Tuesday, 8 May 2018

Warhammer 9th ed 1.083 out now!

Updated 15/5
This update changes the following:

  • Miscast table no longer removes D6 dice from the pool on any result. Magical feedback instead causes the wizard to not be allowed more spells that phase. This means that other wizards won't be penalized by one of them miscasting.
  • Returned rules to no more ranks than files again, exception for reform into column if necessary to pass by units/terrain. Unit must still be 5+ models wide.
  • Skirmishers may be less than 5 models wide.

*****

Updated 11/5

After some more feedback, I've gone back and tried to tweak the system a bit more. This update changes the following:
  • Power dice are channelled on a 5+, dispel dice on a 6.
  • Lvl 1 and 2 wizards gain +1 to cast and dispel, level 3 and 4 wizards gets +2 instead.
  • Units may at most have twice as many ranks as files.
  • Skirmishers and fast cavalry may reform into "illegal" formations during their move, provided they end their move in a legal formation.

This should have the effect that magic will scale better so you will have more plenty more power dice than dispel dice on average on higher points levels.
It also means that higher level wizards have an easier time casting the higher level spells without needing to use as many dice (and thus have a smaller chance of miscast).
The difference in casting/dispel bonus between a lvl 1 and level 4 is also much lower, which means a level 4 wizard won't be dominating the magic phase against lower level wizards, while still getting a bonus to make them worth taking over two level 2's.


*****

This update changes the following:

  • Wizard level is added to casting/dispelling again, like it 8th ed.
  • Changed casting values back to 8th ed.
  • All dice are now channelled on a 6, you still roll one per wizard level.
  • Removed limit of 12 dice in the pool (as this limit currently makes magic practically worthless in big games).
  • Removed "more files than ranks" rule. A unit may not be less than 5 models wide (for infantry) to avoid conga-lines. This means you can now build a column formation if you want, which comes with the natural downside of being easier to flank. While I'll personally prefer a longer battle line, having an arbitrary rule to stop columns is probably not the best idea.

Based on feedback from you guys, I've decided to not change the way miscasts work; it's hardly a difference if it happens on a double 1 or double 6, as the odds are the same for both anyway, and keeps it more streamlined. Irrestistable Force works the same as before. With the increase in casting potential again, I've decided to keep the boosted versions as before. Boosted spells are not being cast automatically as some of them get a shorter range compared to the normal version (applies to "bubble" spells).

In general, magic will work more similarly to 8th ed, but with easier channelling on both sides that makes the game scale better on higher points levels. I hope this will go some way of making Magic more useful again (remember that MR still works against Purple Sun and the like though!).

As always, feedback is much appreciated!

202 comments:

  1. Not a huge fan of this change for magic to be honest, liked that magic was harder to use and wasn’t a must have to have a wizard especially when t came down to dispelling defence. Any reason why it’s gone back to this system?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was mainly that Magic was a bit too hard to use for it to really be worth investing in, especially due to the increased miscast risk due to needing more dice to cast. As people have pointed out before, it's rather strange that a lvl 4 wizard is only more adapt at throwing more power into his spells, rather than being able to control them, which means that only higher lever wizards were likely to suffer from miscasts.

      You are right in that you would probably need to invest in some magic defence now, although this can be done with items and banners that give you Magic Resistance instead of wizards.

      Still, this is in a playtesting phase, so things are still subject to change.

      Delete
    2. I'm with this fellow anon. I did enjoy not being forced to bring a level 4 every game if I wanted to try anything in the magic phase. This update has basically gone back to 8th ed where level 1/2s are almost pointless. Whilst I can agree level 4s we're certainly lacking I think it's the wrong way to go about it.

      I also did enjoy the no more files than ranks kept the game looking cleaner and played better.

      Delete
    3. Do you feel that the issue is that lvl 1 and lvl2's have a hard time getting their spells through the magic defence of a lvl 4 with +4 to dispel? If so, how about limiting the dispel bonus to +1 for hero level wizards, and +2 to lord wizards, as Rune suggested? That way, a lvl 2 casting with a +2 bonus will be on par with a lvl 4 trying to dispel with +2 as well.

      Delete
    4. I'd say each wizard can only dispel once in magic phase so you can only use that bonus on one spell. With no wizards left you just don't get the bonus and dispel with the army.

      Delete
    5. An interesting idea, but in more magic heavy games my initial thoughts is that higher lvl wizards would very easily get into a steamroll kind of situation where they get the majority of their spells through with the dispel dice evaporating a bit too fast...If we assume a lvl 4 wizard attempts 4 spells, the first one will be on equal terms, but then after you are talking about a total casting bonus of 12 for the following three spells, which would amount to 4 disel dice on average just to keep up with the casting bonus alone.
      It is something that could be tried for sure, but personally I do feel that wizards could be given too much of a free reign in the magic phase if this was the case.

      Delete
  2. I just noticed that you had posted this. :-)

    My initial thoughts is that with signarture spells being free, lower lvl wizards are more flexible now, but higher lvl wizards are more powerful, which I do like... So hat is good. :-)

    -The miscast issue wasn't a big deal, but for fluff reasons I'd prefer to see them separated, but ain, not really a big deal from a balance standpoint.

    -Channeling seems fine, although I am a little bit concerned that it will make it too hard for a low lvl wizard to get spells off if facing a higher lvl one, without having to 6 dice every attempt... Perhaps magic lvl should be halved (rounding up) for dispel purposes?

    -A bit sad that you kept the all or nothing aspect of irresisatable force, but that might just be me.

    -Did you consider the idea of Wizards being able to spells using a number of pwer dice equal to or lower than their wizard level as being immune to Muscasts? It could potentially have the effect of people chosing to cast more lower lvl buff/hex spells and the like, instead of going all out with the purple sun type spells and so on at every opportunity. It would also be somewhat of a relief for armies such as the TK (mainly) that needs it's Hierophant to stay alive and yet continually to take the risks of miscasting to get the army to work somewhat properly. Losing your Hierophant to the Realm of chaos cause you had to cast a minor buff spell using 2 dice in an early game is just a waste of everyone's time and very unsatisfactory for both sides of the table I imagine (unless you play a tournament and are plesed at the lucky break offcourse).

    -removing the 12 dice cap is good for larger games for sure.You rarely go beyond that in most games anyhow, even though that is a bit more likely now due to the change in how channeling works.

    -No dispel scroll change? Scroll caddies is not good for the game I think and never has been...

    Well, you certainly did a 180 as far as the cost effectiveness of higher lvl wizards are now concerned, but I'm happy you decided to keep the signarture spells in, a that makes them stand out and also makes lower lvl wizards more valuable than previously, which overall makes magic users catch up to melee characters somewhat as far as being cost-effective in the new meta.
    In short, I'm fairly happy about the overall changes Mathias, but I still have some concerns as mentioned above, but it id definately more workable now in many ways.


    Can you elaborate on the rasoning of the removal of the "more files than ranks" rule Mathias? From what you state above I don't really see the justification for removing it, but I might be missing some possible scenario or other where it would not work. I see a lot of good reasons to include it, not the very least being to prevent unbreabable conga lines (which can really bend the movement rules as well), but if I'm missing something that is another matter offcourse. Just seems to me to be more pros than cons to keep it, as far as I can see at least...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are right in halving dispel attempts, I will probably inplement that.

      I'm not sure about making spells "safe" like that is really in the spirit of warhammer though. It's already controlled by the scaling miscast table and the odds of rolling double 6's on fewer dice as is.
      About the TK, that's not really an issue anymore as the Hierophant can be taken over by a new wizard now, similar to VC.

      I'm fine with making a scroll a 6 dice roll, makes it more exciting than an automatic cancel, I agreee.

      Delete
    2. I forgot that about TK/VC tbh... But yes, magic should be random and dangerous. It was just an idea to make it safer for higher lvl wizards to cast lower lvl spells than forlower lvl wizards to do so. It could be a bit much to let higher lvl wizards roll up to 4 dice safely though, I see that. Perhaps half wizard level (rounding up) could be an idea instead. It would give the few lvl 5 wizards something a bit more substantial as well.

      Just some ideas thrown out there.

      Delete
  3. Btw, just had a thought. What if dispel scrolls had a set dispel value of let's say 25 insted of being automatic?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like most of changes, specially deleting the uncomprensible limit of the power and dispel pool.

    Although to take advantage of it in bigger battles, we can increase the power and dispel rolls to 5+. Just a thought.

    To balance it, maybe we could limit the dispel attempt to 6 dices? (such as the cast attempt).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice. I like the choice to have more ranks than files without the conga lines. However, I also still think it makes more sense for the dice rolls to determine the version of spell cast. You could give casters the option to cast the lower version (to help with the bubble spell dilemma) even if the roll high enough for the boosted version. It would also provide some payoff for the risk of rolling for the higher version but failing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I considered that, but it it also messes with the miscast a bit. Will the more powerful version be cast automatically when you roll double 6's due to the power put into the spell?

      Delete
    2. Yea maybe, as the miscast represents the magic being out of the caster's control it would make sense to remove the option. If I imagine being the caster and I lose control of the winds as I'm casting then yea, I would expect the results of the spell to be somewhat out of my control too.

      Delete
    3. I do like this idea a lot overall, especially since it removes the whole issue of you forgetting to state which version of a spell before you rolled the dice, which an happen quite a lot...

      Delete
  6. This is not related to the rulebook, but do you have a template for army book titles? And what font do you use?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean the front cover? If so, yes. The Font is celestia antique.

      Delete
  7. Since I didn't get any response I'll post this again.
    -Perhaps a rune like system where the bonus to weapons or armor could be applied to something. The dwarves have the benefit of a more versatile system. If something was originally armor, it's boost can only be applied to armor. The Dragonhelm remains as is. Since magic items from specific books are tailored to the book, keep them as is. Leave Talismans, Arcane Items and Enchanted Items as is. Some examples:
    --Silvered Steel improves the armor save granted by armor by 2. If the best an army book has is light armor then the Silvered Steel upgrade improves it to 4+. Remove the fact that the armor cannot be improved from helmets or shields. Perhaps include a weaker upgrade that improves the save by 1.
    --A Halberd could be made a Berserker Halberd, becoming a Halberd that grants the user an unloseable Frenzy. Remove words like Blade or Sword from the name.
    -I liked making it that Miscast happen on double 1s and irresistible force happen on double 6s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure about chaning those things around too much. Hand weapons is something everyone can use, if you allow everyone to customise their weapons I think it would really take away the charm from the Dwarf system.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Also it would involve a LOT of work with all the army books for very little gain. Regardless what you call the weapon, it's te effect thatyou realy pay for. I you want to pretend that your Ogre Blade is a magical, quicker great weapon for example, you are free to do so...

