Wednesday, 26 December 2018

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.2 out now!

Merry Christmas and Good Yule! As you have probably noticed, I've been a little absent from the blog for the last month, just taking a small break from Warhammer and recharging my batteries a bit. As promised in the comments, I have also been working on an update in time for X-mas, so here it is:

This update changes the following:

  • Last Stand from 8th Ed for standard bearers re-added (was missing from the book).
  • Removed additional Fear bonus from outnumbering their foes (to avoid snowballing Leadership penalties too much with Terror and other special rules  and/or spells).
  • Clarified that in order to have Immunity (Fear, Panic, Terror), the majority of the models in that unit must have that special rule.
  • Units must pass a Ld test in order to charge Terror-causing units. If failed, they can attempt to re-direct the charge following the normal rules.
  • Fixed bug with Large Target requiring unit size 40 instead of unit strength 40+.
  • Moved Look Out Sir rule to Character chapter instead of Champions, since Champions no longer use it. Clarified that Look Out Sir only applies to units of the same troop type.
  • 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+ (does not apply to Towering units).
  • Clarified that Feigned Flight applies both when choosing Flee and Fire & Flee.
  • Clarified what constitutes as both missile and close combat attacks.
  • Clarified that you may not shoot templates (on purpose) into close combat, regardless of distance.
  • Removed part of unit needing to be 5 models wide, this is instead clarified for each troop type.
  • Clarified that units may reform into less than 5 models wide temporarily (so fast cavalry and skirmishers are not penalties).
  • Moved Signature spells and Lore attributes section to Choosing Spells section.
  • Clarified that Striking order Initiative includes bonuses from both weapons and spells.
  • Clarified that the amount of wounds caused by Killing Blow is based on the model's remaining Wounds, not the Wounds on the model's profile.
  • Clarified that hits on Monsters and Handlers are allocated towards the monster if the handlers are dead.
  • Swarms only move 6" with the Vanguard rule.
  • Volley Fire does not require Line of Sight.
  • Pikes get +3 Initiative when charged rather than +2.
  • Clarified that shields and additional hand weapons works with magic weapons. In the case of two hand weapons, the extra attack does not benefit from the magical weapon's rules unless both weapons carried are magical.
  • Changed so that obstacles remove charge bonuses from the attacker, same as a buildings. War Machines counts as obstacles in close combat.
  • Clarified that bolt throwers also pivot to fire rule like other war machines.
  • Swarms do not block line of sight.
  • Removed mention of Champions from the Sniper rule. Clarified that you can use Multiple Shots with Sniper special rule.
  • Clarified that if you have another weapon than a hand weapon, you must use it in combat, but not all the time (so you can use shields and halberds against missile attacks).
  • Changed so that only Infantry, war beasts and swarms can garrison buildings (ogres hardly being to squeeze into a normal doorway anyway). Moved part of different troops types and buildings to the buildings chapter.
  • Added Lightning Attacks, getting +1 To Wound against models wearing medium/heavy/full plate armour, and ignoring armour saves against these troop types. Urannon's Thunderbolt and Chain Lightning are Lightning Attacks. 
  • Added Ice Attacks, causing enemies in base contact to suffer -1S and -1I, or -1M and -1I if used as a missile attack. Iceshard Blizzard is an Ice Attack. 
  • Moved Sentient rule to Special Rules.
  • Relic Sword 20 pts.
  • Parrying Blade 20 pts, is no longer an additional hand weapon.

I aim to get back to working on the Warriors of Chaos book after New Year's, so it should hopefully be finished sometime in January.

123 comments:

  1. Excellent clarifications.

    But what happens if a special character with a different troop type with a "lower" unith streght than the rest of the unit is hit? I.E: A hero goblin in a unit of orcs or trolls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, both goblins and Orcs are infantry. A Goblin in a unit of trolls is not singled out either, as the trolls as the easier target to hit. Can clarify this further as well.

      Delete
    2. Oh, sorry about the orc and Goblin suggestion (I was thinking about the base size)

      Ok, I got the idea now if a character with diferent troop type and lower unit strenght. A clarification in the rule book will be fine.


      Good work anyway in This last update. The rule book are is being consolidated

      Delete
    3. And due to size matters goblins can't join orc units. Characters can only join units of the same "Tribe"

      Delete
  2. erh :(
    every time I find something usable for skaven it is instantly nerfed with new updates hahaha
    fire throwers were so good shooting close combat, and now they are useless again

    I appreciate your balancing but skaven came so straightforward instead of being most diverse roster in WHFB previously

    but, anyways! thank you for your work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, not being allowed to fire into combat just makes them the same as 8th ed really, so they are not really worse than before ;)

      The reason for this nerf was that unlike normal shooting, firing templates into close combat could be done at no risk at all, unlike normal shooting, and could also be done from much further away than 4". It would make it just a little to devastating to tie up the enemies with cheap troops, and then blast them to pieces with fire throwers without being able to do anything about it. Not much fun to be on the receiving end in those situations ;)

      Delete
    2. besides, with skavenslaves, you can still do that, just not with more valuable units, which is what i would do anyways in that case

      Delete
  3. can you now volley fire backwards?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it still follows the normal rules for shooting: "A model can shoot at an unengaged enemy unit that is at least partially within its forward arc"

      Delete
  4. question, can you create a tunnel battle rulebook for us, because there would be so many changes,(bye bye empire mortars)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Might release an updated rulesset for it, but probably not a whole army book.

      Delete
  5. by the way, war machines should be immune to impact hits in order to represent their people hiding on the other side of the machine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are with this update, as they counts as obstacles.

      Delete
  6. can dark elf slave masters still be targeted seperatly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they are not champions in the normal sense. Will clarify that.

      Delete
  7. Regarding terrain types, the rulebook says that Cavalry, Monstrous Cavalry, Shrines and Chariots treat all terrain as Dangerous Terrain. This contradicts a few things like Hills being treated as open ground and rivers only making units unable to march. I suggest removing the part where the aforementioned unit types treat all terrain as dangerous and instead make it that the dangerous terrain tests for those units are mentioned in the part describing the terrain types.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can clarify that, though rivers being dangerous terrain for these troop types makes sense imo.

      Delete
  8. Great work!!! Love it!!!
    Are there any plans for the border princes and marienburg armies books?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Border Princes might get a smaller army list, but Marienburg does not really have any unique troops as such other than the landship, so you are better off using the Empire army list there.

      Delete
  9. Good list of clarifications and changes Mathias. :-)

    I still think having to go over all army books and change Large Target to Towering is a bit more of a hassle than its worth in terms of work and confusion (for players that might not have downloaded the latests army books etc), but as said before, I don't disagree with the decision as such.

