Monday, 5 November 2018

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.09 out now!

A pretty important update here, taking care of a few bugs and other things discussed in the forum and comments:
  • Destroy magic scroll is one use only (bug fix).
  • Unstable Monsters ridden by characters cannot have wounds allocated to them separately (bug fix).
  • Dispel Scroll is no longer an auto-dispel, instead you get 6 dispel dice to use for that dispel roll, can now be used on remains in play spells.
  • Shields on Infantry models give +1 Armour save against missile attacks to the front.
  • Immunity (Psychology) allows units to automatically restrain from pursuit. 
  • Fixed bug with lance Strength Bonus not being specified when charging.
  • Fixed bug with additional hand weapon parry not being specified.
  • Vampiric added to Lore of Light bonus damage.
  • Unstable units that outnumber the enemy (and being Steadfast) reduces the casualties from crumbling by 1.
  • Skirmishing Flyers do not benefit from the Vanguard rule. 
  • Swarms are Expendable. 
  • Clarified how Steadfast is used in combination with the General's Inspiring Presence.
  • Up to 35% can be spent on Lords and Heroes, 25% limit of either Lords or Heroes removed.
  • Clarfied further how multiple combats and break tests work. Units on the losing side but whose CR is greater than all enemy units in base contact no longer need to take break tests, and no unit on the losing side can suffer a greater break test modifier than the overall loss of their side (meaning smaller units flanking a larger force but only lost the combat by 1 pt won't suddenly find themself having a -5 modifier from only being in base contact with a large unit with a ton of CR). This will be further clarified with graphics in the future.
  • Clarified how Outnumbers works in combat with multiple units (i.e. you cannot get the bonus once for each unit if you have several units that each outnumber the enemy). 
  • Added bookmarks to the PDF for easier access.

175 comments:

  1. All good changes and clarifications I think Mathias :-)

    Graphics will likely help out a bit to explain the CR issue, but overall it seems very good :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can we have the intelligent creature rule enabling inspiring presence and hold your ground to apply despite troop type, to be applied to certain monsters and monstrous beasts? Please

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should not be an issue, what units would this apply to though? I could think of Dragon Ogres and Treeman for one, anything else?

      Delete
    2. I suggest that the wording of inspiring presence match that of hold your ground (you corrected hold your ground but not inspiring presence).
      I’d then add intelligent creature to the monster and handler’s rule and remove that exception from inspiring presence and hold your ground. (You have an exception for MONSTERS with handlers) but there are units out there with the monsters and handlers rule that aren’t monsters. Kislev bear pack for example can’t use inspiring presence because it has Troop type monstrous beast and the exception is for MONSTERS with the monsters and handler’s rule.
      Other units that could have the intelligent creature rule: celestial dragon, Phoenix? Bull centaurs, there are lots of monsters with people riding on them, would these count as they are directed by their riders: araby royal elephants, Norse mammoth, Albion mastodon, pirate turtigon arachnarok and all the other ridden monsters in the Lizardmen book.
      Nagas, Norse jotun frost giants

      Delete
    3. You could alternatively turn the issue on its head and let everyone benefit from the Hold your ground special rule in terms of unit types, then give something like "Feral" (not letting them benefit from it) to those units that it would suit best. Effect would be the same, but it could at the same time be an option to include units to benefit from the Lore of Beast attribute if that was included in a Feral type special rule.

      Delete
    4. yes as with any implementation you could white list units in, or black list units out. Your suggestion to tie into the beast lore attribute is interesting, but I feel it is muddying the waters. You'd end up with beast spells affecting giants but not hydras due to the handlers etc.
      The everyone can use the rule apart from those with a special rule would be simpler I agree. Currently we my suggestion is everyone can, apart from those that can't apart from those that now can again :-).
      So a rule like "Independent" (to leave feral to be beasts lore attribute related) would be sensible.
      Then give Independent to a whole pile of units, mostly packs of warbeasts, some monstrous beasts and some monsters - do it book by book as we update them

      Delete
    5. Noticed the wording between IP and HyG was a bit different, will clarify that on both.

      Many of the units you mentioned like the War Mammoth are ridden though, so they can still use IP and HyG. I will clarify how "howdah" monsters work better under Troop Types though.

      Monsters like the Jotun and Phoenix though, I see more like allies than creatures under the control of the general. Why would a giant really care about a flag carried by a puny human?

      Or, in order to keep things simple, I could just make it work like in 8th ed, all units can use IP and HyG. There's quite of a lot of exceptions to keep track of, not sure it would really be for the betterment of the game as whole.

      Btw, I think Rune mentioned BSB's should allow re-roll of panic tests as well, due to the increased shooting. I'm fine with that myself, though that should really affect its cost (thinking 50 pts here, re-roll everything for 25 pts in 8th ed was just ridicolous though).

      Delete
    6. I actually don't think the Giant would care either Mathias :-)

      The idea is obviously to make Monsters and the like a bit less reliable, but ther are a few exceptions where you have something is classified as a Monster/Monstrous Beasrt due to it's physiology, where this doesn't quite make sense... I'm talking about Dragon Ogres, Bull-Centaurs and the like. I think any handlers have more than enough with controling a beast and as such I don't think they can benefit from the HyG as it's really the monster that is the essential part and they already provide a LD bonus to reflect their role. Monsters that have handlers tend to be rathe difficult to control, unlinke monsters that are suitable for riding for a reason...

      I did suggest that indeed Mathias, so that you do have a counter to panicking due to missile spam in more elite armies. The BSB is something universally available across all armies, so I don't think a point cost reduction is needed. It was the same cost when all LD test wer ere-rolled after all. It still won't help against spells, special rules, rallying, terror etc, so it is quite nerfed from what it used to be, but with the increased potency of missile fire I think it is justified.

      Delete
    7. Firstly, whether a monster is ridden or not is irrelevant for HyG or IP as rules currently stand. I am not sure there is anything called a “ridden monster” in the rules.
      I agree there are a number of exceptions but it does seem to make sense, some big monsters like a cyclops are not likely to be influenced by a flag, but maybe would follow the general. The issue is that things like Treemen and Jotun which are possibly the most sentient monsters (both of which can be characters) maybe should be treated differently to proper monsters like chimera or a jabberslythe

      Delete
    8. @ Rune: I think Monsters & should be allowed the use the General's Leadership still, like a ridden monster can.

      A BSB that both allow re-rolls of break tests and panic tests would be significantly more useful than an Undead BSB, which also costs 35 pts. That's why I think the BSB should be more expensive. Otherwise you might as well have the BSB-upgrade be free, just like the Army general do not pay anything to get IP.

      @ Philip - ridden monsters are mentioned as an exception. That said, it will be made clearer what constitutes as a ridden monster.

      About sentient monsters; would it not perhaps then be easier to make those particular monsters Characters? They could still be in the rare section, and as monsters, they cannot join units anyway.

      Delete
    9. Regarding BSBs rerolling panic. As much as panic pains me to play. It actually becomes relevant in 9th ed and makes for interesting games. Panic in 8th edition was the odd unlucky roll. It also hammers home how nice ItP actually is when a unit has it.

      I like how current BSBs work, honestly the only thing I'd like to see add (maybe for a slight price increase) is rerolling rallying troops LD.

      Delete
    10. @ Glen - that's what I would be worried about as well, that ItP would be much less useful in these situations. Mark of Slaanesh is actually pretty useful now, whereas in 8th ed they would probably need stubborn added to be on par with the other Marks.

      Delete
    11. Mathias:

      I only meant that monsters adn the like shouldn't get to use the HyG special rule. The general's IP is fine, as I imagine he is the general for a good reason and even in the case of a Giant or similar, he would have to establish dominance to get them in the army anohow. Sorry if that was unclear :-)

      Then make the Undead BSB comparable instead. The undead BSB has only really ever been good if you go heavy on the elites anyway. What does saving one skeleton or xombie really matter compared to re-rolling a Break Test after all, especially in these steadfast times.
      Maybe the Undead BDB could make it so that if the unit would benefit from Steadfast, it now reduced wounds from Unstable by an amount equal to rank bonus (min 1) instead? It could work, since you now have given Undead a sort of Steadfast after all.
      I wouldn't change the BSB cost too much, as that whole effect hinges on a 2W model that more often than not gets killed as soon as his unit enters Close Combat (and often targeted by sniping before that). I agree that he was too good for +25 pts in 8th ed, but I don't think it is needed to fix the point cost through all army lists on account of allowing re-rolling Panaic (and nothing else) as well. It is something every army has access to, with no exceptions, so it evens out.

