WHFB - 9th Edition

[snyggejygge]

1. d3 seems alot? but ah why not, finally a chance for low ini armies to beat elves at it.
2. ?? so if i charge 1 wolf in a flank, a horde of spearmen loses steadfast? rather unlikely and unfair. Steadfast is a hard issue to balance. I think its needed but also needs to be balanced and nerfd in somekind of way.
5. what? whuwhuwhuuuuaat?? oh noes, even more miscasting and failing? Its already so fickle and unreliable, cant have it even worse. Our supedupertrained magicians actually all suck at the art of magic. No one can actually control it properly unless your name is Tactless or Doombullshit Warlock.

No, it would only occur if you already disrupted the unit, meaning disrupting steadfast would require a unit with 2 full ranks.

Yes more miscasting if you roll a lot of Dices, I prefer the smaller spells such as boons, hexes, fireballs, etc etc, Dreaded Thirtenth, Mindrazor & Purple sun are not balanced spells, as long as those are unbalanced, the magicphase needs to be punished harder, if however they tone down the spells & add some use to the magicresistance, then ofc this wouldn´t be needed.

 

[Blutsauger]

I agree. The main reason spells like Purple Sun and Dwellers Below exist is to prevent people from creating a deathstar unit and completely dominating the game. But if you were to make it so that disrupted units cannot be steadfast, you've gone a long way already to discourage deathstar units.

 

[Swissdictator]

I would like to see a benefit for being steadfast for the unstable rule.

I figure just less guys crumble. Would probably just another -1 crumble (just as we get for having a BSB), d3 or d6 less crumble, or the more extreme (how many additional ranks). -D3 crumble seems good enough to be a notable benefit, without being too much either.

 

[Duke Danse Macabre]

I would like to see a benefit for being steadfast for the unstable rule.

I figure just less guys crumble. Would probably just another -1 crumble (just as we get for having a BSB), d3 or d6 less crumble, or the more extreme (how many additional ranks). -D3 crumble seems good enough to be a notable benefit, without being too much either.

Not as sure on the less for crumble but I do agree there should be a benefit, E.G. for every rank we get an extra D6 hits against the enemy unit at strength 3 as they try to drag their foes down before being trod into the mud, exactly like out army is meant to work.

 

[Kromul]

I agree with everyone else on having crumble improved. It need something more to feel right, atm it's just too punishing
On the other hand, maybe change some magic here and there, specially the infamous nuke spells we all already know and, maybe, something that resolves the current 6-dicing level 2 mages suiciding to get that nuke on you.

 

[Swissdictator]

I would like an errata to change invocation. It should be like the 6th ed version. Three levels (basic 1d6, 2d6, and 3d6... and it could work out similarly for other units (Ie 1/2/3 wounds)) that target only one unit. I'm only ever really wanting to buff 1-2 units anyways. The only downside to that change is the Corpse Cart may need to be tweaked.

 

[najo]

I think the more logical change with steadfast and our units is to have fear be harder to resist or automatic. Then we cause more wounds and suffer less crumble.

I personally find that our IoN and crumble is about right. I end a lot of games fully healed. In a recent tournament I played against two warriors of chaos armies ran by good generals. First game lost nothing but my dire wolves and I tabled him. Second game I tabled him too but lost about a third of my army. With IoN boosted to be like 6th, I would rarely lose units honestly. I think VC would be broken.

 

[goat64804]

Would like to see brettonians redone.

 

[crimsonsun]

I would like to see a huge number of changes but my hopes are seriously unrealistic (especially in terms of removing random charge distance). So this will be my list of changes that are more possible though still highly unlikely.