      Delete
  8. the insistence that the front rank must be 5 wide still means that units can't reform to squeeze through a gap, although at least if this restriction is only for infantry then at least fast cavalry can move through gaps again

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think affecting temporary reforms such as that of fast cav slippi g through gaps was the intention to nullify phillip. I think this must just have been an oversight. I imagine the idea was to go after the ultra-cheesy and utterly unrealistic unbreakable conga lines first and foremost, but also make the game flow better in the movement phase, as narrow but deep units (lets say skavenslaves deployed 5x20) are horrendous to wheel and also stack ap an unreasonable amount of staying power due to never losing rank bonus, outnumbering and limiting the number of attacks against it (which is now further reduced with the horde rule being gone)... by having such a rule, a game become more fluent in the movement phase, less static in the combat phase and far more realistic as far as how regiments would actually fight in ancient times. In real-life, narrow formation would be surrounded and killed on an open battlefield...

      Delete
    2. Oh I agree Rune, but you either follow the rules, or you break them all over the place. Rules as Written in the previous set an unit of fast cavalry would have to move sideways at half move (no march) to get through a gap. Agree, an oversight, but still needs to be fixed. I pointed this out to Mathias and am sure will be addressed. units 5x20 are crazy and shouldn't be permitted. units 5x7 or 6x8 on the other hand I am more sympathetic to, consider pikes for an example that need 5 ranks just to be able to use the weapon to full potential

      Delete
    3. If you have a hard cap of a maximum of twice the number of ranks as files, and an absolute upper maximum of 10 ranks, it would keep things reasonable at least. Could be a solution that keeps pikemen from losing out and also slaves and the like from becomming unreasonably "powerful"...

      Delete
    4. Skirmishers and fast cavalry will get an exception to the minimum 5 models wide during their move.

      I'm fine with putting an cap on the number of ranks as well, or maybe a unit size cap would be preferable, of say 50 models per unit for infantry? It would allow expendable units to still be fielded in large numbers, but keep it within the realm of reason.

      Delete
    5. Not sure if a model cap is really needed, although it is one way to go about it for sure. I'm not at all gainst seeing goblin hordes of 50 + on the table though, as long as they have a reasonable files to rank ratio so that they can actually be killed reasonably quickly etc. No that many often field 50+ models in one unit generaly speaking, but if a player had that wish for some reason, I wouldn't mind as long as you could reasonably fight and break them in a reasonable amount of time... That's my opinion iof it anyway. Besides, such massive units are very vulnerable to certain spells etc, so I'm not overly concerned about any power creep in that regard. Those are my initial thoughts at least...

      Delete
    6. Add to my suggestion above, max one rank per file forcavalry, due to the shape of the base they are on...

      Delete
    7. I wouldn't like a model cap, because a goblin is not an elf, if there were to be a unit cap, rather than a rank one, then it should be based on points and this get very messy very quickly. A certain number of ranks more than files would be reasonable. I have a night goblin army and usually have a very larges per armed unit holding the middle, around 48 strong, 6 wide 8 deep, it takes some getting through it and I have to be careful of the flanks but it can break, and has done. My opponents have never complained about it, whereas having a unit 1 wide and 10 deep of stubborn troops to hold up an enemy is a deliberate abuse of the rules which bears no resemblance to reality

      Delete
  9. Last night I played a game with the previous rule set, deliberately to try out the magic rules, so we took lots. One player had Morathi, a level 2 and 2 units of Doomfire warlocks, facing a savage orc Great shaman backed up by a goblin level 2 and a savage orc level 1.
    It was a total massacre to the Dark Elves, partly due to luck, but there were some elements of the rules that were just broken. The channelling on a 4+ was hideous. The Dark elf player was rolling 10 dice to channel... one magic phase there were 12 power dice facing off against 5 dispel dice. We houseruled that Doomfire Warlocks should not be able to channel. A unit of Doomfire warlocks costs less than a level 2 wizard, and yet has 2 spells (both lethal) has 5 wounds a 4+ ward and moves as fast cavalry.
    Orc Magic is very weak when compared to the colour decks, range 4D6.... single S5 hit.... or hits things in a line rather than a number of hits, and high casting values too.
    Also High and Dark have 2 signature spells. So a level 2 wizard has 4 spells... seems a bit much

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10 dice to channel? Wasn't that 1 dice for every Wizard though? Am I remembering this wrong Phillip?

      Doomfire warlocks are also a unit that can be easily wiped out compared to a character hiding in a unit and are thus likely to have a far shorter impact on the game than a wizard that is more likely to make it into the later rounds. Just pointing this out to illustrate that it's not an entirely fair comparison... you could do the exact same thing regsrding a melee lord vs melee regiment too btw...

      Ork (or goblin) magic might be "weak", but the list has two lores and overall the Orc list is strong and versatile. Personally I'm more than ok with magic not being listed amongst their strongest aspect.

      High and dark magic is supposed to be the peak of magical power in the warhammer world (and requires enormous skill to master), so I personally don't mind them standing out a bit this way. A slight cost increase to high/dark wizards across the board due to this extra spell can be argued for though. +5 to 10 pts for example.

      Delete
    2. I think you might both be mistaken here; you channel on a 6, not a 4+, so those 10 dice to channel would average out at less than 2 additional power dice. I'm considering making power dice channel on a 5+ and keeping dispel dice on a 6, that way magic will scale to the casting side more than the dispelling one. A slight pts increase to Elven mages would probably be in place, yes.

      Delete
    3. Rune, you roll one die per level, so my opponent was rolling 10 channelling dice. I said I was using the rules prior to this update, didn't check to see this change until after we finished, so he was channelling on a 4+. So he was receiving on average 5 more PD per turn, resulting in one magic phase with 12 PD vs 5 DD. So the suggestion to reduce this to channeling on a 6 would go a long way to addressing this scenario

      Delete
    4. Elven mages and Slann Mages with high MAgic too I imagine... The downside to this ofcourse is that if you pick another lore than High/Dark, this point cost is not justified... But on average I'd say a 5 point increase sounds more than fair.

      Delete
    5. I agree that the magic phase most certainly must scale towards the caster side.
      I think that it is certainly worth a try to channel power dice on 5+, but I fear that it can become very hard for a low lvl wizard not to be utterly dominatated against a higher lvl wizard, to the point that they might not be all that relevant.
      I think halving (roundin up) the wizard's lvl for dispelling purposes would achieve the same and also allow the lower lvl wizard to sometimes get off some non-Irresistable Force type spells now and again. A Lvl 2 wizard wit +2 to cast against a lvl 4 with +2 to dispel doesn't sound so bad, even though the higher lvl wizard might be albe to even out the DD to PD due to having the potential to generate more dice with channeling, but not enough to make the lower lvl wizard useless. It also stacks up a bit better for a lower lvl wizard when attemting multiple spell castings in one phase... Why have access to a more flexible set of spells (signature spell) if you might never get to use them afer all?

      I think it is a better way to go to achieve pretty much the same thing, but with a few more added benefits built-in to the system. The 5+ to channel Pd could also potentially quite often cause one wizard to run amok in magic phase if he was just slightly lucky with his channeling rolls, which at 5+ will happen fairly regularly in games...

      Delete
    6. Hmm Doomfire Warlocks able to channel sound bit broken. Maybe they should just have the spells as bound spells? Or increase their price a lot.

      Delete
    7. Depending on how the final version of the magic system turns out, I might agree with you regarding the channeling of such units in general... they should represent something unique, but not replace normal wizards entirely...
      Not so sure about the bound aspect though...
      This unit is well-tested at this stage and if I'm not mistaking, mathias has already reduced their Strength from 4 to 3 as well.

      Delete
  10. My playing group will not be satisfied by these changes I'm Afraid. One of the best rules you've introduced was that you cannot have more ranks than files (avoiding Bretonnian trains and 80 Skaven with 7 ranks). Channelling with 6 and taking away the 12 dice limit will probably give the Magic Phase too much to deal with (imagine an Army with two mages of 4th and 2nd level, and three priest, against a Dwarven Army). Overall, I see no need to change the actual Magic Phase, as you can launch one or maybe two spells in a turn, without changing radically the course of the Battle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the Bretonnnian buses would suffer too much when being limited to only 9 models in lance formation I would think, and the 80 skaven in 7 ranks means the units would actually be 11 models wide, which would be within the previous rules.

      Dwarfs will be getting some bonuses to their Runesmiths to balance this out.

      If an army would invest in 5 spell casters and only get 1 or two spells off per turn, that's a pretty bad outcome for the points paid. What is necessary right now is to find a better balance for higher points games. The five spellcasters in your example will on average have 7 in the basic pool + 1,5 power dice from channelling per turn.

      Delete
    2. Well actually a lance while commonly run 3 wide doesn't actually insist on that, could be 4 wide, it is just less efficient when 4 wide. There is an argument that when a unit is beyond 12 then it needs to be wider, if 15 knights charged forward you'd expect to be facing more than just 3. If you go back to 5th edition when the formation was triangular, then the back rank grew for each rank. with 10 models in the unit then the back rank was 4 wide, 15 models then the back rank was 5 wide.

      Delete
  11. the ranks vs files thing needs to tiptoe around some awkward situations. The armies that most depend on deep units are goblins skaven and Dogs of War Pikemen and any unit trying to navigate between buildings/obstacles Interestingly your skaven example doesn't work, 80 skaven in 7 ranks would be 13 across so legal formation. I agree that weird conga lines to exploit rules and make no sense should be banned. I suggest that no infantry unit can have more than 2 or 3 more ranks than files, and other troop types can have no more than 1 more rank than file. All units can change their formation to any combination of ranks and files when passing between obstacles but must reform back to legal width on emerging. (obviously when very narrow they gain no rank bonus).
    On magic dice the example you give would be rolling 9 dice to channel which should give 1-2 PD per turn (each requiring a 6+). If you have invested that heavily in the magic phase you'd probably want it to radically affect the course of the battle, that is probably over 600 pts, 30% of a 2000 pt army... Again like with the ranks, you could rase the cap but keep a cap, so no more than 14 PD in a turn, rather than going from 12 to infinity

    ReplyDelete
  12. Monstrous support - I'm curious why only MI get this and MC and MB? If I'm honest, wouldn't it simply be easier to change supporting attackings to be 2nd rank can attack with half its attacks.