      Making Sentient Monster's characters is one way to go, but that would not solve the issue for simlar Monstrous Beasts, so I don't think that is the way to go really.

      Delete
    12. Glen: Try crossing 24+" of gaming table with an elite foot slogging army against a missile heavy army. You risk having to take 3-4 Panic tests from missile fire alone due to low model number/increased missile damage/shortened charge range and if you fail even one of these and flee, you are not likely to rally and make it back into close combat range before the game is efectivly over.
      Even with LD 8 (which is high), 3-4 tests will mean you are more likely to fail the test at least once during the game.
      The BSB would then be a helpful counter to missile armies for elite armies. Cheap horde type armies are not likely to have to take panic tests from shooting anyhow due to high model numbers making the 25% hard to reach, but even if the enemy focus-fired and managed to cause such a test, the BSB would be less effective for them due to lower LD.

      An alternative could be to let the re-roll use the unit's own LD, without the benefit of characters or the general's IP.

      Delete
    13. The Rune;

      I regularly play almost entirely infantry based Warriors of chaos with limited magic and cavalry. Against tomb kings, High and dark elfs.

      Im fully aware on how devastating panic is on them. I lost my previous game due to an unfortunate dice roll.

      However I still feel it is an important part of the game that never was a major issue in 8th edition. Rerolling panic is far to strong and basically negates it while your near your BSB. Why not BSB gives +1 LD (on their unmodified ld) on panic tests while they're within 12". This would benefit Elite armies more so than hordes while not being almost a guaranteed pass most of the time.

      Delete
    14. I also find magic to cause far more panic than most missile infantry, just my experience :P

      Delete
    15. Mathias & Glen:

      How about the BSB allow re'rolls for both break tests & Panic, but for the re-roll you have to rely on the unit's own base LD with no buff for characters?

      That could potentially balance a lot of issues out nicely I think.

      Delete
    16. OK just catching up on this thread. Mathias the rules / exemptions for HyG are different to IP, so yes if HyD just used the same wording, then yes ridden monsters would be covered (you are right though - the definition of ridden monster is at the user's discretion which I would like clarified - ideally as a special rule or a dedicated troop type).
      Making sentient monsters characters breaks one of the fundamentals of the game, the definition of character currently is that they are either a hero or a Lord - ie dependent on army composition type. Troop type is what we have been discussing up to now. I can't see how you can make a rare a character.
      The options, in terms of rule mechanics are to apply a special rule to exempt or include a basic game rule which is being applied at the troop type - or possibly create a new troop type to enable the basic rule to omit them.

      This thread has slightly deviated from which units should be able to benefit from IP and HyG. Would like to resolve that before moving on to address which leadership tests are affected by HyG.

      Rerolling panic tests had a huge impact on the game, made battle standards auto include, that absence makes panic avoidance very important now.
      The suggestion that HyG could be used to reroll failed rally tests though - that is a much smaller change - and feels reasonably justified - I'd be in favour of that.

      Delete
    17. Phillip:

      The ussue with re-rolling Rally tests are that you often won't be in range for it to have a real effect on the game for units that don't hold the BSB themselves...

      If the re-roll for both Breaking and Panic tests were don on the unit's own base LD however, the LD value for troops would be more significant, which again could result in more cheap hordes could also panic now and again from missile fire (not just elites). It would also make the unit's own LD stat matter a bit more in the game. It wold aslo make it possible to break low LD Steadfast units with a high LD general as they wouldn't get to re-roll using the high LD from the general.

      Overall, the game unfairly rewards low LD troops with a low cost due to being very hard to panic and break in close combat due to steadfast, and this could balance this out a bit... It would also hep resolve the cost issue of the BSB somewhat and nt make it such a mst-have unit to remain competitive.

      Delete
    18. Regarding the "Intelligent" rule; of those monsters and monstrous beasts that would be considered more sentient, would they really be that bothered in following the General or BSB though? I mean, Dragon Ogres seem to consider themselves being allies rather than subjects to the WoC, same goes for Frost Giants and the like. Bull Centaurs would be more likely to follow a Chaos Dwarf general though.

      Fluff-wise, re-rolling Rally (which is already boosted by musicians) would not really fit with "Hold your ground!", re-rolling panic would be more suitable there. I would be more okay with limiting the re-roll to the unit's own Leadership, though that would once again overcomplicate things as when you are allowed to use the General's Leadership or not. Would you then be allowed to take the first Panic/Break test on the General's Leadership, and take the re-roll on your own Leadership test? That's fairly strange for a re-roll, not a huge fan of over-complicating things.

      Delete
    19. Original Break & Panic tests as in the gsme right now.
      A "re-roll" on units own LD, with no general or character's influence. It could be just no IP alternstively.
      The idea is that you would't get the Generals's IP benefit twice if within the BRB range for these tests, but would have to use the unit's own LD for the re-roll (could be renamed to avoid confusion) to represent their own innate morale.
      I don't think this is complicated as most LD stats are pretty racially determined to begin with.

      Delete
    20. Regading the intelligent Monsters ides:

      I'm not arguing for making most monsters/monstrus beasts have such s rule, but there are some circumstances where it is reslly hard to justify how it works right now, such as in the case of Dragon Ogres (comparable to Ogres) or Bull Centaurs (comparable to chaos dwarfs) etc.. I'd reserve this rule stricktly to these kinds of units.

      Delete
  3. Damn, hoped to get this post in before the next update, but as far as I can tell, near all the issues I had before are still there. Hope not too much of this seems pedantic, since most of it is just wanting clarification of things that many would think obvious, but I would hope anyone who regularly plays with a 'It doesnt say I cant' crowd will agree its good for rules to be as clear as they can be.

    -Cavalry and Monstrous things say they need less models 'to count for rank bonus, steadfast, and so on', but don't actually state that they're allowed to have less than the minimum 5 models per rank.

    -Volley still reads that it interacts with cover as if it grants a save instead of a hit modifier

    -Morning stars are gone, but some army books, most notably Brettonians, can still take them. Are they supposed to be rolled in to some other weapon?

    -Does Fear stack? The Special Rules preface mentions models don't benefit from having the same special rule multiples times, but doesn't specify if a unit is affected by multiple enemies causing the same penalty. Does it just mean to say that multiple instances of the same special rule are never cumulative unless specified?

    -Does Regeneration work differently with Multiple Wounds, since saves are usually rolled for before the Multiple Wounds have their effect? IE if a monster with Regen is hurt by a cannonball that inflicts four wounds, should there be one roll at the end of the phase to regain all four wounds, or four rolls to regain one wound each? And if my understanding of it is correct, and regeneration really now involves models going down and getting back up, it could do well to spell that out.

    -Speaking of spelling things out, when I first looked over 9th, Regrowth was a spell I skipped to in hopes of seeing the text clarified in regards to multiple-wound units like Monstrous Cav. 8th's wording caused quite some debate for us, and gave the impression that regrowing multi-wound units were only considered as an afterthought. While most might consider it intuitive, it could do well to state that such models are only raised with one wound left, especially since “D3+1 Wounds' worth of models” could be interpreted to mean that if you want to raise a 3 wound model, you need to roll enough to give him back all his wounds or he stays dead. I wondered if it was intentional that raising the Champ and Muso took priority over healing wounded models, which can cause a real mess and further complicate the spell if you're not assuming they come back at full health, and it also says the front rank must be made 5 models wide with no consideration for units that need less for a full rank. Hope this all doesn't seem pedantic.

    -Lastly, the temporary reform bypass for the no-more-ranks-than-files restriction is real vague. You could easily use terrain and other units to deliberately keep a unit sandwiched to 5 models wide at your leisure. I'm not sure it's even needed, since tables shouldn't be so densely packed that even big units can find impassable defiles common anyway, plus removing hordes and no longer needing to wipe out a unit to get points for it must make huge units a lot less attractive. If someone still takes a huge unwieldy unit and it gets stuck and fails to do anything, I say that's on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Several good points brought up!

      - To quote the BRB: "Essentially, wherever the rules say 'a rank of five or more models' treat it as reading 'a rank of three or more models'." However, I can clarify this further if you prefer.

      - Will clarify volley fire.

      - Morning stars will be removed from Bretonnia and counts as hand weapons. Do any other book still have them?

      - Fear does not stack from multiple units, no. Will clarify this.

      - You get to roll one dice for each Wound lost, will clarify this.

      - Regrowth has this: "Then rank-and-file models with multiple Wounds (including command figures) are healed to their starting value." I can make it "UP to their starting value" instead if that makes it clearer.

      - I think this could still be useful if you need to pass over a bridge or similar, or for fast cavalry or skirmishers that might need to reform into more ranks than files temporarily. If you do try to cheese it by keeping your unit between to other units or terrain, that also means you cannot really move properly and can easily get out-manoeuvred. The rule was mainly included to just keep individual units from stacking up on cheap ranks for combat resolution and and attack-avoidance.

      Delete
  4. Thank you for adding bookmarks, will help a lot.

    Also Im happy to see the shields extra save is back. I know this might be a bit complicated, but you do think you should make only against volley fire weapons? I cant see a shield helping all that much against black powder weapons. In real life at least a wooden shield would provide almost no protection from a musket.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well a wooden shield against a musket would provide some cover, certainly more than some light armour which before gave the same save. Shields often had metal bits in. And being a flat surface you might get some ricochet. However the penetration power of gunpowder is already represented by their S4 armour piercing rule. Someone shot at with no armour and a shield still gets no save...

      Delete
    2. Glen: Have you never seen an american movei where just about any cover is effective protection against bullet fire? :-P

      But seriously though, a shield combined with other armour can stop a bullet and I'd argue that a shield is far more effective than a piece of leather armour (light armour) against your skin.

      Delete
    3. Don't think that's needed as black powder weapons go through the shield already as is.

      Delete
  5. And can we do something about the lore of metal lore attribute as per previous suggestions. Roll the existing lore attribute into the signature spell description, out a S5 value into the Hounds and then have a lore attribute giving a +1 to cast for medium armour, + 2 for heavy and plate and -1 for no armour. Ignoring shields and natural armour throughout

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot about that one, sorry. I will make it so that you get +1 to cast for each level of armour worn by the target unit. The current lore attribute will then be moved to searing doom, which is the only spell in the lore that really makes use of it. The Golden Hounds will be plain S5 hits instead.

      Delete
    2. My suggestion of -1 no armour, no change for light, +1 for medium and +2 for heavy and plate. No contribution from shields and barding or natural armour (because it isn’t metal) (barding maybe but there are very few units with barding and not heavy armour) ensures there isn’t a massive variation. Your suggestion Mathias puts a +6 casting bonus on an empire knight which is enormous.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, that would probably better balanced. I should clearly not be writing rules at 11 PM!

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

      Delete

    5. But now you cast glittering scales on 1 unit then it makes casting enchanted blades on that unit easier. Tbh lore of Metals attribute is ok, you mainly take the lore for the buff n nerfs. If any lore attribute should be looked at it's lore of Heavens, it's a lot more situational than metals and again it's a lore that most people take for the buffs n nerfs

      Delete
    6. Well you could exclude the glittering scales from the attribute if that is an issue, personally I don’t think it is. Point here is the attribute is useless on 5/7 spells, and the idea that metal magic is attracted to metal objects is smack bang in the middle of he lore, that is how it is described as behaving.
      Heavens lore attribute, will have a look

      Delete
    7. Maybe instead of + To casting rather have the metal attribute reduce the casting value as. A Dark Elf lvl4 mage with a book of azure casting metal at knights or other high armoured units will have a field day

      Delete
  6. Something to say about heroes inside units: During one of our testing games, a guy used a Daemon Slayer inside a unit of Ironbreakers. It's ugly to see, but actually there's no rules to avoid this beardy behaviour. Just write "To join a Unit, a Hero must have the same rules for Psicology" could be enough. You already do that for Bretonnians (to join Grail Knights a Hero/Lord must have the Grail Wov). That's because some heroes got mutation or powers that give them a boost that's fair enough in their own unit, but became unfair in other units. Another question: my players said that could be a great improvement to change the front arc rule: instead of 90 degrees, to 180 merging front arc with line of sight (For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace an unblocked line from the front arc of its base to the base of the target.) Just Say"You must be able to trace an unblocked line from its base to the base of the target) Even that, to avoid beardy behaviours like skirmishers that fly around without any chances of being charged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The daemon slayer in a unit of iron breakers is already illegal, check the unbreakable rule in the BRB

      Delete
    2. The Unbreakable rule only prevents non-Unbreakable characters from joining Unbreakable units, not vice versa

      Delete
    3. Overlold is right ^_^. What about allowing charges in line of sight instead of "front Arc" 90 degrees?

      Delete
    4. then we shoudl add the rule that unbreakable characters can't join non unbreakable units.

      Changes outside 90 degree arc could change things significantly and prompt some very unrealistic manoeuvres.
      What about allowing a 180 degree charge arc for skimishers and maybe fast cavalry?

      Delete
    5. With the current rules, the Daemon Slayer will not give Unbreakable to the unit he is with (as the whole units needs to be Unbreakable for that). However, I have no issues making it so that Unbreakable characters can only join Unbreakable units.

      I'm iffy about changing the 90 degree LoS though; if you are able to charge 180 degrees, that means a unit would need to make a whole turn 90 degrees to the left, which is usually not possible through simply wheeling.

      Skirmishers and fast cavalry can already reform to get into a good position, not so sure they need another boost in that regard.

      Delete
    6. I suppose the point here is that skirmishers and fast cavalry can be outmanoeuvred by other units rather more easily than makes sense, move up close and be right next to them...Skirmishers had a 360charge arc at one point if I remember correctly

      Delete
  7. Infantry get (rather than gets) the +1 save for shields. I am hugely in favour of this, but there are still a few armies out there that suffer hugely from the new 9th rules set with changes to armour and missile fire. Kislev could really do with some attention, huge quantity of T3 unbarded cavalry with medium armour at best. I’ll email some thoughts but right now they are dreading the sight of a unit of archers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would be even better though, would be if models LOST their shield armour save to missile fire from the rear. So you get no save to rear, 6+ to side and 5+ to front. Gives a huge tactical incentive for missile armed fast cavalry to get behind an enemy. Right now, there isn't much benefit unless you charge in, which often is suicide for small units of lightly armed troops.

      Delete
    2. You need +1 Save on shielded troops from the front, but I wholeheartedly agree that you should not benefit from the shield from the rear Phil. LMakes sense and also encourages tactical missile fire, instead of just statically spamming missiel fire from the front. :-)

      Delete
    3. What about those models who carry shields on their back through, like Halberdiers? ;)

      Delete
    4. They only do that when fighting Mathias... Not when marching.. :-P

      Delete
    5. Then they can’t use them towards their front Mathias :-) maybe they could carry 4 shields each to cover all sides, but then being so weighed down, can’t move...

      Delete
    6. shields are actually more likely to be slung on the back while marching (i think its even specifically mentioned in the fluff desription of marching in at least older versions) than constantly held in front of you for missile protection. If you are under fire you will of course take up your shields, but that would certainly impede on the marching speed.
      As I really dislike the removal of long range modifier (I would not want to face my dwarves with these rules) I have lately been thinking of units getting targeted by missile fire lose their march move in their following turn in the same way as if enemies are within 8" combined with the return of -1 to hit at long ranges (so they can still take a ld test to push on). this would decrease the killing power to the old levels ( but +1 to hit large regiments of 30+ unit size to encourage smaller units as mentioned above and in an older thread somewhere) but add a tactical element to shooting. In old tabletop boardgames I played the mechanic is usually named "pinned down" or something similar depending on the context of the game.
      The big problem is the first turn as it can be a gamewinner going first and instantly slow down large part of the enemy. Therefore the effects of this rule would only start to take place during turn 2. So both sides get to move normally the first turn but player 1 will be affected by missile fire from player 2 fired in the first turn.(you could imagine that in the first turn when the armies are still marching up to the battle and still have the stamina and eagerness to push on). There are still a few more details that would have to be cleared out and it would probably change things a lot. -lemurus

      Delete
    7. Not sure we need to make missile fire any better than it already is. Maybe what you are suggesting is that if you march, then you are focused on speed not protection and you can't gain benefits from shields....

