing your bow to half its draw strength to "lob" a shot over the heads of the men in front of you to hit a target too lose would rob the shot of most of its strength too so...

    Just a thought. Keep up the good work :-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Been thinking about the Frenzy special rule and especially your removal of the LD test to restain Frenzied troops here. Ithink it is too harsh on frenzued troops, especially those with a decent movement. It makes it way to easy to bait them, almost to the point of making them, well, I won't say useless, but it is certainly not a boon in the sense fo a few extra attacks at an increasedcost making up fo such a massive drawback.

    I do understand why you looked to fix it though, as it was almost no drawback with a BSB that allowed all LD tests to be re-rolled previously.

    A suggested comprimise:

    -Allow the General's Inspiring presense to allow a LD test to restrain them and allow accompanying characters to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's still too good n youropinion, you could make Inspiring Presence or a character in the unit to allow a unit to test to restrain from Declaring a Charge using it's own undmodified Leadership.

      This could still make it valid to try to bait out most types of Frenzy units, but not make it a certainty. It would also make unit's own LD score relevant, which I think is fitting in this circumstance.

      Delete
  14. Some thoughts on the BSB:

    While I agree that the BSB is too powerful in 8th ed, I think it is perhaps a little weak in 9th ed, to the point that it might not see that much use.

    Could it be an idea to not allow the stacking of banners for CR and instead allow any units affected by the BSB rule to also re-roll any test to Rally s long as the BSB is still on the table (and not fleeing)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think allowing stacking is fine though. As for it being "weak", you do essentially get a War Banner as well as re-rolling break tests for only 25 pts, I'd say that's pretty fair.

      Delete
    2. Yes, 25 points for a War Banner and re-roll is indeed a very fair price if you look at it that way. No argument against that in itself Mathias. But you are forced to also chose that hero to begin with, and in many armies that in itself can be quite a lot of points. I just rembmber how few BSB's you saw fielded in some armies pre-8th ed, compared to in 8th ed and while this is a middle-ground solution, I'm not sure stacking more static CR is the best option, or appealing enough for people to spend the points on it. Time will tell I guess.
      I just like the notion that any 1500+ pts army is able and willing to field a BSB personally, so I'm somewhat biased in that regard. I'm also a little concerned that due to a shorter charge range, any infantry unit that now panics due to shooting (which there will be more of) will be effectvly out of the game if it doesn't immediately rally on its first turn. I like the idea of panicking a bit more then in 8th ed, which they now will since shooting is more effective and the BSB doesn't allow to re-roll panic tests, but I wouldn't mind balancing it out a bit with helping on the Rally front to compensate a little. I also think it is a cool idea in the sense that the Bale Standard is the symbol of he army as a whole, and if it is stil on the field, all is not lost etc.. :-)

      Delete
  15. Looking at the rules for characters using chariots as mounts here Mathias and I'm wondering if there isn't something missing in the chariot decription when it comes to how armourand ward saves is applied etc. Is it supposed to be as on Monsters?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it is supposed to be the same as monsters. Will clarify that further.

      Delete
  16. I just want to get some clarification if I've understood right this:

    If I've Tomb King mounted on Warsphinx it becomes one model that has W5 and T8?

    If I've Tomb King mounted on Chariot it becomes one model that has W4 and T5?



    But then comes the confusing part with chariot mounts:

    CHARIOT MOUNT
    If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole
    model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and
    follows all the rules for both characters and chariot
    models. A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules
    for ridden monsters.

    If it just makes the troop type Chariot but not the rules then these wouldn't apply from the chariot's rules:

    SPLIT PROFILE, CHARIOTS AND SUPPORTING
    ATTACKS, SPECIAL RULES, ARMOUR SAVES, CHARIOTS AND TERRAIN, CHARIOTS AND BUILDINGS, UNIT STRENGTH

    That doesn't sound right. Or I might be understanding it wrong but the main things is that it's very confusing. Should clarify better what rules are taken from the Chariot troop type and what rules from Monster troop type.

    For example I don't see any clarification which one should I use or do I use both. ("All rules" from both would say both):

    Monsters are subject to the following special rules:
    Large Target, Stomp, Terror.

    Chariots are subject to the following special rules:
    Impact Hits (D6), Swiftstride.

    I guess you understand now well the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess it would be like this:

      - Special rules from Chariots
      - Base Size from Chariots
      - Unit Strength from Chariots (This I'm not really sue, it could be either)
      - Chariots And Terrain from Chariots
      - Chariots And Buildings from Chariots
      - Character Mount from Monsters

      But for someone new to Warhammer it wouldn't be so clear what to use.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your feedback! I will clarify this further in the rules. Special rules will be the same as chariots, it's only the split profile and use of armour/ward save that is taken from the ridden monster rules.

      Delete
  17. Don't know if you missed theFrenzy and Volley shot comments above Mathias.Just pointing them out in case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, noticed them now. Good idea about Volley Shot, I'll look into Frenzy as well.

      Delete
  18. Just had first play test with 9th edition. I played with Tomb Kings and friend played with High Elves. It was just a small 1500p. quick match and the end result was pretty even.

    Shooting felt very good. 20 elf archers shooting my 4 chariots really did great damage. Then I was also able to heal them greatly but it just wasn't enough because the shooting was very effective.

    Magic channeling felt good. I think we both channeled average amount so no great advances appeared.
    Both of us miscasted once and got the same S10 base contact results and lost the rest power dices. Felt nice that there wasn't even a chance for some ridiculous "wizard dies and unit takes a huge damage" result.

    Tomb Kings D6+1 lore attribute is a nice improvement. Helped nicely that the chariots were target for shooting bit longer.

    I never got to play Scorpion Armour in the earlier edition. Combined with Blade of Anthark and having Tomb King in Tomb Guard unit makes them really resistable for damage. It was nice to finally play that combination.

    High elves had a block of 2 hand weapons unit. The parry save was a very welcome one. It was interesting to see how they struggled to hit against my TG unit with TK in it because of the lower or same WS and no re-rolls other than the 1s.

    Repeater bolt throwers shooting multiple shots felt bit underpowered. Can't remember anymore was it the bad dice rolls or the -1 to hit with multiple shots that caused more struggle for them.

    Overall things felt very good. Even having 1 more movement feels like a good bonus when charging compared to 8th edition.

    What comes about some spells, Pit Of Shades is bit overpowered very likely. Direct Damage 14+ with small template and 17+ with big template and even further possible scatter. It's only 5th spell and power level change is very mild compared to many vortexes that are 6th spells and are launched from the wizard, not deployed instantly on top of the target. IMO by the rules it's better Purple Sun without risks and lower power level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to hear you enjoyed the game! About the bolt throwers though, war machines never suffer -1 to hit for multiple shots, so they are normally stronger than in your game.

      The spells are likely to get an overdo some time in the future as well.

      Delete
  19. Btw. why Fast Cavalry is allowed to free reform only once per movement and not as many time as they like just like skirmishers, like in the previous editions? IMO one reform at the beginning or middle of the movement and one at the end of movement would be nice for Fast Cavalry for minimum.

    Another suggestion is that with the current one free reform I'd give them ability of shooting 360 without being blocked by the own models in the unit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then one little thing came in my mind about War Machines and close combat. Wouldn't it be more in the lines of the current rules for it to work this way:
      "At the start of the Close Combat phase, the player whose unit(s) are attacking the war machine can only choose Unit Strength 6 worth of models or only a single model that has Unit Strength more than 6."

      Delete
    2. Good point, I've posted a new update to fix this. I left out the fire 360 degrees though to keep them on par with the normal LoS rules though.

      Delete
    3. Not sure that's needed for the war machines as you simply rank up the crew as a normal front rank.

      Delete