Friday, 20 October 2017

Warhammer 9th Ed 1.073 out now!

This update changes the following:

  • Volley Fire cannot be used if the target is within half the weapon's maximum range.
  • Clarified that a chariot mount follows the rules for ridden monsters in regards to Split Profile. 
  • Frenzied models can take a Ld test to restrain from charging again.
  • Fast Cavalry and skirmishers may reform twice duing their move; once before they move, and at the end of their move.

Also just a quick heads-up on the Empire, seeing as several people been wondering about it; I still need to finish the layout for the main background and some of the graphics which will take some time.

Right now I have also been really busy trying to finish my Playstation collection before the next Steam sale so I won't be swamped in games in December. Fortunately I'm a pretty fast gamer, so I should be able to finish the 9 remaining games on my list this month (probably 3 weeks tops).

After that I will be able to fully commit to working on the books during the remains of November and first half of December, during which I promise you will see the release of the Empire book and probably the High Elf book as well. Just hold on for a few weeks more!

108 comments:

  1. Game is shaping up to becoming very good I think. I still have an issue with the magic phase as far as the cost benefit of wizards go under the current rules (which I imagine you are already considering rebalancing a bit), but in general it is shaping up into something that looks like it will be very fun to play Mathias. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Regarding the Final Transmutation spell, I think there should be units that are immune to the Stupidity that comes with being within 12" of a unit struck by it. Immunity (Psychology) is the most obvious with Daemons, Frenzied units, undead, units that swore an important oath and such either having no use for gold or valuing honor more but I think there are a few other examples. Lizardmen do not value gold unless it has writing from the Old Ones written on it which is not possible with a victim of Final Transmutation. War beasts, Monstrous Beasts and Monsters are another such example though the rules should say that dragons are an exception. I don't know if Skaven value gold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Might be a bit too much to try and exclude every single unit that might not be bothered by it down. Simply excluding ItP units is the cleanest way to do it.

      Delete
    2. So, units that don't become stupid because of Final Transmutation would have the Immunity(Psychology) or Cold-Blooded special rules or are War Beast, Monstrous Beasts and Monsters. Would that be good?

      Delete
    3. Yeah, something like that would fit. I'll add it in.

      Delete
  3. Hello everyone, I've a doubt: do cavalry shot in two ranks? I'm thinking about the outriders, for example. It might already be in the rulebook but I may have missed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the rule is "Fire in two ranks" and it doesn't say anything about troop types. So everyone should be able to fire in two ranks, no matter what troop type or missile weapon is used.
      Maybe it needs some kind of little lore text why cavalry can also fire in two ranks because they can't really stoop or crouch too well :D

      The wording is taken from 8th edition and I haven't ever found wording why cavalry couldn't fire in two ranks even in that edition.

      Delete
    2. It makes about as much sense as Cavalry fighting in two ranks, but it's really needed to balance them out with the infantry.

      Delete
  4. Hahah cavalry crouching is pretty ilarious! Thanks! :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey There!  
    My name in Joshua Stawiarski Co - Editor Of TalkWargaming.com

    Sorry if this sounds like spam, I just wanted to drop a message here say thanks for all of your years in supporting the community and hope it can also continue far into the future.

    Right now we are fighting the battle of looking for other content creators for our website but our reach doesn’t go as far we’d like.  We are wondering if you want to help us transform TWG with great pieces of work. We will provide as much value as we can to you, if you decide to take part, and to build a long-term working relationship.

    Here Is A Link To Explain In More Detail:
    http://www.talkwargaming.com/2017/10/content-creators-wanted.html

    Looking forward to hearing from you,
    Sincerely,
    Co - Editor Of talkwargaming.com

    Contact Me Here:
    editortalkwargaming@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Prediction: Empire profile is released on October 31, Halloween. For what is the greatest monster of all... BUT MAN! (*cue thunder and lightning*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I am expecting something like that too, seeing as I have Mon-Wed off next week to be able to work on it ;)

      Delete
    2. Btw. what about the (High) Elves? Did you find anything more for them or will you release them earlier? Just interested because my main usual opponents are High Elves and Vampire Counts.

      Delete
    3. I found some more art for them at least, but I also want to get the quotes from TW: Warhammer 2. Still, I think I should be able to finish them after Empire actually.

      Delete
  7. - Have you looked at the Warpgnaw Verminlords from FW? They are definitely not just a more powerful vanilla Verminlord if that's what you were wondering about.
    - Is it possible to add the slings and death globes from TWW2 as options for the appropriate Skaven units?
    - What about replacing the current Forces of Order/Destruction system with a proper allies chart like in 40k?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - Yeah, but I don't think it's necessary to include them, as they have 4 different vermin lords already.
      - What units would that be?
      - I will probably do something like that later on, yes.

      Delete
    2. - Does it mean that people who bought their models are supposed to use them as count-as?
      - Slings for Skavenslaves, Gutter Runners and Night Runners (the last one with optional poison), Death Globes for Poisoned Wind Globadiers.
      - Are you changing the Daemon chariots back to their 8E incarnation? They are much more distinctive from each other than the current 6E incarnation which are little more than what you get when you put two daemons on a cart and let daemonic beasts or mounts pull it.
      - Are you adding in the Spider-Night Goblins from Silver Tower? It isn't a question of if, but rather when GW will make them available standalone.
      - What's the problem with adding a Monster-sized Bull Centaur lord as a generic unnamed character?

      Delete
    3. - Yes. The Warpgnaw Verminlord only exists within AoS. The model was previously an Exalted Verminlord being the new plastic kit came out. Now you might as well use it as one of the existing variants.
      - Unless I am mistaken, aren't those weapons already available to those units?
      - Right now, the DoC have both. I have not decided yet how I will change their chariots in the final version of the book.
      - Not really planning on it no, as spiders are already part of the Forest Goblin theme.
      - They already have a generic Bull Centaur character, and that model was obviously made to work as a SC.

      Delete
  8. I haven't read in depth all the rule changes you have brought into 9th but a few house rules I like are: if you can run units of chariots and you can put a character in a chariot, then that chariot can join a unit of chariots, (basically making the TK rule apply in all similar situations)
    If you can have units of things on flying mounts, and that same flying mount is available to a character, then the character can join a unit of them. So skinks on terrapins, Wood hero hero with Warhawks, Paladins on pegasus etc etc
    And lastly cavalry gain +1 rank when they have 5 or more models in the front rank. 3 cavalry have no rank, 5 has 1 rank, 9 has 1 rank, 15 has 4 ranks, just gives them that little edge needed to take on the massed ranks of infantry and means that all can armies are slightly more viable

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea of chariots and flying mounts is solid, will include that one in the next update. I do think cavalry work well enough now though due to their added impact hits.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Cavalry isn't supposed to benefit much from ranks. I'd much rather like to see them able to potentially push through enemy units during the charge if they manage to hit hard enough (assuming that is their wish). This is generally how cavalry did fight, as being stuck in between masses of infantry was rarely a good idea.

      Delete
    3. About characters on flyers and chariots, I noticed that I had already included them being allowed to join units of the same type, so that's already fixed.

      Delete
    4. Wouldn't adding units of chariots remove some of the flair for armies such as Tomb Kings and Albion?

      Delete
    5. Only a few armies can field multiple chariots in a unit, and only Albion and TK can field them in bigger units with full command, so this is not really an issue.

      Delete
  9. I'd like to make a suggestion for the Lizardmen book, which is adding a Chameleon skink assassin hero, and also giving Oxyotl the assassin rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not planning on adding any more generic characters to LM, but they will be getting a few more special characters though.

      Delete
  10. Happy Halloween!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can we get some rules for summoning and using Incarnate Elementals, please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elemetals don't really fit well with the warhammer lore. The only instance I can recall of elementals in warhammer is an incident in the Genivieve Undeadbook and Elementals existing in 1'st ed Warhammer fantasy rpg, but that was before the 8 schools of magic was introduced

      Delete
    2. The Rune
      You can find thier lore in Monstruous Arcanum book for the 8th ed
      And if you ask for miniatures, Forge World had released them since 2012

      Delete
  12. A new fully Monstruous Arcanum book would be very intersing in the future

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is likely in the future yes, seeing as there are many monsters that do not really fit into any army book but are part of the warhamemr universe after all.

      Delete
  13. Regarding the Hag Tree from the Beastmen army book, I think it's a little too generic given the nature of chaos and the variety of flora it can corrupt. I propose renaming it to Chaos Flora or just keeping it as Hag Trees and have its fluff clarify that a Hag Tree isn't necessarily a tree. Both its Natural Armor and Constant Wailing rules become upgrades instead of intrinsic to the unit. Other possible upgrades would be Poisoned Attacks or an insect cloud that reduces all rolls To Hit the Hag Tree by one. Constant Wailing could be fluffed as possibly being wailing, but also a sweet or disgusting stench.

    I would advocate it also having access to one of two ranged attacks. One is a copy of Tangleroots available to Treemen, the other is a copy of the Giant Blowpipe used by Skink's riding Stegadons.

    With this, the Chaos Flora unit could be modeled as anything. It could be a walking tree, but it could also be a giant carnivorous flower, a walking insect hive or a tentacle rape monster from a Japanese hentai.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the Hag Tree is mentioned in the Beasten section of the 8th ed BRB ("Obscene fusions of hag-tree and gigantic mutant shriek from dozens of mouths as they snatch up their prey in their poisonous tendrils"). It's really just one of the many creatures in the Beastmen book, and as they live in the forest, a mutated tree makes the most sense.

      Delete
  14. I read through the beta version of the rules (1.02 or something) and figured this was an old version of "The 9th age". However, after looking at "the 9th age" again, I realized they were totally different.

    Now, I was a hard core 6-7th edition warhammer guy and played those 2 editions to death. Then 8th came around and destroyed warhammer for me. I've been looking ever since for an alternative but have yet to find a good one (9th age, kings of war, etc.).

    I'm very happy to see this; after a quick read through the rules, I really like what I see. Will have to continue perusing, but it seems like a very fresh take on warhammer that keeps the nice changes in 8th edition but isn't stupid (I really liked the 2d3 charge range vs. 2d6...that was an awful design choice in 8th personally).

    Regardless, just wanted to say thanks for doing this; I'm hoping to try the game out soon and find out whether it's worth the effort, but so far, I think it's on the right track!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We seem to have same kind of past with Warhammer. I also started to play it in the 6th and played 6-7th a lot. 8th always felt bit meh but Mathias is doing great job to make the game feel good again and having a lot of versatility and forgotten stuff added back.

      Delete
  15. Hey there, good to know characters can join units of same flying types, which is fantastic, but only if those mounts are available to the character. After a quick look, it is my understanding that Warhawks are not available to Wood Elf characters.... (despite them actually making a model for a spell singer on one) any chance we could have them as a mount? (And swans for halfling chiefs and a terradon for an Amazon hero and anything else I have missed, maybe flying carpets etc etc)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What model is that? The only model I am aware of the Highborn on Eagle. Warhawks are more specialised units as opposed to a generic mount. Same goes for several of the other mounts mentioned.

      Delete
    2. If you put wood elf mage on warhawk into google, the model (and images) are pretty much the first hit.I don't really get the argument of having "specialist" mounts, but that is your call, might just house rule that. Bit like my wood elf on giant owl, which uses Griffon stats. (there are some amazing giant owl models out there, too good not to use).

      Delete
    3. Ah, I see! Forgot about that model completely since it was released. I will add Warhawk as an option so people can use that model, it has always been my intention to let people use existing builds as much as possible.

      Delete
  16. Any reason Priests of the Old World is so far down the list? Wouldn't it make sense for it to come out around the same time as Empire and Knight Order Update? Or does it contain rules about gods outside the Empire (Like Elf and Dwarf gods or Chaos gods)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is simply because it's an expansion thast will take some time to put together, and I want to prioritise the main books first to those players don't have to wait as long.

      Delete
    2. can you say something about which priests will participate in the "Priests of the Old World"

      Delete
  17. in 9th, regarding split profiles, honestly I found this bit to be a little confusing, maybe because I am trying to see differences to 8th, but I think it could be expressed better. If I have a forest goblin on a Gigantic spider, then what is the stat line: I go to characters and it says look at monstrous Cavalry, I go there and it says look at cavalry, and there to split profile. Might be easier if split profile is "split out" no pun intended, and have a section on each unit type.
    As I read it now, the W characteristic of the rider is now ignored when riding monsters or monstrous beasts, which also means the model dies at once, no monster reaction tables. Previously an empire lord on a griffon had 3 (lord) + 5 (maybe 4 for the griffon), now it just has the 5 (maybe 4 really can't remember). yet in 9th the points cost of monsters to ride hasn't been reduced? And Lords riding smaller monstrous beasts will often have no W benefit.
    I also notice that cavalry no longer improves the armour save by 1, and by association neither does riding anything larger - is that deliberate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will try to clarify that a bit better.

      As for lords on monsters; while they lose out in Wounds, you do use the highest T for the rider now, as well as using any armour save and ward save for both, so it evens out.

      Yes, the removal of +1 save from being mounted is deliberate.

      Delete
  18. First of all thank you for the great work and rule updates Mathias! My friends and I have been enjoying the 9th edition immensely.

    Question about the forthcoming High Elves book. Will the next high elves edition include honors? I enjoy the customizable heroes (chaos mutations, ogre big names, etc.) for playstyle and thematic components when making armies. I hope this next edition has some of those features (and sacred spawnings when you make it back to Lizardmen).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree High Elves could use something to allow the characters to have some individual flair to them. This could apply to Dark Elves as well by giving them "Names of Power".

      Delete
    2. I don't think I will bring back the Honours to HE as they have received several characters that fill those roles already. LM will be getting back their Sacred Spawnings though.

      Delete
    3. Ahh but many players really don't like playing with special characters...

      Delete
    4. I was thinking of the Loremaster, Sea Helm and Anoited of Asuryan more. The Loremaster and Swordmaster Honours are already baked into the Loremaster character, seer is a default part of 9th ed, leaving only 3 honours in total.

      Delete
  19. So, I know it's a long way off, but what are your plans when you finally do all the Warhammer armies? Move on to a different franchise like Lord of the Rings or Warhammer 40K? Or will you stick with fantasy but just move on to different aspects of it? Like, maybe more fanon armies; or cover the stuff in Man O War, but updated for your particular style (and giving ships to your armies like Nippon and Araby as well as armies that GW never bothered to give navies to like Lizardmen, Ogres, Wood Elves, etc). And will you ever incorporate the stuff from the various WFB books and comics (because there's a lot of good stuff in there you could give rules to).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's assuming I'll ever be done with Fantasy! Most likely I will just do some smaller updates every now and then. With me and the girlfriend discussing having kids in a few years, I'm unlikely to keep publishing new material forever.

      Delete
    2. Care to eloborate on the "what"? :)

      Delete
    3. For a moment, I thought you said "I'm unlikely to keep publishing new material forever"...

      Delete
    4. Well, that's true though. I do intend to keep updating the existing material for as long as needed, but eventually I will probably have published everything there is worth to publish about WHFB. Though that's a few years down the line at least.

      Delete
    5. And then 10th Edition will begin... :)

      Delete
  20. Just out of curiousity how long do you think it will be likely until the high elf or empire book is released?

    Also wondered from the bretonnian book do all the models on the flanks get devestating charge when a cavalry unit charges? Since they fight in the first round of combat or are they classed as supporting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most likely late Nov-early Dec.

      All models that can fight get Devastating Charge.

      Delete
  21. Aré you including elector count special characteres?: feuerbach, emmanuela, hertwig, gausser? It would deserve a small multi-entry for these importante heroes in the empire book or maybe and expansion...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's possible I will make some rule smaller rules entries for these at some point. Right now, I've chosen to only include the Counts that have official models and existing rules.

      Delete
    2. Most importantly though: is the war wagon in?

      Delete
    3. Awesome! What about the herald? He has a nice model, and would be a cool bsb! And are all the elector counts (the ones with models at least) in?

      Can't wait :D

      Delete
    4. The "herald" was really just a generic standard bearer model, so it could be used as a captain BSB already.

      And yes, all Elector Counts with official models are in the book.

      Delete
    5. Actually I disagree with you here Mathias, the BSB right now is a captain, a pretty handy fighter - in all army lists. The Herald model is clearly a figurehead, a banner bearer but he looks like a strong wind would blow him over. More the typical 13th century standard bearer that stayed at the back, than the Warhammer more romanticised version that charges headlong at the front.

      Delete
    6. Oh, I agree with you on that - just saying I don't think it's necessary to include a new hero choice for only that model, in which case it's better to proxy it as a normal BSB if one wants to use it.

      Delete
    7. But it would be cool :)
      Necessary < cool!

      Delete
  22. Quick question:

    Do you intend to update the Empire General with WS 6 instead of 5?

    I just went through all of the books and it seems like everything single human faction (aside from the Norse) have WS6...

    If not then I understand.

    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, as the Empire already have the Grandmaster at WS6, I will keep the General at WS5 like he has been previously.

      Delete
  23. I didn't think of this before but I think there should be a rule in the Rulebook titled 'Golem' or 'Automaton'.

    Golems, would all have Immunity (Poisoned Attacks), Unbreakable and Unstable. Certain attacks like a Cockatrice's or Medusa's Glare or a Basilisks aura would not affect Golems. A Cockatrice staring at a rogue idol wouldn't affect it, it is already stone. Similarly, skeletons do not have eyes to see. A Golem would be things like Skeletons, Nehekhara constructs, Rogue Idols and similar. If there is any element of a living crew then it is not a Golem. A Cockatrice Glare could stop an Iron Daemon Engine by killing its crew for example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a bad idea per say, but there are already several special rules to cover it (like Undead, Unbreakable and Immunity (Poison), which Undead now have). I will clarify that on special attacks that should not affect them though.

      Delete
    2. You're making all units with the Undead rule immune to poison? When I suggested making Undead immune to poison, I didn't mean for that to include Ghouls, bats or similar things that have the Undead rule but are technically alive.

      Delete
    3. I also intend to rework "not-really-Undead" units to be more realistic like in previous editions, so this won't be an issue.

      Delete
    4. Another thought, gaze based attacks should have some form of use in close combat. The Bloodwrack Medusa and Basilisk already have a form of that but Cockatrice's and Sepulchral Stalkers are missing that ability. Perhaps simply make them able to use their shooting attack against units they are locked in combat with, an exception to the rule that units in melee can't shoot.

      Also, the Basilisk Aura of Vitriol should only affect units in base contact. If every unit involved gets affected then the Aura can gain a potentially ridiculously long range that inexplicably only works on those nearby others who are affected.

      Delete
    5. I hope you implement that the likes of Vampires and Ghous don't crumble Mahias. Having a "living" unitin an Undead army should really not be much f an issue sinec living is the game's default to begin with anyhow. Not exactly something people are not used too... :-)

      Delete
    6. Yeah, that's the idea. Still need to work out a way to keep it workable since you generally do not mix these units together, but it should be doable.

      Delete
    7. I sendt you a working solution to it earlier on the WAP page. It is doable. I've playtested it a bit earlier when I had a Legions of Nagashizzar army list going for testing etc.. :-)

      Delete
    8. Living Ghouls were the coolest unit in the vampire counts 6th ed. book. They were so handy to have units that could bait and flee and did something different from the other core blocks. 7th Ed. vampires were boring as they had yet another block unit that crumbled.

      So, my vote is 6th ed. ghouls: skirmishers, not undead (can use general's leadership, etc.) but regular stats. That would give the vampires a living unit and something interesting. Crypt Horrors could remain undead as they're something totally different at that point.

      Delete
  24. I like your thoughts here Roland, being someone that works in IT, any opportunity to abstract logic as a standardised component to be reused I think is good practice. I agree with golem for the idol. I have concerns if it were to be applied (perfectly logically I admit) to vast swathes of the Undead from a balance perspective. making sphinxes immune to poisoned attacks would be really helpful for them as that was one of the most promising techniques to use against them. having all skeletons immune to poison would help a lot. but maybe they could do with the help - they are a little underwhelming currently.
    I think there is a difference between those things held together by magic and just machines. But then we could work it that all machines have a magical element to them to enables their function which justifies the unstable rule, so you can apply it to the CD K'daai destroyer etc.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have an important doubt about the 9th edition:

    If two or more units complete a charge to a fleeing unit....
    a) do both units complete the charge with the fleeing unit at the same time? I supposed the fleeing unit lose as many wounds as the total of unit strenght of both charging units.

    b) Just one charging unit can complete the charge againts the fleeing unit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is done the same way as a normal charge with multiple units, i.e. you first declare a charge reaction against one unit and fulfill that charge, and then move onto the next charge.

      Delete
  26. Hey Matthias, is there any chance we could get those old-school Dragon Princes of Caledor from War of the Beard that ride Drakes? They were so cool.

    On an unrelated note, am I the only one who's weirded out by Merwyrms being a High Elf unit? A horrible slimy slathering thing from the ocean's depths that's barely controlled with magic sounds much more like a Dark Elf thing to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I might make an update to the War of the Beard, but dragon-riding dragon princes in the current world would brake the canon pretty hard.

      The Merwyrm was part of the Sea Guard list from Storm of Chaos actually, it even has official art work (not from Monstrous Arcanum). You'll see it as soon as their book is out, working on finalizing the Empire book now :)

      Delete
    2. "The Merwyrm was part of the Sea Guard list from Storm of Chaos"
      I'm aware. I still think it's kind of dumb.

      "working on finalizing the Empire book now :)"
      Good times. Have fun!

      Delete
  27. Hi, Mathias!
    Is there any plans to add Hand Weapon and Shield as a choice of weapon to Stormvermin like in TW:Warhammer? To make them more like a really heavy guys with 4+ Armor and parry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you looked into how the changing of the arms into regular skaven arms would fit? Could be a cool option...

      Delete
    2. I had not really planned on it, but I don't have an issue with it. I'll see about adding it in their next update.

      Delete
  28. To your knowledge, has anyone done battlescribe or similar files for all armies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all armies no, but there were Battlescribe files for Nippon among others for some of the earlier versions.

      Delete
  29. Could you clarify Skaven Weapon Teams rules pls:
    - Previously some Weapon Teams (Warpfire Thrower and Ratling Gun) were able to stand and shoot if charged - there were special mentions in rules. Can they know?
    - In 7ed Skaven warmachines were T6 because of Screaming Bell ability to inflict multiple D3 to all T7 models on the table. Did you design them giving T7 for being hit by Bell's result too now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of which, I noticed that the Mountain Guns of Estalia have Slow to Fire in their weapon profile but not Move or Fire even though war machines have Slow to Fire by default. Does that mean that Mountain Guns can be moved and fire in the same turn, because it seems to be that a profile like that is meant to specify that Mountain Guns can do so.

      Secondly, the Bretonnian lance has an issue where it doesn't specifically allow units to break the 'no more ranks than files rule'. The ability to form a conga line like thing is a big part of the lance.

      Delete
    2. - The Ratling Gun can, the Warpfire and Mortar can not as they fire using the rules for fire throwers and stone throwers respectively. I can clarify this by adding slow to fire to them.
      - Yes, this was intentional. There no reason why Skaven WM would not be T7 really, and this way, you need to make a choice whether or not you want to risk having a bell and an artillery line in the same army. The odds of getting that particular result is not too great to begin with, but it would certainly be very Skaven-y to blow up their own WM's.

      Delete
    3. I will remove slow to fire from their profile, it should really be there by default.

      I will fix it so bretonnia can have deeper units as well.

      Delete
    4. The firethrower has a profile of R -, S5, Ignores Cover, Flaming Attacks but I've noticed that the only two Fire Throwers in the game (Dwarf Flame Cannons and Chaos Dwarf Magma Cannons) have a different profile, possessing a 12" range and Multiple Wounds (D3) rather than Ignores Cover. I think you should make the rulebook profile be identical to the Dwarf/Chaos Dwarf flame throwers. The Skaven Warpfire Thrower, Dragon's Breath (from Cathay) and Siphon (from Araby) would fire as Flame Throwers but with their own, weaker profiles.

      Delete
  30. Hello Mathias!
    A quick question bout my game today: Plague Monks, Hell Pit Abomination fights Chaos Marauders. Skaven win the combat - Plague Monks have unit-strenght of 32 and Hell Pit Abomination of 5 (if I remember correctly). Marauders have strenght of 35. So do Marauders count as steadfast as having 35 vs 32(PlagueMonks) and 35 vs 5 (HellPit), or Hell Pit and Plague Monks sum up their unit strenght (up to 37) and Marauders lose their steadfast? What's correct?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I made a 24 page summary and you can download it in the WAP Google Group:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/warhammer-armies-project/fZv0uwvWlDg

    Helps a lot when I can have smaller version of the book physically with all the basic stuff.
    Hopefully I got the character mount stuff right :P

    One thing that came in my mind when I played last week, how magic banners and resurrecting fallen warriors work? Do you get the magic banner back that way or not?
    We played that you get because we couldn't find quickly anything from google about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, as you get back the standard bearer normally and that standard bearer is upgraded with a magical banner, I'd say you'd get it back actually. But I agree the rules are unclear on this.

      Delete
  32. One more thing that came in my mind:

    I think Power Drain and Detonation in Miscast table should change place between each other. I'd say Detonation is very mild compared to Power Drain and Power Drain hurts low level Wizards the most. Because it's so low, the chance of it to happening on lower level Wizards isn't fair. Level 2, 3 or 4 rolling 4-6 dice can't ever get Power Drain now but because Level 1 can only use max 3 dice, it always has a chance to lose his spell and level... that's what happened with my friends wizard last game and it felt bit unfair thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason why power drain comes first is becomes it's supposed to escalate in danger. However, I will look into nerfing power drain a bit, maybe removing the loss of spell or something like that.

      Delete
  33. Just played Tomb Kings against High Elves. HE did a very shooty list. We came in conculsion that Archers might be bit too cheap, but what's crazy cheap are the Sisters of Avelorn. 15p. for BS5, S4, Multiple Shots(2), Quick to Fire, Flaming and Magical Attacks.

    Against lightly armoured like Tomb Kings army those tear down everything.

    HE player said that the Archers might be bit cheap. Well maybe I can agree but when I asked how much those Sisters cost, well that surprised me a lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the feedback! As HE is the next army to have an army book released, this issue should be fixed soon.

      Delete
  34. Hello everybody! We are a small group of italian players that started playing with the seventh edition many years ago, took a long pause frome the game, and now are back playing.
    Many things have changed i terms of rules in the new editions, but we find thath this blog gives the most fit, non official continuation of the game that we came to love, so we have decided to stick with the rules that are given here.
    Probably the fact that we havent't been playing for a while made us a bit rusty, and we can't quite understand some rules:

    1. Line of sight (a most debated topic through the different editions, i see). Can someone be so kind to explain in detail how does it work in this edition? And if it's not much of a bother to include some examples for differet types of cover.

    2. We noticed that in the section related to the combat resolution the standard's bonus is comulative for each unit engaged in the same combat and it gives an extra +1 for each standard bearer. However in the command group section the is the opposite rule (only +1 dispite the number of standard bearers in the same fight). Which rule is the correct one?

    3. The rider and the mount are now considered as a single model and they can't be hit separately, however in the challenge section it says that if the rider is slain (assuming that tehey can be hit separately instead)than the mount must roll on the apposite chartwhich i think is now related only to the monster&handlers models. In the troop types section it is specified that the ridden monsters follow the same rules of monstrous cavalry (single model). So the question is: could monsters ridden by characters bit hit separately during challenges?

    4. "make way rule" is no longer in the characters' rules, is that correct?

    Thankyou so much for your work and for the time that you invest in order to keep this wonderful game alive! (we apologyze for any english error)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think line of sight hasn't been really thought too much. There was mention in one of the post about this:

      "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace an unblocked line from its base to the base of the target."
      I haven't really checked myself how the LoS even works in this edition or is there anything even ridden in the rulebook yet. So used to house rule that thing :P At least forests now block sight bit like in the earlier editions.

      The command group part is likely a left over bug. Same for the challenges and hitting mount or character separately.

      Delete