      Delete
    8. It wold be beyond pointless to use shields to protect you from missiles if you had to sacrifice the March move.... You can't really do that in the game with shorter charge ranges for infantry either. Same goes for slowing down marching troops with missile fire... Armies would have to start far closer to each-other to not let missile troops entirely dominate the game if any of what "Unknown" suggests should be implemented.

      Delete
    9. I think you over estimate the impact this would have. Units can still march on by passing a ld test which would be quite easy in the center in the general bubble. It would affect units on the flanks more but there you usually have fast moving units anyway that can reach the enemy in turn 2. You would of course also need to pass a threshold in the number of hits a unit get before suffering the "pinned down" effect (maybe number of hits exceeding ld value) so you can not use a large number of minimum sized units to stop the opposing army. And also -1 to hit on long range would lessen the number of hits to create this effect as well. And I didnt mean you actually had to sacrifice the shield bonus as well in trade of marching (even if it would be realistic of course), And The Rune about your first sentence: what would be your choice in a situation where the sky is darkened with arrows, would it be pointless to try to save yourself using the shield;)? (I understand you meant it in game of course, but I kind of smiled when I read it:).
      So the pure killing power is reduced to the levels it had before but the tactical use of missile units is increased. at least to me it sounds like a more interesting and realistic game, but it´s not "pure" warhammer of course. -Lemurus

      Delete
    10. Ok, sorry I miss understood your suggestion, you mean a unit suffering casualties from missile fire must test to march, as opposed to flat out can’t march. Hmm
      If people feel this is too strong how about a unit forced to take a panic test from missile casualties last turn must test to march?
      Just tossing ideas about

      Delete
    11. I don't think any suggestion that potentially slows down Infantry Movement by any means is good for the game overall Phil. Thereduced charge distance is already quite significant, combined with harder hitting misiles fire and a huge inceased risk of panicking (bth due to higher casualties from missile fire & brb not helping), means that elite Infantry is a very risky proposition to use, compared to larger infantry blocks that will only very rarely be subject to panic due to the 25% rule.
      Remeber that if you flee just once with infantry, you are very likely not to have any impact on the battle at all.
      The movement phase should also be key to vicory in games, and by adding more rules that slow units down you severely change the game as a whole.

      Delete
    12. Was just a thought - this would be a rare event though - first of all you have to make a unit take a panic test - (now presumably they pass this or else they won't be marching next turn anyway) now they need to pass a second test, but the elite infantry you are referring to likely have high ld anyway (they might already need to test if close enemies nearby, and may be wanting to charge so not march anyway). Not the biggest change anyway

      Delete
    13. Remember that the old fashioned way of "marchblocking" is still more powerful than trying to pin down units with missile fire. enemy units affect all your units within 8" automatically and the typical marchdenyer is usually fast and dirt cheap compared to the relatively large missile fire unit you need to potentially put down just one enemy. And vanguarding units and flyers can often try to block your troops from turn one as well. The advantage of the missile troops is of course that you can perform your barrage at a "safe" distance.
      Enemies that "put all their eggs in one basket" will probably have some problems with missile marchdenying, but it will reward players that split up their forces so that only minor parts of the battle line may fall behind. With the return of long range modifier those smaller units will have the same chance to reach the enemies as before as well without dintegrating.
      -Lemurus

      Delete
  8. And one more - I know lots of comments: Can we consider shooting into combat into expendable troops, and giving zombies the expendable rule to go along with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've argued for this before. Not from the standpoint of the VC list that didn't have missile fire, but in general.
      I did get the 4" supporting shots trough from an unengaged flank though though :-)

      Delete
    2. I don't have an issue with it as such, but as there any units where that might be an issue?

      Delete
    3. Can't think of any. The expendable special rule is very rarely used though... It would make swarm more useful potentially. :-)

      Delete
    4. Might go look at the chaos dwarfs. They treat all anything thats not a chaos dwarf as expendable and have some pretty nasty artillery combined with cheap slaves.

      It does fit perfectly with their lore though.

      They're the only ones I can think of that may require a look at.

      Delete
    5. The Chaos Dwarves would need a little tidying up. The contempt rule means that units that have it treat those that don't as being expendable. This rule has been given to all CD infantry units and most of the warmachines - but not all - I suspect a mistake there, Iron daemon and Hell cannon for example lack it, but a magma cannon and Dreadquake mortar have it...
      The fact that there are so many expendable units from the perspective of those with missile weapons is a bit of a stretch. Suggest the following change. Amend the contempt rule to say "Units with this special rule treat all other units without it or the backstabbers rule as expendable. Backstabber units do not cause panic in contempt units." Then add the backstabbers rule to the Hobgoblin wolf riders, not sure why they don't have it already.
      Now you have removed the Hobgoblins from being expendable, meaning the only units you can fire at are the real slaves, goblins, orcs and black orcs - which is entirely suitable.

      Other armies have units of expendable slaves, Norse Thralls, Dark elf slaves, Hobgoblin Kharash and hobhounds (suggest dropping it from hobhoubds) an Pirate Swabbies.
      I can't see a problem with these examples, in all cases it feels entirely fitting. And as I said, I'd add it to Zombies too - as the most disposable undead troop.

      Delete
    6. I can't see Orcs having an issue shooting into Goblins. They would probably do that for fun...

      Delete
    7. Interesting idea, but might mess with the army book to a very significant degree. to Rune's point, expendable units aren't that common - goblins in the Orc book are very common....
      Would require some play testing to ensure it doesn't unbalance things too much, having said that OnG are hardly the most competitive army normally

      Delete
    8. also spotted that in both the Nippon and Cathay books there are rules where some units consider others as expendable, this should change to be these units are immune to panic from those without it. I mean you could say they are expendable - maybe nippon might, but in Cathay it seems a bit extreme

      Delete
  9. Javelin still don't have Volley Fire MAthias. Not blaming you for forgetting that in the mix of everything else. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. How about a +1 to hit any unit with a Unith strenght of greater than 40 with missile fire? This would:

    1. Discourage units from being too big.
    2. Prevent cheap, "horde" type units from benefitting too much from she shield buff (as they are already so good against missile fire/panic already).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. would rather we thoroughly test the suggested changes before introducing further changes to compensate for problems we haven't proven to exist

      Delete
    2. I went through the math rather extensively in the WAP forum earlier, so it is pretty obvious that cheap troops have a huge advantage over more elite troops, as they pretty much ignore the risk of Panic and have lots of fighting strenght left after having crossed the gaming table.

      Delete
    3. I'm thinking a "maybe" on that one. Is 40+ the standard one would expect of a horde unit? It used to be during my games of 8th ed at least, but it does feel like a bit of a strange number to base a limit on.

      Delete
    4. The number could be adjusted as needed, but at least it would have an effect on large, cheap, shield-carrying units, so that maybe they too could panic once in a while (not just the expensive elites). More than 40 seems to me to be an ok number to start out with.

      Delete
    5. Sounds like a good idea. Usually normal block is ~30 models max except cheap ones like zombies, etc.

      Delete
    6. I also quite like that, means if you want guaranteed steadfast you might take a few more missile casualties, I think 40 sounds about right.

      Delete
    7. Is this model count or unit strength? means I should probably bulk my goblins from 45 to 65 in a unit...

      Delete
    8. How about using the big template ?

      Put the template on the unit and if the unit is bigger than the template, you get a +1 bonus.

      In this way, you avoid problems due to 25mm bases...

      Delete
  11. I have a question for you. I noticed in the Dogs of war you covered Tilea. Does that mean the Border Princes might get their own army book? Or is the RPG the only source of possible units?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Border Princes might get a separate army list, through it would be pretty basic. Don't expect anything fancy like the DoW book for them, as there is hardly any background material available.