    Volley Fire will be interesting to see tested out in practice as it has many subtle game effects, such as archers now being easier to protect as they can stay behind the main infantry line for example. I think it is a nice mechanic that adds to the game tactically speaking. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree again with the rune suggestion about not to change the name of large target to towering.In my opinion things would be easier if you look for a new name of the current'large target' rule.

      Delete
    2. It will be a really small issue of just using ctrl+f to replace Large Target with Towering, takes about 10 sec per army book :)

      Delete
    3. Jajajajaj a if it's not a problem for you, OK with this

      Delete
    4. I understand that Mathias. I suspect people won't generally all download new army books though, which can casue some confusion. Perhaps a generall "ALL army books have been updated" notification when you next do an update of several army boos would hlp though. :-)

      Delete
  10. A thought:

    If Monstrous Infantry can no longer garrison buildings, that will make the OK REALLY struggle in the Watchtower scenario I imagine...
    I know most buildings are made for human-sized models, or at least look like they are, but in a fantasy setting I kind of imagine a lot of buildings would be made with bigger individuals in mind, especially buildings meant to be properly garrisoned etc.
    I can see both sides of the argument here though, but realistically it screws over the OK army in the Watchtower scenario more than anything else.
    Note: Lets just be honest and say the the Gnoblar's don't really count in this scenario, as they are much to weak to take or hold a garrisoned building against 95% of the units in the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I might do an exception for the Watchtower, but it's still possible for OK to hold the tower by garrisoning it with gnoblars and using ogres to protect it from attack. The Ogres can also assault the tower to drive out enemy troops, and as long as they are closer to the tower than other enemies, they still counts as holding it, even if they are not inside it.

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

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

      Delete
    4. Sine the tower is effectivly an obstacle, protecting it with Ogres is somewhat dubious as it is rather easy to get to from the other side as it were (or outside the Ogree's charge arc). Gnoblars without effective rank bonus etc are not really effective defenders of buidings...

      Delete
    5. Suggest we add rules for monstrous infantry sized buildings, and then if OK are playing a watchtower - use one of those

      Delete
    6. just surround the building with ogre's and dont leave a gap for them to get in from

      Delete
  11. Maybe doing an exception in watchtower and fortifications to allow other troops types could help to balance that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. of course, good fortifications are out because he hasn't released siege yet

    ReplyDelete
  13. when are you taking out another book?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As mentioned in the post, I plan to have it out in January.

      Delete
  14. Really excited for a Vampire Coast book on the list

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for your work on all of this. I don't really use it, as I play 3rd edition or Mordheim. But I do enjoy at least taking a look at the books.

    And Merry Christmas

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for this update. Still wish we can shoot on melee with expendable units. Keep the awesome work ! And happy New year !

    ReplyDelete
  17. hi, in some old codex there is Magic Resistance 5 or 3, without any more.
    how are they to be interpreted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you just invert it. So magic resistance 9th ed = 7- magic resistance 8th. so 9th ed Magic Resistance (3) = 7- 8th ed Magic resistance 4

      Delete
  18. Hey Mathias. This is really great, feel we are close to the rule set we always hoped for. Here are my thoughts - most of these are text issues or clarifications on some of the most recent changes:

    Barding – Back in 4th ed barding used to be -1M and charge was double M, so barding on an knight reduced it to M7 charge 14 (ignoring the plate armour movement penalty of that edition). Point is that when charges went to random, the barding suddenly became less of a penalty. Suggest that barding is a -1 or even -2 modifier for charging fleeing and pursuing. So an empire knight charges 7+ 2D6-2. Makes Bretonnians even better which is nice – they need a little love.

    Ice attacks. These are -1 I. Many creatures that currently have ice related attacks do more than -1 I, many go all the way to always strikes last. Initiative values vary hugely so -1 is often not an impact. This is why I suggested -3I and that monsters have a range to it. Otherwise you’ll have to add it back in separately for the few monsters that have ice attacks, like the Thundertusk and the frost phoenix.
    Also the ice attacks appear to only affect the enemy. This doesn’t make a lot of sense, surely this should be friend or foe. This isn’t a targeted attack, this is a consequence of being near them.

    Shooting into combat with templates, I sympathise with the Skaven player earlier – that was a real boon to the slower skaven and dwarf armies. Had suggested that all models under the template are hit on a 2+ any 1s are resolved against closest friendly models.

    The special rules chapter has some missing line breaks now, After Regeneration, after Skirmishers and Charging and after Sniper.

    The failed terror test to charge is actually much stronger than I was suggesting. You are permitting the unit to redirect their charge, but they can’t opt to just move or shoot. I suggest that if the unit fails the terror test to charge, then they can redirect their charge or move or shoot normally. “Hey lads, let’s get the dragon”, “err, no sir, we aren’t going anywhere near it, but we can try and shoot it instead..?”

    I’d still like to revisit the effectiveness of missile fire (non flaming) on swarms, an arrow to a swarm of beetles isn’t going to do much, and it provides a tactical counter to the increased power of missile armed units. Suggest they are at least a further -1 to hit making them -2 (as skirmishers) at minimum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phil:

      Not sure I'd like to see Barding become a poorer option or to see heavy cavalry slowed down more either, due to the effect of missiles in teh current meta.
      Barding could be the thing that granted Impact hits to cavalry though, so that light cav did not get it. Barding has always been a bit lacklustre in comparison to a shiled for example when one look at the cost etc.

      I agree with the Ice attacks. -1 Initiative is not really very meaningfull in the majority of cases.

      Regarding shooting into combat, I suggest tying this to the Expendable special rule, and then perhaps even adding the expendable special ruel to Clanrats as well.

      Regarding the failed Terror test, I can see it both ways there tbh. One can also imagine a lot of confusion as the unit is preparing to charge, but then nobody actually wants to be the first one in etc...

      I completely agree regarding the Swarms. Gives them a unique tactical usefullness and provides a decent counter to missile spam.

