- Marksman Prowess changed to Asrai Archery from 6th, meaning you ignore -1 to hit for moving and shooting. This keeps WE from becoming too much of a stand and shoot army rather than the guerilla force they are supposed to be.
- Clarified that Elven Grace applies to mounted models as well.
- Added Forest Dragon as a stand-alone rare choice.
- Sylvan Hunters moved to Rare.
- Sisters of the Thorn have a 5+ ward save (4+ with elven grace), fixed BS and A value, 24 pts.
- Arcane Bodkins 2 pts/model (due it being a bit too good at killing knights).
- Swiftshiver shards 3 pts/model (due to the combination of Asrai archery).
- Hagbane tips 4 pts/model (due to multiple shots).
- Added enchanted arrows to warhawk riders.
- Skaw ignores all To Hit penalties for his hawks.
- Warhawk riders can take enchanted arrows, are T3 in bestiary.
- Fixed stat-bug for Great Stag in bestiary.
- Fixed stat-bug for Unicorn in bestiary. Unicorns gain +1 Strength to their Impact Hits through Impale.
- Fixed bug where Araloth had M9.
- Conjoined Twins fixed - "If Naestra and Arahan have been reduced to less than 4 Wounds at the end any turn, they will be restored to 4 Wounds." For this reason, Gwindalor has W4, as MC uses the highest W available. 175 pts by default, 320 pts for the Dragon, 100 pts for the Eagle.
- Naieth's Othu allow re-roll of 1's to Hit.
- Changed ranks to unit strength for Twillight host.
- Fixed bug where Helm of the Hunt only give Frenzy the first turn. Also gives Forest Spirit special rule, allowing you to field a Wild Rider character, 50 pts.
- Hail of Doom Arrow is no longer armour piercing, 35 pts.
- Forest Dragon 320 pts,
- Added Spites to army list for affected characters.
- Added Warhawk to character mounts.
- Glade Guards can not take magic banners.
- All 5" forests have been changed to 12", so the Citadel Wood can be used.
- Sylvan Hunters have Unit size 3+.
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.
Sunday 15 July 2018
Wood Elves 9th Ed 1.11 out now!
This update changes the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mostly good changes Mathias. :-)
ReplyDeleteI like how the -1 penalty to moving and shooting works when it comes to fast cav and the like, but It really does nothing to prevent wood elf archers from hanging back and shooting at maximum range. Have you ever bothered to only shoot a single shot with DE Reater Crossbows? Same situation really...
Wish you had gone with Arcane Bodkins at 1 pts, but instead only made them Armour Piercing at half maximum range instead. It would help discourage the archer spam at great range. Also, in general, while some of the magical arrows are very good, I don't like how some of them are easily priced out of use if you will. I'd rather see them have a reduced effective range at a lower cost, so that it helped change the WE dynamic a bit.
Other changes looked nice. Conjoined Twins fix seems nice and balanced to.
Well, the idea is not to outright keep them from firing multiple shots really, but rather give a little bit on an incentive to move when needed. With this rule, it means leaving your position won't be such a huge drawback as you won't suffer -1 to hit that turn, even if you lose half your shots.
DeleteNot sure about changing it to half the range and whatnot, I'd prefer to keep the game streamlined.
I have one question about how the mounted characters profile works.
ReplyDeleteFor example, a character has 3 wounds and his mount 5 wounds. In a round of combat he suffers 3 wounds. We use the higher profile of the mount, ok: 5-3= 2 wounds.
But in the second round he suffers 2 wounds. Is the model killed? 2-2=0! Or... do we use the higuer wound profile in that moment? (So we use the wound profile of the character 3-2=1 and in that moment the character has 1wound and the mount has 2 wounds). Please somebody clarify me this in the 9th edition
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Rune15 July 2018 at 16:38
ReplyDeleteYou only us the highest Toughness/Wound profile, and the best armour save. So if you have a Chaos Lord with a 2+ AS on a Chaos Dragon, you have a model with a T6, 6 Wounds and 2+ AS in total
Ah ok! So the entire model has the 6 wounds and when it suffers 6 wounds in several moments, the model is removed.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Yes, that's correct :)
DeleteThanks to clarify that! My translation in Spanish is the reason I didn´t understood the rule jejej
ReplyDeleteMathias: Did you give some thought to the 5" forest issue btw?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that one is fixed now as well, just forgot to put it in my notes. You can now deploy forests up to 12" :)
Delete9" is more than enough to use the GW forest. It should also be stipulated on the new spell that creates a forest tha tis is the WEplayer's resposibility to have such a forest, just like it is a WoC players resposibility to have a chaos spawn model, daemon prince etc... :-)
DeleteIgnore my 9" comment... Horrible miscalculation over to inches on my part... *sigh*
DeleteOk, how big is that forest? I've had somebad experiences with 12" x 12" forests on the past Mathias, playing aginast We and Tyraninds in 40k... A buddy of mine that had both those armoes made 2 squared forest about that size, and that became an issue in most games. I just thought 5" was a bit small, but 12", especially now that you can grow new ones seem a bit massive... I'll go and measure the plastic GW forest I think...