    Other than looks like it might be worth trying out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mounts and the like have never been able to use supporting attacks in Warhammer, they simply lack the discipline to fight in such an organised manner. This rule is the same as in 8th ed.

      Delete
    2. MC has monsterous support since the first update, it was for the rider, I believe monsterous beasts did as well.

      Besides the whole mounts couldn't make supporting attacks illogical. It's not like in a fight, you stand in a neat line, the guys behind poking over your shoulder!

      Delete
  13. Mathias:

    Did you look at my thread about assassins under the dark elf army book?

    What are your thoughts about removing Magical Weapons from them and giving any model with the Hidden special rule Killing blow in the turn when first revealed? Curious what other people think as well. For more on it, check out the dark elf army book thread v.1.02. It is a rulebook thinng so I though I'd mention it, especially since you have the Skaven update coming soon as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe, though Killing blow is already an option for most assassins as is.

      Delete
    2. Yea, but if you pay those 25 pts for an already expensive hero that is hard to fit in a "normal sized list", due to you wanting a wizard and a BSB most likely as they are far more important and cost-effective.

      Assassins are specialists but apart from being hidden glass cannons, they haven't realy felt much different from regular heroes. A hero with an Ogre Blade and good armour is generally speaking much preferable to an assassin and they cost about the same (if you at least tool up the assassin a little bit as well, which is a must really)...

      I've been considering a new speial rule caled "Assassin" that could be introdcued to the game as a standard rule for such specialists (since Hidden also applies to such units as Fanatics etc). The gist of it could be:

      -Killing Blow at the start of every combat if the model makes a charge move or if he is revealed as a Hidden model.
      -If part of a unit, he will fade back into hiding if a combat is won and the enemy unit Breaks etc...

      Combined with this I also see magical items removed as an option, but keeping their own list of "assassin" gear and special skills.

      Due to their very high cost compared to their cost-effectiveness, I think their cost has to come down a fair bit tbh. If they are to be kept at that lvl, then they could at least benefit from the re-rll to hit rule you have on the skaven assassins. T3, 2W, no armour sucha as you fnd on a DE Assassin for 90+ points makes the assassin an enourmus gamble, which let's be honest, doesn't pan out paying for himself all-that often. More often than not he never encounters the ideal target that you envisioned taking him for on the gaming table at all. He is on foot, so it's hard to make sure he gets to where he really needs to be to be cost effective. Often people are ll-too aware where the ssassin is likely to ee too and take steps to avaoid encountering him with heroes and wizards that are vulnerable to him... Well, against wizards some regular troops tend to be more than enough, so an assassin is a bit of an overkill in most cases.

      Delete
    3. Another benefit of having "Assassin" as a special ule like this could also be that you could employ it to units of "lesser assassins" that would benefit from this when charging, without having the Hidden special rule or even being characters... It could work for the Ninja for the Nippon list just to name an example.

      Delete
    4. Note that the buildt-in killing blow for assassins is only a first round of combat thing. There would still be room for upgrading to the usual killing blow for some assassin characters etc.

      Delete
  14. Javelins: Seems to me these weapons should have the Volley Fire special rule. Romans used them fine ranked up. Not a big deal as such as there are no current infantry block types that can use them, but just in case some are added at some point :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would make a lot of sense actually. Currently, dogs of war and Skink cohorts can actually use javelins in ranked units though.

      Delete
    2. Well, there you go then, some use for it too :-)

      Delete
  15. Not a fan of 6+ channel. Winds roll determines again maybe bit too much how the magic phase will be and not really how many wizards and what level they're like in 6-7th editions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do understand that it's a 6+ to channel for every wizard level? So if you have a lvl 4 and a lvl 2 wizard, you roll 6 dice, direcly influencing PD/DD with the wizards on the table.
      I must admit that I rather like the winds of magic roll system. Magic is supposed to be more random (but also more potentially powerful) than the other aspcts of the game and I personally think it works pretty well in that sense.

      Delete
    2. Yes I understand but I'd say requiring 6s is too much. Lvl 4 and Lvl 2 wizards means like on average 1 die per phase. The 4+ also made the magic to scale at least bit better for bigger games especially now when the 12 limit has been removed.

      Delete
    3. Do you mean a dice for every wizard level on a 4+ roll? If we take 8th ed as a baseline, Mathias has already added one significant multiplier to ho channeling works and personally I'd be very sceptical of adding another multiplier on top of that as well...

      Delete
  16. we´re playing 8th ed and modified magic like this:
    every wizard/priest or whatever channel power dice on 4+ and dispel dice on 5+. Lvl 1-2 wizard can channel with one and lvl 3-4 wizard can channel two dices.
    we also thought about lvl 1-2 wizards are not able to cast the boosted version of lvl 4-6 spells. worked quite well and is fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lvl 1-2 wizards only have access to lower lvl spells to begin with, so nerfing this further seems a bit excessive IMO...

      Delete
  17. You nearly had it with the last version of magic. You just needed to make it so that seperate wizards can cast the same signature spell rather than the same wizard being able to recast it. This makes level 1 and 2 wizards much more viable as a alternative to a single level 4.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, whoever's idea it was above to prevent miscasts if you use equal or fewer power dice than your wizard level is a genius.

      Delete
    2. Yep I have to agree that the system before this was pretty OK. Maybe just some spells needed to change, then tune the powerful versions and remove the 12 dice cap.

      Delete
    3. The issue is that all sorts of Wizards needs to be worth taking, and it should be equally feasible to field two lvl 2 wizards as fielding one lvl 4 wizard. By taking a level 4 wizard, you get access to four more powerful spells, but you also put your eggs in one basket, and is less versatile due to not getting mulitple lores. Two level 2 wizards give you 6 spells at lower power levels, but have a more difficult time casting.

      I am considering making it so that power dice are channelled on a 5+, dispel dice on a 6 (so it scales better, as there should always be more power than dispel dice).

      Another thing I am planning on is making it so that level 1/2 wizards gain +1 to dispel, level 3/4 wizards gets +2 to dispel. This would replace the current system of adding your wizard level to dispel attempts (this way, a level 2 wizard is not really going to suffer too much trying to get a spell through a lvl 4 defence).

      About being safe from miscast, should not this also mean you are immune to irristiable force as well, as the whole thing is about the wizard losing control?

      The main issue with the previous system is that level 4 wizards are really struggling to get through the higher level spells without a bonus to casting. So either they need to have an easier time casting, or the casting result for high spells needs to come down (which would then result in lvl 4 wizards not bothering with the lower level spells at all, since the higher level ones will be more worthwhile).

      Delete
    4. The channeling power dices 5+ and dispel 6+ should fit better.

      Also, in order to balance this dilemma, maybe we can make level 1/2 wizards +1 to CAST and DISPEL and level 3/4 wizards +2 to CAST and DISPEL

      Delete
    5. Anonyomous:

      Thank you for the compliment, but I actually agree with Mathias in thinking it would be a bit too much in hindsight. Mathias has nerfed miscasting a litle bit, and being able to safely cast 4 dice spells with no consequence would be a bit too good and also make higher lvl wizards vastly superior a chise to lower lvl ones potentially.
      That said though, I do think that wizards being able to cast spells suing half their wizard lvl (rounding up) sounds more than reasonable. This would have no impact at lvl 1-2 wizards as you can't micast on one dice alone. Lvl 3-4 could safely cast weaker spells using only 2 dice. Uniuely powerful wizards like Nagash and Teclis could use 3 dice safely. This seems entirely rasonable to me tbh...

      That said, I lso have to mention that it was Phillip that really got me to think about this dilemma in the first place earlier with his own suggestions as how to make higher lvl wizards a seem a little more compentent than their junior counterparts whenit came to casting spells that really shouldn't be as riskt for them as to more novice spellcasters.

      Delete
  18. Can't multiple wizards already cast the signature? I love the fact that everyone gets the signature, a much neater solution than making the signature recastable. The channel on a 4+ can result in mayhem as the gap between PD and DD can be enormous - so bringing that back to a 6+ makes sense (one die per level is sweet but not game changing). Limiting the nastiest spells to the higher wizards makes sense. The only significant issue I see with the current approach is that miscasts affect bigger wizards more than small ones. because they have the expensive spells and they have the ability to roll 6 dice and miscast chance is a function of dice rolled. Logically is should be proportional to: Difficulty of spell, effort put into it, stress of the caster and inversely proportional to skill. currently it appear to only be a function of effort (although that effort is often enforced by the difficulty)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love that wizard can cast the same signature spell too. It opens up for more interesting gameplay and really helps drive home a stronger magical theme of an army with two or more wizards using the same lore. :-)

      I suggested something a bit further up regarding higher lvl wizards casting "few" dice spells that I'd be interested in your opinion phillip, since you first brought it up previously.
      I know it's not a solution that will help high lvl wizards when they do cast the more powerful (and hence risky) spells, but it would mitigate them being sucked into the realm of chaos when csting spells that would for them be trivial at least...

      Delete
    2. Please, just Phil, whenever I see Phillip makes me think my late Mum is calling me :-)
      rather than having some spells be free of miscast potential based on number of die rolled vs magic level. I really like the suggestion at the bottom of this thread.

      the problem is that the range of casting values doesn't neatly scale against the wizard levels, so actually a level 4 is almost too immune to failure in your model

      Delete
    3. Phil:

      Too Immune? It only applies IF and when they use 2 dice to cast a spell. Not at any other time... Well, potentially 3 Dice for Nagash and Teclis... It doesn't affect lvl 1-2 wizards at all. It is also rather simple and easy to remember, which is always a plus.

      Delete
  19. idea about miscast control based on wizard experience:

    whenever a caster suffers a miscast use the total value of the dice showing a miscast (i e 12, 18, 24...) as the difficulty level for the wizard to try to suppress the miscast. For every wizard level you get a d6 to overcome or equal the miscast level, so a level 1 wizard will autofail (just like now) and a level 2 will only have a slim chance, but a level 4 slightly better than average on a "normal" miscast. To overcome these horrible odds and to try to control the magic backlash the wizard may choose to overexert himself by throwing in another two extra dice, but this will also mean that he will be temporarily drained and may not cast another spell this turn or his next and are also prohibited from trying to dispel in the opponents next magic phase. It may seem harsh but this overexertion is optional and probably beats getting sucked into the void;). -TW

    (with this extra chance of avoiding a miscast, the miscast table could be made a bit more deadly perhaps...I hope, magic splatter is fun;))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This is why a forum is better than any one person, all these extra ideas. I really like this idea. However I suggest the following tweaks:
      I would have the miscast result not being randomly determined based on if you fail to avoid the miscast, but just the difference between the casting roll and this "Avoid the miscast" roll. The fact that it you have a miscast means there must be at least a double six in there so that one die per level is probably not going to be enough to stop it, suggest the avoid miscast roll is one die per level PLUS ONE.