      Good points Phil

      Delete
    2. I originally suggested tying it to expendable, but have since studied the army books and there are a lot of expendable units out there, the Cathay, Nippon and Orc and goblin books have little rule that you almost don't notice that makes huge swathes of the army book expendable from the perspective of many troops.
      I am happy with fast cavalry having impact hits - they were always a bit meh in 8th, especially if not really a specialised missile troop. throwing an extra 5 S3 hits on a unit is rarely too damaging other than to low toughness lightly armoured foes, when really having 5 horses charging through a unit, you'd expect to suffer. Maybe barding could add +1S to impact hits.
      You often mention the huge power of missile fire, but since I have been playing 9th, yes it is more potent, but not game breaking. Heavy cavalry are still emerging from arrow storms far better than they would in real life, and they really aren't that slow. Infantry have been slowed from 8th a lot, due to the typical charge range dropping from 4+7 to 4+3.5, but cavalry are still pretty swift. right now barding is almost an auto-take. And those armies that have lots of cavalry but restricted access to barding (Kislev) are really suffer in comparison. -1 to the charge in addition to -1 on the move is my suggestion (you've talked me down from the -2 on the charge.

      I am OK with the failed terror test as it is, just making the point that it is more severe than I originally suggested

      Delete
    3. I like plus 1 strength from barding, but I think that weakening the movement is also a good Idea, maybe both to start, also, in regards to it weakening them to archers, that is why you use them to circle around and pounce on archers from the rear.

      Delete
  19. Special rule – Expendable, “do not” rather than “does not”

    The champions “Follow me” text implies they can be killed

    Standard’s last stand, Refers to “his”, should be “their”.
    Standard Last stand. Implies that the standard is slain – model removed. So if a unit of 10 models with a standard suffers no casualties but breaks from combat, how many models flee – 9? If this is the case then that needs to be explicit. I have played it that the standard model is removed but REPLACED with a normal trooper. So I lose the banner but not the person that was holding it. Maybe I have always played this incorrectly.

    Shooting at lone Characters penultimate paragraph says “he’s”, should be “They’re”
    Shouldn’t this be based on same troop type or troop type with the same or lower unit strength, to be consistent

    P80 combined units, movement, last line – “Try” rather than “tries”
    P80 Shooting - wants to consider 5 or more models EXCLUDING the champion – this was because the champion could be independently killed. Suggest that bit about the command group is removed. So it is just 5 or more models excluding characters.

    The fact that champions can’t be killed, does this now mean that Pirate Masters and Idlers and the people in Araby units and goblin Jesters etc can’t be killed either?
    Characters in units, shooting, not explicit that characters in units of a different troop type but same / lower unit strength can’t be picked out. It currently states if the same troop type then do X, if different and larger US do Y, but if different but same or smaller US then…. ?

    The look out sir roll for characters in units hit by templates is not actualy specified. I assume this to be on a 2+. To make it clearer, I suggest renaming the section called “Shooting” to “Being targeted by missile weapons”, and the “Look out sir” section to “Being targeted by Template weapons”. Then make sure the look out sir is referenced in both, with the correct rules on Unit strength and required roll to pass.

    Learing a unit, second line. “Comes” not “Conies” Also “They’re no longer safe” instead of “He’s no longer safe”
    3rd paragraph “They were” rather than “They was”. “they do not” rather than “They does not”
    The 4+ Look out sir again should also apply for different troop type but same or lower unit strength.

    Accepting a challenge on p82 states a champion can accept a challenge

    P82 Overkill killing blow states wounds on profile, rather than remaining wounds.

    P83 Battle standard, third paragraph, “They flee” rather than “they flees”

    P85 resolving both thrower hits, implies a champion can be hit.
    The last section should have a section header, this has become normal text – and also implies a champion can be killed

    ReplyDelete
  20. P86 Cannon choose target. Should reference the ‘Shooting with war machines” chapter or remind people here of that 45 degree pivot.

    Cannonballs shouldn’t be able to bounce on rivers or lakes – maybe add this to impassable terrain and rivers instead (or both). Marshland is also not good for cannonballs, maybe bounces on a 4+?

    Cannons - Who’s been hit – hitting an obstacle. How much of the obstacle is removed, the wall could be the length of the table. I feel this is a loose end that should either be properly expanded, or just trimmed off. Suggest that either an obstacle stops a cannon ball or that the cannon ball passes straight over / through it.
    You could have a whole section on destroying obstacles but currently all we have is this one random rule about it. Meaning a cannon can destroy a hedge, but a Greater Daemon of Khorne can’t knock down a fence. I sent some rules on attacking obstacles previously if you wanted to add them – they are fairly easy to consider as an optional bolt on.

    Grapeshot is really weak and not much of a deterrent, even to a lowly unit of unarmoured troops, 16% chance of failing / blowing up. Then I get 2-10 possible hits, which at BS3 is 1-5 hits, which would be even fewer if facing skirmishers. – quite likely, and then I have to roll to W, so I would get 0-4 W. a unit of 10 skirmishers would fancy their chances. Suggest either they don’t need to hit (which also helps against skirmishers as they can’t avoid being hit from the wall of stuff), or allow the player to roll the artillery die multiple times, each misfire after the first is a -1 modifier to the misfire table.

    P87 firing a stone thrower. Not “anywhere in line of sight” instead ‘Pivot to face the target”. The use of the word pivot brings the 45 degree rule to mind.

    P88 “damage they take” rather than “damage they takes”

    P89 Impassable terrain. I don’t see how troops can flee through impassable terrain. They can walk over lava fields and over ponds, through sheer cliff walls, leap over chasms. They should flee to the edge and then have to go round it, pursuers do the same, they chase to the edge, turn and continue to follow along the edge.
    Suggest a unit which has its back to impassable terrain is stubborn.
    The other terrain types have a section of different types, types of hills, types of forest etc. Suggest there are types of impassable terrain. Chasms, lava, ponds, cliffs etc. Then if you are aquatic the pond in no longer impassable, etc etc.

    P97 allocating attacks suggest champions can be killed

    P 98 combat resolution “they spur” rather than “he spurs”

    998 other outcomes “They wish” not “they wishes”

    Wizards tower “they gain” rather than “He gains”
    Suggest they only get lore master for a single lore they know, rather than for all lores they have spells from.

    Suggest there are magic items that relate to lightning and ice attacks – especially if you amend ice attacks to be friend or foe.

    Suggest the Crackling hammer – gives lightning attacks
    The Frostbite axe – gives ice attacks
    The Hearth broach – immunity to ice attacks
    The earthing standard – immunity to lightning attacks
    Banner of the sun – unit immunity to Ice attacks

    ReplyDelete
  21. It may sound weird at first but cannonballs can bounce pretty well on a water surface if fired at a low angle. Old Nelson did it so its not magic:).(And I have done it with a 20mm autocannon years ago but that was bullets so that is cheating a bit; )

    I am not sure I agree that units with their back to impassable terrain should be stubborn, it could as well be the other way that they panic when they realise they are stuck and have nowhere to retreat in an orderly fashion. I cannot imagine a bunch of goblins turn into heroic last defenders just because they have a sheer cliffside behind their backs:).
    -lemurus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bouncing cannonballs eh, yes I can see the physics behind that, but I wonder what the success rate was for Nelson, here we have 100%. could have it that it bounces on water and marsh on a 4+
      My thoughts on impassable terrain was that if you have your back to the wall, so to speak, then you know you have nowhere to run, so you don't, you have more chance all rushing forwards to try to break through the opposing unit and out behind it, and then run :-)

      Delete
  22. 4+ waterbounce seems ok.