      Delete
  12. The Border Prince Confederation uses some of the same mercenary units as Tilea, as well as their own unique units, right? Maybe that could be enough? Also, do you have any plans for a book detailing the races of Warhammer Fantasy? Including the obscure Gnomes and Zoats?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Border Princes is a mix of Empire, Bretonnia, Tilea etc, so their unit roster would be a pretty generic mix of those armies core troops, with a few unique ones.

      I am planning of a Monstrous Arcanum book, detailinng all monsters and other creatures that do not fit into any of the current books, yes.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of a few unique units for the Border Princes, would magic users be covered by the Hedgefolk? Their lore of magic could suffice. Also, would Strigany mystics be added to the vampire counts at some point in the future?

      Delete
    3. Hedge Wizards would be included in the bordes princes, yes.

      Strigany mystics might be made available as a separate download later on.

      Delete
    4. I think it would be a good place to put a classic witch, on a broomstick.
      Can we put the strigani with the strigoi vampires themed unit supplement?

      Delete
    5. Hedge Folk in the Border Princes would make sense. However, there are also the Elementalists. Would they be in the Border Princes? Or are they reserved for something else? Also, for the Priests of the Old World, are you going to include the 'Old Faith'? Or other obscure cults?

      Delete
  13. Seeing as changing a lore attribute is on the table I would like to propose the following foir the Lore of Light, for the same basic premise as the lore of metal – the attribute only affects 2 of the 7 spells.

    For the lore of light, in summary, move the current lore attribute to the two spells that use it, and create a new lore attribute that is more consistently applied and supports the Warhammer lore.

    New Lore attribute:
    RITUALS OF CONTROL
    Light magic is pure and consistent, it provides a counter to the dark forces, banishing evil with blinding light. However it is diffuse and difficult to manipulate. Light Wizards spend many years perfecting the silent rituals needed to focus the magic to its potential.
    Spells from the Lore of Light receive +1 to cast if the wizard is not in combat and has not moved in the movement phase or shot in the shooting phase

    Changes to Shem’s burning gaze:
    Shem’s burning gaze is a magic missile with a range 24” and causes D6 S4 flaming hits (2D6 if the target has any of Undead, Vampiric or Daemonic special rules). The wizard can choose to extend the…..

    Changes to Banishment:
    Banishment is a magic missile with a range of 24" – the target suffers 2D6 S4 hits (or 3D6 S4 hits if the target has the Undead, Vampiric or Daemonic rules). The Strength of the Banishment can be increased from 4 by the presence of other wizards helping to focus the diffuse light magic. Each wizard within 12” that knows at least one spell from the lore of light adds +1 to the strength of the spell – they can add +2 if the Rituals of Control Lore attribute applies to them this turn.
    Successful ward saves taken against Banishment must be re-rolled. The Wizard can choose to extend the range of this spell to 48". If they do so, the casting value is increased to 13+.


    I would also suggest saying that the wardsave reroll only applies if the S is 5 or more, suggesting that it requires support from other wizards to get over that wardsave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good idea

      Question, Since magic happens before shooting, would that prevent (I assume unit, cause most wizards don't have bows) them from shooting in the shooting phase?

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

      Delete
    3. No, It wouldn't affect the unit shooting unless the unit is the wizard (like horrors). It would stop the wizard shooting though - although as you say that isn't going to be much of a constraint as few wizards have missile weapons. I included this out of completeness really

      Delete
    4. What about Magic Missiles?

      Delete
    5. Magic missiles are spells and therefore able to be cast they are exactly why the wizard is concentrating so hard.

      Delete
    6. I'll hold of any changes the lore of light for now; while the lore attribute only affects two spells, it's pretty useful when fighting certains armies, so it's better than the lore of metal whose attribute only affects a single spell.

      Delete
    7. Your call, it does only affect two spells and in the spell descriptions I put above I have put the existing lore attribute within the spell, so those two spells are just as useful / effective against some armies as they were before. Then added the lore attribute on top so it affects all spells.
      The logic is the same as for metal

      Delete
  14. Say, what is the difference between Warriors of Chaos, and Champions of Chaos? Also, do you plan on covering the minor Chaos Gods such as Malal/Malice, Zuvassin, Necocho, and their daemons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to see some Daemons which are unaligned or aligned to something other than the main 4.
      Furies are great, but having something to go with them would be cool, some big bad monstrous infantry demons would be fun - look at the mantic range for what I am thinking of

      Delete
    2. Champions of Chaos may refer to the fact that in 5th Ed there were so many chaos special characters and the chaos army book was already so large they split that part of the army book out into a separate book.

      Delete
    3. Champions of Chaos is a special character supplement to Warriors of Chaos. Not planning on including Daemons from any other gods at the moment though.

      Delete
  15. In the new update, the "destroy magic scroll" can be used against remain in play spells.

    Is this an error? In the update notes, you added this rule to "the dispel scroll" but I dont see it in its description.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an error yes, been a while since i updated it (before uploading), thought I had fixed it already.

      Delete
  16. Just wondering if you are still planning different Chaos God books? Or is that in the far future? As an additional unit you could have Exalted Greater Daemons with the stats from 4th edition (I have them somewhere if needed). Eg Bloodthirster was WS 10 S 8 T7 A 10. Obviously would have to be pretty high points cost but would provide good rules for the Forge World Daemons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No plan for those at the moment, maybe as smaller expansions, but with the allies rules, that's probably not necessary. Don't think exalted great daemons are needed either, you already have the basic monster, and then a more elite special character on top of that. The Forge World models can be used in either case (and GW's newer models are about the same size anyway).

      Delete
  17. Forming units on p 11. The number of models in the front rank should refer to limits specified at troop type. Because “normal” unit is not specified, rules as written mean that a unit of monstrous infantry with 6 models must have 5 models at the front and one behind because the front rank must be 5 unless the unit has fewer than 5 models.

    I appreciate that units are now allowed to temporarily narrow to squeeze through gaps but still won’t help if the gap is smaller than 5 models wide. Fast cavalry snaking through a gap and reforming on the other side is still disallowed, a unit of 5 skirmishers can’t cross a bridge 3” wide without walking at half pace sideways....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This will be clarified in the troop types section.

      Delete
  18. Some welcome changes Mathias, and the discussion on shooting is getting interesting. I like the idea of being able to shoot into combat if your expendable troops are engaged (could my TK consider all their regular skellies expendable? :P ), also happy you brought back the +1 versus shooting for shields.

    So, in regards to shooting, I would like to raise something:

    What would you think of allowing chariots a 360 degree arc of fire when using missile weapons (so not warmachine weapons like the Dark Elf Scourgerunner Chariot or Ogre Ironblaster), or "crew weapons" as in both those cases (the only two I could think of) the warmachine weapon is stated as equipment of the chariot itself.

    I know this is pure wishlisting, and completely understand if you feel its just adding more special rules than are necessary, but it was one of the more prominent positive aspects of using chariots in war. The ability to accurately fire a bow both while riding towards or away from the enemy was huge for its era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 360 degree LoS for chariots is fine by me, will add it in :)

      Delete
    2. Considering he very limited amount of missile fire from chariots, this should not be an problematic issue I think :-)

      Delete
  19. 360 fire arc for chariots is unlikely to have significant impact - so why not add it, simple to do too. would have to say that files count as ranks when firing sideways though - for units of chariots. So a unit of 6 chariots can shoot with all six forwards or backwards (fire in two ranks) but only 4 when firing to the left or right flanks.

    Don't think that skeletons should be expendable - especially not from the perspective of the Tomb Kings, but wasn't a serious suggestion from you I know :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you feel that units with expendable should be able to shoot into combat with expendable troops?

      Similar to how they will not cause panic in none-expendable units.

      Delete
    2. Haha, yeah Phil, was just messing around with that expendable jibe. I do like your idea of how the files become ranks when shooting to the side. Makes perfect sense and I did completely overlook that.

      Also, @Mathias, Howdah crews should probably also be allowed 360 fire if you are happy with it.

