Friday, 23 March 2018

Warhammer 9th ed 1.074 out now!

This updates changes the following:

  • Clarified that Standards stack from multiple units.
  • All units in base contact counts when calculating Unit Strength, rather than just units that can be Steadfast. Clarified that disrupted units may not count their ranks in multiple combats.
  • Lowered casting values of all spells by 1, making it easier to cast low-level spells especially. For those books that have not yet been updated after this update, feel free to lower casting values by 1 for the army books lores as well.
  • Signature spells can be cast multiple times in the same magic phase. 
  • Life Leeching from Lore of Death only generates additional dice on a 6+.
  • Moved Magic Resistance under the Ward save rule, since it gives a Ward save against spells. Changed Magic Resistance to the Ward save system, so Magic Resistance (5+) = Magic Resistance (2) for example.
  • Removed paragraph about Monsters in challenges, as these rule no longer applies.
  • Fixed bugs with charging/pursuing fleeing enemies killing enemy units instantly, they now follow the rules for charging fleeing enemies (losing 1W per enemy Unit Strength)
  • Fixed bug with Swiftstride not rolling 3D6 when pursuing.
  • Clarified magical armour types better and that helmets and gauntlets can be taken by all models that can wear armour.
  • Clarified how victory points for things like Fanatics and Weapon teams are calculated.
  • Clarified that Monsters who are Characters can use the BSB's Hold Your Ground! special rule.
  • Added muliple magic items from 8th Ed, with fluff descriptions for nearly all of them.
  • Multiple smaller bug fixes and changes for different terrain.

41 comments:

  1. Just wondering, would you consider bringing back kindreds for Wood Elves like they had in the 6th edition army book? It would be great to run an Alter Noble again :). And will spites still be a unit or will they return to being upgrades for characters?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kindreds will most likely no return, no. The reasonf or this being that WE now have separate character choices like Waystalkers and Shadowdancers that already cover the more unique kindreds.

      Delete
    2. Good point, I guess it's not really necessary. Also, on a completely different note, a rules question about camels. What effect does scare horses really have? Is there any time when a horse's leadership matters, or should it effect the whole model, so cavalry units facing camels are subject to fear (-1Ld)? It seems like it might have mattered in lrevious editions when you had to take fear tests or hit on 6s, if I remember the old rules correctly, but with fear being a leadership modifier now, I'm not really sure what purpose that special rule for camels serves.

      Delete
    3. That would be -1 Ld for cavalry, will clarify that.

      Delete
  2. I have a suggestion for a magic armour in the ogre kingdoms book. Troll skin/pelt that counts as ought armour and provides regeneration 4+ for maybe 35 points and limited to hunters. The beastmen used to have this but I think it fits the lore of the Hunter very well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This item will most likely see a return in the Magic Items expansion later on.

      Delete
  3. Typo in the potion of speed description. It says the potiotof toughness can be...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lowered casting value for all spells to compensate for wizard levels not being added to the total casting value any longer is A: not adequate if wizards are to be cost-effective, especially high-level casters. B: kind of screws over all the excellent magic cards that was quite a handly thing to have.

    I honestly don't think thats a good fix Mathias...

    The rest seems fine though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same, not overly keen on the reduction quite like that magic felt a little more restricted in its own way so you had to think about what you were doing more.

      It terms of casting signatures multiple times is this from the same caster or over multiple casters?

      Delete
    2. The issue with magic in 9th ed has mainly been that it's much harder to cast high-level spells due to the increased miscast chance by needing to throw more dice at these spells. By lowering the casting values a little, this makes it somewhat easier to cast those spells. What would be needed in your opinion to make wizards more cost-effective?

      I plan to make my own version of the magic cards later on to replace the current cards. This would be needed anyway as some of the spells were slightly changed.

      Delete
    3. Yes, signature spells can be cast multiple times from multiple casters as well. I will add that you cannot target the same unit with the same Signature spell more than once per Magic phase to avoid spam of Spirit Leech.