    We all behave differently when the escape routes are limited (some may just yield) so going stubborn by default seems wrong to me. And I can see it abused as well. Anchor part of your long line of archers against a house wall and get stubborn for example;). -Lemurus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, you are probably right, I am such an optimist when it comes to wargaming, play for the beer and pizza, I don't think of the more twisted underhand win at all costs tactics.
      Ok you have me convinced, no stubborn. But I still don't see why a unit that normally can't pass through a cliff, over a pond, hopping through the lava field and leaping a crevasse suddenly gains these magical powers when fleeing.... (you'd struggle to find a battle field with all 4 lined up behind your unit mind...)

      Delete
    2. if you want to see that ask me and i will show you the impassable bastion map i made

      Delete
  23. suggestion, I did a 3,000 point battle and it lasted for a lot longer than 6 turns matthias, took over 50 turns. I don't think that ending on turn six is a good idea with these rules, you can do much better without a time restriction

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 50 turns??? Sounds like a good argument FOR turns being as is, not against turns if you ask me...

      Delete
    2. After 50 turns, I'd be a bit dizzy I think

      Delete
    3. I am genuinely curious what you did to make a 3000 point battle take more than 50 turns. Were both sides deliberately trying to avoid each other and only attack using weak ranged weapons?

      Delete
    4. You chased each other for 40 turns with the couple models you'd left?

      Delete
    5. The turn limit is really there to avoid having battles take 50 turns though! I played a game like that once using LotR models with the Warhammer rulesset, it was just exhausting in the end (Boromir just refused to die, ironically enough!).

      Delete
  24. Have you considered changing the order of a turn? I think a "round" of combat could be divided into the movement, shooting, magic and close combat phases with those phases divided into each players turn. For a two player battle, the turn order would:
    >Player 1s Movement Phase
    >Player 2s Movement Phase
    >Player 1s Magic Phase
    >Player 2s Magic Phase
    >Player 1s Shooting Phase
    >Player 2s Shooting Phase
    >Close combat where the players go through the combats one by one.
    This gives a more real-time aspect to the battle where both armies are able to react to their opponents moves and play more tactically against each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This would be the most enormous change ever and have enormous consequences all over the place. You move your models to within firing range, so I move the unit you were to target out of range/arc etc. I don't see the benefits from such seismic modifications to the fundamentals of the rules. Most changes have been fine tuning, the largest changes on charges and magic were suggested right at the start and we've had a long time to adapt.
      Changing the turn sequence would be warhammer 10th edition :-)

      Delete
    2. Yeah, that would make it nearly an entire new game. I know some people have tried it out like that, but it would not work unless major changes were being done to the whole game.

      Delete
  25. very hyped for the new chaos warriors and daemons! can't wait! good updates btw, but can't see any real problems with templates in CC. at first just to SHOOT you should get in 4" range of the engaged unit, then you should roll artillery dice for the suitable distance for the teardrop - usually it is something below 6" (because rolling more will overthrow the unit and you won't hit anything) and then you need to roll to wound and saves and else, so it is not devastating at all, keeping in mind 90% of Flamethrowers are move or fire you won't have more than one try with ~33% fail rate to shoot something with template in CC. as for others attacks, like stone throwers - they were not able to shoot in CC, because to shoot in CC you need to be 4" close to the target, while their closest distance for shooting is 6"

    so there are no real problems with Flamethrowers or other templates in CC, as it seems for me, especially with so much randomness

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My suggestions for templates into close combat is to reflect the chance of hitting friendly troops. With missile fire a roll of a 1 to hit means you hit a friendly model. Suggest that this carries over to template weapons, so for each model hit, roll a die, on a 1 that hit applied to friendly troops.

      Delete
    2. Not all fire throwers use the artillery dice though, and the same goes for dragons and the like, making it very easy to kill lots of troops in combat with no risk. I want to avoid having additional rolls for those hit though, this could be houseruled if players want to use that.

      Delete
    3. What does everyone else think: an extra roll to see if you hit your own troop or just prohibit templates in combat...?

      Delete
  26. Volley fire: if no one in the unit have line of sight to the target do you still suffer just -1 to hit as for regular volley fire? Can they volley fire at a unit just behind a building for example? It doesnt seem quite alright. In a battle it should be far more realistic to shoot at a foe that you can actually see than some high point yield target behind a hill that only the gods up in the sky can be aware of(i e the players, that far from common belief has no telepathic link to the small guys in the field so everyone down there knows exactly everything that happens on the battlefield;) )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The -1 to hit modifier is due to the fact the arrows are not being aimed directly at the foe, but fired up to arc back down on the foe. If you are shooting directly at the foe - a foe you can see, then you shoot normally (not volley fire) and only those models that can see them can shoot (first two ranks)

      Delete
    2. This follows the same rule as stone throwers who can fire indirectly. In this case, the archers are really just firing at an area rather than a clear target, which is why they suffer -1 to hit. The addition of not needing LoS was added to make the ability more useful, as volley fire is not something that is likely to see much action as-is. Now you can put your bowmen behind your main line and fire instead of having them in the front (but suffer to hit penalties if you do so).

      Delete
    3. An idea Mathias:

      Could it be an idea to let friendly units march through friendly units of infantry that only has one or two ranks (assuming the archer unit is not moving itself).

      I'm sort of picturing archer units standing in the front of the army (as thy often did historically), then openig up their lines in an orderly fashion to let the melee units through when the enemy got nearer.

      Just an undeveloped idea so far, but I think it might have some potential.

      Delete
    4. It is an interesting concept, but a bit fiddly. Presumably the archer unit counts as having moved. Not entirely sure why you['d want to do this. the archer unit could just stand behind from the start and volley fire...

      Delete
    5. Yea, I think that might be taking things to far. It could potentially be something one could do with skirmishing units, but not ranked ones.

      Delete
  27. I was under the impresion that normal volley fire gave a -1 to hit modifier. Even with a normal volley you need to have a knowledge of the range to the target (and yes you can volley at a target you can see perfectly well, that is if you want everyone in the unit to shoot) so that the archers know what arc to follow. If no one in the unit has any idea of the range the elevation is just a very wild guesstimate.

