- Strider counts terrain as open ground, rather than ignore dangerous terrain. This allows you to march through forests.
- Monsters and chariots taken as mounts that are also available as rare or special choices counts towards the special or rare limit of duplicate choices.
- Characters on chariots or flying monstrous mounts may join units of chariots or flying monstrous mounts.
Welcome to the Warhammer Armies Project, the home of the unofficial 9th Edition for Warhammer Fantasy Battles and the most popular unofficial army lists online. It will gradually be updated with new books in a rules-only format. It also serves as my hobby blog for my personal Warhammer collection.
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
Warhammer 9th Ed 1.02 out now!
Small update here, changing the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What do you think about that Wood Elf character on Great Eagle should be able to join Warhawk Riders? Or other thing would be to give the characters Warhawk mount option?
ReplyDeleteThey will be able to now, since both eagles and warhawks are MC.
Delete2 things I still do not like
ReplyDelete1- Unlimited size unit in a building
2- Laser guided cannons. Cannons should deviate!
The rest looks great!
Cannons have been nerfed pretty hard in 9th, down to D3 wounds on the bounce and scattering on impact. They are MUCH harder to snipe with now.
DeleteCannons have been nerfed pretty hard in 9th, down to D3 wounds on the bounce and scattering on impact. They are MUCH harder to snipe with now.
DeleteI stand corrected!!!
ReplyDeleteJust limit size of unit in a bulding and all will be perfect
No worries, I will add a unit size limitation for buildings in the next update :)
DeleteShouldn't the limit on monster mounts include ones that can't be taken as Rare choices? For example, in your High Elves book it's possible to put 4 griffins down on the field (though this may not be practical). The limit on duplicate choice chariots also shouldn't apply to chariots that can be taken as a unit and the ability to join chariot units shouldn't apply to things like lion chariots that normally can only go alone.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify. It's possible to take 4 griffons in a 2000 point game. Maybe monsters that cost less than 200 points should take up a pseudo-special choice.
DeleteThat might be a good idea to add too, should probably apply to characters as well to avoid spamming the same character choice in anything but themed lists.
DeleteNot sure what you mean about duplicate choice chariots though? You can either take 2 units of 3 Tiranoc Chariots for instance, or 2 units of 1 chariot, it's the same number of units as far as special choices are concerned.
What I mean is that it's possible to take a unit of multiple Tiranoc chariots which counts as a special choice and then take a single character on a tiranoc chariot that also takes up a special choice despite multiple tiranoc chariots only taking up one special choice. It's a bit inconsistent is what I'm saying.
DeleteIf you do make monsters take up a pseudo special or rare choice based on the points cost of the monster, you should also make it that all three dragon sizes all count as the same choice (a dragon starts as a young dragon and can then be upgraded to a normal dragon or an elder dragon). In addition, for consistency in the army books you should move all monsters that cost 200 points or more (or can be made to cost more than 200 points through upgrades) to rare if they aren't already there and monsters that cost less than 200 points to special.
The only problem with that is that thematically many monsters are only ever fielded in battle as mounts, I think maybe the simplest way to handle this is to just put a limit of 2 or less of each monster over 200 points and 3 or less of each monster under 200 points. With which ever filing first (monster limit or rare/special limit) being the limiting factor.
Deletefilling*
DeleteI skipped those since I wanted to focus on the classic items from 5th ed, but I don't have a problem adding them back in :)
ReplyDeleteHi Mathias,
ReplyDeleteGreat job, the amount of work you put in this game is amazing.
I was once a historical fencer ind i know a lot about medieval fighting and weapons. There always were some weapon rules in the Warhammer Game that deviate a lot from the history. Maybe you would like to think about improving them.
(Sorry for my bad english)
The greatest deviation is in the rule for great weapons.
Ok, i understand, that fantasy weapons are not like historical great weapons, but the way a greater weapon works in WHFB is at one point the opposit to the real world. My suggestions:
- Great Weapons are dealt as big weapons (swords, axes, hammers) that need to be wielded with both hands. Thats ok, but beside of this, i would introduce special great weapons that make a difference between big clubs of e.g. Orcs and sophisticated greatswords of the elves or the empire (like the renaissance greatswords).
- Great weapons do have a greater impact and the strength +2 rule is fine for me.
- But the strikes last rule or your change to Initiative -2 is the opposit to the reality. Great weapons are larger and have a greater range. The biggest advantage if great weapons always was the ability to hit the enemy first. Great wepons should strike first or get a initiative buff.
- The disadvatage of great weapons of limited fighting techniques and the greater weight an the reduced agility should be represented in the ability to hit or to avoid getting hited. So great weapons should have a weapon skill nerf. Due to this only elite units would be effective with great words, what is absolutely historical correct, since the great swords were used by elite mercenarys.
I would say, that a human should have a WS of 4 to gain advantage from a great sword.