ReplyDeleteSorry for not posting some more missile tests. Been 28 degrees in the shade here today, and sitting inside in a hot attic in a massive bean bag in front of the PC hasn't been all that appealing... :-P
10" X 7½"
DeleteIt's 255mm x 188mm to be precise. Likely corner to corner longest is close to that 12". That's why it needs to be 12" diameter.
Damn, you are right. I only had a measurer with cm, and for some stuod reason I assumed that 10" was 30 cm,, then I subttrace a little. Must be getting dehydrated here. :-P
DeleteGreat work as always Mathius. I would like to just query you wanting to add Elven Grace to the other Elf books. I honestly don't think they need it. It works for Wood Elves because they have very limited access to armour (the same way your Amazons got Amulets of the Moon as protection against shooting), but as soon as you give a 6+ Parry (which, in your current rules, stack with Ward saves) to an elf with heavy armour it may start to get out of hand. Some models I can see causing issues are:
ReplyDeleteSisters of the Thorn now have a 4+ ward in CC. (they are only two points more than Tomb King Bastethi, who are a similar style unit in terms of being able to generate magic, but have no armour/ward, cannot take a magical banner, don't get a plethora of special rules like the Sisters of the Thorn, but do have +1 S,T & W, at the loss of M, Ld and a ranged attack, plus are flammable. Sorry for the rant, I am a Tomb King player myself and have noticed the unavoidable power creep of the new books. You have done a great job trying to keep the balance, but with so many different factions there is no way to avoid it, so I figured I'd just point this out).
Swordmasters of Hoeth would get a base 5+ parry (that can be used against ranged shots?) in addition to their heavy armour.
The High Magic Lore Attribute stacking with Elven Grace to give all High elves a base 5+ ward in CC.
Silver Helms become BETTER Knights of the Realm at 2 points less, the only thing they lack being Lance Formation (but have a 6+ ward in CC, faster cav, ithilmar barding, better Initiative, Martial Prowess, and cannot lose their ward save).
I'm not too familiar with the Dark Elf book, but I can see similar things happening with Executioners and Black Guard becoming disgustingly resilient models.
So, tl:dr, I think Elven Grace should stay as a WE special rule to counter their lack of armour (and make up for the fact that they don't get a "re-roll 1's rule" like the other elves, because ignoring the movement penalty to shooting just isn't as strong as re-rolling 1's to Hit/Wound IMO), be kept as a parry (so mounted units can't benefit from it - can be rationalized as it is just more difficult to weave between attacks when mounted), or just remove/lower Sisters of the Thorn's base ward save to prevent the 4+ stack.
And also, I like the idea of a Forest Dragon, but then why don't HE and DE get rare slot dragons? And then if you give these to them, will they not become too powerful? Its a fine line to tread. I personally think the forest dragon should remain purely a character mount.
It goes without saying though that these are just my personal opinions. You have done such an unbelievably fantastic job both keeping "old" Warhammer alive and writing better work than the original creators (*cough* GeeDubs *cough*) managed to produce. Everyone at my local store are indebted to you for being just pure awesome. But I had to give my input on these changes as I feel the older books you did are getting left behind and they're the ones I love the most.
Forests dragons work a bit different in the lore than other dragons, working more freely alongside the WE to protect the forests etc, rather than being the steed of some Elven Lord. Dark Elves would price a Black Dragon as a steed to much to let it roam free and fly off at will. In the case of the HE, I imagine it is more a case of some character having the will t wake and control such a beast. They simply wouldn't fit as well as lone beasts in those lists from a lore perspective, and those lists don't really need more monsters to choose from either. :-)
DeleteThe WE list isn't exactly the list with the most options to choose from, so the added flexibility/power helps them out nicely without bloating the list with options.
