Saturday, 17 November 2018

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.1 out now!

This update changes the following:

  • Victory points are given if a unit is half or less in Unit Strength rather than less than half.
  • Clarified that Fear does not stack from multiple units. The Leadership modifier is increased by a further -1 modifier if the total unit strength of Fear-causing models is greater than the amount of enemy models without the Fear rule in the same combat.
  • Clarified that Volley Fire ignores the To Hit penalty of cover, not giving a save.
  • Javelins may Volley Fire.
  • Champions are always removed last (instead of being killable separately).
  • Added "ridden monster" to the Monster troop types section.
  • Chariots and ridden monsters can fire 360 degrees.
  • Breath Weapon attacks in close combat cannot hit any single model more than once.
  • Clarified that any equipment or magic items the model might have only apply to the rider, not the mount.
  • Clarified what units are not affected under Hold Your Ground. 
  • Added sentient special rule under Battle Standard Bearer, allowing units that normally would not be allowed to use Inspiring Presence or Hold Your Ground to do so.
  • Panic tests may be re-rolled with the Battle Standard Bearer in addition to Break tests.
  • Added a Fire & Flee charge reaction to Fast Cavalry.
  • Removed BSB part of being in 2nd rank (as characters are not allowed to join a unit unless they are placed in the front rank).
  • Added Large Target modifier to shooting, giving you +1 to hit against units with US 40+.
  • Changed special rule "Large Target" to "Towering" (which frankly fits better as "Large Target" no longer gives any To Hit bonus like earlier editions).
  • Lore of Metal lore attribute gives +1/2 to casting based on the enemy's armour type. Old attribute part of searing doom spell (natural armour is not affected). Golden Hounds inflicts S5 hits.
  • Unbreakable characters may only join unbreakable units.
  • Banner of Might 55 pts.


  1. Its still thé 1.09 in the download

    1. Sure about that? It was 1.1 when I checked just now. What link are you using?


  3. Just curious, what is the design reason for the champion to be unkillable until the last model? Aren't they like a low level hero that can't leave the unit? That's why they can accept challenges, some armies can equip them with magic weapons and so on? Most champions have different stats from their unit too.

    1. Champions cannot accept challenges in 9th ed, only characters can. Most champions only have +A attack, but are otherwise the same as the rest of the unit. 9th Ed already had it that you cannot target them separately from the rest of the unit, but they could still be killed with template weapons and spells. I simply chose to streamline it so they work the same as the standard bearer and musician, which are otherwise removed last. 8th ed also had it that the champion is the last model removed unless he has been targeted specifically and killed, which is just fiddly.

    2. Just about champions. I just have a question regarding look out sir. Is it now an automatic pass and not a dice roll on a 2+ as per 8th ed?

    3. I imagine no look out sir just like any other command group guy. It hits normal guy instead.

    4. Just like the rank and file picking up the dead musicians trumpet and having a go, somone now gets a field promotion if the sergeant/champion/boss gets exploded/shot/crushed. Newly promoted trooper gets 2nd attack to reflect trying hard to live up to said promotion.

    5. I more meant it for characters within the unit. Probably should've mentioned that :P.

    6. For character in the unit it is now an autosave.
      No more sniping using cannon !

    7. Thanks, thats what I thought it was. I kind of prefer the 2+ but I can understand having your character dying early on due to a bad roll.

    8. Sorry Vladimir, that isn't true
      Characters can’t be hit in a unit of more than 5 models from missile fire unless they are of a different troop type. If there are less than 5 or they are a different troop type then the owner of the unit must allocate the hits equally between the members.
      HOWEVER in the third paragraph on p81 under the shooting section, the exception of templates including cannons is called out. If they are in a unit of more than 5 or the same troop type then they have to take a look out sir roll.

      What this look out sir roll means is now missing, as the text on p81 refers to unit champions and they no longer have it…. But if we assume it is unchanged to what it was before, then a 2+.
      What is still a problem is that if you are in a unit of less than 5 models or a different troop type then you are stuffed, no look out sir roll. This means that characters that ride monstrous beasts in armies that don’t have many units like that – Like a bear riding kislevite, or a cavalry rider in an infantry army, Pox rat rider can be targeted directly – and hence nobody takes these options – just too risky.

    9. Yes for the less than 5 models units.

      I think that the text p81 is a remnant of an old rule...

      Maybe Mathias can answer ??

    10. The Look Out Sir rule will be moved to the characters chapter of the book instead of command groups, and it automatically takes affect as long as there are more than 5 models in the same unit.

  4. The lore of metal attribute end with a "if". Not sure if anything is missing or if this is just à Word to be suppressed.

    After reading again the book, im not really sure if standard bearer are slained when breaking from combat (page 78 and 49 make it seems like not but page 84 state that they die).

    I think that it May be precise somewhere Who between players must reroll first when two characters use à reroll rules (e.g a skaven assassin versus high elves : skaven make reroll to hit but high elves rerolls 1 to hit...). I think the logic will be that the attacker May reroll first and then the defender, as hé will try to dodge all successfull attack. I dont think its a frequent situation but it May be clearer.

    1. I think it is a typo.

      For the exemple you're talking about, I've asked Mathias and he said that the rerolls cancel eachothers. However, I think that your proposition is better.

    2. I think rerolls cancelling out is a easier and quicker solution rather than lots of dice rerolling

    3. Can't reroll a reroll, if two rerolls would be applied to the same roll, then they cancel out and the original result stands.

    4. Well in my example the rerolls are not equivalent that's why

    5. He is right. Rerolling the "1" is not the same as rerolling "successfull hits"

    6. That's a bug in the lore of metal, will fix.

      Right now, these re-rolls would cancel each other out completely, even if the re-rolls are not completely equal.

  5. Well Done Mathias, but I ask again to clarify that you cannot get an Unbreakable Hero in a Unit that is not Unbreakable (remeber the beardu Deamon Slayer inside the IronBreaker Unit?) ^_^ As we suggested in the previous topic, Thanks

    1. That part has been fixed as well, just forgot to include it in the patch notes :)

  6. Just a question Mathias : Wasn't the expendable rule supposed to be changed ??

    1. It was discussed that you'd be able to fire into combat involving expendable models; I considered it, but that would then involve more dice rolls as you'd need to hit your own troops on a 4+ rather than a 1, so I decided to skip it.

      Was there anything else about expendable that was discussed to change that I've missed?

    2. Nothing more. But I found that this could be fun for skaven or chaos dwarfs.

    3. put it to a vote....
      not that this is a democracy i accept :-)
      Yes fire into combat, count the hits, then allocate half to your opponent rounding up, and half to yourself (no extra rolling) now roll to Wound.

    4. I think that the 4+ is not a big issue. But spliting the his between the two units is good too.
      To me, the good point is that this capacity give an interest to bad units which are less played.

    5. Still a bit of an issue there; right now a To Hit roll of 1 is technically a Hit, only against the wrong target. Making so you then divide the hits (again) on a 4+ is rather fiddly. The alternative would be to roll to Hit as normal, and then allocate all hits, but this is more time consuming.

    6. Yes, it was that alternative version that I was thinking about : hitting, then spliting all the hits between the two units.

    7. Sorry Mathias I wasn't being clear. I wasn't thinking of the rules you have for shooting into combat when within 4". I am thinking when firing from a much longer range.
      I'd roll to hit as usual. then divide hits equally between the units in combat, leftover hits to be equally distributed by the firer. then roll to W. So really very quick, no extra rolling

    8. That would still require extra rolling; first you'd roll to hit, then you'd roll to divide those hits, and then you'd roll to wound.

      The current system has you rolling to hit (any 1's being allocated to your own unit automatically) and then rolling to wound, so it's faster.

    9. I think they mean that both sides take the same amount of hits

  7. Thanks for the update Mathias

    Here are some thoughts
    Now when you are less than 25% US and are fleeing you can still rally but at half leadership after modifiers. Now it says ITS leadership. Inspiring presence says you are using the general’s leadership. So Technically the units isn’t using ITS halved leadership, it is using someone elses…. I think you should put after modifiers INCLUDING inspiring presence. So now I can use the general’s leadership – and then THAT is halved, rounding up, +1 if you have a musician.

    We played at the weekend and a Colossal squig charged a unit of empire infantry and then two other empire infantry counter charged. Now the charged unit had to take a terror test, but the two units counter charging did not. This seems a bit wrong and if a far cry from 4th edition when all units within 8th had to take a terror test, (although each unit only had to take the test once per game). Surely you should have to take a test to charge a terror causing unit. I would suggest that if you fail that test you are free to act normally but can’t charge this turn (so can’t even redirect), so you can move, shoot cast spells etc

    The newly amended fear rules are a big change, now a unit that I fear that outnumbers me forces me to being -2 on my Ld. Not twice as big US, just one point bigger. This is moving close to 4th edition where if you are beaten in combat by a fear causing enemy then you autobreak. If I am taking a test, then I lost by at least 1, so a Ld 8 unit (pretty decent) is testing on 7 normally, if then enemy causes fear I need a 6 and now I need 5 if they outnumber me… that is a 5/18 chance of passing, just less than a third. If I lost by 2 my odds drop to one in 6!
    I suggest this is a bit strong, can we have it that the fear causing unit must be twice or at least 1.5 times the US of friendly units.
    Also what happens when a terror causing thing turns up? Is the unit at -3 now, or does terror not impact when the unit is already at -2.

    1. The book already says "after any other modifiers are applied, rounded up", and Inspiring Presence is definitely a modifier. IP also says the the unit uses the general's leadership instead of their own, otherwise it says that the unit may only use their own Ld characteristic, which is not the case here.

      Before forced to take a Ld test to charge terror-causing enemies was removed in 8th ed. Not sure it's necessary to bring it back personally, but I'm not too fussed either way.

      Regarding Fear, Steadfast takes an effect with only 1 US more, so why should not Fear? I'd like to get some playtesting feedback on this, but the elite unit can also use IP and HyG to improve their chances, so that will likely be a re-rollable Ld6, 7 or even 8 (if they perhaps lost the the combat by 1 due to being out outnumbered in the first place). You mentioned earlier that Fear needed a bit of a boost, it's still far more lenient than 6th ed where you would autobreak if outnumbered.