1. Bring back Unit Strength
2. Disruption removes Steadfast, in addition to ranks is unit is engaged to the front.
3. flank Charges require Unit Strength 20 cause Disruption.
4. Rear Charges require Unit Strength 10 Cause Disruption.
5. Rank Bonus max changed to +5
6. Hordes count double rank bonus (max +10)
7. Battle Standards reroll Panic, Rally and Break tests only
8. General Death causes Army wide Panic Test.
9. All core book Magic lores reduced in power, no spells ignore Ward Saves.
10. Remove 12 Power dice Limit, winds of magic roll 2d6 per 3000points in play.
11. Bound Spells auto cast at power level detailed, on a 1-2 runs out of power.
12. Unstable only applies once, and is split equally to units in a combat.
13. Cannons need to roll to hit, misses must be scattered to determine the point from which the bounce beings.
14. Magic resistance provides a number of dispel dice equal to value against any spell that effects them though, units affected before them are still affected normally.
15. More Universal Magic Items.
16. Allow Lord level wizards a Familiar or equivalent as a standard upgrade, also give all wizards a variable scroll/power stone item limit in addition (50points) to their magic item allowance (though they are not purchasable via other means).
17. Make magic Items be limited by number not points cost again, so 3 for a lord 2 for a Hero or Wizard lord and 1 for normal wizards and anyone else thats allowed them.
18. Put all equipment and Armour in the Core Rules, along with all the Racial Magic Items - This will massively reduce the chances of unbalanced items or equipment.
19. Units that cannot be hurt by there opponents will never count as having a combat result worse than a draw.
20. Make 1+ Saves automatic again.

There are loads of Army Specific changes I would like to see as well as rules for formations and Equipment being reworked but that is worthy of a thread of its own really....

crimsonsun

 

[Blutsauger]

Some of those are a bit... interesting.

 

[Adam_Barrow]

@Crimson Somebody misses 6th edition.

 

[najo]

I think the fix to MR is easy, keep how it affects ward saves vs spells but also add the Mr to the casting value needed if a MR unit is targeted.

Honestly, if we want to scale magic we need something that allows power dice to be generated by the wizards. We need the pros of 8th (bound pools) with the pros of the new 40k (scalability and individual power dice), without ending up at 7th edition again.

Maybe the problem are dispel pools altogether. Is there an easy way to get rid of dispel pools but leave in tactical dispelling?

 

[Gatti]

About magic, I am actually in favor of the nuke spells, and this is coming from a person who never uses nuke spells himself. I like that it makes it dangerous to take deathstars, which IMO lead to an unfun game. Allowing ward saves vs nukes will NOT solve the deatstar problem, it will only make MR items much more common (lack of ward saves are the ONLY thing that allows Daemons to counter the BOWD horde, lets not make that item more powerful). If we remove the auto death aspect of it, then gutstars are more powerful too, so that also would push the game more towards deathstars which just isn't fun.

However, the way Nuke spells are so easily cast is a problem, so that should be reworked. It doesn't make sense that someone can 6-dice dwellers or sun every turn and reliably expect their mage to live all game.

My idea?

Firstly, throne's ignore miscast aspect should be taken out, as miscasts should punish the player based on how aggressive they are being with magic dice. Ignoring miscast on a 2+ would allow dwellers spam again, which isn't tactics, its dice rolling.

Double 6 is a miscast and spell automatically cast (but not IF). Double 6 AND meet the minimum casting value is IF and Miscast.

Miscast table is D6 + number of dice used, and rework the miscast table to be something like:

3-4: Detonation (S10 to all models in base contact and D6 dice lost)
5-6: All mages take a S6 hit
7: Small template S10 hit and D6 dice lost
8-9: Lose D3 wizard levels and auto forget the miscast spell plus 1-2 other random spells.
10-12: Large template S10 and wizard swallowed by realm of chaos on a dice roll.

Here, the miscast is proportional to how many dice you use. Because 6-6 can be dispelled if you don't meet the casting value, it makes 6-dicing with a LV 1 at the nuke spell less reliable, so most high casting value spells can only be reliably cast with IF by a LV 4.

If you 6-dice with a LV 4 to make the 25+ to cast spell go off, you have a 1/6 chance of a small template, a 1/3 chance or forgetting the spell, and a 1/4 chance of your mage being swallowed by the realm of chaos. You can likely only expect to cast the nuke spell 1-2 times per game before your mage either forgets the spell or dies (3 if you are lucky).

Suddenly, tactics come back into the game despite the presence of nuke spells. You have to weigh the cost/benefit of potentially losing your mage or forgetting the spell. The miscast table would discourage the nuke spells except in certain circumstances where the benefit of the spell outweighs the danger.