I completely get what you are saying, but then maybe removing the forest dragon from the mounts choices is required to give a more unique flavour to the WE.
DeleteThe reason I mentioned the inclusion of dragons in rare slot for the other elves is that a Wood Elf army having more dragons than a High Elf army themed around Caledor seems unlikely. It's always been the High Elf thing to have access to dragons, and there are many instances of allied dragons that aid the elves, not simply as mounts for lords. So yeah, was just pointing out that if WE get them, it only makes sense that at the very least (fluff wise) that HE should too... however I don't think HE should have access to them as at my local club we actually played a campaign where we allowed a Caledor themed HE army to use non-ridden dragons and found that without the Lord "tax" to bring the dragon to the battle, they are too good of a bonus to an army. It allows for 2 dragons in a standard sized game which is too much for most armies to deal with in my option.
In the end it's Mathias' call, just wanted to give feedback based on play tested games in order to help as best I can.
F. That was posted by me, not sure why it reverted back to posted by "Unknown"
DeleteValuable input. I think ther eis a WE dragon with a mounted character model though, so that would be annoying to people. Don't the HE also have access to the Lvl 2 Wizard ona lesser draon option though?
DeleteI'm generally against monster lists myslef /monsters in special section), but due to how frail the rest of the WE list can be, it is not impossible to get victory points by going after them, even though they can be tricky to get at for some armies admittedly, but that applies with or without dragons really.
For some models (like Silver Helms) Elven grace means they will get a price hike. It's mainly their lighter armoured troops that suffers due to a lack of saves.
DeleteComparing the bastethi to the Sisters of the Thorn like that is not that simply. On top of their increased offensive abiltiy, they have 2W each, which makes them nearly twice as durable, and they can easily be be resurrected through magic as well.
Regarding the dragon "spam", this is not really an issue in 9th ed. If you take a Dragon for your Lord and as a Rare choice, this counts as 2 dragons for the purposes of dublicate units, meaning you can only take 1 of them in a 2000 pts game, or 2 in a 2500 pts game.
Why not make Elven grace somewhat similar to the rules for fast cavalry, so if you get a better armour save than 5+ (could be any save just an example) you don't get it?
DeleteThough it will make the list building a bit more complicated. Just an idea
Thanks for that clarification Mathias. A price increase for certain units will definitely help to offset the increased strength Elven Grace will bring to these units (one of my main concerns was Silverhelms being cheaper but better Bretonnians), I had simply assumed that the rule was being added BECAUSE elf units were quite pricey already so didn't expect them to become more so.
DeleteIn regards to (my beloved) Bastethi, I would like to say that I understand that its not a simple comparison, but a 4+ ward on the Sisters of the Thorn is still huge when compared to the Bastethi who have no form of armour or save, only 2 wounds and T4 to protect them. Again, not disagreeing, because I know that the resurrection helps a lot, but Ward Saves are incredible powerful in Warhammer, especially when they affect an entire unit. I personally don't think a Parry should stack with a Ward save (and this is coming from a Tomb King player who can use a Tomb Barque to get a 5+ parry/ward on all his skellies) and at my local club we use a house rule that they don't stack. But that is just our personal preference. Its also one of the great things about this game is that you can make changes based on your community's preferences.
Keep putting in the great work to these books, you really have done a fantastic job!
I will do doing a slightly change to the Sisters soon, giving them a 4+ ward as standard instead of 5+ plus elven grace. They are very fragile against shooting with only a 5+ ward. They will also go up to 26 pts again.
DeleteNo problem if you prefer to houserule that wards do not stack, the reason I included that rule is so that you do not pay for useless ward saves/parry saves in many situations. That's also why wards are capped at 4+ :)
Wow 4+ ward save... That's pretty radical change from no ward save but so is the price change from 16 -> 26p.
DeleteNot sure what you mean... Sisters of the Thorn already have a 5+ ward plus Elven Grace right now, I will just make it so they have a 4+ ward like in the 8th Ed wood elf book.