- Great weapons also can parry enemy attacks very well. Especially the renaissance greatswords with their large guard. I would give them your new parry special rule.
My suggestion for normal great weapons would be:
Strength + 2
Initiative + 1
Weapon Skill - 1
Parry (6)
For sophisticated great swords (e.g. elves, bretonnia ...):
Strength + 2
Initiative + 2
Weapon Skill - 1
Parry (6)
For renaissance greatswords (e.g. empire):
Strength + 2
Initiative + 2
Weapon Skill - 1
Parry (5)
Great weapon wielded from horseback:
That does not work. There were greater or specialized weapons for riders but these weapons were not wielded with two hands.
For example cavalry hammer, axes, sabre, swords and so on were larger than the normal ones of their period, but never wielded with two hands. The exeption is the "bastard sword" or "one and a half handed sword". These swords were only used with two hands when fighting on foot.
The advantage of the larger cavalry weapons was again the range and the hitting power. These larger ones of these weapons were often to heavy to use them effectively with only one hand on foot, but from the horse back there was not much fencing but only slashing down on the enemy.
Its complicated to rebuild these weapons in the existing rule set. The whole horseeffect ist difficult to represent. Based on your existing rule set, I would give cavalry unit the option of using cavalry weapons that give a strength +1 buff during normal fight and a strength +2 buff during charge. maybe also an initiative buff of +1 would be an option but its hard to argue about that.
In any case, there is no real need to not use shields and lances together wird cavalry weapons.
For the fantasy aspect and to keep the models as their are, it could be better to leave it as it is. But in this case i would suggest to not give them a initiative nerf. Maybe in the same way as i wrote for the great weapons on foot.
Strenght +2
Initiative +1
Weapon Skill -1
Parry (6)
to be continued
And the continuation
ReplyDeleteBastardsword and longsword
I have already spoken about the bastardsword, so why not implement them in the game as well as the real longsword.
Attention, its not a substitute for great swords.
Bastard Sword:
Wielded one handed together with shield but not together with a aditional hand weapon.
Should be limited to knights.
- From horse back it gives +1 Strength during charge and +1 Initiative. (because a bit longer and heavier)
- When fighting on foot, the player can choose at the beginning of every combat turn, if he wants to use the shield or if he wants to use the Bastardsword with two hands. When using the shield the bastardsword works as a usual one hand weapon. When using with both hands, the Bastardsword gets +1 Strength and the armor piercing special rule (-1).
Longsword:
Need to be used with both hands and can not be wielded from horse back. No shields or additional weapons allowed.
Should be limited to knights.
The longsword is the peak of sword technologie and it combines all offense and defence techniques.
Strength +1
Initiative +1
Parry (6)
Armor piercing (-1)
These are not fully developed or finished concepts. Its not balanced yet. Its only an idea that you can use to think about some improvments (especially for great weapons). These changes could affect the various races very differently.
You do realize this is Warhammer FANTASY not Warhammer Historical right? It's not meant to be a historical simulation. I can tell you've never played the game because if you had you'd know how powerful having that +2 strength is. The penalty to initiative is there to balance the weapon against other options for that unit. If you gave GW's more bonuses with very minor penalties there'd be no reason to take any other weapon, period.
DeleteAs i have writen, its only an idea and its not balanced. The balancing could also be done by costs (points). Great weapons are powerful in the game, but they are not as powerful as in reality.
DeleteAs i see in the rules, mathias did some changes to make some weapons more realistic. See the changes to the spears, pikes and great weapon. My idea is only a suggestion to go further on this.
The main issue i have with my suggestion is, that great weapons were very powerful and expansive elite weapons but in warhammer we see so many units that can wield them. All these cheap and unskilled units would get an extreme buff with this (my) great weapon rules. This could cause a severe change to the game balance between the different armies. Therefore this would need high weapon costs and an effective weapon skill nerf. That means a great amount of work to rebalance the game.
Interesting idea, though a great deviation from the normal rules. The thing about GW's and lower Init is that they are very slow and heavy, which means that someone with a smaller quicker weapon can strike before them after the first blow (where the GW would normally strike first due to its extra reach, like you said).
DeleteWith that in mind, I'm not so sure +1I fits except when charging (where you already get +1 Init anyway). However, giving them -1WS is not a bad idea at all, possibly with only -1I in prolonged combats. The key is not making it too complicated with too many rules. I mean, if you want to keep GW's as realistic as possible, they should have the following rules:
+2S, +1I first round of combat, -1WS, -1I rounds after the first. It would just be too much to keep track off. But a plain +2S, -1WS and possibly -1I would be more manageable. I will consider it. I won't add any special rules for swords/axes/hammers and so on though, since some units might have a mix of great weapons in them, making it impossible to balance out.
I see your point. The system should be kept simple. Feel free to do what you like and what works within the game.