    Archers, if they had time to prepare enough, usually set up or fired off markers on to the battlefield so they could fire off volleys at known ranges when the enemies approached those markers. Firing off volleys at invisible enemies is just a waste of arrows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. You have buffed Wood Elves (and probably high elves) with volley fire so much that they are unplayable as an opposing force now. Volley fire was already very powerful rule. My wood elf opponent was laughing his head off at this change until I pointed out that he wasn't going to get any games with his wood elf army with that rule in play. Best change it back or give it an additional nerf say at least -2 to hit if you cant see the target at all.



      Delete
    2. Volley Fire will be nerfed so that you require line of sight of at least one model in the unit in order to use it. That way you cannot use it to target models completely hidden from sight.

      Delete
  28. You could make the case that there might be an extra -1 if Nobody on the battle field can see them, but there are spies, magic scrying, secret mole scouts :-) etc to compensate ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not totally against lobbbying shots against unseen enemies (you may see their banners, see the dust cloud they produce or hear their rude battleshouts and so on), it is allowed for artillery for example. So an extra -1 modifier against unseen enemies (so -2 in total) would be fine.
      The reason (my guess anyway) volley was introduced in WFB was to make it possible for units with deeper ranks of archers (like goblins) would be viable. 30 archers wide (or still 15) takes a lot of space. so you trade deeper ranks and more shots from a smaller frontage with the -1 modifier as it actually takes some archery skill to pull off a succesful hit with an elevated arc.

      Delete
  29. Lore of metals golden hounds targets a single model in a unit. Do I get the +1 to cast if the character is wearing armour but the unit isn't? I am not casting the spell on the unit but only on the character.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case the character and not the unit is the character, so the bonus should only be based on his armour. Will clarify this.

      Delete
  30. I'd like to request - again as it hasn't actually been formally turned down, that the lore attribute from the lore of light is adjusted:
    Currently it really only affects 2 of the 7 spells (minor impact on the net of amyntok). Suggest similar to the lore of metal, move the existing lore attribute to the relevant spells and add a new attribute that corresponds to the background. So Shem’s burning gaze has 2D6 hits for undead vampiric and daemonic. Banishment is 3D6 for undead vampiric and daemonic (I’d probably not bother changing the Net of Amyntok). Then new lore attribute. The wind of Hysh is the most subtle and hardest to capture and weave of all of the magics. Light wizards spend hours each day honing their rituals to maintain the necessary focus to be able to be able to bend it to their will. When given the opportunity to focus light wizards are powerful foes indeed but struggle when constantly disturbed. Light wizards gain +1 to cast if they have not moved, not shot in the shooting phase and are not in combat. They suffer -1 to cast if they are in combat. (I’d also add that the +1S from another nearby light wizard in banishment does not apply if that wizard is in combat)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Question on characters in units. There used to be a rule where wizards (any character) could hide in the back of a unit and not participate in direct fighting. This made a lot of sense for something like a life wizard in a group of great swords as they would make a buffer between him and the enemy. However with some of the new special characters (brewmasters, warchanters) I really want to be able to kill them and remove their buff, especially since I don't get the option to dispel it. I noticed the old rule of hiding in back is no longer available in the rule book. How have people been working with this topic and what are others opinions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Characters must be in front rank, p80 of rule book, "Position in unit", so targetting the warchanter is easy, hiding the wizard at the back, or the BSB, not permitted

      Delete
  32. In our gaming group we think that 2xD3+M is slow for the charge. For example, with 2xD3 the mean charge range for M4 infantry is barley 7.5" i.e. less than the march distance. For infantry with M=6 it gets worse, mean charge range 9.5" compared to march range 12. Anyone that agrees on this, or is there a strong case for reduced charge range?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reduced charge ranges means that movement and shooting phases are far more important - in 8th ed it was all about combat, ideally with a horde, small units of archers skirmishers and cavalry were second rate in comparison. It also provides huge potency to cavalry with their swiftstride rules, light and medium cavalry have real purpose again.
      You correctly identify that M6 (often Monstrous Infantry) have been hit the worst, I am yet to find this a massive challenge but then again I don't play too much with armies that have this - not a regular Ogre player. I would support a change that gives Monstrous Infantry +1 to their charge, flee and pursuit rolls, unless they have swiftstride too (which most don't). They'd then mostly charge 6+2D3+1 - so 10.5 on average which is only a little less than their march move, but marching is a lot less dangerous and doesn't require dodging incoming missiles and brandishing weapons etc.

      Delete
    2. One of the main reason for lowering the charge range was to avoid silly things like Dwarfs charging 15" when they can normally only move 6".

      On average, a normal human unit will charge 8", the same as their march movement. For Dwarfs, their charge distance is 7", so they run a bit faster. For Elves it's 9", so they get a little slower. It's fairly difficult to make it balance out perfectly to be twice their movement range on average, while still keeping it random.

      Delete
  33. I read the last comment, regarding charge range, which I as an Ogre player VERY much agree on... But I have found an even more problematic issue for armies using few but powerful models. That is the overrun rule for fleeing units, I.e. when charging a fleeing unit the charging unit inflicts n=unit size number of wounds. This means for example that a 20 size unit of goblins would vipe out a full 15 man unit of chaos warriors - but the 15 man unit can not do the same to the 20 goblins. This does not make much sense given that 15 chaos warriors are much stronger than 20 goblins. Maybe better to revert to charged unit being destroyed no matter of unit sizes? Or maybe better: charging unit inflicting unmodified Attacks (A) wounds? Then the chaos warriors could inflict 30W and the goblin unit 20W.
    Otherwise fantastic work with the rules and army book! It is the best thing that happened to the hobby in many years!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is pretty rare for a unit that is caught to be of any use ever again. The example you use is a case in point. So if the chaos warriors charge, and 20 goblins break and flee and are caught then there are 5 left. Next turn those 5 can try to rally. if they do they are facing 15 chaos warriors who will charge in, slaughter them and overrun. If the goblins charged in it is even worse as the chaos warriors will charge in again before the goblins can rally, scoring an immediate 15 wounds wiping them out.
      What the rule does stop is a single character breaking a unit and then killing them all..

      Delete
    2. I would like to second that problem with overruns. Having the number of unmodified Attacks dealt is much better than the current rule.
      I don't see the logic of the reply. The new suggested rule would still prevent single characters destroying a full unit.