    2. And yes, it would stack with Terror, making it much more favorable to use a "combined arms" approach with cheap zombies to outnumber, and terror for Ld-bombing.

    3. *Ld 7 at best actually, using a Ld 10 general, losing the combat by 1, and suffering -2 to Ld. Still re-rollable Ld7 ain't bad.

    4. The terror thing has a logical flaw currently. I am terrified if you step towards me, but not bothered if I step towards you. Seems very wrong.
      There is an argument that if it is coming towards you, your options are limited, but for you to move towards it, well you have a choice in that; as such, a failed terror test to charge shouldn’t result in running away, but just prevent you charging.

      The fear thing, yes that needs playtesting, I feel it makes a big change to the game. Your suggestion of it is ok on a rerollable 7 is dubious, yes that gets you down to a 0.17 failure but you require a Ld 10 general and a handy BSB. There are lots of armies out there with no access to Ld 10, and those that do only have it at the lord level. A much more likely scenario is taking the test on a 5+ rerollable, or a 6+ without reroll, now you have 0.52 and 0.58 chances of failing, both over the 50:50 threshold. Basically if you lose combat to a fear causing enemy that outnumbers you, you’ll be lucky not to run. So more lenient than 6th, but not "far more".

      What is the situation with a fear causing character Ld8 in a unit Ld7 that doesn’t cause fear, when they lose to a fear causing unit that out numbers them?

      I assume that the character no longer fears the unit, and as such the outnumbering of the unit also has no impact. Their unit uses the character’s leadership, so would be testing on an 8 (before combat resolution modifiers).

      Same situation but now the opponent has a terror causing model and lots of fear causing ones. The character now fears the opponent, but presumably doesn’t fear the masses that outnumber them, so now testing on a 7.

    5. remember that you actually have to lose against an undead unit that outnumbers you. IF it happens to outnumber you there is a high probablity that you face a horde of cheap skeletons, zombies or unarmored ghouls that you often can score a huge chunk of CR from.

    6. Well, you can choose to charge a Terror-causing unit, whereas having one bearing down on you at full speed might be a bit scarier. But sure, I can add in needing to take a test to charge them as well. I think it wsa in 6th ed that you actually fled if you failed the test to charge instead of just not moving, don't want to go back to those times!

      Many armies have a Ld10 general, and those that don't usually have much cheaper troops that won't be outnumbered as easily to begin with. There are also many ways of making your units immune to Fear if you plan on operating further away from the general/BSB.

      In cases where you have a fear-causing character in the unit it needs to be amended that either the majority of the unit will need to be immune to fear, otherwise they will still suffer -1 to their leadership. I will do the same for Immunity (Psychology).

    7. I'd be even more lenient on the terror test to charge, if you fail, you can't charge that unit. (maybe even allow them to charge a different unit).

      I don’t agree that you should cause fear if there are more fear causing creatures on one side than those on the other, it would render all magic items that enable the bearer to cause fear useless, and given that fear is a bit more powerful now, I expect those to be a little more popular.

      I would suggest that a unit causes fear if any model in the unit causes fear. A unit is immune to fear if the leadership value they are using is immune to fear. For the purposes of outnumbering though, only models that cause fear can be counted. So a character with a fear causing weapon enables the unit to cause fear, and because they are using that character’s leadership the unit is immune to fear, but as only one model causes fear they are highly unlikely to outnumber the enemy.
      This means you can protect units from fear through magic items.
      The shrieking blade is going to get more use.
      The terrifying mask of Eee needs clarification, it states the unit can’t use the bearer’s leadership. This means (I think) that if the bearer is wearing this, in a unit A that doesn’t cause fear, then when that unit is fighting a fear causing unit B: A is subject to fear because they can’t use the bearer’s leadership and might be out numbered so down to -1, B is subject to fear because terror – fear = fear, but will be unlikely to be outnumbered.
      The dread banner is now a bit cheap at 25pts
      Would be nice if you could add an item (maybe a shield) that makes the bearer immune to fear (but not cause fear) and a standard that makes the whole unit immune to fear and terror (but not cause it)
      Might be nice if Savage beast of Horros also bestowed the fear rule – the stats increase imply something monstrous infantry scary level, might help protect units up against massed fear causing units.

      If there is a terror causing model facing a non fear causing unit with a fear causing character leading it, then the character is now subject to fear, so the unit is subject to fear but only if the terror causing model(s) outnumber the fear causing character will the unit be subject to a -2 ld save. This is actually quite likely as the most common source of terror are monsters who are going to have a higher US than most characters.

      Note if you are a vampire player and have a unit of zombies led by a wraith and you cast death lore doom and darkness of the opponent, they are now at -6 ld…. Admittedly you need to win combat, but still, that is an almost guaranteed autobreak

    8. I do plan on being very lenient in regards to charging Terror-causing units, your suggestion will be implemented there.

      I think it's better if the majority of models is used here, just as it is for Immunity Psych. I can revise the fear rule though to keep it capped it only -1 with those changes, it this makes it slightly more difficult to ignore Fear (since now most of the unit will need Immunity). It would also keep it more streamlined so it will go faster to calculate unit strength, since you now might need to calculate it separately for both Undead and living units which would be a bit more of a hassle.

    9. OK it means that the shrieking blade is now only good to cause fear, not protect against it.
      I feel there is an opportunity here for a talisman and / or banner to enable a unit to be immune to fear (without causing it)
      You also need to be explicit about what happens with the fear causing character in a non fear causing unit. What you are suggesting is that the unit suffers fear still because they outnumber the character. Fine, but I think you need to call that out, as that isn't how I'd naturally play it, I'd say the unit uses the character's leadership which is unmodified as they are immune to fear.

    10. That will be included for several armies in the magic items expansion.

      It will be clarified that the majority of the models needs to be immune to fear for it to have an effect.

  8. You added a rule that you get +1 to hit when firing at a unit of 40+ models. Shouldn’t this be US 40, or is a unit of 30 knight Errant or 35 Ogres not big enough…?

    In the champion text there is something about look out sir, which implies that they can be killed before their unit. The main Look out sir rule used to exist here, now it has gone from here it needs to exist somewhere, suggest a dedicated section in characters on look out sir. Would love love love if there was a little more pragmatism applied regarding troop type too. Monstrous cavalry in a unit of Cavalry for example. And something has to be done about pox rats but that could be locally fixed in the Skaven book.

    Can we move the rule Sentient to the other special rules, because that is where people will look for it.

    We can’t use fire and flee and Feigned flight together – one or the other. I know this was discussed, just want to ensure that my statement above is the intended rule.

    Shields add +1 to shooting from the front. Can we clarify what shooting means? Does this include template weapons, does this include Magic missiles?
    There was a suggestion that shields would provide no missile save to the rear, this hasn’t been included. Could it be? Would make a tactical option for fast cavalry to try to get behind the enemy. Those small chaos warrior armies now could suffer from things behind them. Shooting with bows at Chaos warriors in plate and shield with is demoralizing, T4 and now 1+ save, that could be changed to a 3+ in the rear – not great, but better.

    Shooting into combat, let me first say I am a huge fan, but I think there should be a few modifications.

    The target unit has models that are low risk and those that are high risk. High risk are those
    models not in base to base combat with a friendly unit. For infantry this becomes models in base contact with the enemy or base contact with those who are in base contact (This is most easily shown with a diagram). All other target models are low risk (this would replace the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph regarding US5)

    When firing into combat with missile weapons within 4” then only low risk models can be targeted, if you cause more casualties than available low risk models excess wounds are wasted.
    Each hit on a low risk model will affect a friendly model in the combat of your choice on the to hit roll of a 1

    Then template weapons:
    You can only place the template such that it covers low risk models. Roll a dice for every model under the template, on a roll of a 1 a friendly model of your choosing is hit instead.

    The addition of this shooting into combat has made mobile fire throwers such as carried by Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Cathay and Skaven hugely powerful.

    1. For your Last point, I think its overcomplicating things. I suggest that shooting with a template when beeing in the 4' of à melee is now randomize on a 4+ between friends and foes. This will reflect the not Well controlled pace of the flames coming out from à skaven flamethrower

    2. That should be Unit Strength, not Unit size, will fix.

      Will move Look out sir to characters instead. Perhaps making it so that character with a different troop type will get a 4+ "look out sir" instead?

      The issue with Sentient being among the normal special rules is that it is a rule that only applies together with the Inspiring Presence and Hold Your Ground, abilities that can also apply to other models, but mainly affects the General and BSB. For that reason I decided to keep Sentient in their section as well.

      Will clarify that Feigned Flight can be used with Fire and Flee.

      Will clarify both missile and close combat attacks.

      I'd rather not change the way shields work in that regard, as many models carry shields on their backs and to their left side as is. I'd rather just keep it as a bonus for troops that are prepared to be attacked by missiles to the front, and thus can "brace for impact" for a +1 bonus.

      I think that change of shooting into combat would overcomplicate things too much. Mobile flamethrowers are typically slow and can pretty easily be shot down from a distance, so getting them into the flank of a unit in combat is easier said then done.

    3. The sentient thing, this is just a user experience thing, if i am reading my book and I see my model has the sentient rule, and it isn't in the Bestiary, then I'll go to the list of special rules to find it, and if it isn't there, well now where do I go....?

      Did you mean shooting and close combat? or did you mean missiles + templates + magic missiles? +2 AS from a shield in the front sounds like a error.

      My suggestion for shields is that the +1 to the front is a bonus with no drawback, everything got harder and fast cav still have little benefit in getting behind people other than the opportunity for suicidal charges. Whilst a few units have shields on their back, they are few and far between and could be argued that they shouldn't be getting the bonus from the front. Can't have it both ways.

      I accept the simplicity issue of firing into combat, suggest then that templates when fired into combat also hit friendly models on a 1 (dedicated roll for each affected model) - like like archers do. It seems odd that an aimed pistol shot is more likely to hit a friendly model than an imprecise flamethrower.

    4. Well, it's 2018, so you are likely to just search for "sentient" in the PDF in this case. Or maybe that's just me? I think that if Sentient is to be moved to the special rules section, then so should IP and HyG (as they are available to other units as well).

      I mean missile attacks, which includes arrows, templates and magic missiles. That will be clarified under the "shooting" section. Not sure where the +2 comes from...?

      Models were described as marching with their shields slung, pulling them out when attacked by missile attacks. It's a lot easier to be prepared for an attack to the front than the rear.

      Most templates scatter as is though, same applies to several flamethrowers (like the Warpfire thrower) which often have a chance of misfiring.

    5. Regarding look out sir,
      there is a bit of a difference between the rule description and the rule benefit. The rule description is that the unit sees oncoming danger and pushes the character out of the way, which makes sense for an infantry character in a unit of infantry, but less sense for a monstrous beast character (if there even is one) in a unit of monstrous beasts – but is still applied.
      However the rules is used to protect characters from being picked out by cannons – which are all too common in the game. Characters running around on their own are fair game but when in units there is something to be said about it being hard to pick models out if they are the same size as the rest of the unit.

      As such I would be tempted to change the concept to reflect that they are hard to pick out. So infantry and warbeasts can hide in any unit. However Cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beasts and monstrous cavalry can’t hide in infantry or warbeasts. Basically it divides the troops types into three groups, Swarms infantry and warbeasts in the “small” category, Cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beasts and monstrous cavalry in the “Medium” category and the rest being “Large”. You get a Look out sir (or can’t be picked out) roll of a 2+ as long as you are in the same size troop type or larger.
      Your suggestion of same troop type = 2+ different troop type = 4+ is simpler I accept, but not as realistic.

      Sentient will appear as a special rule against a unit though - HyG and IP are not unit centric rules

      Regarding missile attacks / shields, my confusion was that earlier you said “close combat” (in error) – I understand now.

      Your point on shields implies you can’t use them when marching…  but I feel I am not going to win this argument.

    6. Yes templates scatter, but firethrowers just overshoot – single dimension of variability - so you can be sure not to put that template on any friendly models. One of the big restrictions on warpfire throwers is that once you got your unit into combat, right next to it, you were safe, no longer the case. Now I’ll charge with a unit and run the warpfire up to past the unit, and then next turn unleash all hell on the unit – with impunity, no risk at all, less than a unit of pistoliers would risk.

      On the subject of firethrowers, there are a few issues, firstly the safest place I can be when facing one, is with my face pressed up against the muzzle because they overshoot a minimum of 2”. So if I can get to within 2” I am safe :).
      I suggest that a firethrower can choose to fire directly forwards in which case they can ignore the artillery dice roll unless it is a misfire, and the template placed from the base – just like a breath weapon.
      There are actually only 5 firethrowers in the whole game I believe, and they aren’t massively consistent in their rules, and interestingly none of them use the exact profile in the BRB.
      The Dwarf flame cannon and Chaos dwarf magma cannon are closest – with just the additional 12” range (referred to in the book). The warpfire thrower is infantry so you’ve added Move or fire (which actually stops it pivoting which seems harsh) but not stopped it standing and shooting as there is no Slow to fire rule. The Dwarf firethrower has slow to fire, but not “Move or Fire” so can move and shoot. The Cathayan Dragon’s breath is resolved like a breathweapon but with a range – so much more precise than the others and can move and fire.
      Can I suggest that you add a section called Weapon Teams. In 8th these were unique to the Skaven but now they are popping up all over the place and could really do with some standardization. I suggest they are:
      infantry troop type
      Associated to a parent infantry unit and deploy with it
      get a 4+ Look out sir role when within 3” of their parent unit
      can stand and shoot against enemies charging them or their parent
      Personally I’d not include “slow to fire” or “move and fire” to them, but I’d have variable range, and strength. This would have an impact on warpfire throwers who would be much more flexible but I’d take away the D3W and I’d reduce the range (to allow for the fact the unit can move 4”) to range 8” (keeping the S at 5). I’d give the dwarf fire thrower range 6”, S4 and the cathay dragon breath range 4” S3.

    7. - Don't think that's needed, I don't think there are any characters that are either Warbeasts or swarms, or who would join such units anyway (since they are expendable). I will make it so that characters with a different troop type with a higher Unit Strength than the rest of the unit are only hit by normal missile attacks on a 4+.

      - The issue with sentient being in the special rules is that it both reference troop types and IP/HyG, none of which are described in the special rules section. But fine, I will move it to the special rules section.

      - Technically, you should not get a bonus to your save if marching no, since you are pretty much rushing across the field rather than advancing slowly against the foe. However, I'd rather not add that to the rule as you then need to keep track of what units has marched or not. It's also easier to keep track of shields giving +1 to the save to the front, rather than also having to remember them also getting -1 to the flanks.

      - I will make it clear that you cannot target enemy units in close combat with template weapons then, regardless of distance. Saves the trouble of shooting templates from stone throwers as well.

      - Weapon Team would be better off as a special rule in that case I would think, but there's only a few of them that are actually attached to their unit - the rest are just stand-alone special units that sometimes benefit from being close to friendly infantry.

    8. The 4+ if higher US is a very neat idea. Your suggestion is for normal missile fire. Because of the rules as written, you'd actually need to say if they have the same or lower US then they cannot be targeted. Also what happens for templates, cannons can still snipe them as it stands?

      I quite like the idea of firing a template weapon into close combat, it feels very logical, I just think it should come with a risk.

      Weapon teams, the fact that some do this, and others do that, is part of the problem. It might be an opportunity to fix that, have them work in a standardised fashion - a little like the outstanding inconsistency of how engineers join (or don't join) warmachines

  9. Say, are Druchii Anointed part of the Dark Elf guide? I didn't notice. If not, are they going to be added at some point? Or are they going to be added to another guide?

    1. At the moment they are not present. If I do a cult of slaanesh list in the future, they will be included there.

  10. What about dwarf wizards and Dark Emmissaries? I know dwarf wizards are technically non canon, but they might fit somewhere. Dark Emmissaries might fit in warriors of chaos?

    1. Dwarf wizards are not planned, Dark Emissaries will be included in the Monstrous Arcanum book or as a separate download.

    2. Dwarfs have Rune Priests as a replacement for wizards. They appears in Warhammer Online and in "Skarsnik". What about them?

    3. I'm sure the current Runesmiths have this covered, have they not?

    4. Pretty sure a Runepriest is just another word for Runesmith or Runelord? Don't think they need another one.

    5. In "Skarsnik" the Runepriest had a magic-shooting staff (which later became Skasnik's Prodder) and the ability to heal wounds (the same as in the Warhammer Online). This is slightly different from the abilities of typical Runesmiths.

  11. Am I correct to assume spellcasters such as magickers, warlocks, witches, and black magisters are going to be included in monstrous arcanum or colleges of magic book? Would alchemists and illusionists be included? How many classes from the rpg make it in, if you don't mind me asking?

    1. Don't have any current plans to include all of them, most of them are really just other names for wizards that could be included through the normal army list. Alchemists and illusionists are really just other names for wizards with lore of metal and shadows. If there are wizards that have unique lores they are likely to be included though.

    2. I think witches, on broomsticks would be great for the border princes - you could rename the Kislev lore of hags to be lore of the witches, and then have them use that too. Good to get a few more lores crossing army books

    3. Im not sure about that. I can't imagine all the crew members effectively hiding behind a cannon.

      Plus I think if you let light cav reach your back lines you shouldnt rely on rules to protect them.

  12. Mathias:

    A bit late to the party here this time, but I've had a lot to deal with with. anyhow:

    -BSB: Did you consider removing the +1 CR/replacing it with re-rolling Panic? You seemed a bit hesitant of including the re-rolling panic tests due to the BSB becomming too cost-effective, so I'm a bit surprised that it didn't get a nerf in the static CR department tbh.

    -Towering: Renaming Large Target to Towering also means having to go through every army book to weed out "Large Target" desfriptions... Doesn't really seem worth the name change IMO, even though I get the point you are trying to make.

    -Having the Sentient special rule listed under the BSB is a bit odd. It might be overlooked by players and I imagine it can cause some frustration when they can't find it under special rules.

    That's all I have right now. :-)

    1. well reroll panic and +1CR is still less than in 7th where it rerolled everything and was still only 25 pts. I can see it being a bit of a necessity in low ld armies where heroes come cheap, but a lot less so in expensive armies, I am happy with it as is.
      Renaming all the books isn't too bad really. they are all due a refresh fairly soon and that is a simple find and replace command, will take 5 min per book.
      your point on sentiment - yes completely agree, made that point earlier :-)

    2. I agree with The Rune about the complex of changing the Large Target to Towering. I´d rather prefer maintain the "Large Target" name to Monsters, and use other type of name to 40+US units. For example: huge target, great target, etc.

    3. - I don't think removing +1 combat res makes much sense, it's a standard like any other. It's technically underpriced, but less so than 8th ed.

      - That will go pretty quick though, there are not that many mentions of it really. Do you have any better suggestions for what to call it though? Large Target is a pretty bad name for something that does not have anything to do with being a target.

      - Fine, I can move IP and HyG there as well then, to cover those units that also have those abilities as a special rule.

    4. I understand your point. "Large unit" or something similar could be great instead of Large target and even Towering.

    5. Mathias:

      -To be clea, I just mean removing the stackingon top of normal banners. It is obviously a banner and should be treated as such, it is the stacking effect I was referring to. Should have ben more clear. :-)

      -Large "Target" is still relevant in the sense that it can be targeted behind smaller units and the like, so it is stil a target in that sense even if the bonus is gone etc. I agree that Towering is perhaps technically more accurate a word, but not worth the effort of changing on name basis alone I think.

    6. I think that not having the stacking effect just means that you are more likely to skip having a normal standard in that unit, which is not what I was going for. Yes, the BSB is technically underpriced, but due to the Last Stand rule it is also a bit risky since he will automatically die if the unit flees.

      It really won't be that much of an issue, there are hardly any special rules that only affects Large Targets anyway. Due to the shooting modifier being called "large target" now (which makes a lot more sense), the special rule needs another name so they are not confused.

  13. Black Magisters are former college wizards who begin to dabble with Dhar, I think. Witches are magic users are those who use hedge magic and branch into chaos sorcery, or dhar perhaps. Warlocks are those who either use daemonology or necromancy. Magickers are self taught wizards who use color magic, so they could be like hireling wizards. Elementalists definitely have their own lore of magic. Question is where to put everything if you want to include them.