      In either case (howdah or chariot) I doubt it will be a huge bonus, just makes them feel more "real"

      Delete
    3. @Glen Fourie, I would say, if the rule is implemented, it should be something along the lines of: "Non-Expendable units may shoot into combats, provided the only friendly units engaged in the combat have the Expendable special rule". Slaves need to stick together, otherwise how will we ever have the slave rebellion? :P

      Delete
    4. Yes Ben you are right, expendable units should not be able to fire into other expendable units, missed that

      Delete
    5. They already can due to the "SHOOTING INTO COMBAT" rule, don't think any addition here is needed.

      Will make is so that howdah crew can fire 260 degrees as well.

      Delete
    6. I think you mean 270.... as in three quarters arc....

      Delete
    7. I meant 360 degrees actually, the crew in the howdah should be able to shoot backwards as well.

      Delete
  20. What's the arc of fire for Skirmishers and Fast Cavalry currently? I've always thought that Fast Cavalry should have 360 arc of fire. Maybe even so other models don't block each other in the unit like with Skirmishers because Fast Cavalry are basically mounted Skirmishers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fast cav and skirmishers fire 90 degrees, but this works fine due to how easily they can move etc.

      I'd rather have lined to see a Fure and Flee charge response being added for Fast Can, where you maybe sacrificed Swiftstride to gain a Stand and Shoot, before you fled as if you had elected to Flee normally.

      Delete
    2. This kinda makes Hobgoblin's "Ded Shooty" ability a bit useless then. Where currently it gives them a unique flavour. And there are a few other special units floating around that have similar shoot then flee abilities (just can't remember them off the top of my head, but I know they are in the older books). I don't think every fast cavalry unit is as skillful as others (eg Hobgoblins, who are based off of Mongolian cavalry archer tactics, compared to Empire Pistoliers, who are just young Nobles who wouldn't always have the same level of horsemanship as a steppe warrior). Often Fast Cavalry is just light cavalry, who wouldn't necessarily be adept at performing feint retreats while firing using their ranged weapons.

      @Unknown, Fast Cavalry already have the ability to change facing before and after their move, which allows them to shoot pretty much any direction anyway (though, given, pivoting does mean they expose their flank/rear in certain situations) but I think the free pivot is good enough. In regards to blocking models shooting in the unit (I assume you mean ranks 3 and up can't fire past the first two) that only applies when the unit is ranked up, which makes sense, as you are tightly packed. However, maybe allowing certain units of Fast Cavalry to take the Skirmish rule as an upgrade (where it makes sense for a unit to have it) might be an option?

      Delete
    3. Ben Towse:

      I agree with the idea that notevery Fast Cav would fit this notion yes, especially firearm using ones. But for more skilled "horsemen" as you say, I wouldn't mind this being an option. It's no a big deal though, but it would feel a little more "historically" accurate. :-)

      Delete
    4. Yeah, that works, and as I pointed out Mathias has already added it to a few units, so it is already in play. Maybe a list of units that can justifiably have a shoot then flee rule should be considered and put forward to Mathias for approval. I can imagine the Kislev Ungol Horse Archers would make sense having this, as well as maybe Nippon Yabusame, Cathayan Steppe Archers, and Wood Elf Glade Riders. Arabian Desert Riders and Hobgolins (except those in the Chaos Dwarf list, which is probably for the best actually to represent a more twisted version of the regular steppe warriors) already have it.

      However, I do worry that giving these other units this ability will detract from the uniqueness of the units that already possess it, as well as requiring a point increase to the units that would receive it as a new special rule (to make it fair for the units that already had the ability). Over-all I think maybe one or two units could benefit from it being added to their personal rules, but it should be done VERY sparingly. Every army should have a distinctly different flavour in my option.

      And remember, all fast cavalry can still fall back and then rally and act normally, and many of the units I listed above don't suffer a negative to hit for moving, so in essence it is representing the same sense of flight and shoot that we are talking about in real world perspectives. Maybe making it easier for these units to rally after a feigned flight action/or auto rally could be a better alternative to giving all of them a unique rule from very specific units?

      I'm just throwing ideas around now, so discussion is definitely required, especially as to whether this is truly necessary or just adding more cluttering with special rules. That said, I prefer more intricacy in my games if it offers a better sense of realism, and have quite an interest in how cavalry armies have performed throughout history.

      Ok, so rambling over... DISCUSS :P

      Delete
    5. My main thought around this is perhapsthat it would be most natural on units that are predominantly used in terain that would support this kind of warfare to begin with. You can't really pull it off in more bumpy terrain, so you would never really practice it if you were fighting in such conditions.
      Hobgoblins are an obvious choice, but I also think elven fast cavs of all 3 kinds would be obvious candidates (even wood elves due to being extremely quick and agile) as well as Kislev.

      That said, it strikes me that not enough would qualify to make it a part of the Fast av special rule.

      I like the fluff idea (where appropriate) and I like it tactically, but there needs to be some pros and cons to it, even for those that could potentially use it. Hence the count as Stand and Shoot (-1 to hit) and then sacrifice Switstride combined.

      My initial thoughts anyway :-)

      Delete
    6. I would say the Elves don't really need it. In all three, their Fast Cav option with a ranged weapon also has a spear, and can often take barding or more armour, demonstrating that these are more light cavalry rather than harassment units (ie: they can charge into combat if needed). Additionally, their unit champions do not gain extra BS like the dedicated mounted archer units do in the other examples I mentioned.

      Basing it off the terrain of the land is difficult though, as countries are so vast, you could easily argue that there is at least one flat plateau or gently rolling landscape where these horse archers live and can therefore practice.

      I've thought about this more since yesterday and think it makes the most sense on the Kislev Ungol Horse Archers and the Cathay Steppe Archers, just to keep with the theme of steppe warriors having it. Its difficult though, because in both books, these are not essential units and the rule doesn't fit with the way the rest of the army plays so it comes down more to adding narrative to the list than actual game play mechanics.

      Delete
    7. Yeah fast cav get vanguard, free reforms, fire on the march and feigned flight already.
      Hobgoblins have dead shooty which gives them fire and flee and ignore the -1 to hit for move and shoot.
      Araby Desert riders get the same (although use two rules to achieve it)
      Interestingly in both cases the "Fire and Flee" is a new charge reaction, and therefore can't be combined with the feigned flight charge reaction - as that only applies to "Flee". If there were expected to combine then that needs to be fixed.
      The Kislev horse archers and cathayan steppe archers don't have these rules, but do have BS4 (and are M8 rather than M9 of the hobgoblins and desert raiders).
      Personally I am not sure the status quo needs to change. Normal Fast Cav are pretty decent, Now that you get +1 when within 4" and can fire twice if you don't move, I have had 5 Bretonnian Yeoman, whizz round my side and then to within 4" to unleash shots, as I moved away, they stayed still and doubled their shots.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, as I said, it's a nice rule to give more depth to certain units (especially ones based off of historical context) but it is not essential to do. You are correct that Fast Cav can already do quite a bit, and as I pointed out above, the ability to Feint Flight basically does the same thing as Fire and Flee, just in the reversed order and requires you to pass that rally test first.

      However, I think you are incorrect in saying that Fire and Flee/Ded Shooty cannot be combined with Feint Flight, as in both cases it says the unit can "Stand & Shoot before making their flee move", and fast cavalry that choose to flee can use the rules for Feint Flight. So the unit chooses to Stand & Shoot, and then chooses to Flee. It has therefore elected the Flee charge reaction (doesn't matter that they also elected a different charge reaction as well) so benefits from Feint Flight. That is the way I understand it at least.

      Delete
    9. I read this differently, you choose one and only one charge reaction. You pick from Hold, flee, “stand and shoot” or “Fire and flee” (which is only available in limited cases).
      In the stand a shoot charge reaction, there is a missile fire followed by a flee move - but that flee move is not a flee charge reaction.
      Feigned flight is not a charge reaction (as I earlier incorrectly stated) feigned flight is a capability of a unit should they rally that is available to them if they chose the charge reaction “Flee”.

      This is how I would play it.
      Mathias what is the intended rule, and can we write it more explicitly to clear up confusion?