DeleteAh I was somehow thinking you talked about Avelorn... didn't know that Thorn unit exists because I haven't ever had a good look on 8th WE book. I only have the 7th book a:P
DeleteAh, I see. There's quite a lot of "sister" units now, each of the Elven books have one, so I can see where the confusion comes from :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteETA on other Elf (Elven Grace) updates? Thinking on playing 28.07. against HE ;)
ReplyDeleteProbably later this week, Saturday at the latest :)
DeleteI've posted a lot of thoughts and suggestions on the Dark Elf thread Mathias. In case you've missed it.
DeleteI will going through that one as well :)
DeleteI bet you've had as hot summer in Sweden as in Finland so you haven't found any motivation and time to sit on a computer :D
DeleteNeed to start to read the rules and think about the army list for the Saturday game. Thinking if we should play with or without Elven Grace for now.
You can say that again! The electronic stores are all out of fans...
DeleteI have been working on the books a bit today though, I will have the update out either tonight or tomorrow, I promise :)
Mathias:
ReplyDeleteDrycha Still has "Spirit-Walker" special rule without description or reference. I assume it is "Spirit-Walk" from the Tree Revenants that it is supposed to refer to.
Will fix!
DeleteOut of top comment here but I need to ask. What does the Skaven Update (The next one in Task list) entails into? If I may ask...
ReplyDeleteLots of balance changes based on feedback, as well as additional background from various White Dwarf issues.
DeleteI've noticed something about the Lore of Metal. Since models can have two armor saves (one against ranged attacks and one against melee attacks) the Lore should specify which one is used to determine damage chance. I've also noticed that Searing Doom and Ghenna's Golden Hounds become useless if stolen using Glean magic due to the Lore attribute being replaced with that of the Lore of Tzeentch. Similar weirdness happens when spells are stolen from the Lore of Fire such as stealing Fireball resulting in throwing around non-flaming fireballs.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a fix is in order. A new lore attribute to the Lore of Metal, perhaps granting a 6+ armor save or improving it to a single model within 12" (which can include the Wizard) and adding how Searing Doom and Gehenna's Golden Hounds wound to the spell descriptions. Lore of Fire spells have 'which count as Flaming Attacks' added to the spell descriptions wherever appropriate and the first sentence of the Lore description removed (and second sentence have the 'in addition' part removed).
I will look into it, you are right in that what armour value is used needs to be specified.
DeleteGreat work!! Keep up the good work!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for everything u are doing! My friends and I do really appreciate it
DeleteGlad you like it! :)
DeleteWould you consider allowing Spellsingers and Spellweavers to buy a bow as an upgrade?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it really fits; no faction has weapon options for their wizards, and none of the Spellsinger models have bows either. I'm trying to keep the rules as WYSIWYG as possible.
DeleteMathias: Should Wood Elf Lor/heroes have the Shield option? The reason I'm asking is that the Wood elves don't have any troops that use a shield as far as I can recall, and is also more something you'd see in a more properly organized army in many ways.
ReplyDeleteI think you might need to check through their book again in that case ;)
DeleteEternal Guard have shields, old glade guards and glade riders have shields, the Wood Elf mounted Lord have a shield, and Araloth have a shield. Heck, even the guy on the front cover have a shield ;)
Who would ever use Shields on Eternal Guard? :-P
DeleteWell, the people who bought them during 8th ed I'd guess, since the models come with shields.
DeleteStill can't imagine anyone will want to play them as if they have shields tbh, not when compared with the "super spears" they effectively have now. No big deal though. Just thought it could be fitting to make them a non-shield army, since it would be a bit odd to only see them on so few places throughout the list anyhow. One unit with old models and some characters wouldn't mormally qualify for an option available for characters in most lists. No big deal though. Just thought it stuck a bit out on characters. I didn't really think of the old models tbh, but I thought they were far older than 8th ed models though.
DeleteI think shields are a very valid option for them. If you choose the spearstaffs, the front rank get +1A, but if you go with shields, the whole unit gets +1AS instead. I'd even argue that the shields might be better in most situations.
DeleteI've actually tried to include all options that GW has made models for, so that people can have their all their models and still be WYSIWYG. I think the only exception is the female Dreadlord that was made as a direct to order model, running around in her underwear for some strange reason (dreadlords have medium armour by default, which suits all other models).
Did you give any consideration to the inclusion of Zoats? I know they were not officially part of the Wood Elves rosta (or any factions come to that) but I figured they fit most with the Wood Elves. No, their probably aren't many models for them but it would be nice to see a nod to them here as a rare choice - they did get an 8th scroll after all...