  14. Side note: in regards to chaos sorcery, each chaos God has a lore of magic. Save for khorne. Malal and zuvassin have their own lore. Black Magister, witches, and warlocks could be included in monstrous arcanum. Something to consider.

  15. I suggested some rules for magic so I'll repost them:
    -Make it that rolling multiple ones causes a miscast and multiple sixes grants irresistible force.
    -Wizards from certain army books can know multiple lores of magic, in a similar manner to the way it is in the RPGs through knowing an arcane and dark lore or the witchcraft talent. The way it works is that there are three types of lores, arcane lores, dark lores and witch lores. Only one of each can be learned and witch lores are mutually exclusive with dark and arcane lores.
    -A wizard that can choose an arcane lore and dark lore (chaos lores, dark elf dark magic, necromancy) can take both an arcane and dark lore, using spells from both.
    -Wizards from certain army books are also not limited to spells from a specific lore, they have a primary arcane lore that they can take any spell (within wizard level limits) from and any number of secondary arcane lores that they can take spells from (also within spell number limits) but the limit due to Wizard level is halved (rounded down). For example, a Level 4 wizard who has the primary lore of beasts and secondary lore of life can take any spell from the lore of beasts but only up to the third spell in the lore of life.
    -To give a reason to only take spells from one lore. Wizards that only take spells from a single lore automatically know the Signature Spell of that lore. You could diversify for better versatility or specialize to be better at a specific role than someone that diversifies.

    -Arcane Lores: All rulebook lores, High Magic, unique lores from Albion, Amazons, Araby, Cathay, Kingdoms of Ind, Nippon, Wood Elves, Norse, Tomb Kings, Pirates.
    -Dark Lores: Unique lores used by Beastmen, Chaos Dwarves, Dark Elves, Skaven and Vampire Counts.
    -Witch Lores: Unique lores used by Bretonnia, Kislev, Orcs and Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Ogre Kingdoms.
    -Forces of Destruction and Non-Aligned Forces can imbue their spells with Dark Magic, which must be done when using a Dark Lore. When infusing a spell with dark magic, an extra dice is rolled when rolling for casting and the lowest dice is discarded but all dice count towards determining whether irresistible force or a miscast occurs. Higher risk higher reward.

    1. I forgot to say but in the case of primary arcane lores and secondary arcane lores, I'd limit that capability to elves, forces of destruction and non-aligned forces. The Forces of Order have systems in place to ostracize those who draw from more than one lore.

    2. What is the problem you are trying to solve with this solution - that is relatively sophisticated?

    3. Representation of crunch from WFRP 2e. Human, Slaan and Elven wizards can use multiple lores, it's just risky for humans and humans with formal schooling don't allow it. Dark lores are supposed to be more dangerous to use than arcane lores but that is not represented in the game where using an Arcane lore and a Dark Lore have the exact same risks and rewards.

      Oh, one more thing, I think the way Witch Lores work should make it impossible to use them in combination with Dark Magic as none of the witch lore careers can take the Dark Magic talent.

    4. I really don't think that's needed in the game, it's just more things to keep track off. It's possible I'll include rules for in a Magic expansion later on.

  16. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't in the fluff it said that when Teclis first taught magic to the humans they couldn't master more than one lore? Due to how long it took or accidently losing control? In end times (which I hate) Balthazar Gelt semi learnt lore of undeath from Papa Vlad but that didn't end to well. Next if you build a bear magic for some races that kinda kills what was special about the lore masters of hoeth. At our local club prior to the lizardmen update. We allowed the Slaan to be a build a bear wizard with different lores as they are the most powerful wizards in lore, and I can't imagine a lowly empire wizard(if the colleges and witch hunters allow them) to be all that powerful. Even if a human wizard who falls to chaos basically abandons their old lore for the new chaos gods lore.
    Anyway just my 5c comment.

  17. And going through with a fine tooth comb...

    Forming units on page 10, you refer to normal units. There is no definition of Normal. You should say that the minimum number of models in the front rank is defined in the troops type section. Rules as written monstrous infantry are illegal unless starting with 5 in the front rank.
    the reforming on page 10 allows me to temporarily have fewer ranks than files but you have kept the restriction to be minimum 5 wide, even if this is accepted to be 4 for cavalry it means that units of skirmishers or fast cavalry cannot squeeze through a 3” gap. I don’t see the need for the minimum to be applied here.

    Typo p16 last line of bold text in Charge reaction, “They have”, not “they has” and “they wish” not “they wishes”.

    P24 desperately needs text stating that all wizards receive the signature spell for the lore they are using.
    Also need to clarify if you have 2 wizards from the same lore, can both have the signature spell? (some armies - goblins only have 1 lore available).
    Also need to clarify that if I can choose to have spells from multiple lores at once, so two shadow and one fire, then do I get to choose a signature, take the signature from the majority, both signatures, neither…?
    Miscast table on p29 - Detonation, typo, Themselves, rather than Them self
    Miscast table Dimensional Cascade, he does not to be they do not – for the benefit of the many female casters out there.

    Can we consider if dispelling should have a range, either to the wizard or to the target, maybe based on wizard level? Obviously if out of range then can still dispel but without that +1/+2 modifier

    P31 typo remain in play spells. There is a missing full stop in the fourth paragraph in front of the capital A.
    P32 Next spell, typo “because they have” rather than “because they has” and “or have no” rather than “or has no”

    P35 the BS table has caused a section break, so you want us to read down to the table, then move to the 2nd column from the top, and then back to the first column under the table, that isn’t obvious, and not how I first read the page.

    Either put a much larger break under the table, or cut the table in half and have it inside the column with four rows rather than two.

    P35, shooting modifiers, Can we add shooting at skirmishers, that is a fairly common modifier – easily missed if not shown here.
    Could it be that Towering targets are +1 to hit from a close range?

    P37 saving throw, “if they roll equal” rather than “if they rolls equal”

  18. p37 Suggest you reference Ward saves here after instant kills – plenty of room, before the next section on removing casulties, even if you say they are defined elsewhere in special rules

    P41 striking order, you have added Initiative modifiers to weapons that didn’t exist in 8th, suggest that you mention that in this section, so models use the Initiative characteristic after modifiers for weapons and other rules…

    On the topic, a lance delivers +2I when charging – is this on top of the +1 bonus for charging – making it +3 (seeing as the +2 only occurs when you charge…) just checking that was intended – and elf with a lance – they’ll be going first 

    P 43 typo – Should be “They roll”, rather than “they rolls”

    P59 fly and frenzy special rules are out of alphabetical sequence (wrong way round)

    Killing blow p60 “they automatically slay”, rather than “they automatically slays”

    P60 Issue. Killing blow. Shouldn’t the last line state:
    For the purposes of combat resolution, successful Killing Blows score the same amount of Wounds as the slain model had remaining on its profile at the point of taking the killing blow.
    (Remaining- not starting number of Wounds)

    There should be a line space between natural armour and poisoned attacks on p62

    Rules as written when I shoot at a unit that has the monsters and handlers rule, but the handlers are dead, I still randomize to see which hits are allocated to the dead handlers….

    P63 skirmishers, italic text, “skirmishers are” rather than “skirmishers art”
    P 63 skirmishers, it says if the front rank can see then the second and third can. This is not stated as an example and can be read to state skirmishers can fire in only three ranks. Suggest the second and subsequent ranks to avoid that confusion.

    P65 Typo Stubborn. “they gain” rather than “They gains” and “They remain” instead of “they remains”

    P66. Vanguard. Units move forward 12, other than infantry, This means swarms who get vanguard on the basis of being skirmishers can move 12, much further than infantry… Suggest that should be 6” for infantry and swarms.

    Volley fire isn’t massively useful. Statistically it is rarely the best option, because units are wider than they are deep, you’d need to be a large square unit to gain a benefit from this or have a very high BS. So Seaguard leap to mind. Of course if cover is involved it would likely be better. Could I suggest you don’t need line of sight to use it – that would bring a benefit to using it. So fire over intervening troops.

  19. Ward save magic resistance. Typo, models with this rule gain, (not gains) and “when suffering damage” rather than “rule in against damage”. Also “Including ones that do not” rather than “Including ones that does not”.

    Magic resistance does nothing for augments or hexes. Suggest the opponent gets one dispel die for each point of Magic resistance the target unit has (only available to be used for that spell).

    P667 typo Ward save – Parry, “Models with this rule gain parry” rather than “models with this rule gains Parry”.

    P68 The opening bit on troops types is not needed, every army has a book / ravening hordes with comprehensive troop type categorization now

    P69 split profile cavalry type 4th paragraph. “They always use” rather than “they always uses”

    P69, when cavalry attack a building, they can’t use their barding or mount natural armour save. bonus – logically this is obvious but rules as written it isn’t specified.
    Would be nice to allow cavalry (monstrous cavalry) units to garrison a building by just remaining on foot, becoming infantry (monstrous infantry) – if you have suitable models for them.

    P73 weapons and armour third para – “they want to use” rather than “They wants to use”
    P73 the italic note under polearm, - “Polearms go” rather than “Polearms goes”

    P73, can I suggest that pikes gain +3I when charged, rather than +2. Right now they are going behind the lance armed charger with the same base I, These two should be hitting at the same time. The charger getting +2 for the lance but also +1 for charging.

    P76 “infantry armed with shields get” rather than infantry armed with shields get”.

    P76, seems a shame that there are no movement or initiative penalties that come with wearing full plate.

    P77 P76 Issue. In many of the new books published there are extra models in units that are not champions, musicians or standard bearers, but not characters either. Goblin Jesters, Pirate navigators, Arabian Imams etc. I think these need to be called out here as a section. Importantly it is about the priority for the front rank slots. If a unit of pirates has 5 files and has a champion, a standard bearer, a musician, a look-out, a bosun, a navigator, a master gunner, and a character – who goes in the front rank? Is anyone just not allowed to join?
    P 80 characters within units. Generally should generals be forced to go in the front rank ahead of other characters?

    P77 what’s in a name, “they’ll” rather than “he’ll” should be corrected in two places, one in first paragraph, one in second.