      I like the idea of being able to add extra dice to avoid the miscast. Can use up to 2 as you suggest - (these could be taken from the power pool???). If you use the first then no issues but the spell loses the irresistible force rule, use the second and the wizard then can't cast any more spells this turn or dispel in their opponent’s phase (not sure about wiping out the next phase completely, seems a bit much (maybe they are -x (where x is a fixed number or their magic level) to cast or something).

      As a worked example: If I am a level 3 wizard and I roll 5 dice to cast and get a result of 22 with 2 sixes which is fairly reasonable then I get to roll 3+1 dice to try to mitigate my miscast, and I roll, 14 then the miscast result I am facing is one of 22-14 = 8.
      So now my wizard is staring an 8 on the misfire table in the face and decides that is a BAD result so throws an extra die at it, the spell is no longer irresistible force (but with a casting roll of 22 still feeling good). They roll a 4, so now they are looking at a miscast result of a 4. they read that result and decide it is worth it to keep the dispel capability in the next phase and avoid the casting penalty next turn. The opponent gets a chance to dispel, resolve the spell if the dispel is not taken or fails and then resolve the misfire result of 4 on the wizard...

      Delete
    3. My first impression here is that it is a bit of a complicated and time-cunsuming set of rules for people to remember, in an already rule-heavy and slow game...

      That said, it can offcourse be adjusted for "perfection" due to the amount of variables involved as to perhaps get the best rule in that sense.

      I've personally advocated for a simpler, standarized miscast instead of the table to quicken up the game a bit, so it should perhaps not come as a surprise that I lean towards the more simple solutions in this matter personally, but I have no problem with people not minding more complicted rules if and when it improves the game enough so that it is deemed worth it.

      Not confident this is worth a whole pararaph of new rules myself, but it is up to Mathias in any case. :-)

      Delete
    4. You and I are opposite ends on this perspective of the game, I tend to complicated but consistent rules for the purpose of getting things right, I don’t like the compromises that come with simplicity. I am not a huge fan of the merged profiles for ridden monsters and war machines etc in 9th, but I go with it, (gives my savage orc shaman on wyvern a huge boost).
      If you trigger a misfire, roll to avoid, can modify, if fail look up on a table. I am of the strong opinion that the misfire table should not be expected to be memorised, that old school proper - find the book - read off the table - type rule.

      Delete
    5. I like to keep the having to look up the rules in the book to a minimum during the game yes, but with such a complicated game I also understand that this in unavoidable to a large extent.
      I'm not advocating for an Age of Sigmar simplicity mind you, but yes, I do prever the simple, easy to remember solutions if the rules accomplish what they are intended to do.

      Delete
    6. how often will you suffer a miscast during a game? it´s not that often really...I am not sure how 2-3 extra dice rolls during a game will "slow it down". If you pass you are good (or at least left with an ehxausted wizard), if you fail, consult the miscast table as usual. Super simple;).
      And people do not like to get miscasts so they will probably learn this rule quite quickly;)(in simplicity: beat or equal the miscast dice with your level number of dice)In case it should be considered by the author of this game of course.

      Delete
    7. Aside from adding more rules to the BRB, what do you think of the latest update to the magic system? It's essentially a cross of the old (easy channel, no casting bonus) and the new (difficult channel, high casting bonus) with okay channelling, small casting bonus.

      Delete
    8. Mathias, remind me, what was wrong with the 8th edition version other than wizards feeling forced to throw 6 dice at their top spells to get them off?

      Delete
    9. Namely that a level 2 wizard would struggle a lot at getting spells through against a level 4 wizard, and that a level 4 wizard had it very easy to get through spells compared to an army that only had level 2's for example. And also that it scaled horribly at larger points levels.

      Delete
    10. the smaller casting bonus is a good thing I think. you no longer feel the same need to autoinclude a level 4 caster just because you know your enemy will bring one.
      I am more clueless about the channeling balancing though. As a fan of added complexity (everything after warhammer 3ed is a breeze;) maybe channeling levels could be decided based on the actions of the caster:
      Normal activity (moving, fighting, casting): 6+
      Not moving, not engaged in hand to hand combat: 5+
      Focused channeling(doing nothing during the turn except channeling, gaining power dice to other casters):+4.
      A general 5+ PD channeling would maybe produce the same end result with less complexity though (but I like it complicated, its good for your brain:) -TW

      Delete
  20. Thank you for the input:) I still think the miscast should be something quite dangerous and uncontrollable ("magic is fickle"... ) and it seems quite easy (?) to dampen and control into something r4easonably harmless with your idea.
    Even though it is quite hard to stop and control a miscast with only a die per level, that is kind of the point, it should be hard;), currently a miscast always occurs anyway.
    The chance to add 2 dice to the roll represents the severe mental and physical strain that should reasonably occur when you try to handle the most powerful spells that may affect the outcome of the battle. On the other hand the chance for a high level hierophant to get plucked from the game while casting necessary support spells is drastically lower (although the dice gods usually find a way to punish me anyway...) -TW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well the theory is sound, just need to tweak the levers. So if you want this to be more serious then you could get rid of that +1 to the number of dice per level I suggested. Also could change the miscast table to get very bad really quite quickly. Suggest play testing with a proposal and use that feedback to adjust to get it comfortable

      Delete
  21. I see you have changed the files and ranks to be capped at twice. Can we still have some exemption for squeezing through gaps? So you can have as many ranks as necessary is physically constrained by buildings , obstacles or impassable terrain, but must return to legal formation as soon as possible. Something like that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking about some options here.. One could be a special reform move to pass between buildings and the like, but that wouldn't really work if the narrow space was longer then the models could move in on turn... :-/

      Delete
  22. Don't know if this has already been suggested, but I have a simple idea about improving higher wizards. So don't add wizard levels as a bonus, instead give level 3's a +1 bonus and level 4's a +2 bonus, and take the cap off the power pool at games of 3000 points or more. I don't think anything else needs to change from how the magic phase was before this recent change.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mathias:

    Instead of granting lvl 1& 2 a +1 to dispel, and lvl 3-4 a +2, I'd just say wizards add half their Wizard level, rounding up. This would also give the truly legendary wizards of lvl 5 a little something extra, which I think is well-deserved...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. O think This IS a good idea

      Delete
    2. Are there any level 5 wizards in the game though? The main rules only mentions level 1-4, so if a SC is level 5, this could be mentioned in a special rule instead.

      Delete
    3. Oh thats true. I was thinking like if we were in 8ed

      Delete
    4. Nagash, Teclis and Arkhan I believe...

      But if written as half wizard lvl, rounding up, no unnessessary special rule would be needed. Same goes for dispel dice too if you like that idea instead if doubling up on PD channeling (5+)...
      It would be very easy to remeber that dispel dice and wizard level were both divided by two for those purposes. Nothing complicated and you'd reduce the "swinging" effect of channeling by a fair bit, keeping the majority of the randomness to the einds of magic instead of the channeling.

      Delete
    5. I'd also have the same half wizard lvl, rounded up apply to how many dice you could safely cast spells with to btw...

      Delete
  24. Regarding the rank issue btw, I would perhaps only allow twice as many ranks as files for Infantry, Monstrous infantry etc, as those with longerbases such as Cavalry will still be very unvieldy if the unit is four times as long as it is wide...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Realistically though that is to avoid a situation that would be ludicrous. Cavalry need to be 4 wide to get a rank, so to exceed the twice ranks to files it would need to be 9 ranks deep, that is 45 cm, that won’t even fit in the deployment zone! Even in a square where ranks = files it is still 20cm deep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, but it could equally well apply to cheaper units such as chaos warhounds, dire wolves etc as well.

      Delete
    2. I think that one issue with allowing column formation is that it would have a negative effect on units that are Stubborn/unbreakable. Historically speaking, a unit that is flanked would suffer a huge loss to their morale and probably break, hence protecting your flank by having a wide front is more important. In Warhammer though, this does not really apply for certain units. The minimum 5 models wide rule solve this issue quite a bit to avoid congalines, but seeing units of unbreakable that are 10 models deep to minimize attacks against them still looks pretty bad.

      As several people seems to have preferred the previous system of equal or less ranks than files, maybe that should be brought back? There was already a paragraph in that rule that you are allowed to reform into a column formation in order to pass by obstacles (though I would still keep the minumum 5 models wide rule).

      Delete
    3. I like the concept of losing stubborn if you are less than minimum width.

      Delete
    4. Mathias:

      Did you see my suggestion keeping th no deeper than wide, but then fixing the Fight in special ranks (x) special rule to add max number of ranks equal to x as well?

      If you keep it to minimum 5 models, there is really no reason to change any rule in this regard at all, as the Reform rule really accomplishes this on its own. I guess one can always argue that if there is no room for a unit to manouver between two buildings in the middle of combat without causing a lot of confusion amongst the ranks etc, that is a valid way of looking at things too. Regular troop formations aren't really very versatile as such. But on the other hand, you can occupy building so. All in all, I can't imagine this is a situation that often comes up in games though, someone wanting to squeeze a big infantry regiment through an ally between two buildings I mean. Skirmishers I can see happening though...

      Phil: I like the idea of removing Stubborn when in such formations... It still wouldn't fix things for Unbreakable type units like Slayers and Flagellants though.

      Delete
  26. Sorry misread thought you meant if they use their wizard level or below. Yes nice but really it doesn’t solve the problem really. The 1/36 situation where a level 4 triggers a miscast on a low casting value spell isn’t the case that is causing the debate, it is when they are rolling lots of dice for a higher value spell, which means you suggestion wouldn’t apply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But would we really line to see the more cataclysmic type spells being cast with less of a risk? These spells are only available to higher lvl wizared for a reason to begin with... they are also potentially game winners of they go off, so I personally don't mind the miscast chance being there for these spells.

      Delete
  27. Just a thought; as an alternative resolution to the rank issue (which seems to be a way of preventing stubborn conga lines) why not make changes to steadfast/stubborn and then allow flexibility in formations? Such as stubborn is only on play while there is at least 1 rank of minimum size for that troop type. Characters would be an exception of course but would also mean that once a
    Unit dropped to the dregs, the benefits of stubborn no longer apply. This to me seems more natural anyway as they are not supposed to be stupid or unbreakable. Due to minimum rank size, there is no longer any benefit to a one-model wide line. In fact, if there is a minimum rank size rule, you cant have conga lines anyway... Or have I completely missed something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm having reread some comments above: i am all for the expression of tactics in a game. If a player wishes to take a large tarpit expendable unit, such as zombies or goblins, they should be able to. What they gain in combat holding ability they lose in manouverability - tactical trade off. They also make themselves vulnerable to war template weapons, multiple flank charges and vortex spells. Additionally, the player may then spend unreasonable effort trying to protect the flanks of this unit, leaving tactical opportunities elsewhere. Like a dwarfen castle formation, it can be irritating to play against until you know how to counter it. No castle likes a comet...

      Delete
    2. Or a boosted Foot of Gork! That reminds me, about reducing the risk of miscasts...

      Delete
    3. I's not just an unbreakable conga line issue Ed, even though that relates to the most broken part of it for sure. Two other factors related to it are:

      1.It concerns cheap tarpit units such as Skavenslavesfor example, being almost unbeatable in the sense that if they have a narrow front, endless ranks (including rank bonus and outnumbering) you can't really kill them fast enough due to the limited number of attacks you have against them every turn. Most units, cavalry in particular, will very easily get bogged down for the entire game against unts that are very cheap. One of the benefts of the 8th ed Horde rule was that you could copensate for this a litle in the right circumstances, but even with that still in place (which I'm not advocating for btw), it was stil too effective for the cost.

      2. It has more to do with how squared up blocks of infantry moves when wheeling in practical terms though. Wheeling narrow, but deep formations can often be very hard, forcing the game to be much more of a static game due to the complications. If a unit is wider than it is deep, you severely limit these kinds of movement issues. Also, is you have a deep enough formation and you let's say wheel the unit 4" left or right, measured in the front, the models in the rear would sort of need to be the Flash o keep up if the unit is deep enough.

      3. Historically, units (apart from pikemen arguably, but I think even they had a wider formation then they were deep i most cases) have always spread out to dominate ground and not get outflanked so easily. If the game encourages narrow, deep formations instead, relying on static combat resulution and outnumbering to win to a higher degree, I think there is something abit wrong personally.

      Ironically, whle writing this it dawned on me a possible solution to the whole issue that I think most people would be hapy with... I'll post it down below. Ed.

      Delete
  28. Ranks & Files:

    As twice as deep as wide formations are still not ideal in my viev (see reasons in post above), a thought struck me that could be a good solution that would be simple and make most players happy.

    1. Have the initial no deper then wide rules in place.
    2. Let the Fight in Extra Ranks (x) special rule also add to the number of ranks you can go deeper than normal, with x equalling the ranks.

    This would let you field Pikemen in a 5 x 8 formation, spears in a 5 x 6, which seems reasonable and yet not too game breaking IMO. They woould also still be reasonably easy to manouver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes this is nice, I could live with this, I'd prefer ranks = files + 1 though as a standard - then add the extra ranks thing. Goblins are just going to suffer horribly. Can see people investing in Giant rats more ...

      Delete
    2. Goblins are cheap to add files to, and every deep unit with lots of files take time whittelng down, so theu will retain both rank bonus and outnumbering for a long time potentially. They also have spears as an option, which would help a bit too.
      If the balancing was needed, you could just add +1 sure. You could also potentially do something with a horde special rule that was unit specific if needed Pgil. :-)

      Delete
    3. Could a change to the Steadfast rule help combat tarpit units, such as requiring double unit strength and minimum frontage, rather than just higher unit strength? This ties in with the Outnumbered combat res bonus. Larger flanks are more susceptible to flank charges etc which will quickly eat away at the steadfast potential then.

      The manoeuvring issue seems a little moot to me. As the player with the big unit, your movement is affected but that is a decision you have made for taking the big unit. As the opposite player, you’re movement phase is as free as you wish it to be.

      I also think we can’t rely too much on how it would work in a ‘real’ battle - although this should definitely be a guide, real soldiers never moved on nice square movement trays. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to think that the back ranks don’t ‘in reality’ move exactly at the same time as the front and they will catch up to be in position by the time the next move order comes in.

      Also, real battles had far larger battlefields in relation to army size to fight on than our restricted 6 x 4 tables and therefore had a wider frontage to consider.

      Also, with deeper formations it will allow the change in the rules to shoot into the flanks of combat to play a bigger part, particularly if the casualties done were allowed to count towards combat res (which I think they should - if I were in a real battle...)

      I have also suggested to Matthias seperately that certain units (such as those who have a minimum unit count of 20+) could be allowed a horde rule - this would then provide a tactical choice with combat advantages for both: Do I go wide or long?

      Having said all this, I do like the extra ranks idea, particularly with the +1.

      Delete
    4. I don't think the +1 is needed if the Horde rule is made so that it makes up for it and makes those units having it available to them act and feel like a true horde.

      The 20+ unit size units would be a good baseline to which units this special rule could apply to yes. :-)

      Some Horde rule suggestions:

      -When charging, or after winning a round of close combat, hordes may fight with one extra rank if the total with of their frontline is wider than the enemy unit towards their front. This only applies if the unit has a higher unit strength and itself not engaged to it's flanks or rear.

      That's one possible idea, representing the difficulty of keepng a horde at bay, not outflanking and swarming you etc.. It lso adds more combat dice rather than more staticc combat res.

      Just a suggestion.

      Delete
    5. After some thought, I think I will return the rank system to the previous version. The idea that spears and pikes would get to deploy in extra ranks is not really going to have much effect in terms of attacks; 35 pikemen deployed in 7 ranks and 5 files or 5 ranks and 7 seven files will even up pretty well in terms of attacks; you'll either get 25 attacks that will start to decrease once 10 models are dead, or 35 attacks that will be on the same level as the first option after 10 models are dead (making deploying them 7 wide more effective in terms of damage output, and only marginally worse in terms of rank bonus).

      This will make it easier to wheel units (as mentioned earlier), something that will otherwise be rather fiddly and time-consuming for both parties, and it keeps unbreakable units on a more even playing field when you cannot try to kill-deny the enemy by going in a column.

      I still don't like the idea of the Horde rule myself, however, for models that will literally climb on top of each other when attacking (such as zombies or giant rats) fight in extra ranks already exists.

      Delete
    6. That said, I will still keep an exception where a "column" will be allowed in order to pass by terrain.

      Delete
    7. I'm fine with the formation change, after all, even pike formations that yould deploy 16 deep in historical terms probably deployed at least 40-50 wide, if not far more...

      The Horde rule idea can be as simple as giving certain units the Fight in Extra Ranks (x) special rule indeed.

      Delete
  29. Magic:

    I've been thinking bit more about the current magic rules, cooncernng channeling and I'm bit concerned it might have escalated a little too much when it comes to channeling, on the grounds of scalability...

    If we take the 8th ed as a baseline, Wizard chenneled on a 6, with one dice. This worked, but really didn't scale up that well for larger games, where you got less and less for sinking points into the magic phase basically. think we can all agree to that.

    With the current system of channeling power dice on a 5+ per wizard level, and dispel dice on a 6+ per wizard level, I think scalability is more than compensated for, but I far it might have tiped the scale the other way a little bit and it has been a huge potential increase of the magic phase swinging either way based on the channeling rolls alone, simply due to far more dice are involved...

    Where a lvl 4 wizard had a 1/6 chance to channel in 8th ed and could potentially get 1 PD max, a lvl 4 wizard now has 4 challeing attempts, each with twice the chance of channeling PD, which can again be boosted by the Channeling staff to come out at 12 times the potential of the lvl 4 wizard from 8th ed, with an average of +2 PD per magic phase... This is quite substantial, and remember, this is just one wizard w're talking about here.

    I fear that with such a potential involved, the magic phase can and will swing wildy back and forth due to the channeling results on both sides, increasing the random factor exponentially.

    Don't get me wrong, I see and understand the need for the scalability and for the caster side to scale favourably towards the dispelling side.

    My suggestion:

    1.Keep the defending wizards adding only half their wizard level to dispelling results.
    2. Let defending wizard only use half their wizard level number of channeling dice (rounding up).
    3 everyone challes on 6+.

    This keeps the scalability in, but also tones down the potential of both the casting and dispelling side's potential when it comes to dominating the magic phase due to a few lucky dice rolls for channeling alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3. Everyone Channels on 6+.. damn how I hate the tablet keyboard...

      Delete
    2. My recent experience at 2000 pts of facing lots of wizard levels channelling on a 4+ (previous rule suggestion) was that it was very "swingy" to use my opponent's term. The best result for him was a low winds of magic roll, because he could channel loads and I couldn't leaving the biggest difference between Power dice and dispel dice. However instead of firing ideas back and forward I would prefer a more iterative approach based on real feedback. Actually play some games and then post the results back here. the rules are changing back and forth and I am still not entirely sure what problem, we are trying to solve. The only big problem I see is that high level wizards miscast more than low ones and I don't see this issue being resolved by playing around with channelling.

      Delete
    3. At 5+ to channel, it should not be a crazy amount of dice flying around (on average, 1,3 extra dice for a level 4 wizard).

      However, rolling more dice is actually better than rolling only a few, as the result is more likely to even out the more dice you roll.

      With the +2 to casting for lord level wizards as well, this means they are less likely to miscast on the easier spells compared to a hero wizard (which makes sense), and do not need to throw as many dice at the more powerful spells (again making the chance of miscast lower).

      The problem with the previous 9th ed system was that while you did get more dice through channelling to cover up the lack of casting bonuses, you were instead forced to use more dice when casting, increasing the chance of miscast. This latest update remedies that by giving them back a bit of that casting bonus, but keeping it on a low enough level as not so steamroll past lower level wizards.

      Delete
    4. Phil (btw, my grandfather's name was phillip, which is unusual in norway):

      First off, I can't really participate much from a feedback from gaming situations right now, due to issues with my back preventing me to stand on my feet for very long at a time, so I must admit that my views comes from trying to look at the rules as objectivly I can with 3rd to 8th ed as a baseline. I can't really participate much in the game testing aspect from that perspective atm (sadly), which is why I have to contribute based on past experience and from what I hear from people like you that do post based of gaming experience.

      I think Mathias stated above somewhere what would be needed balance-wise for the magic system to work for both high and low lvl wizards to keep them cost-effective, and thus a part of the game.

      Yes, the previous edition might have been a dream come through for those that disliked magic overall, but there was simply no way lvl 3-5 wizards would be worth anywhere near their cost without lvl's being removed from casting/dispelling and/or higher casting versions of spells being eliminated.

      Tbh, I don't really see higher level wizards miscasting due to casting spells requiring more dice as much of a problem phil. Far less so then in 8th at least...

      I think the risk vs reward situation really need to be there for the purple sun type spells of the game, which are now only even available to the higher lvl wizards exclusivly. Previously you could potentially sacrifice your lower lvl wizard at a reasonable cost to get a 6 dice spell off, but that is no longer really an option as the risk vs. reward situation make this far less appealing if you will...

      As to your issue with with high lvl wizards miscasting more often than low lvl one, that seems natural to me since they are the ones that have the access to the spells that can potentially win the game with a good casting of one of the mote powerful spell options, such as purple sun.
      However, now a wizard also have access to an additional low lvl spell in the form of the signature spell, which I think will help "drain off" PD towards more universally usable low lvl spells, which will also help balance rhings out nicely. I wish I had rhought of this myself tbh, as I think this will impact the game far more in a subtly manner than people realize. So my hat off to Mathias in this desiscion (as in many others).

      You are correct, channeling won't solve this isdue of yours, but I really don't think this is such a big issue to begin with, as opposed to higher lvl wizards miscasting when using a LOW amount of power dice...

      It was interesting to read your feedback regarding the "swinging" natute of the magic phase due to the channeling. It was what I would expect, but in one or a few number of games you can never be sure. Valuable feedback none-the-less Phil.

      Ps.if there are spelling mistakes or anything that is confusing, I'm out in the sun, on my phone (big fingers) and sligtly drunk, so I apologize...

      Have a nice saturday everyone. :-)

      Delete
    5. Mathias:

      If there was more dice involved, I think you'd be correct regarding your " dice average" thinking, but I think it will swing very much back and forth with do "few" dice, resuuting in a game where things swing "wildly" from magic phase to magic phase. I think this swinging should be mainly represented by the winds of magic roll,rather than the channelling on either side as a general rule, which is why I propose what I did above.

      Delete
    6. Well my intention is to try it, nothing like data to ruin someone's unsubstantiated opinions :-)
      I am a little wary on retaining the channelling ability for units that can cast (sisters of the thorn, Doomfire warlocks, horrors etc - and I suggest wraiths in the VC 9th ed book) but I'll give it a go :-)

      Delete
    7. I would not worry about it too much; those units will only channel 0,6 power dice per turn on average, which is not even enough to cast a single one of their spells.

      Delete
    8. Regarding the channelling though, I'd like to get some more Playtest feedback before changing it again; channelling has always been random in the game to begin with. If this is changed to that wizards get their wizard level divided by 2 as dice instead of channelling, it will on average lead to even more dice per phase.

      Delete
    9. Mathias: I'm not suggesting Channeling PD at half Wizard lvl, in case that wasn't clear, only channeling DD. All on 6's. Also keeping the half wizard lvl added to dispel attemps. This will solve most scaling issues I think, at least up to any reasnonably conceivable game size..
      Channeling PD will stll be potentially 4 times more useful than in 8th ed, which I think is rather significant tbh.

      It's not when both players roll an average result that is a bit daunting when both sides channeling on 5+/6+ (PD/DD) Mathias, but the potential of this swinging wildly both ways, allowing the attacker a massive advantage or the defender potentially negating the whole magic phase before spell casting even begins.

      I like the increased importance on channelling when compared to 8th ed though, I just think it has gone a bit too far potentially, at least in one go if you will.

      Delete
    10. That would be an option I suppose, though would it really make much of a difference compared to the current system, other than having fewer dice around? If you roll 4 6's for channelling power dice, and then fail to roll any 6's for dispel dice, there's still the potential for things swinging wildly when halving the number of potential dispel dice is possible to have. On average, I think both solution will have about the same result, except with fewer dice in the latter one (which is a bit of a bother if you invest in a lot of magic casters but only have enough dice for 2 wizards most of the time).

      Delete
  30. Well if you think the randomness can exponentially increase then let's come up with a system bit like in 6th or 7th where power and dispel dice generation wasn't random.

    2D6 average is 7 so take that as the base amount of dice per turn.

    Game has 6 turns, so make it that you get 42 power dice total in game that you can choose to use any time in the game.

    Average DD from winds roll per turn would likely be 4. Multiply that by 6 and we get 24 dispel dice for the whole game.

    OK so now it's 42PD vs. 24 DD. How do we make this scale? Either we throw dice per wizard/wizard lvl, +X dice per wizard level or scale with army points. How much more power army should have compared to dispel potential in average?

    Could we actually go for a lot less random power/dispel dice pool and eliminate a lot of the randomness out of it? Would it be better to have a system where you've a lot dice at the start but you don't generate per turn? Or go for having certain amount per turn and channel depending on how powerful your wizards you've alive?

    I'd be interested to test a very different system where you've the big pool without randomness or just some small basic pool per turn. Then wizards could channel per turn more in the pool or just for themselves.

    I'm not really a fan of rolling winds of magic per turn as it's so random. Would be nice to have more stable and balanced solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also maybe other way to treat miscasts would be about how big/hard spell you're trying to cast and not the amount of dice used? Bigger spells already require more dice to use so it comes automatically that way.

      Likely the best way would be to go bit like it's currently except don't add the amount of dice used. Add the spell level signature being 0 and boosted versions adding +1. If there are more boost levels, then +1 per boosted version, so basic version 0, first boosted +1, second boosted +2 and so on.

      This way if you happen to use like 5 dice to some basic spell and miscast, you won't get punished too much because the miscast result won't be that bad.

      Of course one other thing to think about this would be that higher level wizard gets -X to miscast roll, but I imagine that would be pretty hard to balance out.

      Delete
    2. Ok, I've had a reasonable amount of beers right now, but I've read this multiple times without really grasping what you are proposing tbh... Is it just me (and the beer) or could you clarify a bit?

      Delete
    3. Nothing specific, just something to think about how winds of magic could be replaced to something less random. Typing with phone and I had much more text that got deleted, so the text is just a mess now.

      Basically could we think a magic system that doesn't have as many random factories as now and make it still enjoyable? Basically remove a roll for winds of magic and make that some certain number like 42PD and 24DD for the whole game for each army. Then those pools can be increased by channeling wizards.

      Though not sure what would happen if a lot of power is available right at the start of the game.

      I've couple pretty different systems in mind but I need to get on my PC to write those systems.

      Delete
    4. Hmm..

      Kinda have to admit that I do like the random factor of the winds of magic overall, and it won't really go well with the warhammer lore if the winds of magic is changed to something more stable IMO. I just don't want channeling to add too much randomness on top of that as well.

      I'm also sceptical about re-creating the magic rules too mauch, as it impacts so many army book so profoundly and hence adds a LOT of work for potentially little reward. Offcourse, this is up to Mathias since it is him that has to spend his time going over it all. That's my take on it anyway.

      Delete
    5. As Rune said, magic is supposed to be fickle, so it makes sense that it would vary in between turns. With Wizards rolling more dice to channelling now more than previously though, this should actually be more balanced compared to only rolling for the winds of magic to determin the number of dice.

      Delete
  31. Mathias: What happened to the '2' result on the Miscast table?

    ReplyDelete
  32. MAthias, also regarding the Miscast table, could it be a good idea to modify it somewhat? 3-4 results that reduce the pool by D6? I'd like to see the "safer result's at 7-8, and the worse results at 2 and 12 etc as well...

    Not very fond of the -d6 dice from the power pool in general, as getting irresistable force more often than not can not be worth it as it might cripple your magic phase after, as the defender still has his dispel dice already (since he can't even attemt dispelling an IF result), you have already spendt a lot of dice, and then you lose even more dice. On top of that, the defender can see your casting result after your roll and only has to equal it... It makes getting an irresistale force result a very dubious pleasure, even if your wizard survives it.

    One of the reasons I've never been a big fan of he miscast table overall, on top of it being time consuming to look up etc...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, removing dice from the pool is strong because the most common situation is 4+ dice were rolled which now can't be dispelled, so you are now in a situation where remaining dispel dice could equal or exceed power dice. I'd prefer something that hampers the wizard's ability next turn - as they are still reeling, -x to cast / dispel or something

      Delete
    2. I'm fine with removing that part from the miscast table actually, seeing as it's not mentioned at all in the fluff anyway about losing power. Magical feedback can be the same as power drain, with the addition of S6 hits on wizards within 12".

      Delete
  33. Mathias: Would you mind if I did a litle work on refining the miscast table

    I've never liked the fact that is one wizard miscasts, it moe often than not affects any other wizards on your team because of the depletion of he power pool. This sort of unermines the idea of going for two lower level wizards compared to one hig level one somewhat. Undermines the usefullness if you will.

    I also don't like that the explosion results are all strength based, as this is far more dangerous and costly when applied to an elf wizard, as opposed to let's say an orc shaman. This applies to any unit he is in too.

    Just some of my concerns and dislikes with GW's miscast table... :-/ Shouldn't be haard to come up with somethinga bit better.

    I'll happily come up with some suggestions if you'd consider it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure if this needs to change to be honest; they lose dice from the pool as the pool is shared, in previous editions each wizards had their own dice instead.

      As for being Strength based, I suppose it could be changed to a D6/2D6 in strength instead, but Orcs also pay for more their Toughness to begin with, so it's balanced out.

      Delete
    2. The Strength X hit is a bit tough, makes Nurgle daemons a little more cavalier. you could say takes a W on a 3+, or 4+ etc depending on the miscast result.
      Personally I think the table should be as involved as as complicated as possible. This is a table that we should NOT expect to learn

      Delete
    3. I've never realy been very enthussiastica bout the miscast table in the sense overall since tha vast majority of time it comes down to "Will my wizard get wounded, how big is the blast and is there even a sliver of a chance I can salvage something of the maajic phase after losing D6 PD and the opponent still sitting on all his Dispel Dice"...