DeleteThe problem with this change is, that while historically accurate, it completely changes the flavor of great weapons, a flavor that a great many units rely upon to solidify their play style. While the change could make sense, I think it deviates too much from the established formula and would cause a great upheaval among many units that rely upon the I penalty of GW to provide their primary weakness (eg, the vast majority of GW troops.)
DeleteTyping errors in Magic: Spells:
ReplyDelete"A model can lose Wizard levels granted by a magic
item. Bound Spells cannot be forgotten if a Wizard
loses a Wizard"
Wizard loses a wizard :P I guess a level.
and
"If a Wizard has had his level reduced to 0 he no longer counts as a Wizard and cannot still attempt to channel Power and Dispel dice."
Word "still" is too much in there.
Then some questions:
Bound spells use max 2 dice to cast if the wielder isn't wizard? The rulebook doesn't say that clearly anywhere now.
Fixed those bugs, will be up in the next update :)
DeleteI don't recall bound spells having a limitation on the number of power dice you can use in the 8th ed book?
Yep there was no limitation with any spell, not even with bound spells. But in the 9th wizard level is the limitation for spells so it would kind of make sense that bound spells also have limits.
DeleteOne thing that came in my mind that bound spells could be bit redone to make work like in the earlier editions. At least in the 6/7th bound spells were automatically cast, other player just needed to exceed the power level to dispel them. And naturally Bound Spells didn't cause miscasts.
What's in my mind is that a bound spell takes one die from the power pool. It doesn't need to be thrown, the bound spell is cast with the power level. Other player just needs to dispel it. Maybe it should be even possible to boost the bound spells, so if you take a second die, you can boost the power level with that. Boosted bound spell would need some kind of a risk so that could cause a miscast and possible destruction of the item. Maybe even a 1 from any die could cause a miscast for boosted bound spell?
Oh and have you advertised your version of Warhammer in any bigger forums in the recent months? I believe many people would be interested about this, maybe even more than about the bit 'meh' tournament tuned 9th Age. They just don't know about this or are just too blind and follow the masses.
ReplyDeleteNot really, I just lurk around the other forums from time to time. Feel free to post about the rules yourself if you want to :)
DeleteHey I was just wondering if you, or any of the other lovely commenters, have play-tested the dramatic changes to attack output (null supporting attacks) and combat res (changes dramatic) in games with/against Ogres.
ReplyDeleteFrom my 8th ed experience, Ogres hit like a ton of bricks, though rarely countered steadfast until a 2nd or third turn to grind. Just wondering, as my main opponent is a Ogre fiend and I want to sell him on the ruleset.
Ogres in general will have to play a bit differently. If you have played them 3x2, now it would be better to play them 4x2 (with 2 in the back rank) if you use 6 models. That way you'll get 4 Ogres into combat with full attacks, versus 5 models for their opponent in the front rank, and +1 for wide frontage. In total, you would lose 6 attacks, while the enemy lose 5, so it will not play with that great a disadvantage for the Ogres, who will now take less casualties back as well.
DeleteMy Brudda's not going to like the loss of stomp though (that's another "6 attacks" missing, welcome to the realm of mortals Ogre-man!).
DeleteIn general it seems points per US is around 11 for bulls, 14 for Ironguts. So a little on the "elite" side, if we only look at US combat res.
Ogre ranks are still expensive as all get out, so it ends up playing around the same I guess.
~~
Thank you for all your hard work, when you get Orcs or Daemons done, I'll be sure to get a game or two in and share my thoughts.
Ogres might go down in price a little bit (because they will have less armour by default), so the US for a Bull should land around 9 pts with no equipment, and then you have S4, T4, M6, Fear and Impact Hits (and more Attacks than a normal Infantryman since an Ogre only takes up the space of 2 models in the front rank). In in all, it should be pretty fair :)
DeleteBtw, do you happen to have a copy of the DoC book? I'm missing page 11 which is needed to complete the background section, so if you could snap a picture of it, I can add it to the book :)
9pts/US that is, not model ;)
DeleteI have scanned it, uploaded it to my google.drive and tried sending it to your email (utilizing the "contact" bar)
DeleteHmm, don't seem to have gotten it. Can you try sending it directly to m4cr1ii3n@gmail.com?
DeleteI do think the Dragon Blade outdoes the Sword of Bloodshed while being cheaper. While the ways they reach the ability are different. Doubling your hits is akin to doubling your attacks. Plenty of characters shopping for weapons have 4 or 5 attacks. Whether it is externally balanced, I don't know how to even assess that for Heroes' toys.
ReplyDeleteTrickster's Shard, Arcane item, doesn't quite work as dispellers are not assigned like before.
There are two items called the Luckstone. (Wow two legendary items named the same thing, what are the odds).
These magic items are good though. More precisely I feel interested in using a variety of them.
Yes you are right, the Dragon Blade will be more expensive, it's too good for Lords right now. Will fix the other items too.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete