- Killing Blow ignores armour saves against targets it cannot instantly kill.
- A unit that successfully charge/pursue down a fleeing enemy unit inflict 1W with no saves allowed for each point of US the pursuing unit has. It then stops 1" behind the fleeing unit (if any models survive). If it completely destroys the enemy unit, it may reform as normal.
- Skirmishers now have the Vanguard special rule.
- Sword of Anti-heroes added.
- Trickster's Shard removed.
Another thing that came up in a previous suggestion was GW's giving -1WS rather than losing Initiative, making it a serious penalty that can effect both the requirement to hit and to be hit, rather than just fighting after other models (which does not have much of an effect as long as there is a model in the second rank to step up). What is your general opinion on this suggested change?
Edit: Sounds pretty unanimous: GW's should stay the same, so they will. Thanks for your input!
I don't like the Idea that GWs -1 to WS, these soldiers will have trained with these weapons and be just as skilled as someone else , initiative shows the weapons are ponderous but does not make the User seem any less skilful
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion came from me. The idea was not, that the wielder is less skillful. Great weapons are very powerful weapons with the drawback, that you need more skill to be effective with it. They are large and heavy and thus the fighting technique is limited and the weapon acceleration is reduced.
DeleteOnly a skillful fighter will have an advantage form a great weapon. But than the fighter has the advantage of range (hitting first) and impact power.
While the strenght buff represents the impact power, the weapon skill nerf would represent the need of skill. For more realism the great weapon could also produce an initiative buff (range advantage) but this would be a dramatic deviation from the established great weapon special rule of warhammer.
I calculated the effect of a weapon skill nerf of -1 on basis of the standard human skill values without armor. It works quit well. A basic human with ws = 3 still gets a buff from the great weapon but the buff is limited (kill advantage of 25% compared to a buff of 66% without ws nerf of -1). The great weapon starts to shine, when its wielded by an elite unit with ws of 4 (ws=4 + GW vs usual ws=3 human). Then the GW unit smashes through the line even with the WS nerf (kill advantage of 66% compared to a buff of 124% without ws nerf of -1).
Please correct me, if my calculations are wrong.
The good thing about this, its affecting more general compared to the strikes last rule or the initiative nerf, thats only valid under certain circumstances.
By the way, i would prefer the initiative nerf instead of the old strikes last rule.
I like this idea, it differentiate the GW from the other items.
DeleteThere is no reason all must be I driven and -1 WS does differentiate GW and is a nice way to balance them vs other weapon options.
I like the rule change specially with the stats you gave seems to help balancing vs I penalty.
Fluff wise what we think a great weapon should handle by pro warrior it is still unwieldy compare to smaller weapons so it works with me.
Despite these thematic problems, the fact remains that changing from an I nerf to a WS nerf presents serveral issues.
DeleteThe first of which is the increasing overlap between GW and halberds. With the changes, GW would have +1S -1WS on halberds. This leads to many, many cases where the +1 to wound is entirely counteracted by the -1 to hit, leaving them outright worse than halberds due to suffering hits more easily.
The second if that although this change makes the weakness of GW more general, this may not be a good thing in and of itself. While losing WS simply makes the unit worse, the loss of I presents a clear weakness that can be exploited by bringing hammer units to kill them first, while also being negated if played well by allowing your GW troops to engage heavily armoured models against which the loss of I is negligible as they aren't designed to hit back well.
Keep in mind that balance needs to be placed before realism, and besides, the this isn't a game made for military historians, it's for fantasy geeks who don't know a whole lot about actual fighting. They are going to see a big bulky weapon and think, 'That should make him slower.' Additionally, clarity is an important aspect of the game, and providing the clearer weakness in a (relatively logical) I penalty provides a greater window of opportunity for players to plan around, rather than having to crunch the numbers to see if they are going to have more bang for their buck taking GW or halberds.
All I can say with certainty is , If GWs were -1 Ws I would no longer take them , to big a hit with the Nerfhammer compared to halberdiers and the like. They would no longer seem like an Elite weapon anymore (my greatswords) and the points would seem better spent on other units
DeleteI don't really like it. Although the initiative penalty is not massive, GW have been hit hard enough with the removal of supporting attacks, and are only 1 strength higher than halberds. Lowering weapon skill would (in my opinion) make them simply inferior to other, similar weapon options such as 2hw and halberds.
ReplyDeleteBesides, like the comment above states, although the weapons are unwieldy, they I think it makes more thematic sense to have them effect I rather than WS.