      While I'n not for making it too complicated, I sure wouldn't mind having some more random elements to it if there is going to be a table in the first place... Otherwise one might just have a standard miscast result to speed things up.

      I do like the D6 + number of dice used though.

      Delete
  34. Mathias:

    I missed that you had changed the former 2d6 miscast roll to D6 + nimber of dice used to cast the spell, which explains the way it is scaled. 2 is still possible though and "Power Drain" is techically irrelevant as it is just the same as failing to cast a spell effectivly...

    My other issues with the miscast table still applies though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is 2 a possible result though? You require to roll at least 2 dice in order to get a double 1, and you can roll 1 as the lowest result on a D6, making 3 the lowest miscast result, unless I'm missing something?

      Delete
    2. err you roll 2 dice and roll 1 and 1, which makes 2. now technically any roll of less than 3 is not enough for a spell to work regardless of modifiers but not sure how that works out against irresistible force or a miscast. with +2 to cast for a level 3 and other modifiers out there it is not impossible for 2+ modifiers => casting value

      Delete
    3. The rule says "Add the number of dice used to cast the spell to the number rolled on the D6 and consult the Miscast table below."

      So, if a wizard used 4 dice when miscasting, and rolls a 3 on the D6, the result would be 7 on the Miscast table. I can add this example to the BRB for clarity.

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

      Delete
    5. You are correct Mathias, It just slipped my mind that you can't technically miscast using only one dice... You can cast spells using one dice, but not miscast. My mistake there. *facepalms*

      Was I missing something regarding the Power drain too? Isn't it exactly the same as just failing to cast a spell and you thus can't cast more spells with the wizard that phase?

      Would you mind if I tried to come up with a few new, fresh ideas for the Miscast table instead ofjus the same old exploding wizard if varying degrees?

      Delete
    6. A miscast does not stop from your casting more spells that turn, as the spells is sucessfully only. Only failing to reach the casting value keeps you from being able to cast more spells.

      Sure, go ahead. There's quite a few ideas from the 6th and 7th ed BRB's that could be worked in, though they obviously need to be changed a bit. While I'm all for having a streamlined table, the miscast table might be a bit more exiting if it is a bit random (though still scalable depending on the number of dice used).

      Delete
    7. The Description from result 3-4 on the Miscast table states:

      "Power Drain: The Wizard cannot attempt to cast further spells this phase."

      Seems to me this is just the same as failing to reach the casting value in every practical sense...

      I can check the rpg's for inspiration and i can look to the 40k rpg's for that matter. Just a bit tedious that GW decided that most results on the Miscast table was so simular, just varying in strength. I think we are on the same page that if a table is to have a purpose, it has to contain a bit more randomness to it to reflect the dangers of a wizard losing control. Otherwise a standard, more streamlined result might be preferable IMO.

      I'll start working on it tomorrow, based off of your D6+number of casting dice used idea.

      Delete
    8. Well, it's currently the "softest" option of a penalty.

      Delete
  35. Back to no more ranks than files... not even +1 more. can we add the suggested rule that if you get to fight in more ranks then you can have that many more ranks than files? Pikes are really screwed here otherwise and this really favors the elite armies over the horde ones, skaven goblins vampires and empire to a degree are all disproportionally hit by this

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand what you're saying about having enough ranks up to what you can fight in. But I dont understand what you mean about hordes struggling?


      I'm under the impression of horde armies are meant to field pretty big units anyway. They should keep have a pretty rank advantage on any elite army and just requires some planning when building your units. I mean the point of hordes is to just tarpit the enemy/slowly grind them while you debuff/buff.

      Delete
    2. I made this comment higher up yesterday, applies the same here: "After some thought, I think I will return the rank system to the previous version. The idea that spears and pikes would get to deploy in extra ranks is not really going to have much effect in terms of attacks; 35 pikemen deployed in 7 ranks and 5 files or 5 ranks and 7 seven files will even up pretty well in terms of attacks; you'll either get 25 attacks that will start to decrease once 10 models are dead, or 35 attacks that will be on the same level as the first option after 10 models are dead (making deploying them 7 wide more effective in terms of damage output, and only marginally worse in terms of rank bonus)."

      "Horde" units will get more attacks against elite armies in general since they will more likely be fielded in a wider formation then them, on top of being steadfast, outnumber and having more ranks, so I don't think elites will run over them quite the same way as in 8th ed.

      A unit of spearmen who fight in 3 ranks is not going to benefit by being allowed to be fielded in more than 5 ranks until they have lost around half the unit to casualties, other than making it harder for enemies to kill them.

      Delete
    3. Well like I have said before, the only response to this is to test it, so I'll give it a go. What would be the best test of this? Horde army vs horde army or Horde vs elite?

      Delete
    4. I'd recommend trying both, the more the better.

      Delete
  36. Mathias (and anyone else):

    I just posted a suggestion to a new miscaste table in the WAP Google Group, as it was a bit too large to post here.

    My thoughts behind it was:

    -To make it a bit more unpredicateble and fun than just a varied degree of eplosion.

    -To let the chaos gods each have a bit of a way to influence things in their own manner from time to time.

    -To make Magical Resistance a bit more important to invest in than in previous versions of the game.

    -I tried to make miscasting seem a bit more chaotic than before, as that is what the winds of magic spilling out of control is to me more than anything else.

    -By spitting up the possible number of results into more possibilities, I figured one result with a slight reduction in PD and one with a Wizard lvl reduction would be ok and not be overwhelming and tedious.

    -The more dangerous results are out of the reach of the lesser spell castings, but 6-9 which are the influences of the chaos gods will always be within reach of any spell caster able to use at least 3 dice, hence everyone.

    This is just an idea though, and as always I'm sure it could use some refinement and clarifications here and there and if used I'm sure Mathias would want to edit things to fit his vison better and so on.
    Luckily P.30, in the rulebook does seem to have a little more space left on it, so that should work out fine I hope. There might be a need to edit the last paragraph before the miscast table though, where it states that Magical Resistance not working against miscasts, which would be more natural if they were all explosions eminating from the wizard himself.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mathias:

    Could it be an idea to have an overview posted of the overall changes when compared to 8th ed? Just like a one page kind of a thing with the changes that have been formalized etc. It would perhaps lower the threshold for people to get involved in the project and help illustrate how your 9th ed differs from 8th (which is what is known to most players I imagine).

    Just a thought :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a great idea. Maybe one of us in the community could help? I am always willing, but I am not the right guy cos my skills are getting the gang around the gaming table, and then making sure food is cooked and scenery is being made. Call me the orange peeler if you will

      Delete
    2. Hehe :-)

      I have a decent grasp of the overall changes and could try to make a bullet-point kind of list of the major changes to the game so far, to lower the workload of Mathias a bit. He could edit it as thught fitting offcourse. His decision offcourse, but I'm sure ther are many people that would happily assist if he thought it a good idea.

      Delete
    3. jup would very much be appreciated to have the overall changes somewhere from 8th to 9th

      Delete
    4. I will probably do that as an "FAQ",-like post to the rules. I can easily be a bit messy for new players otherwise :)

      Delete
  38. Question about Athel Loren: Lore says it's all kinds of magical, where the trees can lash out or twist the paths around to lead you in circles. Do these have any in game applications/rules? If so, will they be included? It'd be nice if some of these places, like Athel Loren, the Chaos Wastes, the volcanic Dark Lands of the Chaos Dwarfs or the tunnels of the Skaven/Dwarfs had rules or properties to make it feel more real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The biggest issue with that is that one assumes that one army figting is always on home turf as it were... While I can see there being some argument for it in the case of the Wood Elves, due to their non-expansionist, isolationist nature, I think this is still best reflected through their own unique magical lore. It's an even points type game, so giving one specific army a home turf advantage for free undermines that at a very basic level.

      If you and a friend want to play more narrative scennarioes however, that is another matter entirely :-)

      My two cents on it anyway. Others may disagree.

      Delete
  39. Hi there,

    My group tends to play in the 3,000-4,000 point range and we are having trouble with generals and Army standards scaling in larger games (10mm is so much cheaper). It seems to punish armies that do not use traditional centred battle lines like the wood elves, beastmen and also horde army's that have many regiments. Is there some way we could double up on them or increase the ranges of the generals leadership and ASB re-rolls above 3000 points?

    On an unrelated note Nippon have unbreakable skirmishers in the form of Ronin so could still abuse one model wide formations...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, in these case it would probably be good to house rule it to scale batter if needed, or go for two allied armies (which can be of the same faction) that would then be allowed to field two generals/BSB's.

      Skirmishers still abide by the no more ranks than files rule though, so if it's 1 wide, it can also only be one model deep ;)

      Delete
    2. One thing you can do offcourse, is to place the genral/BSB on a Monster, thus increasong his range, which is easier in larger point cost games. That said, I agree that it can be a bit of an issue, but I think it perhaps ties in closer with the gaming table size you play on than stricktly points alone.

      I've played a fair bit of VC myself, whom suffers even far more from this, a their marching bubble is locked to 12" regardless of game size, so I can se a potential problem if you play really big games, but allied armies as Mathias suggests are offcourse one solution that works. Multiple Generals/BSB in one army would not make any sense at all...

      Delete
  40. What if a unit gets stuck with having more ranks than files before the end of its turn, like with long bridges. I can also see people getting back long ranks through unit placement. Perhaps a rule that whenever the more ranks than files rule is broken, a unit does not benefit from rank bonus or steadfast. That would make chokepoints dangerous and using maneuvering to increase the number of ranks have no point.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mathias, you are a legend!
    You have kept the old world alive and IN THEIR NAME. Well done!!! T9A are doing a great job, but I could not bring myself to change the eternal names, so we stayed at 8th ed. Thanks so much for your work. Time to get an ale ... now where's me tankard ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll toast with you to that. The "old" warhammer community certainly have a lot to thank Mathias for. Hell, even before they killed warhammer as we know it, Mathias did an amazing job. So "Skål" for Mathias (along with his longtime supporting fanbase)! :-)

      P.S. If you can afford it, donate a litte. The man most certainly deserves it for his countless hours put in. He obviously doesn't do it for the money, but some Beer (or other alcohol) money is certainly a nice gesture to show ones appreciation and support for all his work I think. Keeping him motivated is in all our best intersts, as I can't even imagine who else could do what he does tbh.

      Delete
    2. A bit late to the party, but thanks for the kind words! Cheers/Skål!