      Delete
    3. Unit Strength rather than attacks was chosen for streamlining purposes, as it's easier to calculate compared to Attacks, especially since this will vary a due to special rules and magic spells, as well as characters who might have things like special attacks or random attacks. How many Wounds would a pursuing Giant inflict, for example?

      Delete
    4. The suggestion was unmodified attacks. It would not be difficult to come up with a number for those few units with random attacks - how about using thr maximum wounds it can inflict to a unit by itscrandom attacks?
      Talking about giants, I mean, with the current rules: How many times must a giant overrun 30 goblins to vipe them out?

      Delete
    5. Unit Strength is simle and works fine. No need to complicate such a rule more for little to no real benefit IMO.

      Delete
    6. Unmodified attacks would only have an effect on units like Chaos Warriors and such though. Models with two hand weapons would see no benefit, even though they have the same amount of attack in combat. A Giant would technically need to pursue the unit 5 times, but after 2-3 rounds they would have run of the table anyway (if one would bother to try to chase after them that long to begin with, they are pretty hard to rally as-is). Generally, a Giant by itself it meant to work as a support unit to break units rather than running them down. The idea is rather to pursue with more numerous troops and use the Giant to find a new target to break.

      Using unmodified attacks for normal troops and unit strength for models with random or special attacks could work, but it is more time consuming to calculate.
      For example, 14 chaos warriors including champion and a hero = 14x2 attacks + 1 attack from the champion + 4 A from the hero (not including any equipment) = 33 wounds vs 15 infantry models = 15 wounds.

      Feel free to house rule it if you want, but I'd be leery about changing that in the main rules.

      Delete
    7. Thanks för taking your time to reply! We actually currently already house rule to inflict 2x unit strengt wounds. Maybe that is a better fix than unmodified attacks? We generally play 7 turns in our group and have found that armies with low unit count (such as chaos warriors) have a difficulty to finish of huge units of goblins, skaven etc within 7 turns.
      Cheers, and thanks for reviving WFB.

      Delete
  34. Mathias: I had a replay of the battle report battle I posted a while back yesterday, with 1.2 rules (will be posted later today most likely). Some thoughts:

    1. I printed out the updated break test rules for multiple combat for my opponent to see if he understood them as was, but he found them to be very complicated and pretty much threw in the towel. He is not stupid by any means, but if you're just a little tired or if you're enjoying a beer, the rules are really hard to relate to due to being complicated (even if they are good/balanced).

    2. The +1AS for shields towards the front seemed to work pretty well as a decent counter against mssiles. :-)

    3. Spears worked well defensivly (as intended). :-)

    4. Zombies re still quite terrible. 60 Zombies only managed to kill 2 Corsairs (in 3 rounds of combat in total if I recall correctly). He did not have magic to buff them offensivly, but they had a 5+ regen due to corpse cart+mortis engine to the very last round of the game. I could have reformed the corsairs after the frst round of combat to only have +1 rank and kiled them even faster and more than made up for the lack of a little rank bonus.

    5. Even though it wasn't much relevant in this game, but Fell Bats could perhaps have a better LD now tht they are living. LD 3 made more sense when they were undead (due to the magic sustaining them), but should perhaps be ncreased to 5 or 6 now that they are living. They are bloodthirsty and semi-dominated by the Vampire Lord/Necromancer after all. They are much too easy to panic as they are right now, to the point of being borderline useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a better solution for the multiple break tests? Is going back to 8th ed better, which is admittedly easier, but not very fair.

      Seems like the Zombies had some bad rolls? On average, they should have inflicted 2 W per round with 15 attacks, so should have killed 6 corsairs in 3 rounds. Had they reformed into 7 wide they would have had 21 attacks instead. 60 zombies are 180 pts, how many corsairs did you have?

      I'll see about buffing their Ld a bit, a horse is Ld 5, so it would perhaps not be unfeasible to give the same to a fell bat.

      Delete
    2. Tbh, I don't have any better solution to it atm. Generally speaking, it is more of an undead problem than an overall problem, so maybe looking at it from that angle can be beneficial. I'll put the thinking cap on.

      He did generally roll sub-par throughout the battle, that has to be said, so yes, on average he would have done better. Some of his attacks had to be allcoated to my general, that has shield and heavy armour, so that played a little part as well.

      The unit was 24 corsairs with a Master with shield and Ogre blade in it. Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect them to win buy any means, but they didn't feel like a threat at all, even with 5+ regen (which they normally won't have). I could also have deployed much wider and easily have done far more damage than what bonus the rank bonus afforded me. Gotta keep that in mind. My Light Armour and 5+ Parries also stopped some wounds, ther is no denying that.
      I', not arguing for making zombies powerful, but just useful enogu that they have some utility besides just being a tarpit (which they are not even that great at imo).
      I was thinking that perhaps another rank that could fight if you charged or if you had higher US than your enemy and were not disrupted. Something like that could do the trick. This would also make it more worthwhile buffing them with spells.

      Something like LD 5 (type generic animal) seems fair yes. :-)

      Delete
  35. Mathias:

    A thought on Swarms: Could it be an idea to let swarms in general disrupt a unit in close combat (regardless of direction)? Maybe one Swarm Base could disrupt up to 10 points of Unit Strength of enemy troops?

    This way if you get 2 bases into combat, you disrupt an enem unit of 20 US or less, 3 bases 30 US or less etc...

    I imagine any enemy unit struggling enormously to retain proper ranks if being swarmed by any swarm...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that might be taking it a bit too far personally and over-complicating things. One thing I have been considering though is making swarms have more wounds in general, at least for the ones that are made up lots of creatures like rat swarms, tomb swarms and jungle swarms, and making their stats somewhat lower in terms of strength and toughness.

      Delete
    2. I don't think that would qualify as complicated tbh. One base equals 10 US "worth of Disruption". Pretty easy to relate to I think.

      Instead of more wounds, I'd much rater like to see a -1 To Hit modifier against them. That would make sense for both close combat as well as shooting...

      If you go down to S1/T1, they become quite useless unless they have poisoned attacks, and even then it would be quite arguable.

      Delete
    3. Swarms:
      I have done a bit of research and thinking. There aren't many swarms in the game.
      I believe they can be categorised loosely by size:
      Those things that are super small (SS), nigh on impossible to hit with a sword let alone an arrow.
      Things that are quite small (QS) but you could probably kick one :-)
      Things that while small (S) are actually a decent size and even one could hurt you if it catches you unawares
      Things that really aren't swarms (NS) and look much more like infantry and I can't work out why they made them swarms anyway.