For example: If you are facing a full deathstar of 40 lions with 2-3 characters in it, dwellers is worth casting. However, if your opponent has only a mage bunker of 18 archers with his LV 4, dwellers likely has too much of a risk.

Anyway, that was my idea for a way to change magic to keep the spells that discourage deathstars without allowing them to be as game-breaking as they are now.
Thoughts?

 

[Powl]

I like it! I agree the effects of a miscast should be more severe when you're throwing 6 dice on a spell and actually hope for that double 6, than being unlucky and end up with double 6 on 2 dice.

 

[Kromul]

@Gatti Woah! I agree with your vision about nuking and miscasts. Really good food for thought... let's hope GW makes something similar to your ideas in 9th edition

 

[najo]

Something I just thought of, if nuke spells were riskier to cast, then they no longer discourage deathstars and they become a dead spell in your hand.

Maybe the key is fine tuning both the nukes and the regiment rules.

1) Allow ward saves on nukes.
2) disruption should break steadfast
3) units give up victory points at halfway point

 

[Gatti]

Well, I think the change would have 2 overall effects on the game.
1) It would discourage 6 dicing a spell. 6 dicing a spell for IF removes tactics from the game by preventing your opponent from dispelling. The goal isn't to necessarily make nuke spells impossible to cast, but rather to punish the player who tries to force through a nuke spell with IF. Throwing less than 6 dice decreases the change of an IF pretty dramatically, but with a min casting value of 18 for dwellers or okkams, 15 for sun and final trans, its possible to reach the min value with a 4 dice cast (but its still difficult with a LV 1). Meanwhile, if you by chance miscast with 4 dice, there is only a 1/12 chance of losing your mage (which is the same as the current probability) but 2/3 chance of not getting to cast that spell again. Punishing, but not necessarily devastating. The key point, I think, is that throwing only 4 or 5 dice at an attempt makes it much less likely to cast with IF, and therefore gives your opponent a chance to dispel.

This, then, makes the magic phase much more tactical. Can you get your opponent to waste dispel dice on another spell then get off your nuke? Or otherwise, can you cast it and force your opponent to dispel, only to then cast another 3 smaller spells when he uses up all DD on the first spell you cast? It would make it more of a balancing act, rather than a case of "there's nothing you can do, now remove half your unit."

Also, the unboosted spells often have shorter range, making it less likely to go off turn 1 (nothing is worse than losing your general and half his unit before you even get to move). You need to position much more carefully when you are trying to cast a shorter range spell with a potentially fragile mage. So that, once again, makes the game more tactical.

2) It makes it so it is STILL POSSIBLE to force through a spell with 6 dice. Unlike with ETC where 6 dicing a nuke is illegal, its still legal here, but very punishing. You have it as an option if you are in a situation where its worth losing your mage to get the spell off. If your opponent put himself in a situation where forcing through a nuke spell can win you the game, then you are free to throw 6 dice at it and capitalize on his (or her) mistake. But you then must be aware that you will likely only get 1 shot at that IF nuke, so it better be worth it.

These two points bring it to a place where its difficult for your opponent to cast spells that you have no chance at dispelling. If you take a deathstar, expect someone to try to force through a big spell on you because its worth the risk. If, however, you spread your points and your characters, giving them no valuable targets, then your opponent will be unlikely to throw 6 at a spell because it won't be rewarding enough to risk his LV 4. Much more tactical of a phase IMO.

@najo I like your changes (except for the first change), but I don't think they necessarily balance deathstars and magic.

1) Allowing ward saves on nukes would just make MR items mandatory in deathstars. It would make the nukes less powerful, but it would also make deathstars better. In fact, it would reward stacking characters in the same unit, because that way one MR item carries over to all the characters. There would be no risk to having all characters in the same unit, as they would all get the benefit of MR.

If they also changed MR to give extra DD (to prevent ward saves in big units), well then the game mechanics just start to reward people even more for 6-dicing spells again as MR would then be useless. In either case, whether MR gives ward saves, or counts as DD, it changes the game to make it less tactical (reward deathstars or reward 6-dicing).