      Delete
  42. Will the Blades of Khorne supplement include rules for the Khorne Bloodbound?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm also a bit curious about those more themed chaos lists tbh. I'm not an AoS guy (doesn't interest me the slightest), but I am a big fan of strongly themed lists in general, as it makes for a stronger narrative to the battles ectc. Themed armies also tend to look better. I do susepect that these lists will be focused on one chaos god and its followers exclusivly, wether Demons, Warriors of Chaos or Beastmen, but I might be wrong. Am I assuming correctly Mathas?

      Delete
    2. That's the idea! It's essentially planned to be a Khorne-only expansion for WoC, containing units like Skullcrushers and the fitting AoS units. It remains to be seen though just how many units I can fit into the WoC book without it getting too bloated. Daemons and Beastmen will not be included though, but can be taken as allies as normal.

      Delete
  43. Hi!
    I've a question: the DESTROY MAGIC SCROLL is one only use or not? Isn't specified! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's supposed to be one use only. I will add that to the book. thanks!

      Delete
  44. Hi,

    I tried a Storm of Magic (Dwarfs against skavens ) using new rules. I had big problem at dispelling spells even with all dwarfs things to fight magic. The worst was the +5 channeling, that resulted in a slaughter for my army. I'd like to know what you will do for armies that are very good at magic because it becomes very quickly very hard to dispell spells when your opponent has 30 dice avalaible and you only 17.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kind of hard to use Storm of Magic as a reference for normal games, as Storm of Magic is designed to be incredibly magic heavy in the first place, so it's hard to judge anything properly with so little concrete information. Could you elaborate a bit more perhaps?

      Delete
    2. Hi, I am a french player so sorry if I am not as clear as I'd like. In fact, in Storm of Magic Dwarves suffer miscast lots of times,and if the limit of dices is removed, and if you add the new channeling rule, it becomes roughly impossible to play as despite of all tricks of dwarf, 17 dispell dice against 30 power dice is impossible to manage. If we get rid of the new channeling rule it becomes playable. Also, it would be intersting to study again the generation of dispell dice as without the dice limit, it becomes very hard to beat magic .

      THanks

      Delete
    3. I think I have to dust off the Storm of Magic rules here tomorrow, but initially Storm of Magic wasn't meant to be very balanced from the outset if I remember correctly...
      Dwarfs miscasting all the time?
      If I recall correctly, you rolled 4D6 for winds of magic in Storm of Magic, so that explains 24 PD at best. +6 on top of that would indicate a total of 18 Wizard levels on top of that on average... How many wizard levels did you have on both sides in total? :-P

      Delete
    4. Hi, He had 7 wizards all level 4. He got 21 dices (6+5+6+4) normally, you have to include the arabian box +5 dice (arcane item specific to storm of magic , not sure of its translation) and dices thanks to channeling. I had 7 runelord and 11 dispell dice. I could get one thanks to the anvil of doom and another thanks to a runic talisman and 4 thanks to chanelling. Just on miscast, in, for each six you roll you get a miscat and it occurs rather often, the worst is that you have to add all effects (miscast of storm of magic and miscast of warhammer ...).

      Delete
    5. 7 lvl 4 wizards with the storm of chaos rules where magic swings wildly due to the wheel being used as well.. yea, Not really sure you can even aim for balance under those conditions tbh... :-P

      Delete
    6. I don't think so as you get rid of the limit pool dice plus the channeling role dice, you get 24 dice. With little chance, as your army is tough, you can hope to undergo the magic phase without dispelling one spell without too much damages. Two spells are too much.

      Delete
    7. If you have 7 lv 4 Wizards and only manage to get one spell off, you might as well ignore wizards all tohgether and just buy a ton of other character and units instead... Even getting two spells of sounds horribly bad from a point cost perspective...

      Delete
    8. As Rune said, Storm of Magic is probably not the most balanced system. That said, I'm planning on making Runesmiths/Runelords counts as a lvl 2/lvl 4 "wizard" for the purposes of dispelling, which means you will be able to attempt to channel twice as many dispel as you currently can.

      Delete
    9. It also means you get +1/+2 to dispel as well, putting giving you +4 to dispel vs +4 to cast, which means a much bigger advantage to the Dwarf player compared to the current RH rules.

      Delete
  45. Mathias:

    I think I just noticed an omission in the Orcs and Goblins book, regarding Big'Uns. I can't find what the army restictions regarding the number of Big'Uns anywhere. That section is gone from the Army Special rules section.

    ps. I also hope you limit Black Orc mount options severely (infantry only perhaps), so that he is not better in every single way to a normal Orc Warboss... I think the options for mounts are a nice encouragement for olayers to chose a regular orc warboss, which encourages Animosity and proper Orcish fun. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The restrictions are on page 107 (v 1.02) I believe.

      Ps, talk such nonsense again and I'll set the squigs on you. From the way I understand it, regular orc characters aren't affected by animosity (unless part of a unit) and a black orc character only affects animosity when part of a unit, which you can't really do on a wyvern...

      Delete
    2. You are corect Ed. It used to be under Army special rules in the 8the ed army book and not "hidden" under the generic Big'Un prfile in the army list. My mistake.

      You are correct that he can't do it on a Wyverm, but he sure can on a Warboar or a Gore Grunta...
      That said, Armed to the Teeth also seem a bit off if mounted, as you generally can't use two hand weapons while mounted. Great weapons are more of a rarety seen on mounted units as well...

      The Orcs and Goblins list is really spoiled for choice from the outset and I really don't think it will harm the list overall to consider it at least. *Blows the dust of my Squig Gun...*

      Delete
  46. I remember back when the Ravening Hordes were coming out, these new units were listed among the Wood Elves:

    New Special Unit: Meadow Chariots (from 4th ed).

    New Special Unit: Alter Kin (MB, shapeshifting elves)

    New Core Unit: Spite Swarm. Upgrades for these will be included in the full release.

    New Hero: Beastmaster

    Are they still in, or have plans changed?

    ReplyDelete
  47. For future army books, would it be possible to have all the rules concerning one unit in one place?

    As it is now, the special rules are close to the fluff entry, equipment is with the army list at the back, army wide rules are at the front etc. I know that's how GW traditionally did it, but it makes it very cumbersome to use.

    I'd prefer if the books were clearly divided into "generalfluff" (history important events, culture etc.), "uni fluff" (entries for units and special char.) and "rules" (all you need to play this faction).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could use the Ravening Hordes list for this purpose, though I might make a quick "playsheet" with all rules readily available at a later date.

      Delete
  48. The Wood Elves stuck at 95% is killing me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New army books are always fun and exciting, but I hope we see a new update for magic as well as some needed polishing for the Dark Elves before we get another army book.

      Delete
  49. Our group uses your rules, your changes to magic are working out great. We even got 7 new players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

    ReplyDelete
  51. Mathias:

    I just noticed something under the Unstable special rule that does not really apply now that characters riding monsters get their Toughness nad Wound profiles (if higher):

    "If an Unstable unit also contains Unstable characters, or is an Unstable character riding an Unstable monster, the controlling player first allocates wounds to the unit/monster, then divides any remaining wounds (if any) as equally as possible amongst the characters."

    I've also posted at least one new post under the last Dark Elf army book thread.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I cannot find any explanation for the flying cavalry rule in the 9th ed Brettonian army book or main rulebook. Any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Flying Cavalry rules no longer apply in 9th Ed, just use the rules for Flyers and you are all set :)

      Delete
  53. Mathias: Added a post under the Dark Elf army book thread and one one High Elf one. The one under the High Elf one might apply to the upcoming Wood elf book as well.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I've noticed that the new rulebook lacks the Magical Resistance rule, is this a missprint or is it getting removed? And, in case Magic Resistance is kept, does the Ward save apply only against damaging spells? Or if a unit with Magic Resistance is targeted by, say, a Hex type of spell that does not deal damage, they can use such Ward Save to dispel it as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Magic Resistance is now under Ward saves in the special rules section, as it is just a special form of ward save, just like the parry rule. Magic Resistance does not work against hex spells, no. I considered making Magic Reistance work in that you get +1 to dispel spells cast against units with the rule, but as a lot fo spell don't target untis directly, I opted to keep it as is.

      Delete
  55. On the subject of elves:

    I've been considering the elves in general for 9th ed, comparing points to 8th ed, considering the new meta, the loss of ASF acoss the board, and I think that overall the cost of most elves accros the board is a bit high compared to their usefullness. I posted some of my thoughts regarding their cost in detail under the last High Elf army book thread btw.

    The main concern is offcourse the loss of ASL, which Iunderstand, due to the way the constant re-rolls slowed down the game, how it was irrational thatelves always gotto strikefirst etc, so I think Mathias did the right think removingthat, but it still leaves elves in a bit of a stateasfar as cost-efficiency goes, but more than that perhaps, elves don't really feel all that skilled for S3/T3 troop any more. Where they could usually make up for the lack of strength with a high number of hits (from 50% hit chance against similar WS enemies to 75%, and even better against lower WS enemies), this is now gone. Since who strikes first rerely matters until the very end ofalong combat with few models left, any similarcost regiment of elves will pretty much get slaughtered whenfacing a similar cost regiment of tougher/stronger troops (such as dwarves).

    This isan issue for both High andDark Elves, but might become even moreofan issue for the low armour wood elves that benefit more from an ambushing playstyle.

    As it stands right now, I think the cost of elves need to come down across the board, or a litte rebalancing needs to be done.

    I have a suggestion which I think is rather simple however:

    New special Rule for elves:

    "Elven Grace": When a model with this special rule is fighting a modelwith a lower Initiative score (use thehighest initiative score of the enemy model), then the elven model getsa+1 on his To Hit roll.

    -This cuts down on the re-rolls, which cuts down on time
    -It does not grant any Always Strike First
    -It help slow Strength/high cost elves compete in the current meta where armour is a bit more ofan issue to overcome
    -It pretty much leaves the cost of elves fine as is across the board in the High Elf/Dark Elf lists
    -It makes elves feel a bit more like well, elves...

    I might have overlooked some apect, but as it is a much more moderate change than GW first did when they added ASF to all elves across the board, and it is simpler, I think it is worth considering at least...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My space bar on my tablet has become very slow to respond, so I apologize for the errors guys.

      Delete
    2. By having this property, you could also use it to potentially seperate "professional" soldier types such as the Dread spears from the city Guard, as well as the HE spearmen from the riff-raff of their society (warriors, caugh, caugh...)

      It's an option at least, but it might be preferable to keep it racial thing amongst all elves if implemented.

      Delete