ReplyDeleteI did consider it, but I think they would feel very out of place in their list TBH. I will be releasing rules for them later on though so they can be included as a form of "ally" for Wood Elves and Albion though.
DeleteI don't know if this has already been asked, but is there any chance to get AoS characters and unique armies conversion?
ReplyDeleteIf you mean special characters that's unfortunately a no for the time being. Maybe at some point in the future. The Stormcast will get a smaller list later on with rules to make them playable in WFB though.
DeleteNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Sigmarines... That's HERESY!
DeleteWhy Mathias? I can't imagine anyone ever putting those models on square bases for one thing, but even if someone bothered to do that, ther eare dozens of projects and ideas that are far, far better than that... They simply don't fit at all. Might as well bring in genestealers at that point...
DeletePeople have been requesting rules for them for WFB, and I've said I'm planning on releasing a quick army list for them with playable rules. They will not get shoehorned into the background, merely be playable. However, this will be much later down the line, after I've finished everything Old World related, hence they do not appear in the release list.
DeleteOk. Playable rules only is something a bit different than one of your fully-fledged lists with all the lore included and so on. Still good to hear that it is low on your to-do list though :-) Kinda surprised that lots of people have requested rules for them tbh, due to the lore, the bases, the lower number of models geneally used in AoS and so on...
DeleteYeah, no need to worry about Sigmarines invading the Old World, I'm a conservative ;)
DeleteI reckon there are some who simply like the models but do not have an interest in AoS as a game. So Stormcast will be made available against the older armies in friendly games. Could be good for younger players as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteStormcast more is easy to write ' they got lost in the warp and wandered out of the chaos wastes looking slightly confused as how quaint and old fashioned everything appeared. Upon asking a passing dwarf about ur-gold and for a lift in his steampunk flying frigate they were given a wide berth and a grudge recorded against 'those golden faced weirdios who took the proverbial'. Eventually they find a ruined fortress with a lot of lightning storms in the area and settle down but can't understand why the local dracoths have the top halves of ogres and don't like being ridden. They continually send out expeditions to try and get a better signal to contact the realm of heavens for a pickup'
DeleteIf the kharadon overlords need explaining then have them go through the warp the same way, and up at castle stormcast and the eternal are so pleased to have somone knock at the door complaining about the lack of ur-gold that the celestant prime picks up the forgemaster and hugs him, dancing round like a golden wookie with an equally golden ewok'
Deepkin are unfortunately far more easy. They were always there. No one looked hard enough
Yeah no, I will be keeping any Warp-factions (except Daemons) out of the game. Don't really need them in the lore. I'm considering making some rules for Raging Heroes' "Sisters of the Orphanage" as well because I like the models so much, but they won't be included in the lore (though they could work as Sisters of Sigmar with a bit of a stretch).
DeleteA little off topic, but I have just noticed in the Bretonnia book that Morning Stars are an option for some characters. I thought they had been removed from 9th. Should they be removed as options or perhaps added as a weapon under the Army Special Rules? They could be given to Foot Knights then as they are mentioned in the bestiary section for them too. Odo even has a Magic Morning Star...
ReplyDeleteOdo's weapon will give him the strength bonus rule, but other than that, I don't think morning stars are necessary. There is no unit that will be made up of models wholly equipped with morning stars, which is why the option was removed.
DeleteOk, so I ignore the morning stars option for Bretonnian Characters then I guess. That's cool.
DeleteOn another side note (more Bretonnia related) I notice Pegasus Knights have the flying cav special rule although this is not explained in the BRB or Army Book (at least, I can't find it anywhere). In 8th, it essentially gave them the fast cav special rule but in 9th the 'Armour Saves greater than 5+' sub-rule means they can't have that ability. Is this now a redundant rule?
Yes, it should be replaced with the Fly rule, simply put. Flyers are already skirmishers, and as such can freely reform.
DeleteRoger that, that's what I figured :)
DeleteHow should the Spite Revenant's Whispers in the Dark special rule work against Lizardmen (Cold Blooded) or any other ability that lets a unit take a Ld test on 3d6 discard the highest?
ReplyDeleteThey simply cancel each other out, it's mentioned in the BRB at the start of the special rule section.
Delete