2) I love this idea, and I think they should implement it. I would love for flanks and rear charges to actually matter! I don't like that deep units can march into enemy territory and give up flank charges only to say "Oh, I'm steadfast!" Flank protection should matter more. I also think that steadfast should work more like 7th ed stubborn. Ie, when you lose combat, you either use the OWN UNIT'S unmodified LD, or the general's modified LD, whichever is higher.

Maybe they should even make being charged in the flank count for -1 to enemy's LD instead of +1 CR (and rear charge counts for -2 LD). This would make being flank charged by fear causing enemy more devastating, and would circumvent steadfast/stubborn. It wouldn't matter for calculating who wins but just be a straight up negative to enemy's LD. It would cause the same net effect as it does now if you break steadfast, but it would also mean much more if you flank charge but don't disrupt.

This doesn't fix deathstars, though, since most deathstars are stubborn anyway thanks to the crown, and therefore don't rely on steadfast. I do think they should remove the crown from the game, as cheap stubborn just makes the game less tactical. But even if they did, most good deathstars also don't lose combat, so that isn't going to work to discourage them.

3) 100% agree here. I'm not a fan of pts denial tactics.

 

[najo]

I do like the idea of degree of miscast based on number of dice you use. I think that rewards tactical casting and punishes boring magic phases where you just six-dice everything. Another option, you could have miscast occur on double 1's and IF occur on double 6's, that way you run the risk of getting miscasts without IF. Then one of the six-diced miscast results is spell fails even if you got IF. Another interesting thing, 2-3 dice miscast with a result of 4 could only suck you into the warp 1/3 of the time, 4-5 1/2 the time and on 6 dice 2/3 the time. Simple adjustments that have huge effects!

 

[Taki]

I'd like 3 changes to the general rules and 2 changes to magic.

Make armor penetration happen at S5 not 4
Make random move 2d6 take the highest plus M.
Make terrain matter and be less random.

For magic, I want to see a shift to the way 40k does it. D6 power/dispel pool. Channel equal to Magic Level (minimum 1 for priests etc), gaining a power die on each 4+ and for the defender a dispel die on a 6+

Then change lore attributes to do a lot more for the wizard. For example I would make fire give the wizard flaming sword of ruin always on for the wizard, all his attacks count as flaming, regardless the source, and if this wizard miscasts he suffers d3 additional S4 flaming hits. Or Metal wizards, all your attacks regardless the source wound on a 4+, no armor saves except scaly skin, thrown weapons; if he miscasts he causes himself one wound no armor save and permanently reduces his armor save by 1(if he has one). Then you have a use for taking a level one, that doesn't overshadow a level 4's job

 

[Blutsauger]

They used to magic generation like that in WHFB. You started with, what was it, two power dice? And then added one for every magic level in your army.

It was utterly, utterly broken. You could guarantee 18+ power dice with some armies, and since WHFB spells are much more devastating than 40K psychic powers, it was a complete balls up.

 

[najo]

Yeah, I have to agree with blutsauger. 6th & 7th had 2 dice plus all of your magic levels as power dice and 2 dice plus 1 or 2 dice (half your level round up) depending on level for dispel. It was pretty lopsided.

The best thing about 8th is how it binds power and dispel together. That's fairly good. The worst part is that it doesn't scale up or down very well, it doesn't easily allow for multiplayer and it favors maxed level 4s and 2s for casting rolls.

What would be ideal is a system that has the scalability of 6/7, the bound pools of 8th, and level play a less important role so its a tough choice to take a level or not.

 

[Blutsauger]

Yeah, I have to agree with blutsauger. 6th & 7th had 2 dice plus all of your magic levels as power dice and 2 dice plus 1 or 2 dice (half your level round up) depending on level for dispel. It was pretty lopsided.

The best thing about 8th is how it binds power and dispel together. That's fairly good. The worst part is that it doesn't scale up or down very well, it doesn't easily allow for multiplayer and it favors maxed level 4s and 2s for casting rolls.

What would be ideal is a system that has the scalability of 6/7, the bound pools of 8th, and level play a less important role so its a tough choice to take a level or not.