    1. full plate armor would not restrict any moves or decrease speed by any significant meaning. it is a popular misconception, you can find some myth busting at YouTube, where people do backflips wearing it. it is one of the best armors ever created by humans, and it is done with brilliant ideas in mind

    2. Anonymous is correct, full plate is not heavy considering the weight is spread across your body and the armour will move with you (as long as it is correctly made). I think DnD has made it widespread misconception. Now mail is rather bulky to wear and can restrict movement (not even enough to bother representing in a large scale game).

      And honestly with what it wearing the plate half the time are not normal humans, dwarfs and Chaos warriors are impressive warriors with greater strength than a normal human.

      I completely agree with pikes though Philip, their primary purpose should be to mess up anything charging into the front of a pike line and the bonus initiative might help.

    3. OK, when we stop learning, we stop living. I retract my comment on Plate armour.
      The rest stand for the time being though - and I still need to provide comments on p 78 onwards :-)

    4. - I will remove the mentions of 5 models wide from the Forming units part to the Troop Types part. It does say under monstrous infantry that they only require 3 models in width to be legal though.
      - These parts are already included in the lores of magic chapter, but I can move it to the choosing spells section instead. The rest of these things are explained under signature spells already. Will fix the spelling issues.
      - Having dispel use a range I'm kind of "meh" about. If added, it would probably be used so that if a friendly wizard is within 24" of the enemy caster, you can use it for a bonus to dispel. If that is something other players want to see added I'm fine with it, but it's not something I think is that important.
      - I'd rather not add skirmishers here since the rule itself it not explained until much later. As such, it's not a common modifier that can apply to all units. Don't think Towering units need another penalty, it's easy to target them as is.
      - There are several cases where Ward saves do not apply, so mentioning them here would not fit. It already said "unless specified", and in these situations, Ward saves are typically specified.
      - I can add mentions of weapons and spell there, sure. Lances get +3 in total, yes.
      - Will clarify the killing blow.
      - Will clarify that if the handlers are dead, the monster receives all hits.
      - Will clarify that Swarms only move 6" with vanguard.
      - Will make it so Volley Fire does not require Line of Sight, like Stone Throwers.
      - Will make it so that Pikes get +3 initiative.
      - These other "characters" can be targeted separately unless specified though, as many of them even have special rules about it. They are not common troops in that regard. The rules say that if a character cannot join the front rank, he is not allowed to join the unit.

    5. You are quite right on the monstrous infantry part, apologies.

      These "other characters" are often referred to as being like champions, and you just changed how champions work, so now they all change, and are all unkillable.
      Youa re right I found the rules on signature spells with the magic lores, but I appreciate you saying you will move the bit on signature spells to the "Choosing your spells" part, There is an argument that says that the lores of magic section is only relevant if I want one of the 8 colour decks, whereas the rules on signature spells and lore attributes apply to all magic.

      Ranges on dispel - suggest a few people try it to see what happens
      And what are your thoughts on free dispel dice from magic resistance for augments and hexes? Would cut both ways though unless locally exempted (so you have the resistance against augments too).

  20. mobility is one thing ,fatigue (overheating is a huge factor) is another. I like that a guy in a the first video that pops up on google makes a total of four pushups and late in the video another one makes five pushups and with the fifth he is beginning to have some problems and the scene is conveniently cut ;). But as Glen stated above fantasy plate wearers are probably made of a tougher grain;).

  21. Some info on Hedgefolk. While they can be found in the Border Princes, they are often found in the realms of the Empire. Same with the Elementalists. Further information: Lore of elementalism and Lore of Hedgecraft are very distinct from one another. However, Hedgecraft spells are a bit tricky to interpret. Not much description. Maybe you can get help in figuring out a description for them when you eventually get to the Border Princes?

  22. Cannon, while the opportunity to comment on the main rules is here can I talk about cannon. Cannon are one of the most loved and hated elements of the game depending on which side of the table it is on. The reason for this is how damned accurate they are. People don’t seem to mind the S10 or the D6/D3 W, it is the fact the things don’t miss and can be used in an irritating fashion to blast characters out of units if a different troop type or even with the same troop type on a 2+ (so 2 cannon, 3 turns you should get that vampire once).

    Cannon were not this accurate when they were used in warfare, currently we can overshoot but we can never miss left to right, as long as we roll averagely on the artillery die, we can shoot a specific blade of grass.

    I suggest cannon scatter – just a little bit, not so much we’ll end up missing whole units but enough that taking out a lone wizard on foot from 52” is no longer such a done deal.
    I suggest adding an extra step after choosing your spot and rolling the artillery die. I suggest that if the cannon is firing over one quarter range (to the target spot) then you roll a die. This indicates the degree you have missed left or right. Medium range is one quarter to a half range and long range is over that. For medium range, a roll of 1 or 2 and you scatter 1” to the left. 3,4 is no scatter. – direct on target. 5,6 is scatter 1” to the right.
    For long range, 1 is scatter 2” to left. 2 is 1” to left. 3,4 is no scatter direct on target. 5 is scatter 1” to right and lastly 6 is 2” scatter to the left.

    What do people think on this – really quite simple

    1. They did scatter in an earlier edition of 9th ed, but was removed since it was a bit fiddly and time consuming. Cannons have already been nerfed a lot compared to 8th ed:
      - They only inflict D6 Wounds on a direct hit, not the bounce (except Great Cannons).
      - They can only fire in a 90 degree angle like other missile units (so no free 360-spin to shoot that dragon behind you).
      - Look Out sir is automatic already, so you cannot character-snipe at all.

    2. At my local club we made it that you have to declare the range(in inches) that you are firing then measure from the cannon to that distance then roll as per usual. We did that with all our war machines shooting. You have to declare all shots before rolling. If you declared a shot And it's out of range tough luck fam. It's helped nerf shooting a bit.

  23. Mathias,
    I was unaware that this had already been tried out. What was the feedback, how fiddly was the scatter rule?

    For completeness: would you be able to point me to the place where it says look out sir is automatic? I can't see it. I am reading page 81 that states that if I am hit by a cannon I get to use the lookout sir roll as described for unit champions (which isn't there any more but that is a separate problem). As I read it I can still shoot a vampire out of a unit when they roll a 1.
    I accept the D3 W on the bounce to be a help.
    I have found the rules on 45 degree pivot. Bolt throwers can shoot at anyone within their fire arc though - because they use the normal missile fire rules, so they can pivot 45 degrees and then get another 45 on top of that, not sure if you intended that - you don't specify they can only fire directly forwards. (and you only imply rather than state that cannon firethrowers and stone throwers must fire directly forwards.)
    however given as bolt throwers are much lighter machines maybe this is ok.

    The Bretonnian Trebuchet can't pivot at all, meaning I can't see why anyone will take one, I'd just mentally put a line on the table and made sure I never left a model standing on that line.

    on a side note, the fact that champions (no look out sir rule etc ) can't be killed has presumably also made Araby Imams and pirate bosuns etc also unkillable

    1. The trébuchet cant pivot but can shoot in his front arc like others Stone throwers. Put it in your corner and he can shoot everywhere

    2. Well, it requires more rolls for one, as well as checking the direction of the scatter. Most of the time, the scatter was so little that it still hit the target anyway.

      Bolt Throwers follows the same rules for pivoting as other war machines. The book says "before you fire the war machine, pivot it to face your chosen target."

      I can make it so the trebuchet can pivot, as otherwise you would technically only be allowed to fire straight forward, since you must pivot to face your target according to RaW.

    3. Perhaps you can use the 90 deg firing arc and when the target is chosen you can pivot to face the target, however this will now change your firing arc next turn. Maybe that is what you intended. Equally you could say trebuchets/ war machines may pivot up to 90 degrees in one direction but if it does this it may not fire that turn

    4. I found the scatter helped a little bit with hitting monsters, didn't do much prevent hits against a unit.

    5. Mathias, when I read the rules and you read the rules, we get slightly different understandings ;-)
      The principle is that there is a rule at the highest level, that applies unless there is a rule at a lower level that changes it (an exception if you like).
      So for shooting you fire in a 90 degree arc. BUT if you are a war machine, then you fire directly forward after your pivot. BUT if you are a bolt thrower then you fire normally.....

      Now I read normally as being an exception to the war machine rules, and requesting you switch back to normal shooting as for an archer. What I now think you meant is that you shoot like any other war machine.
      If that first line under firing a bolt thrower on page 86 wasn't there, then I'd feel I'd need to pivot, but I have read that as an exception. Please either remove it or if you feel it is helpful to remind people what to do then please change it from "according to the normal rules for shooting" to "according to the rules for shooting with warmachines" - then I'll hit the rules on pivoting....
      I would also suggest that the language is tightened here and the critical line (Warmachines only shoot directly forwards is added).
      Suggest the following:
      "Line of sight is always taken from the chosen firing point( (i.e. its muzzle or crossbar, in the same way as for its range). War machines fire directly forwards. Before you fire you can pivot the warmachine to face your chosen target. War machines can pivot up to 45 degrees either left of right without counting as moving for the purposes of being Slow to fire. A pivot of more than 45 degrees counts as moving.

      However can I request that bolt throwers get an exception that they can pivot up to 90 degrees either left or right without counting as moving to reflect their much smaller frame.
      To address the trebuchet situation, here are two suggestions: the pivot without moving is dropped to 22.5 degrees left or right - which might be tricky to establish if that is done correctly, or say if they pivot at all then they don't have sufficient time to put maximum torsion into their shot and they have half range and drop to a S3(6) D3W shot, (same principle as the suggestion I made for Tilean Crossbows - can move and fire but at reduced range and strength). Also I'd let a trebuchet fire using the large template though if it didn't pivot - make it scary again. (would need to be a few more points).

    6. I will clarify the bolt thrower a bit.

      I don't think they need an exception to pivot wider though, some bolt throwers can be as big as cannons or stone throwers.

      Will make it so that trebuchets can pivot like other war machines, to keep it streamlined.

  24. Lore of metal lore attribute. The description (in italics) reflects the old attribute, suggest the following:
    Metallic attraction
    The wind of Chamon is dense and sluggish and naturally drawn to metals both refined and deep in the earth in ores.
    There is also an errant "If" after the lore attribute rule

  25. Mathias hello! could you clarify a bit: can we use magic resistance even when spells do not allow ANY saves, not only the ward saves? as the Dread Thirteen spell from Skaven book?