I still think that Always Strikes First and Always Strikes Last should be brought back, with Always Strikes Last causing successful hits to be re-rolled if at lower initiative and units charging spears and pikes to the front gaining Always Strikes Last for the first turn of combat.
DeleteThe only problem with ASF and ASL is that they tend to polarize the whole initiative system. GW giving ASL means that even super fast dudes like elves hit last, when tbh, the I penalty works better. The same is true for almost all cases of ASF and ASL. And remember that in 9th edition, you can hit on 2+ and 6+ given large enough WS differences, which often occur on the same units that were gaining the reroll bonuses from ASF.
DeleteI'd say keep it to initive GW troops have been trained to use great weapons so they shouln't be any less skillful with them. Inititive relects the slow swing speed of the weapons.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the downloadable version is still 1.02, not 1.03.
ReplyDeleteSeems to have been an issue with Google Drive, I've updated it manually now.
DeleteHi, I can still only download 1.02. Dave.
DeleteTry the "9th Ed Rules" tab at the top of the page. I've updated the link in the original blog post as well.
DeleteNew rules for pursue remembered me the "Free Hack" rules in THIRD edition. Could be risky to change so much a rule that was changed and estabilished nearly 20 years ago, but seems fairer.
ReplyDeleteI'm still convinced that Bows and Longbows are much stronger than crossbows and Handguns. Maybe we can introduce a Move or Reload rule, instead of a Move or Fire rule? So a unit of crossbowmen/Handgunners could turn and fire against a unit of skirmishers/fast cavalry instead of just waiting to be charged in flank/rear without chances of striking back with their missile weapons? Or could we consider to give them a penalty of -2 for move and fire?
Actually, they are not. Both bows and longbows cost more in 9th ed (3/4 pts) whereas a handgun/crossbow costs 5 pts.
DeleteRemember that firing multiple shots comes with a -1 to Hit penalty. A unit of 10 models and BS3 with bows/longbows can fire 20 shots under ideal conditions: 6,7 hits = 3,3W (T3) = 2,2W (5+ AS).
A unit of 10 models and BS3 with handguns: 5 hits, 3,3W = 3,3W (no AS allowed). Crossbows would cause 2,8W (and have better range). Handguns and crossbows are still more effective against most troop choices, and cost 1-2 pts more than bows/longbows.
Also, you can only fire Multiple Shots if you don't move, which is a similar penalty to Move or Fire.
DeleteI am also not a fan of changing how great weapons work.
ReplyDeleteI cant see any good reason to change how GW's work.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, as have been mentioned by others, only elite troops would use great weapons on a regimental basis, due to several factors.
It can be assumed that they train with these weapons every day and are as skilled with them as they probably are with many other weapons they used earlier in their career.
Secondly, while a GW is predictable and limited in its offensive options, it doesn't mean that you can avoid it in a tight melee just because you see it coming. Arguments could be made that THE TARGET should actually get a penalty to THEIR WS due to the difficulty of deflecting the blow, although I wouldn't go that far.
Thirdly, a penalty to WS would make them easier to get hit also, and I see no reason for that at all. A GW in skilled hands, especially a Great Club, offers incredible utility for stopping incoming blows.
The penalty to Ini makes a lot of sense though, since the attack patterns of a GW takes more momentum to start, and arent so easily changed either.
Not really on topic but since Games Workshop have just killed off Bretonnia any chance we could start an alternative miniatures section for it.
ReplyDeleteDone ;)
DeleteJust looking through my old books , I realised that transformation of Kadon used to be a dark magic spell , Amber magic had a spell called The Savage Beast of Horros which your version of 9th edition resembles a lot more . It might look good as a shout out to older players of the game if you changed the name of the spell ☺
ReplyDeleteIt's already there, check the level 5 spell ;)
DeleteI never saw the wood for the trees haha
Delete-1 WS sounds too much. Better just keep the -2 I.
ReplyDeleteBoth S/T charts have bugs. It's not bugged just from one place so check it carefully.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the dwarfs?:P
ReplyDeleteWith regards to mounts with impact hits stacking with those granted by cavalry (Unicorns for example), the wording still makes it sound as though only the higher set is used. Maybe change any such mounts Impact Hits rule to one that increases the Impact Hits granted by troop type, eg: 'Ridden Unicorns inflict Impact Hits(2) rather than the usual 1 for cavalry.'
ReplyDelete