      Delete
    4. Well, with the removal of the caster level being added to the casting value, you on "average" have to spend one extra dice for each spell you attempt to cast to compensate, hence vastly increasng the chance for miscasts as well as ensuring you cast less spells due to te same dice coming from the limited casting pool. A -1 to casting value is not nearly enough to compensate for this. Also, the +35 points to increase a wizard level is MUCH higher for a vastly smaller return when compared to the same cost increase from 8th ed. This applies to Special Characters that are wizards that has this baked in too... Wizards in 8th ed were already quite a gamble when you looked at their cost, when measured against their fighter counterparts, but now it's bordering on disterously so... Armies that depend on wizards to funcktion somewhat (like Vampire counts, Tomb Kings, etc) will suffer even worse than other armies due to them being forced to include wizards and also due to the big increase in misast chance (which will often end up killng the wizard and hence more than likely automatically lose you the game)...

      With this rule, I'd ONLY ever be tempted to buy a lvl 1 Wizard and spam Signature spells tbh, which kind of ruins the idea of magic in warhammer :-/
      Many of the high cost spells are so difficult to cast that even with 6 dice, you will fail on average, which in practical terms means that it will likely never be spell you would want to even spend a spelll-slot on to begin with, especially when the risk of miscasting is taken into account as well...

      I did post some suggestion to balance this out and improve on the changes you already had implemented in the WAP forum some months ago Mathias.

      Making your own magic cards might sound fine in theory, but in practice this will mean some shabby looking printed out pieces of paper that players have printed out at home, which will never be the same as the nice cards that GW has already made and people have invested money in... Yes a few changes is needed here and ther, but those are so few that a small note can easily be written with a pencil on the cards themselves...

      Delete
    5. I had a look at your suggested changes from the forum, but the only real change I noticed was that you'd channel dispel dice on 6's instead of 4+ (would that be 4 rolls still for a level 4 wizard?) and that irresistable force would add +D6 to the casting value instead of be automatic? Other than trying to get more irrestistable force rolls, how would that make casting high-level spells easier?

      Most of the level 6 spell are little more than 15+ to cast though, which you will get on average with 4-5 dice. It's only if you try to cast the super versions (casting values at 22 or so) that you'd need to roll lucky on 6 dice.

      However, maybe it would be worth considering to remove the buffed versions of the spells and only keep the basic levels? That would keep magic a little more grounded like 6-7 th ed, and would push people more towards casting multiple spells rather than just 6-dicing the super Purple Sun.

      Delete
    6. hey Rune, Personally i think that these changes will improve things but probably not get us to perfect. I suggest we have a number of games with this rule set and provide feedback. I have been having a number of games in 9th at the 1000 to 2000 point range. So far I have discovered that the wizards are not having significant impact, too hard to cast, too limited in what I can cast. Lowering the casting values and recasting signature spells will help bring the level 1 and 2 wizards close to the old 8th ed world. In some ways they are better because they can pick their spells and now can recast so will have more options available to them.
      Regarding the miscast risk - one big change is how the miscasts are worked out, was 2D6 now it is casting dice + D6, this means that the really dangerous results are actually impossible unless you roll 6 dice (but interestingly are more likely now if you do).
      I intend to have a few games with this new rule set and then some using leve 3 and 4 wizards, both facing off against another level 4 and some when they are magically unopposed or just facing a level 1 or 2, see what happens. Personally I think the high levels are going to need some bonuses to justify their existence but I'll wait to find out.
      Mathias I have sent you a list of suggested adjustments to the signature spells to enable them to be re-cast without horrible consequences

      Delete
    7. Rune, the changes you suggested on the WAP forum, can you share those? I am also considering what improvements I could suggest and would be interested to consider other people's perspective too

      Delete
    8. Good that you're considering making own magic cards for the 9th edition. I think the new edition does need some changes in magic and just using old magic cards won't be a thing.

      Removing some of the buffed versions would be good idea. At least template ones where the template increases from 3" to 5" have always felt bit OP.

      I think the 4+ to channel power dice per wizard level is already a lot.

      One thing I still think that should be changed in the miscast table is swapping places of Detonation and Power Drain. Having Power Drain on low is really scary for 1 level wizards.

      I also kind of like the Ed's idea below. Maybe some boosted spells should only be available for higher level wizards?

      Delete
    9. Phillip: Here is the suggestions I had to improve on what Mathias had already changed:

      Channeling:

      Power Dice are generated by every wizard on a d6 of 4+.
      Dispel Dice are generated by every wizard on a d6 of 6.

      Irrisistible Force:

      Generated on 2 or more 6'es as previously, but instead of the spell being cast automatically and being impossible to dispel, you instead add either a +1d6 for each 6 rolled or you add the Wizard's level for each 6 rolled. The spell is also cast at the highest casting value it has the result to make, representing the power taking on a life of its own. If the intention was to caast the spell at a casing value that was still not met, then the spell fails but the wizard stil suffers a Miscast.

      Miscast:

      Simplified from the old miscast table:
      -Wizard takes a S6 hit, No armour save.
      -Anyone in base contact with him takes a S2 hit. No Armour Saves.
      -One Power Die is lost from the pool.
      -If the Wizard is wounded from the miscast, then he loses one magic level and the spell that was cast is the one that is removed.

      Dispel Scrolls:

      No longer autmatically stop a spell from being cast, but instead grants a free dispel roll using 6 dice.

      Delete
    10. Mathias:

      -The reason I suggested havng the chance of generating Dispel Dice reduced to 6 (as opposed oto 4+ for channeling Power dice) is that since a wizard no longer has his wizard level added to the casting value (or dispel value), you will have to spend more dice when you want to cast spells in general, hence less spells will be cast overall and with the defending player able to se if the spell was cast successfully or not before deciding to dispel (or how many dice to use), he will comparatively speaking be better off than in the old rules. Fewer low level wizards can make it too easy to defend in the magic phase and make buying a higher level wizard even less tempting than it already is. I meant only one Dice roll to channel for every wizard, power or dispel... I jus tthink the chance to generalte dispel dice need to be lower than the chance to generate power dice or the magic phase will tip too much in the defender's favour compared to previously.
      I did not suggest the rule changes to make casting high level spells easier, but to be able to keep abut the same amount of spells in the magic phase as previously. Channeling needs to be comparably more powerful for generating Power Dice than Dispel Dice for this reason.

      -Generally speaking, many of the most powerful spells in the game are spells that often are scalable in power to the size of the unit they are cast at, wheter we are talking larger templates or every model in the unit being hit etc. With The Horde rule removed, these kinds of spells will no longer have the same impact any lnger, as they will not have the same "Deathstar" type units that make them worth the risk any more. I think that this, and being able to select your spells, will make the "Do or Die" kind of spells have a lesser impact on the game by default. That said, I stll think they serve a role in discouraging too much Herohammer play, which the removal of hordes & the removal of warmachine sniping of characers has done to change the dynamic of the game, so I would not like to see them entirely nerfed out of existence by any means...

      -Regarding Irresistable force, it is bit of a tricky thing for sure, but my suggestion that had to do with adding Dice wasn't a suggestion to really be able to cast those high level spells, but to basically make one able to basically dispel any spell in the game instead of having spells cast that one can't dispel at all. I also suggested making dispel scrolls a 6 die dispel instead of an automatic one, to make it a bit less enticing to have the same old scroll carriers we've seen for years now.

      -An alternatie rule for "Irresistable force" could simply be that when casting spells, every '6' rolled beyond the first, you then added another free D6 that could potentially take you above the maximum 6 dice normally used for casting and did not come from he power pool. That would make higher casting level spells a bit more attainable for higher level wizards while also keeping Irresistable Force far less likely for lower level wizards due to the reduced number of dice they use etc... Would make higher leel wizards at least a little more tempting than they are right now...

      -If the Miscast table was removed and changed to a standard effect (something similar to what I've suggested above), then higher level wizards would at least be worth taking since the risk/cost benefit would be reduced somewhat. Again, remember that it is not the same Deathstar dominating game anymore, so Wizards alreay struggle to have the same potential impact for the same level of risk...

      Delete
  5. Will we ever see a return of some of the old faction specific magic items? I do miss the build a hero but also understand that some items were over powered :-/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they will be added in a Magic Items expansion later on.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean, faction specific? You mean Skaven only, or Empire only, surely these would be in their respective army books?

      Delete
    3. Yeah so in older books 6th/7th ed many of the faction had slot of there own special items but many of them got dropped in 8th ed

      Delete
  6. I did have an idea for magic; where spells have different 'levels' (such as fireball), rather than choosing which level you want to cast the dice roll determines the level. That way you would still get something even if you failed to cast the big version of a spell or even luck in with a high dice roll...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not a bad idea at all actually, it is a little strange that trying and failing to cast a powerful spell would fail completely rather than just causing the spell to be less powerful. I mean, you are already risking a higher chance of miscast by throwing more dice at the more powerful spell, at least letting you pass the lower version would make sense.

      Delete
    2. I'd rather like to think that the Wizard automatically tried to cast as powerful a spell as he could get off by default (lets see how big a fireballl we can make!), rather than implying a wizard fails something and is then istead rewarded with a lesser version of the spell being cast.. :-P I'd word any such change more as thresholdlevels being reached when the spell was cast. :-) Not a bad idea though...

      Delete
  7. with one of the latest update, you gave the rule parry to the two hands weapons, which in very nice in my opinion. Unfortunately this rule is going to make the ogre's ironfist useless. Are you going to change in a little bit so that it makes sense again? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not entirely useless as they can choose to have the extra attack or extra armour save. Although that's definitely less of a choice than before. Perhaps ironfists could mean that it allows for the extra attack AND the extra AS...

      Delete
    2. I will look into it for their next update.

      Delete
    3. The hand weapon and Shield option has comparatively lost out in a similar manner when compared to two hand weapons as well. Just a thing to keep in mind...

      Delete
  8. I been following your work for over year, and the results are espectacula, so let me congratulate your on your great achievements!
    So, I have a foolish question:
    Any chance for a naval supplement in the far future?
    I’m not asking for a full man o war rework like the one you did for the core editions. Maybe just an update akin to what you planned for steam tanks and storm of magic?
    Perhaps just for the core races, with just a couple of basic and special ships and just one flagship to commmand them?
    Thank you for all you have done!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean like ship battles in Warhammer fantasy? Maybe, I would need think on that one. It's possible down the line I guess.

      Delete
    2. Oh, excellent!
      Yes, I am thinking naval campaigns, if only for the sake of completeness. After all, in some of your lore books, you mention important naval events, like when Cathay repelled a fleet of dark elves with their tortoise ships.
      I’m not trying to force you into anything, of course. You have done more than enough already.
      I’m willing to wait years, if necessary.
      You might not recall me, and I cannot seem to find the original comment, but I am the one who once asked you about a possible update about super legendary figures such as Nagash.
      Your response is more than appreciated, in the sense that there is at least a glimmer of consideration in your eyes!
      In any case, since I am already planning to adapt Nagash and such into your edition( following your excellent structure, of course), I was ready to adopt a generic naval war game to simulate a naval warhammer in case of a negative response.
      I don’t particularly know if some body is doing a complete rework of man o war, but I have seem attempts to at least modernize it around the net. Maybe it would worthwhile to familiarize with those in the future?
      Thnak you so much for your time, and keep putting the Goodman fight!

      Delete
    3. in one of the general compendium books there were rules for naval warfare - using figures at the normal warhammer scale. It was a little cumbersome but the biggest challenge was having the boats and a playing surface big enough

      Delete
  9. Why do ogres not have the fear special rule any more and why did butchers loose immunity to poison? Both rules made a lot of sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ogres have Fear as standard due to being Monstrous Infantry. I don't quite remember why that was removed, I will have a look at that for their next update.

      Delete
  10. Mathias: Could it be an idea of making Shields and Hand Weapons get a 5+ Parry save on foot, but removing the armour save in close combat? Armour save would still apply against missiles. It would give Hand Weapon and Shield a little buff, which it could need considering that Spears and Additional Hand Weapons have both received a little buff, which have left Hand Weapon and Shields loose some of it's lustre in comparison, not that it was much of a favourite armament before either...

    My only concern about it though is that with banners being stacked, no more horde rule, increased overall armour save for Infantry, it does help makestatic CR as opposed to kills a bit more important, but then on the other hand a 5+ Parry save wil also help negate the efect of overly powerful characters dominatng the game...


    Have you given some though to Having Miscasts being a result of a double '1' onthe casting roll? I personally never liked the change that an Irresistible Force type casting automatically was potential disaster for the Wizard in question... I think it is better to be ableto roll a moscast or Irresistable Force or both together potentially but far more rarely...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do cavalry no longer receive a +1 to their armor save?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no. But with the introduction of Medium armour, the armour itself makes up for it instead. Heavy armour is now 4+, +1 for Barding, +1 for Shield.... So generally speaking it is the same as before, but medium to heavy infantry has received a buff overall. :-)

      Delete
  12. Are banners and standards now separate distinct categories, with only the army battle standard bearer allowed to take standards?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, banners and standards are the same thing really, same as 8th ed.

      Delete