    I can see there is small additions in wording for many "nuke" spells, that Magic Resistance can be used against wounds by them, but there is nothing like this in Skaven spell for now

    1. Hi, I will add magic resistance to the Skaven spell so it can be used against it. It's supposed to apply.

  26. Does the volley fire rule not make true flight arrows redundant?

    1. Not necessarily; if you are planning on taking a large unit of 3 or more ranks then yes, but for smaller units it will be a lot more useful since you also won't suffer -1 to hit from using volley fire.

  27. Here's another change that could be made. A swarm model only has as much attacks as it has wounds remaining.

    1. While it would make sense, it would serve to make Swarms used even less than they are now, so I'd avoid making such changes.

    2. I agree. Swarms could have a to hit penalty with missile attacks though, to give them a bit more of a unique role on the battlefield, potentially even needing 6's to hit. T2 (in most cases) makes swarms pretty useless as they are right now. To my recollection, non-ethereal swarms have not really ever had much of a tactical use in the game; at least not enough so that they were effective from a cost perspective.

    3. Agree with The Rune. You can even make the swarm immune to non-template attacks as there is little chance that a volley of arrows (or a canonball !) will do any harm to a mass of thousands of scarabs...

    4. Something to makes swarms cool again :-) Can only be hit on a 6 (even from arrows of the asp) would help a lot. They can then be used to engulf (or even swarm over) small irritating units of skirmishers. Now that you can fire into combat, I can see big units having a swarm by them to protect their flanks from units of skirmishers with pistols or javelins etc getting to within 4" and causing havoc, even more important when facing skaven or dwarven weapon teams

    5. two more suggestions to make swarms more "realistic".
      -if you wave frantically with your sword at a swarm the only effect will probably be that you temporarily disperse it a little. So give them regeneration to simulate the "reform" ability.
      -a swarm will never suffer more than one wound from a single attack, unless it is an AoE-attack or has the flammable rule.

    6. AoE attack? sorry don't understand

    7. sorry: = template;) ("area of effect")

    8. 6's to hit with shooting? The thing with a swarm is that its HARD TO MISS...

    9. Swarms are already -1 to Hit, so don't think they need an additional to hit penalty.

      I will add that they do not block line of sight though.

    10. I do like the regen though

  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

  29. Now that shields give AS 5+ to the front, they are better than a Pavise. Suggest Pavise gives hard cover, but affects movement (-1), change (2D3-1). Requires updates to Dogs of War, Regiments of Renown and Skaven.
    In the game they operate much more like a wall than a shield, you don't move it to obstruct from arrows, you place it on the ground, hide behind it and peek out to shoot.

  30. in terms of updates Araby lost some unique features too with Flee&Fire reaction for their fast cavalry bowmen choices in core

  31. Yeah, I am not sure why that was added to all fast cavalry. Make sense that the rule makes it to the main rulebook, but I would have had it as a stand alone special rule, given to special fast cavalry units to make some better than others.
    Norse cavalry, and albion cavalry just became a lot better than they were before, hey even halflings on ponies who have a rule to say they are poor riders can now perform acrobatics :-)

    1. This was for streamlining purposes, and it gives horse archers more uses. The likes of Norse and Albion can only use javelins, which requires the enemy to be within 12", which makes it more risky to use compared to a bow. Typically, the more elite horse archers have either better BS or some special rule to make them stand out.

  32. And while I am here, one last pitch on the templates into close combat, I don't want that banned - seems just too tempting, but suggest that for every hit under the template, on a roll of a 1 the hit is applied to a friendly model of your choice.
    And firethrowers, can we allow them to fire at close range without using the number on the artillery die (misfire still applies) - so you can't avoid the machine by standing right in front of it?

    1. That seems too arbitrary, and requires you to roll the dice twice; both to sort out models hit, and then to sort out models wounded (for both sides). You could still fire into combat, just not intentionally so.

  33. Another clarification. When a Cavalry/Monstrous Cavalry unit where the mount has more wounds than the rider assaults a building, the mount is assumed to be tethered while the rider dismounts to attack. Does the rider only have 1 wound when attacking the building or three? I'd go with 1 and unless the rider is Monstrous Infantry, the 10 riders can assault the building if a Cavalry/Monstrous Cavalry unit that has more models than that attack it.

    1. Another thing. Can Sniper and Multiple Shots be used together?

    2. Yes I think some expansion on the rules of Cavalry / monstrous cavalry dismounting would be good. Basically they have the opportunity to dismount and become infantry/monstrous infantry - losing the benefits (saves, attacks Wounds etc) of their mounts. If they move (other than occupying a building while dismounted they can't remount (meaning that if they pursue after routing someone from a building, then they are stuck as infantry - there isn't time to go back to their mounts, get on and run down fleeing troops. Those that have multi Wound profiles are assumed to have taken the wounds to their mounts.

    3. Hmm, could random charge and flee distances be removed? >Marching and standard movement already have set maximums and charge moves could be made to be the same distance as a march move (so twice).
      >When fleeing, the unit is running for their lives and such, moves at thrice their Movement value unless it's Fast Cavalry using the Fire and Flee charge reaction, which then means they move their Movement Distance.
      >All hit rolls with ranged attacks against Fleeing units suffer a -1 penalty.
      >The Swiftstride special rules would then be removed. >Determining whether a unit fleeing from combat is caught is no longer random, if the pursuers have a higher charge distance than the fleeing units flee distance, they are caught, except the fleeing unit now has their backs to the enemy to be savaged even more in close combat. The caught enemy must take a Rally test next turn or continue fleeing. If successful, they reform to face their pursuers. If unsuccessful, they move their flee distance and the pursuers can choose to charge their backs or focus on other things on their turn.
      >When engaged in close combat with a fleeing unit, the strikers get a +2 WS bonus and the fleeing unit does not fight back and automatically loses the next combat and fails the break test. Instead of taking dangerous terrain tests when fleeing through an enemy unit, the enemy unit instead makes a set of attacks (with the WS bonus) for every model that is fled through.
      >Even if the retreating enemy cannot escape, there's a chance that they might lead their pursuers into a vulnerable spot with exposed flanks or allow an ally to hit their pursuers so they can continue to flee so there's a reason to flee even if you know you won't escape.
      >Even if the pursuing enemy cannot catch their target, they are still pressing an advantage and gaining ground so there is a reason to pursue even if you know you won't catch.
      >Make To Hit in close combat go like this. Attackers WS more than targets hits on 3+, Attackers WS is more than double of defender means target is hit on 2+, Defender WS double or more than double that of defender means that the attacker hits on a 5+, if a model has twice the weapon skill +3 it will be hit on a 6+. This means that +2 WS when attacking a fleeing foe will result in an increased chance to hit unless base WS 1 is attacking base WS 10.

    4. In addition, Flying units could be changed to be able to operate on two planes of the battle:
      >When flying in High Altitude, they cannot be attacked in melee except by other flyers in High Altitude. Ranged attacks are still possible. Units can pass through the flying unit as if it wasn't there. If on the ground, they pass under the flyer, if in high altitude, they pass above or below the flyer.
      >A Low Altitude model is flying around 2 yards or less from the ground. They may move over terrain without changing altitude as long as said terrain isn't taller than they are. They can be charged and block units just like a model on the ground.
      >A model with the Fly special rule has the Skirmisher special rule. They can change from High Altitude to Low Altitude without moving (representing a dive) but must make a full move (10") to move from Low Altitude to High.
      >Hovering units cannot march but can move from Low Altitude to High without moving.
      >Perhaps later on, give various models varying Flying speeds. I'd suggest going to the WFRP games to get the movement speeds. A creatures Flying Movement is usually 2 more than its land movement but in some cases is more or less than that.

    5. >Flying and Hovering units that flee automatically move from Low to High Altitude if they aren't already at High Altitude.

    6. Hey Roland, regarding the charge and flee distances, a little like the magic suggestions, what is the problem you are trying to solve? It would have enormous consequences.

      The flying rules I have had similar thoughts - a little more fleshed out than what you have here, but similar in concept.

    7. Hey Roland, I dont think the charge distance change is necessary. But I quite like those flying rules, could make them somewhat unique because currently they're just movement 10 which feels generic.

      I have play those rules in my club and they are quite fun to play against.

    8. Regarding charge distance, it's to remove an element of randomness. Both players will have to think more tactically when they know that a bad or a good roll won't save them.

      In the flying rules, there are some things I forgot:
      >High Flyers like Thunderbarges and Flying Galleys cannot move to Low Altitude, if ever forced into Low Altitude due to an effect, they take damage instead. If forced to land, they are unable to move until it's safe to fly again (and are quite vulnerable).
      >Maybe make it that when targeting a Flyer at High Altitude, all ranged attacks that don't come from high altitude count as being from 6" farther away for the purposes of accuracy and such.
      >To go with that, a Flyer targeting something at Low Altitude increases their range by 6". But when firing at a target where they need this increased range to do so, the To Hit roll is reduced by 1 since they have to aim quite a bit higher in order to make use of the projectile drop that they are using to hit the target.
      >Affects such as the Lore of Heavens lore attribute that cause damage against Flyers instead only do so when the Flyer is at High Altitude.

    9. Some more things (some of which come from Philip's rules or modified from there):
      >If a model has the Towering special rule, it's possible for Flyers to remain at High Altitude and charge said model.
      >All ranks of a unit shooting at a unit in High Altitude may fire on it.
      >Bolt Throwers, in addition to other rules, cannot fire on Flyers at High Altitude that are within 6".
      >Cannons, in addition to other rules, cannot fire normally on High Altitude Flyers that are within 12" or fire Grapeshot at all unless the cannon is also at High Altitude (the only way I can think of is due to the Dwarf Thunderbarge). Cannons that are firing Round Shot where the target is a High Altitude flyer fire as must declare that they are doing so, then the shot is resolved as normal with a few differences. First, the roundshot will not hit anything that isn't flying at High Altitude, passing over their heads. Second, all misfires at the first bounce are re-rolled, for the purposes of Damage inflicted, the Cannon counts as if it hadn't bounced. If the cannon ball has not been stopped in its tracks by hitting something and failing to kill it, then mark a point a further 10” beyond where the cannon ball hit ended its first "Bounce" and resolve the bounce from that point along the ground. The shot can no longer hit High Altitude Flyers.
      >Firethrowers can be very dangerous to fliers but have to be very close. Firethrowers that are War Machines mau not fire at Flyers, anytime the template scatters onto a High Altitude Flyer, the Flyers count as having not been hit. When the firethrower is on the ground ignore the 10” extra range to a unit In The Air and resolve as follows: The firer rolls the artillery dice and ignores all results other than a misfire –which follows the usual misfire rules. The firer then places the small template anywhere within 4” to see what models have been hit.
      >Stone Throwers cannot target High Altitude fliers that are within 6". Their attempt to hit High Altitude fliers is resolved exactly like a Cannon attempting to do so, except the shot doesn't bounce once a point 10" beyond the point where the first "bounce" is determined, instead being resolved as if that was the spot hit by the template. All High Altitude Flyers that are hit have the hit resolved at the higher strength value and with Multiple Wounds (if applicable).
      >Vortexes can be cast In The Air. The vortex travels straight up into the air and then moves around In the Air affecting only units In the Air. A Magical vortex that is in the air remains in the Air and can never come down to earth. If the vortex is cast from In the Air to the ground or visa versa then the first 0 - 10” it travels is considered straight down, or up. If the vortex travels less than 10” then place it either directly above the caster In the Air, or directly
      below the Caster on the ground.

    10. >Crash!: If a model with two or more Wounds is killed (including wounds from being CAUGHT while fleeing) while In The Air then it spirals and spins out of control in a deathly plunge. The model hits the ground at a point 2D6 scatter away. Anyone under that point suffers a S5 hit. If the model is a towering target, a chariot, a warmachine or shrine then place the small round template and resolve at S 3(6) D3W unless it has special crashing rules, e.g. gyrocopters.
      >Transmutation of Lead and Flesh to Stone: Flesh to Stone can also be used as a Hex. Both spells cause a Flyer they target to lose that rule while the spell affects them. They move on the ground with their non-flying movement value.
      >Throne of Vines and Shield of Thorns: These spells cannot be used when flying at High Altitude.
      >The Dwellers Below: No effect of Flyers.
      >Comet of Casandora: Can hit Flyers. If the central hole is on a High Altitude Flier then no units on the ground are hit.
      >Steed of Shadows: Turn it into a 10" move where the model moves as if Ethereal.
      >Wind Blast: Pushes Flying units D6+1.
      >Gyrocoptor/Bomber: When Gyrocoptors/Bomber are destroyed at High Altitude, they crash to the ground like a Chariot, Towering Monster etc... Resolve the damage at S4(7) D3W Armour Piercing (1). If flying at low altitude, roll a D6. On a 1 or 2, it scatters D6, inflicting a S2(5) Armour piercing(1) hit.
      >Thunderbarge: Crashes like a Gyrobomber but with a bigger explosion. High Altitude crashes cause a S5(9) Armour Piercing (1) D3W. Low Altitude crashes cause a S4(6) Armour piercing(1).

    11. I'm planning on streamlining those rules a bit. Ca will simply not be allowed to fight with their mounts, but will otherwise not dismount. It will save a lot of lookholes with natural armour (which is sometimes not specified as belonging to the rider or the mount) and multiple wounds (no one is going to be risking 3W MC by turning them into 1W In with a much worse save anyway).

      As for the suggestions about changing charge distance - solid no. With static charge distances we are back to 7th ed of units not daring to move forward X amount of inches as you will know for sure that you will charged or not. Same with fleeing static distances, it makes deciding to pursue or not much less interesting.

    12. Regarding the flying rules, I prefer to keep them simple for the main game. It's possible they could be fleshed out for an expansion or something like that though.

  34. I'll publish my flying rules in the Group chat if people are interested:!forum/warhammer-armies-project

    1. I quite like those rules, maybe a bit complex for standard games, but I feel it fully represents how flyers should be. Will definitely try it next time I play

    2. Thanks, They are complex because I have written them in an expansive fashion to avoid loopholes. They are actually fairly straightforward really. The combat takes a couple of goes to get your head round, which is why I put in some examples.
      I think it means that smaller fliers should be more expensive though, war machines are much more easily taken out as I can fly my unit of fliers directly at them, whereas before if I did that I'd be charged immediately. Doesn't affect monsters quite as much as they are less likely to be used to chase after chaff.
      Some armies have no fliers like Ogres, most have one and most can put a character in the air. Dark Elves can take harpies as core (but don't count towards the core minimum) so could be abused. The Vampire counts have lots of flying things, monsters, bats, Vargheists etc, might need some moderating.
      Would require play testing to see what is fair, this is less extreme as the old 4th ed fly high, because units In The Air can still be seen and targeted from the ground.
      Might need to provide air protection to war machines at a cost, forcing fliers to land before attacking them, or at least striping those impact hits away from Swooping charges, which would be lethal to 3 T3 no save models

  35. We have immunity to ice attacks and lightning attacks, but we don’t have lightning attacks in the rules – you could infer that an attack is a lightning one, but they are not explicitly called out. Ice attacks are inconsistent and missing in lots of places. (for example the kislev lore of ice doesn’t state these are ice attacks) Suggest you add the following rules, and then when you run through all the books, change existing rules to use these standards

    Lightning attacks
    Lightning attacks gain +1 to Wound against models in medium, heavy or plate armour. Medium, heavy and plate armour are counted as Light armour for the purposes of saves against lightning attacks.

    Ice Attacks
    A model with Ice Attacks affects all models in base contact with -1S and -3I (to a minimum of 1). This affects both friendly and enemy models.
    A monster with Ice Attacks causes -1S and -3I to all models within 2D3” roll for range at the start of the player's turn.
    If a shooting attack or spell has ICE ATTACKS and causes an unsaved Wound then the unit affected is subject to -1I until the start of their next turn.
    Unless otherwise stated, a model with this special rule has both ICE ATTACKS for shooting and close combat. Spells are only considered to be Ice Attacks if specified in the spell description. If a magic item confers Ice attacks then they only apply to attacks made with that item.
    Models with Ice attacks gain immunity (Ice Attacks)

    Units that should gain Lightning attacks:
    Stormfiend Shock gauntlets – replace ignores armour saves with lightning attacks
    Warp lightning cannon – replace ignores armour saves with lightning attacks
    Warlock engineers

    Spells that should gain Lightning attacks:

    Lore of Heavans, Urannon’s Thunderbolt and Chain Lightning
    Lore of Ruin, Warp lightning and Warpstorm
    Lore of the Deva, Bolts of Cindra

    Suggested Magic items:
    Ikit Claw, Storm Daemon
    Suggest an electrical blade to give lightning attacks

    Units that should gain/use Ice attacks

    Yhettees (replacing Aura of cold) they should keen their magical attacks as a separate rule
    Yhettee Rimespeaker – including their breath weapon and their three spells
    Frostheart phoenix – remove nbizzard aura and immunity ice attacks, replace both with Ice attacks.
    Kislev Ice witches and Ice maidens
    Mourngul (replacing killing cold)
    Ice Drake
    Frost Giants and Styrmir Rimefrost

    The Undead rule could provide immunity Ice attacks (not vampiric)
    Ogre kingdom Ice Mammoths, Chaos War mammoths and Norse War Mammoths should be immune to Ice attacks
    Snow trolls should be immune to Ice attacks

    Spells that should gain Ice Attacks

    Lore of Heavens, Iceshard Blizzard
    Lore of ice, All spells are ice attacks – add it to the lore attribute, In addition, Ice armour gives the wearer Ice attacks – increase casting value to 7.

    Suggested Magic items

    The ogres and the norse will need something to make them immune to Ice attacks so as to be able to benefit from the Ice attacks of their monsters.
    White clock of Ulric needs amending, Suggest it grants, 5+ ward, Ice attacks, immunity flaming attack.
    Kislev should have a banner giving Ice attacks (and thereby making them immune to the effects of their ice casters.

  36. Another thing Mathias. Cavalry having impact hits is a lovely little extra and only has two issues from my playing experience. Firstly it has made Orc Boar boyz really good - but they weren't very good before so that is a suitable compensation.
    The other consequence is that if a unit of fast cavalry charges a warmachine, for the most average unit of 5 they kill two and are 50/50 to wipe the crew out before combat even starts being T3 no save troops.
    Can I suggest that impact hits against War Machines are resolved against the T of the machine as the crew would naturally look for any defense they can get. They'll still lose but it might last an extra turn and they might take a few down with them.
    This was less of an issue before because impact hits were much rarer - and not on the types of units you"d imagine to be targeting cannons

    1. I think that Fast Cav would be a very natural counter to artillery tbh. Artillery crew are not realy supposed to stand up to a charge from any mounted combatants IMO, so the impact thing in this regard is fine as it is.
      In any case, the impact gained overall is a big benefit to the game and I see no good reason to really make war machine crew an exception as such. To much fiddly detail for little to no real game benefit I think. There is only so much players can remember and keep track of overall.

    2. Well i think it is something we'll house rule. War machines are not lasting long now, feels like autodestroy - overun everytime. This I feel is one of those unintended consequences of a good rule with a very simple resolution. Also real world logic would say that the crew are better protected from impact hits than other units as they have a big heavy machine to hide behind, in the same way that missile shots are resolved against the machine's toughness, presumably you are able to remember and use that fiddly detail rune ;-)

    3. Do you think increasing crew size of warmachine might help? I know they might lose on combat res but its better than being wiped out. Historically siege equipment required quite a few people to help move them around effectively (especially trebuchets!).

      I understand this might cause issues with having the correct amount of crew models. But maybe as an option if one has duplicates of the model? It also might give them a bit of resistance against the increased amount of missiles flying around nowadays.

    4. If cav makes contact with your war machine crew, I'd argue that you had done something wrong to begin with, either: 1. Bought too many war Machines to effectively protect, 2. Deployed badly or 3. Not taken any effective counter unit to fast cav in your army.

      If fast cav always get your artillery in hth, I'd argue your problem isn't really the impact hits from the horses to begin with Phil.

    5. I still think it makes sense for the crew to hide behind the machine making impact hits less logically sensible. Flying cavalry also cause impact hits (sensibly) but are even more threatening to war machines.

    6. It feels unnatural that cavalry gets impact hits against targets that is either harder than themselves (like anything constructed), entrenched in anyway or equipped with spears/pikes/polearms (at least the impact hits should work both ways in the last case;) )

    7. And also, impact hits would make more sense if anyone with the fast cavalry rule did not get it. Running things over is more of a "heavy cavalry" duty imho. Otherwise I do not get why war beasts do not get impact hits in comparison (impact hits are based on mount strength and war beasts are simply cavalry without a rider;)). And to clarify if someone misunderstands, I do not want them to have it either:).

    8. The whole spears and pikes thing, that has been covered by their rules, the fact that the horse careers into you is still a thing - even if it is dead by the time it hits you.
      I agree that it doesn't feel right to have impact hits on things that pretty much immovable. The definition of "harder" is a bit weak though - orcs are tougher than horses but I's still expect a cavalry unit to be able to charge through them . War beasts, I see your point, maybe without the rider they are less likely to smash into stuff, those war beasts / monstrous beasts that are sentient probably should have the impact hits, centaurs Bull centaurs for example - but not the standard ones like wolves.

      So I would amend my rule change request to say that cavalry and monstrous cavalry don't receive impact hits if the defending unit is behind an obstacle, or a war machine (where the crew are using the machine as an obstacle)

    9. The Momentum is technically there regardless what you charge. The strength vs toughness is enough to resolve the effectiveness issue from the impact imo. Even a small gate or something could potentially feel the impact of an 800kg warhorse (or fantasy equivalent) slamming into it.

      That said, you can argue that there are riderless warbeasts of approximately the same size/weight as a riderless fast-cav type steed, even though most of them would not slam into thing in a similar manner as steeds directed by a rider. If a destinction nees to be made though, I suggest making the Barding (or natural armour in case of Cold-ones etc) grant the Impact hit.

    10. The weight of the barding isn't going to make that much difference to the impact. Having a wall or a massive wooden stone thower between the horse though - that is going to have more of a consequence

    11. I think rune meant it more for role of the cavalry I.e cavalry with barding are more likely to be shock cavalry (and with that more likely to charge into enemy formations) .

      But honestly I understand what you mean with artillery being messed up by light cavalry, but with regards to the already limited use of light cavalry I think it's fine.

      Most of the time I can see the crew not being straight behind the warmachine, they'd be moving rocks and moving it around. Only a small number would be near it.

      I do however think there might be too many small rules being added that the average player will forget.

    12. Yea, that was the idea. You'd be far more confident guiding your warhorse into a mob if it wore armour, which would also increase mass, hardness, impact power etc...

      TI don't think Phillip is wroing neccessarily, but I question if we need a special rule for such a misicule thing, when war machine crew isn't really supposed to stand up to successful flanking chargers anyway. How far ito the rpg world do we really want to take it in terms of rules?

    13. if they are not supposed to have a chance to withstand a succesful charge from light cavalry or similar why should they withstand any dedicated attack at all? why not remove it at once if succesfully charged in that case?

      If you throw a tomato at a wall it will probably splash. If you throw it harder and faster it will still splash. If you somehow manage to get your trained warhorse to run straight into an inaminate object like a gate (it is an absurd idea to begin with) you might crack the gate but you will certainly crack your horse 100% of the times and probably yourself in the process.

      As light cavaly is usually dirt cheap it is possible to make very reliable little suicide units with the impact hits (like a ball and chain fanatic, about double the cost but with much longer and reliable range and 5 autohits plus regular attacks. I do not think anyone would do this as their only purpose, but if the opportunity presents itself or if there is no other option they can probably suicide in an effective but very uncharacteristic way for their troop type.

    14. I'm just concerned that such a rule is needlessly overcomplicated for what actual game benefit it has. You can always make more detailed and fine-tuned rules, but at some stage you will find that you are really playing an rpg instead. How well can you really hide behind a cannon from an oncomming horde of horsemen in any case? You could perhaps throw yourself under it, or at least one of the crew could, but you are still entering the realm of very fiddly and complex rules that are hard to justify in a wargame.

      Light cav is generally 5+ in terms of models, which will effectivly be around 60-75 pts, for a chanece to get to a cannonat 100 pts... Not saying it can't be done, but I would't have done that to possibly get to some warmachine.

    15. Then I'll probably house rule that impact hits don't work against units behind obstacles or against warmachines - I'll add it to the Impact hit rule, although might mention it again at warmachines and the section on obstacles.
      No a cannon is not going to mean that you can avoid light cavalry, but it might mean they have to engage you normally, with swords and spears than run right over you, they'll have to run around the warmachine which takes much of the impetuous out of their charge

    16. I think an easy way to solve this is to simply make it so that obstacles ignores impact hits (which makes sense), and make war machines counts as obstacles (which also makes sense). Not that much to remember really.

      I think the other suggestions would probably be taking things a bit too far in regards to things to remember. Should Winged lancers not get impact hits, even though they are mounted?

    17. Making war machines count as obstacles makes them harder to hit though... which isn't the case as the hits are resolved against the machine rather than the crew. So war machines should only count as obstacles in combat

    18. I will make it clear that they only counts as obstacles in combat.

  37. The to hit chart on p42 - it needs to have the sides marked, one for attacker and the other for defender so you know which way round to read it

  38. Can I ask, can you take an additional hand weapon and a magic weapon, there are some special characters that have this. If the model has 4 attacks on their base profile and has a magic weapon and a additional hand weapon, how are the attacks split. 4 with magic weapon, 1 with normal, or split 50/50 randomly, or split 50/50 with the odd one at attackers choice?

    1. As far as I understand, You have to use a magic weapon over any other weapons. Characters with 2 magic weapons can probably choose which one they are fighting with. Might have to be clarified.

    2. It's actually that when a character has an additional hand weapon and a magic weapon, all attacks are with the magic weapon. Presumably, the enchantment present on the weapon can be linked with any mundane weapon so that the mundane weapon can use the magic ones effects as long as the wielder carries both. For example, Marius Leitdorf uses a Runefang and second hand weapon and the second weapon has the same effect as the Runefang. Also, characters can't choose two magic weapons so it's a moot point which of choosing between them.

    3. Hey Roland, I know normal characters cannot have more than 1 magic but special characters do. Looking at the rules now I see Mathias already has a rule concerning it (helps me reading the rule before commenting :p)

      I haven't heard of the weapon transfering to mundane weapons. As far as I can read from 'I'm using this one' you have to use the magic weapon. What I think this means is he cannot benefit from 2 weapons for an additional attack.

  39. Sorry my mistake, p120 if you have a magic weapon you can't use any other close combat weapon - that rules out being able to use that additional hand weapon - unless specifically excepted in a special character.
    Feels like this is something worth exploring though, maybe some armies could allow this - Albion maybe - all characters come with additional hand weapons as standard and can choose to use them with magic handweapons if they want....

    1. Generaly speaking, I see no issue with an additional hand weapon being used alongside a magic weapon, as long as the extra attack is rolled for seperately and does not gain the magical weapon's effects etc.

    2. The same goes for the parry save from a shield alongside a magical hand weapon for that matter...

    3. Do you get a parry when using a magical weapon - I don't know that one actually?

    4. Not per the rules no, at least as far as I can recall. My point is that I don't see why you should not. :-)
      Picking a 5 pts -1 AS magical weapon does not make a lot of sense if you lose the Parry from the hand weapon & shield combo for example.
      My point is that I wouldn't mind seeing the rules tweaked a little, so that magical hand weapons actually counted as hand weapons for all intents and purposes.

    5. Actually, as far as I can make out, you can use the parry save from a mundane shield with a magic weapon: “Unless otherwise stated, a magic weapon is treated as a hand weapon, and follows the rules for such.” I can’t find anywhere that says you can’t.

    6. You can use Parry with a magical weapon, yes. I can make so that you can get +1A with AHW if using a magic weapon as well.

    7. OK thanks, and that also clears up the question as to whether you could take an additional hand weapon if you had a magic weapon. Presumably that additional attack doesn't gain the benefit of the magical weapon though

    8. It appears I did mis-remember regarding the Parry. Didn't have the book with me.
      An additional hand weapon would be much too good if it gained the benefit of the magical hand weapon as well. It would be very hard to put an accurate point cost to it as it would scale with the potential of the magical attacks.

    9. The +1 attack will only benefit from the magic weapon if both weapons are magical. Markus Leitdorf will not gain +1 attack to his runefang with these rules for example.

  40. Another thing. Could Tail and Chomp attacks from Storm of Magic be added to the rulebook?

    1. I personally felt those attack types were pretty pointless and just served as more things to remember. As such, I've typically just made them +1 A or similar for consistency.

  41. So, I hope you don't mind me asking: how are things going on the projects? The little counters on the side haven't changed in more then a month.

    1. I have been on a bit of break from Warhammer for a few weeks, but I have been doing some work on the main rulebook based on your feedback. I plan to have an update out for it during Christmas, and then get back to working on the WoC after that :)

  42. Hey Matthias, most of the halberd units in each army can take shields, but the halberd is a two handed weapon. They do carry hand weapons, but the rules say that they can use hand weapons only when they don't have other weapons. so what i'm seeing is that their shields can't be used

    Im assuming that something else is up. So I think that you can choose which weapon to use at the beginning of the turn, so choose sword and shield when enemies have arrows or are just basic infantry, and then use the halberds against tough monsters

    1. The idea here is that those units can use those shields against missile fire. Which given that is a +2 save to the front could be very handy

    2. except that they are currently required to use their halberds all the time, which require 2 hands, therefore they can't use shields

    3. The rules say "If a model has more than one weapon, they must choose which weapon they want to use at the start of the close combat or shooting phase."

      I can change the wording of hand weapons to "If a model is armed with another weapon besides their hand weapon, they must use this in close combat." That way you can use shields as intended.

    4. okay, but I still think that they should be allowed to use their hand weapons in combat, Against lots of weak enemies i would rather have higher armour saves than higher strength

  43. Have a nice X-mas everybody! :-)