      These are the swarms in the game and their sizes by my judgement:


      Lizardmen Jungle Swarms QS
      Vampire Bat Swarms SS
      Vampire Spirit host NS
      Skaven Rat Swarms QS
      Skaven Plague Swarms QS
      Kislev Hawks of Miska QS
      Orc and Goblin Snotlings S
      Daemon Nurglings S
      Bretonnian Spirits of the Fey NS
      Albion Pixie Swarms QS
      Halfling Bee Swarms SS
      Tomb King Tomb Swarms SS
      Kingdoms of Ind Snake Swarms QS

      the majority are the Quite Small category and I feel that the current swarm rules don't really work for them. They are S2 T2, but so is a halfling and that is a lot more powerful than a rat. S1 T1 is pathetic as Rune points out which means their contribution to the table has to come from somewhere else. The Bat Swarm disrupts and I think that is a fantastic representation of what it would be like to be covered with these creatures. Swarms should be used to debuff units, not really seen as something to cause wounds. As they get smaller they disrupt more, harder to hit but don't affect the units characteristics, As they get bigger they don't disrupt as much but they impact the units characteristics and they are easier to hit

      Swarms, Unbreakable, Unstable, Expendable. Losses in combat do not affect other combat resolutions when in multiple combat.

      Super small Swarms disrupt a unit, can't be harmed by non magical non flaming missile attacks, can only be hit on a 6 in combat, S1T1

      Quite small swarms reduce the units rank bonus by one and reduce opponents WS by one, they are -1 to hit in both close combat and missile fire (so -2 as skirmishing) S1T1

      Small swarms do not disrupt, but reduce their opponents WS by 1 and Initiative by 2 No modifier for combat, S2T2

      "Not Swarms" do none of these - but can use the general's leadership and are not expendable, keep existing S and T, 3 and 3 I think.

      Poisoned attacks for swarms makes them a lot better - about 4-6 times better in combat, and therefore those swarms that are not poisoned are those that should have the nice extra rules. I'd drop the plague swarm movement by 1 for example to make the rat swarms a bit better


      Personally I'd add the following swarms to the following army books:
      Boglin Frog Swarms QS
      Norse Raven Swarms QS
      Chaos (Nurgle) Fly Swarm SS
      Halfling Poultry Swarms QS
      Wood Elf Sprite Swarms QS
      Forest Goblin Spider Swarms QS
      Vampire Coast/Pirate Drowned Souls NS
      Boglin / Fimir Marsh Spirits/Fir Bolg NS
      Daemon Undivided Imps S
      Night Goblin Cave Swarms QS


      Delete
  36. Break Tests for Multiple Combats:

    While I do think that what Mathias has come up with her eis actually a very good rule from a balance standpoint, I fear it is way to complicated for people in general and hence it will potentially slow down games by a fair margin (if comprehended at all).

    In my experience the 8th ed rules for taking break tests for multiple combats has worked fine for all intents and purposes except for when certain Undead/Unstable Units are involved (like Dire Wolves, Fellbats, etc).

    The reason this is so noticable, is becasue these are units designed to Flank due to their movevement, but If you try to use them that way (to support a normal regiment engaging the enemy's front) you get incredibly heavily punished in return, causing both regiments to take additional damage if you loose, which you increase the odds immeasurably of happening.

    I'm not against the idea that if you flank a regiment of chaos warriors with a much weaker infantry regiment, that they should still be able to overcome this and win the combat. I see nothing wrong with that in principle, just to be clear. Its one of the few good things about having elite infantry in the game.

    The reason why such units like Dire Wolves, Fellbats and the like don't really work in the role they should ideally work in, is that they are weak (stats), often have large bases, no gear (armorur or weapons), so they are pretty much always at at disadvantage in combat, regardless of whom they face of against.

    So a suggestion to fixing this is as follows:

    1. Go back to 8th ed Break test rules for Multiple combats.

    2. Add to Unstable special rule:

    -Units with this special rule that attack their enemy in the Flank/Rear ignore wounds caused against them and their allies for purposes of being Unstable. This only applies if the unit itself is not disrupted.

    Example: You have unit of Skeletons and Dire wolves attacking an enemy unit together, with the Dire wolves being in the flank, and you lose combat by 4 and 3 dire woves were killed, then both units will only lose 1 model due to being Unstable (instead of 4 each).

    I think that this is a much easier solution to keep track of and manage in a game and it doesn't overcomplicate things where a fix is not really needed and instead applies it where it is needed.

    Note, that this will also help out the TK army list a bit (whom I think could do with an overall buff to their core tbh). It also helps out immensely if you team up with two such units (wher you don't have a lot of static CR to help you mitigate casualties due to being Unstable).

    Thoughts? I'm sure there are some pros and cons, as ther always is, but In general I think overcomplicating multiple combat immensely to fix a relatively small issue is not beneficial to the game, especially if we want non-veterans to become involved. The threshold to understanding the game is already quite high by default and being able to understand it is essential to getting people to play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure what the answer here is but I think the problem is more than with dire wolves and fell bats (who aren't undead anyway so this won't help). A unit of orcs is fighting a unit of elves, so you throw in 8 wolf riders to the flank to try to break them - get +1 for flank, +1 for the charge, might be enough expecially if you can keep enough to negate the ranks, then the elves turn on the goblins, kill many of them, but don't manage to kill a single orc and the orcs run... same situation as you have above but with non unstable units. the problem occurs when the units flanking are substantially weaker than the frontal engagement so the opponent puts maximum effort onto the weaker unit to rack up kills to count against the stronger unit.
      will think again - suspect our options will be:
      Keep as 8th
      Something horribly complicated
      something substantially different in the mechanic
      some specific rules on flanking combat losses

      Delete
    2. Dire Wolves are Undead, but I did forget that Fellbats are not in this instance tbf :-) But LD 3 leaves a lot to be desired if you lose by even a single point and your are unlikely to rally. But that's a Fellbat specific case and Mathias is already aware of this.

      Generally speaking, there is a limit to how many kills a remiment of A1 models can get to the flank, so I donæt think it is likely that something like regular elves caould weigh up for the static CR alone, not to mention the Spear Attacks from the Goblins and the Wolf attacks (including impact hits). That's why I mean that in genral it is not so much a problem, but the combination of 1. poor stats, 2. being warbeasts (not cav) and Undead makes them terribly weak in the sort of role that you would want to use them in. That's why I'm saying that Flanking with undead units such as these does not work very well and more often than not they will cause you more harm than good.

      The VC army list does work a little better than previously now though, in the sense that you can team up with Undead and living troops in many circumstances to overcome this to a degree.