      Delete
    10. Phil is correct. That said, I'd be fine with including a "fire and flee" charge reaction specifically for fast cavalry. Those factions that were to focus more on "parthian shot" tactics will have other bonuses anyway, such as ignoring move and fire, or higher BS.

      Delete
    11. In the cathayan steppe archers it explicitly talks about them being able to shoot backwards, but this isn't backed up in their rules...

      Delete
  21. So I was reading about characters and monster mounts (Split Profiles). They share all things, from saves to special rules. Does that mean the monster can use the mounted character's magic weapons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally think the old system of separate saves and special rules was better.

      Delete
    2. I agree @Roland, and at my local store we house rule it as separate stats and rules, with ranged attacks randomized between the rider and mount. Otherwise you get 2+ armour, flying dragons with a 4+ ward and regeneration, etc, etc...

      @Jay, that said, I think even as it is currently, I believe when attacking, the rider and mount use their own stats and weapons, its only when being attacked that you combine the profile. Though I may be wrong as, like I said, we play a house rule on this.

      Delete
    3. Yeah if the rules state that the monster gets to use the magic weapon, that that rules needs to change - I am pretty sure that was never intended.
      I often think that the rules could do with a simple set of rules and then some optional upgrades. This could be one of them. I sent Mathias a long set of rules for fliers, basically creating a new plane of the battle field which you fly up to and down from, and the rules regarding the interactions between the two. This is again a kind of rules upgrade that could could choose to use, or not depending on your audience (or more likely your familiarity with the basic rule set)

      Delete
    4. I quige like the combined profile idea, as it removes the need for a character model to also exist in infantry format; just in case the steed dies. That was always an annoying issue.
      The End Times sort of did this too, but if I remeber correctly, all stats were added togerher and pretty much all magic weapons were nerfed. I far prefer the version of Mathias as it is much more balanced.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, I too am a big fan. I just think that there needs to be clarification on what the mount benefits from specifically. For the past several editions, our meta has been artillery heavy, so we simply did not take monsters because they'd die too quickly. Glad to see them get some defense options.

      Delete
    6. There's nothing in the rules saying that the mount can use the magic weapon of the rider - the rules for split profile says the following: "The rider and mount use their own Weapon Skill, Strength, Initiative and Attacks characteristics when they attack."

      If needed, I can clarify in the Magic Weapons section that they cannot be used by the mount.

      Delete
    7. I would suggest clarifying that in the character mounts section, as it states that a character and their mount is treated as a single character model for all rules purposes. This, paired with the sharing/combining ward save, could be misunderstood as permitting this. As far as the rules go, I think they’re great like they are.

      Delete
    8. I will add it to the split profile of cavalry instead, clarifying that both magic items and other equipment only applies to the rider - would not want people to insinuate that legally speaking, there's nothing in the rule that says that a horse cannot use a lance when charging...

      Delete
  22. Have you considered an earlier suggestion I made where Stomps and Breath Weapons fired into close combat cannot inflict more hits than the number of models in the unit that is being attacked?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This makes sense. Though probably more necessary for the 2D6 breath weapon more than for the Stomp, as units that are smaller than 6 (max of a stomp), and still an effective fighting force, are generally skirmishers, so it goes to a D3 anyway. But the breath weapon could be used to devastate small, elite skirmisher units like slayers and doom seekers.

      Delete
    2. yeah, simple change, seems reasonable. Gets my vote (not that I am sure I have a vote mind)

      Delete
    3. Yes, that's fair rules change, will add it in. Shouldn't the same apply to chariots through?

      Delete
    4. Technically, the same could be said about all automatic hits like magic missiles, but that would not really be a good change. I think I will limit it to the Breath Weapons for now, since that is technically a missile weapon that normally cannot hit more than one model.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, it would make sense on basically all auto hitting attacks that use a random amount of hits. Apply as you see fit though

      Delete
    6. Certain spells though, like viletide, rely on having lots of hits that should logically hit the same target several times. The Breath weapon on the other hand, is supposed to be a template weapon, and templates cannot hit a singly model more than once.

      Delete
    7. One could say for stomps, the less model receive more attention from the monster, I can agree on the breath weapon because the template normally only hits a model once when used.

      Delete
  23. Suggested changes to the BSB:

    1. Let Hold your Ground! allow a second Leadershp Test to resist Breaking and Panic, but this roll will not be influenced by the General's Inspiring Presence.

    -This will prevent you from gaining the general's LD buff twice due to a re-roll. This will in particular make it easier to panic big units with cheap models, which already have a substantial benefit against panic from missiles due to it being very hard to inflct 25% casualties in a signe phase against them. They also tend to have a lower LD, so the general's IP tend to buff them a whole lot more than in more elite armies. This will at least go a long way towards making it possible to panic cheaper "hordes" as well and not just the elites in the game, as they won't benefit from their genreal's often substancive buff twice due to the BSB.

    2. Instead of adding a point cost to the BSB, remove the +1 Combat Resolution and instead let it count as a normal standard.

    -I don't think that a unit carrying 2 banners should be equal in effect to a Rear charge effectivly, or a BSB being equally important to you outumbering your enemies 2:1 when you already have a standard that the unit follows. It makes banners a bit too effective and easy to use, and it also helps to make static CR more important than the damage potential of units themselves.

    I think this would be an overall good fix for the game, even out some of the advantages that GW gave large units in 8th (to sell more models) and also let the BSB remain at +25 pts so there is no need to fic every army book etc (keep in mind that the General's IP is always free as well).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A "re-roll" without IP for the break tests would be unnecessarily complicated though; first you calculate your break test modifier with IP, and make a roll against that Ld value. If you fail, you need to make another roll, but recalculate how big the modifier will be again, but against the unit's own Ld value. It's not difficult math by any means, but it does mean slowing down the game.

      If the issue with Panic stems from increased shooting, would it perhaps be better to change how many casualties is needed to inflict?

      Alternatively, I'd be willing to simply include re-roll panic in "hold your ground!". Technically speaking, a Panic test is the missile version of a break test (but without Leadership modifiers), so including it with the BSB would make sense.

      Delete
    2. I agree that it might seem complicated, but essentially you only subtract the LD difference between the general & the unit iself for the "re-roll". It also only comes up on those occations when the first roll fails, so its not really something you'd have to consider all the time.

      Changing casualty % would only hit elite units even harder, so I don't see that working out very well... :-/

      It does make sense enough sure. My only real concern about it is that it becomes yet another game mechanic that even further strengthens cheap hordes over more elite units for "free". If the idea of 9th ed is for the most part to have smaller units than in 8th ed, then the rules need to reflect that this can work competitively as well.
      Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with Steadfast, outnumbering etc, but I don't think its a good idea to have too much that supports this in the meta game and yet expect people to start using smaller units etc.

      What did you think of removing the BSB combat resulution bonus btw?

      Delete
    3. I think I will simply include panic in the re-roll for now. While Panic should absolutely play a part of the game, it's no fun to have half your army run of the battlefield in one turn simply due to some unlucky dice rolls (something that I have been on both ends of, the game was basically over at turn 2).

      Don't think the +1 to CR should be removed, it fits with it being a banner, and a very important one at that since it gives +100 pts if captured.

      Delete
  24. I don't think that making shields grant an increased armor save against attacks to the front was a good idea. It makes Pavises a lot weaker since those only help against attacks from one side and logically, Pavises would provide more protection, being bigger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't that turning the problem on its head Rooland?
      If fixing shields across the board makes pavises in one army book not as comparatively good, then perhaps looking at Pavises instead of the shields is a better solution...

      Delete
    2. The easiest solution to that problem would be to simply increase the save of pavises by +1.

      Delete
  25. Frankly if you look at a Pavaise, it is almost like being in a building - and should massively impact movement too. Currently a unit of cross carrying guys can run at the same speed as some colleagues that are in effect running across the battle field carrying huge doors!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. Perhaps no marching would be appropriate for them. They carry ranged weaponry on any case so...

      Delete
    2. Don't think that's needed, pavises are usually carried on the back when moving. If full plate does not slow down movement, a pavise will not have that much of an effect either.

      Delete
  26. I'm not sure about where to go with this, so I'll go with the more recent post.