What are your thoughts on changing the casting/dispelling rolls so that instead of adding your casting level, you simply add +1 if you are a higher level than your opponent? Or something like that. It's still a free bonus for being a higher level, there's still an incentive to take a level four, but it's not quite so lopsided.

 

[najo]

What are your thoughts on changing the casting/dispelling rolls so that instead of adding your casting level, you simply add +1 if you are a higher level than your opponent? Or something like that. It's still a free bonus for being a higher level, there's still an incentive to take a level four, but it's not quite so lopsided.

I think the real key might be getting rid of pools and bonuses altogether. What if wizards get 1 spell per level and they can cast any number of them by making a casting check. Each spell after the first increases the casting value of the next spell by 2 pts.

Each spell you choose to roll up to 6 dice to cast. Number of dice determines miscast effect. Any enemy wizard within 24" of your caster can attempt to dispell. A wizard attempting rolls up to six dice. Dispels can miscast too.

Its not quite right, but the idea is disconnect from the winds of magic and magic level bonuses.

Any ideas on refining?

 

[Blutsauger]

I think the real key might be getting rid of pools and bonuses altogether. What if wizards get 1 spell per level and they can cast any number of them by making a casting check. Each spell after the first increases the casting value of the next spell by 2 pts.

Each spell you choose to roll up to 6 dice to cast. Number of dice determines miscast effect. Any enemy wizard within 24" of your caster can attempt to dispell. A wizard attempting rolls up to six dice. Dispels can miscast too.

Its not quite right, but the idea is disconnect from the winds of magic and magic level bonuses.

Any ideas on refining?

Kind of like how magic works in War of the Ring?

Each wizard knows a set number of spells. Each spell has a difficulty rating. After casting each spell, you need to check for it's difficulty rating (From memory, and it's been a while, I think this is how it works) by rolling a D6.

If you fail, you can't cast any more spells. So you have the choice, do you try and cast a few little spells first, knowing that you might fail your difficulty check before you get to cast any big spells, or do you cast your big spell first, knowing that it's likely to be the only spell that wizard will cast this turn?

From memory, difficulty ratings in WotR were on a D6 scale. So a lvl 2 spell was easy to cast, while a level 6 was difficult. The catch being that all spells were automatically cast. You only took the test AFTER the spell was cast, to see if you could then cast another.

There's some potential there for WHFB I think. You could make all spells automatically cast, but each time a wizard casts a spell he then has to take a focus test. He rolls, say, 2D6 and compares that to the focus requirement for that particular spell. If he passes, he may cast another spell. If he fails, then he cannot.

To dispell, a wizard would have to roll 2D6 and compare it to the enemy wizards focus result. If the dispelling wizard is a higher level than the casting wizard, then he may add +1 to his dispell roll. If he is a lower level, then he must subtract one from his roll.

It's a rough framework, but I think I like it. It scales well, it gives every army a good opportunity to be active in the magic phase both attacking and defending, it rewards higher level casters (beyond simply giving them more spells) and it prevents your magical investment being completely screwed by a crappy winds of magic roll. Every wizard you have would be able to attempt at least a single spell each magic phase.

It would make it a bit hard to get any spells off, however. If you're spending 300 points in a lvl 4 wizard, you want to see some return on your investment. Maybe if we made it that the dispelling wizard must exceed (rather than equal) the focus roll of the casting wizard? Then a lower level wizard attempting to dispell a higher level is starting with a -2 disadvantage.

 

[najo]

I like the +1 if higher and -1 if lower on the dispel roll.

Here is some other ideas to throw in the pot:

What if wizards still roll 2d6 when casting spells and spells were not automatic. What if the only way to dispel a spell is with another wizard within 24"? You roll 2d6 to dispell. Then you need something to boost casting and dispell rolls by d6 or 2d6 etc, but subtler than power and dispel dice. Something that scales but makes you make hard decisions using it. What if each wizard started the game with their mastery level in power dice and then use them for both casting and dispelling? Dice are per wizard, used by wizard and only regain dice by channeling. Channelling is you don't move, roll a d6 per mastery level and then each 6 is a dice gained. You can only hold up to your mastery level in dice by default. If you want to cast another spell in the same round, then you have to pull from these extra dice.

Thoughts?

What would these changes do to wizards tactically?