      Delete
  37. Modifying Reform/Quick Reform:

    One of the manouvers one often see infantry (archers in particular) doing in movies and series is opening up their lines to let other regiments pass through them in an orderly fashion. I think this could have some tactical use in the game, in particular allowing you to place archers up front, then open up their lines to let other troops move forth to take up positions to protect them as enemies get closer etc.

    I see that ther is plenty of room on the rulebook page that covers Reform, so I have a suggestion. Could something like this be added under Reform?:

    "Open Ranks!"

    A unit of Infantry can perform a special action called Open Ranks in place of a normal reform. This allows friendly units of Infantry and Cavalry to move through them as if they were not there, assuming said units started in their Rear arch and ended up in their Front arc or vice versa. Any unit wanting to move through said unit can move normally, but must have the neccessary movement to complete the move and clear distance between the units by at least 1", or it will not be allowed to pass through.

    The unit performing the Open Ranks reform follows all the normal rules for Reform, except that it cannot move itself make adjustments to its ranks as it nomally would. If a successful Qucik Reform was done, and the uni has line of sight to a target, it can still shoot as normal for a Qucik Reform.


    Something like this could be handy for some armies I think, perhaps particularly larg edisciplined infantry based armies like Cathay etc.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I quite like this, but feel maybe we need a section of "optional advanced rules that you agree to use / not use"
      The unit moving through clearly can't charge through - need to make that explicit. - I assume they can march through (if not then this is going to be of limited use as the unit needs sufficient move allowance to get to the unit, through it and past it...
      Can the unit that was moved through, if passed Swift reform move (as a normal swift reform would allow?)

      Delete
    2. As a Cathayan player I support this request.

      Delete
    3. Charging through was not the intent no. need to be stated. :-) Marching has to be allowed to realistcally make it possible to go through.

      Delete
  38. Just a general question. Could people please register themselves/Sign In here, as dealing with X number of "Unknown" can make thing a bit confusing at times :-)

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think one of the most underpriced magic items atm is the dispel scroll.
    In my opinion it needs to be drastically increased in cost or reworked to give you X free dispel dive against one spell. As it is right now it is way to cheap and makes bringing lvl 4 wizards kind of hard to justify imo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was changed from auto dispel to a 6 dispel dice dispel. The auto dispel was why you always had the same scroll-caddies in games, which was telling enough that its cost was indeed underpriced as you say.

      Delete
    2. Just checked it and you are right. I must have missed that change

      Delete
  40. I would like to propose a rework of the different lores of magic. First to bring the attributes in line, because right now some are borderline useless while others may be just as good as the spell itself. Some lore need to be tuned down a little (High magic) and others need buffs (Orcs and Goblins lores and lore of fire). Lastly the final nuke spells of each lore should be more or less similar in power and casting value. Right now some are so much better than others (Ogre Maw is so much worse than Purple Sun for example). I just feel like some lores are only really worth it for one or two spells while others are great and powerful all around

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I agrre on the lore attribute aspect, changing around all the spells means thay you can basically throw away all your spell-cards and they are very handy to have when playing I find, so I'm not all that fond of that idea for that reason. :-/ Sure, most of us can print out something, but it won't be the same.

      You can also make the argument that some races are supposed to have weaker magic than others etc. All races are not equal in all regards in the warhammer world after all.

      Delete
    2. Yes I do realize that changing all the spells might go a bit too far. I think the high magic lore needs some readjustments though. I think the fact that elf wizards are better is represented by their +1 to cast as well as the fact that both dark and high magic lores have to signature spells to choose from. High magic basically has the best lore attribute, arguably the best nuke spell and some incredible spells in between. That one spell that just deleted magic items is rodiciridsly overpowered.

      Delete
    3. Seeing as +1 to cast is worth quite a few points for any other wizard that once to gain that bonus.

      Delete
    4. HE get +1 to dispel, not +1 to cast. That's only for DE.

      Delete
    5. I am not sure the argument of the spell cards should really be considered, we had to drop the old 8th edition army books... I don't know anyone with the spell cards, we just use the book, Having a printable page at the back of each book for the cards might be nice - although a bit of a hassle for Mathias.
      I agree that the lores should all be looked at in conjunction with each other - some are more powerful than others and the lore attributes should be interesting thematic useful but not game breaking.
      The old Lore of metal attribute only affected 2 spells, I have long pitched (read up) that the lore of light attribute be changed to make it relevant for all spells. The attributes for chaos daemons are unbalanced as they only affect spells that cause wounds and Nurgle's lore is mostly hexes and augments.
      The lore of fire attribute could be bumped a little by saying that any unit that had already had a fire spell successfully cast on it gains +3 to cat, this means the two augments reinforce each other and the hex can contribute to the attribute. Now all spells can use the attribute, although it is more beneficial to the higher level wizards as the two augments are at position 1 and 2.
      The lore attribute (and signature spell) for the pirates lore of stromfels is really poor, compare this to the Kislev lore of ice which is just brilliant (kislev need it though...)

      Delete
    6. The army books isn't a game aid in that sense though. The cards were really popular for a reaason (often sold out in my experience), becasue having the cards to actually place next to the affected units etc made keeping track of the magic phase much easier.

      I completely agree that the various lore attributes can be used as a good balancing factor to even things out a bit though. In some cases, so can the new Ice Attacks and Lightning Attacks speciall rules to some extent.

      I convinced Mathias to change teh Dark MAgic lore attributes for the Dark Elves and that certainly came into play in my last battle, where previously it sucked so badly that you kind of forgot that the rule even existed. So yes, it is an easy and cool way to distinguish the lores and balance them a bit more I think.

      Delete
    7. To be honest I think game balance should take priority over the slight hassle of having to print out new cards. A prime example of spells that stand out as very dominant is throne of vines though. Lore of life is very good as it is. Why does it need a spell that renders the one big danger of magic mostly neglegable.

      Delete
    8. I'm not saying that the odd game-breaking spells can't be fixed, but that people in general would far prefer to have the spell cards in play than not. :-)

      Delete
    9. I agree with Mortiz, trying to balance the spell lores should be more pressing than perseiving cards, especially if the spell card are ones that people don't use.

      I do think that the Priority should improve underutalized lores and spell. they don't need to be the best spell or lore but your should at least fill a nitch or be more cost effective than taking two other lore instead.

      Delete
  41. Monsters and Handlers:
    This works for monsters, but not for monstrous beast, renders the Kislev bear pack completely rubbish.
    Suggest revised rule for packs of beasties based off the mixed unit from Skaven.
    See the google groups longer post for details
    https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!topic/warhammer-armies-project/ytnMSPXv0Ps

    ReplyDelete