    Regarding the future Vampire Coast supplement, will there be an option to field a 'saner' Luthor Harkon, or at least one 'fixed' enough to use magic again (there is a quest in the game allowing to do this. Of course, it asks quite a few prerequisites)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't speak for Mathias, but I suspect there will only by one Luther Harkon version.
      That said, there is a bit of an issue that needs solving from a lore perspective how the general works in that list and also how the zombies of that list are closer to living than traditional zombies etc. I haven't read any good justification of this anywhere, but in case such things are not solved I do have some ideas to pitch to Mathias when the time comes.

      Delete
    2. No plans for more than one version of Luther Harkon. Might include Count Noctilus though, which would be the sane version in that case.

      Delete
  27. @Mathias I agree completely. Again, excellent work.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Mathias: Excellent work as always!
    I've been working on writing up the Zombie Pirates of the Vampire Coast as well as a few modifications from other codices. Would you be interested in taking a look at it? You can keep/use them if you think they're worth it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, you can send it through email using the contact bar at the top of the page :)

      Delete
  29. This may sound like heresy, and they don't fit into the lore of Fantasy.
    But I was wondering if adapting Stormcast Eternals to Fantasy battles would be a good Idea?
    I have made some notes on how to transfer unit characteristics but I am not so experienced on assigning points and balancing ability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is my current notes on the subject,
      Stats
      Common: M:4 WS:4 BS:4 S:4 T:4 W:2 I:4 A:1 Ld:8 Heavy Armour
      Paladin: M:4 WS:5 BS:4 S:4 T:4 W:2 I:4 A:2 Ld:8 Heavy Armour

      Abilities:
      Reforged hero: Ignor Outnumber, Leadership for break test can't be lowered below 6

      Available Lores:
      Fire
      Metal
      Life?
      Beast?
      Heavens (Higher Level)
      Light
      Shadow?
      Death?
      INVIGORATION

      Gear:
      StormstrikeGlaive: anti monster, Spear/lance, grants hard cover for it and units behind it
      Spirit Flask: OncePerGame: Magical Explosion with variable number of Hits.
      Astral Compass: When set up in ambush, they arrive on a roll of 2+
      LightingHammer: chance to inflict more damage and reduce number of ranks that can fight on a hit of Six.
      ThunderAxe: increase attack number based on number of units/ random attacks
      Starsoul Mace: Killing Blow, Multiple Wounds
      Volleystorm Crossbow: 9" S4 +2 attack QuickToFire
      Boltstorm Pistol: 9" S4 +1 attack QuickToFire

      Delete

    2. Mounts:
      Gryph-charger: monster cav, Faster Demi-gryph, Can instead of moving roll dice and move forward, as if it can fly
      Celestial Dracoline: Monster cav, IMPACT HITS , Natural armor
      Dracoth: Monster Cav, Natural armor, gains MultiWound on a wound roll of 6. Breath Attack.
      Stardrake: Monster, Fly, IMPACT HITS, Terror, Natural armor
      Tauralon: Monster cav, Fly, charge, improve shooting attacks against units it flys over

      Delete
    3. Lord:
      Lord-Aquilor: Boltstorm Pistol, Ambush, Vanguard, OncePerGame: he and a Vanguard unit he is apart of can redeploy by ambush.
      Lord-Arcanum: level 3 Wizard, grants Stormcast a ward save. Improve damage of spells.
      Lord-Castellans: Halberd, Lantern that Shoots at Chaos, or grant an ally a ward save.
      Lord-Celestant: Main Lord: Pared weapons, Stormstrike Glaive, Lighting Hammer, ThunderAxe, Tempests Hammer. Shoots Hammers? Charge bonus? Grant nearby units reroll 1 to hit when engaged in melee
      Lord-Exorcist: Wizard 2, has ability and spell to damage Deamons and ghosts
      Lord-Ordinator: Pair or Greatweapon, re-roll hit and bounce of artillery. Gives Inspiring Presence?
      Lord-Relictor: priest, battle standard bearer?
      Lord-Veritant: Priest, Lantern, bonus to dispel if Gryph-hound is near wizard, Hatred (Chaos)

      Hero:
      Knight-Azygos: Fly, Lantern that improve hits.
      Knight-Herador: Grants the benefits of MUSICIANS to units in range. select a Terran piece and deal damage to all units near it.
      Knight-Incantor: Wizard 1, Spirtflask
      Knight-Questor: shield. dualist Specialist
      Knight-Venator: fly, multi-shot, sniper, when it attacks or shoots the unit is also hit with a bird, once per game : make one shot but with multi-wound
      Knight-Vexillor: BATTLE STANDARD BEARER, As the the only Banner in army, units in range gan the benefits of having a Banner
      Knight-Zephyros: Assassin, Pared weapon, Hidden, run and shoot, charge and shoot?
      ERRANT-QUESTORS?

      Delete
    4. Core units
      Judicators: Bow, Crossbow(MultiShot), Bow(MultiShot), Crossbow(High Strength), Re-roll hit rolls of 1 agents Chaos
      Liberators: welds shield, pair, or great-weapon. Improved attack land agents hero and monster
      Sequitors: Magic attacks, Shield or GreatWeapon, Improve attacks or defense.
      Vanguard-Hunters: Boltstorm Pistol, Scout, Ambush, move and shoot
      Aetherwings (Don’t count to min): war beasts, Fly, use to stop charges
      Graph-hounds (Don’t count to min): war beast, Vanguard, skirmish?, Veritant and Castellans can join unit and improve attacks

      uncommon units:
      Castigators: MoveOrFire, High-Strangth, Improve hit roll or Strength
      Celeste Ballista: Bolt thrower, rapid fire, area of effect
      Paladin: StormstrikeGlaive, LightingHammer, (ThunderAxe & Terror) or Starsoul Mace
      Evocators: wizard conclave, pair or great weapons. Make more attacks, Ward against missiles.
      Prosecutors: Fly, SwiftStride, Pair, Shield Great-weapons or Javelin.
      Vanguard-Palladors: Gryph-chargers, Boltstorm Pistol, Vanguard, Javelins,
      Vanguard-Raptors: Skirmish, sniper MoveOrFire SlowToFire, or Multishot QuickToFire

      Rare units:
      Drakesworn Templar: LightingHammer, Great Weapon, or lance. Skybolt bow. Grants bonus Disaplin and casting roll.
      Dracothian Guard: Dracoth, Shield, take: Stormstrike Glaive, Lighting Hammer, ThunderAxe or Volleystorm Crossbow.
      Evocators on Dracoline: Evocators on Dracoline

      Delete
    5. Named Char:
      Celestant-Prime
      Aventis Firestrike
      Astreia Solbright
      Viands Hammerhand
      Neave Blacktalon
      Gavriel Sureheart

      Delete
    6. The main problem with the Stormcast Eternals is that they don't fit the lore of 9th ed at all (and also, I don't imagine many will ever convert them to suyare bases for this purpise).

      If I recall correcly, I think Mathias said he might do it at some pont in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it Stephen. Sormcast Eternals and the elven fish-elves are really not very compatible with the pre-end times lore.

      Delete
    7. Rune, I agree, they simply don't fit any lore (aesthetically they are too high fantasy, while WFB has been low fantasy setting).

      Id rather Mathias were to focus on finishing other army books first and fix existing Army books. Up to Mathias how he wants to progress his Project though.

      Delete
    8. I do have plans for making a smaller army list for them eventually. It will only be a smaller project to convert their rules into a playable WFB format rather than a whole army book.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I have just donated to you( planning this to be a recurring action) because the work is just awesome and breath taking in its scope. Keep fighting the good fight! Quick question: any plans to update or convert characters and/or special rules from the end times?. I’m sure you despise the narrative and the flawed execution of the setting, but I can’t shake the feeling that they both have untapped potential in your hands. At the very least, they could provide for some fairly interesting optional mechanics. At any rate, be proud of what have achievied until now . It’s just gorgeous to look at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, I appreciate that! I am planning on including all End Times units yes, though the special character version will probably not be included as they already have a more fitting version in the base game. Some of the special rules (such as combined profiles) are already in 9th Ed.

      Delete