Joined
·
9,222 Posts
A lot of people have been taking stabs at what 9th edition is going to do about these new combined-statlined beasties. I've been giving it a lot of thought, personally, because it's strange to me and I'm a grumpy sort of person who doesn't like change. I think I may have come up with a few games related changes that we'll see in 9th. In other words, what these new models are actually heralding. Mostly, 3 changes to the rules, and the last bit covers how the game might change overall.
Rule: Ridden Monsters
Will now use the "Monstrous Cavalry" style rules. They will get the WS, Ini, Ld, and Save of the rider. They get the Toughness of the Mount. They use the total wounds of both the rider and the Mount. They also use the combined attacks of the rider and the mount.
To ease the transition, the number of attacks provided by the mount will probably be capped somewhere - something like +4A, based on what I've seen from the new Chaos Lords. As new Armybooks roll out, Dragons and other monster mount options won't have as many attacks, they'll just cap themselves. By the time we see 10th edition, the actual "cap rule" will be gone, and all monstrous mounts will be limited to having no more Attacks than the cap previously allowed.
Monsters which have special rules for their CC attacks will likely be allowed to keep them, but newer books will not have those rules unless they are specifically price-balanced to mesh with the rider. This means that initially, 8e monster-mounts which have no additional attack-based special rules are probably going to feel overpriced and somewhat unpopular, while mounts which do bring certain special rules to the table are going to be the new black, until they get a 9e book to rebalance them.
The can also see them putting some kind of limit on Magic Items for Monstrous Mount characters. Most likely, you cannot take a Magic Weapon or Armor when riding a Monster, and your Wardsave is limited to no better than a 5+ (or simply getting rid of the Talisman of Preservation from the Commons, since most ABs don't have 4++ Talismans anyways, and those that do will disappear upon update).
Rule: Monstrous Infantry
Is probably here to stay, although I'm not positive how it's going to work out. I have a feeling that we're going to see 'Stomp' and 'Monstrous Infantry' become two separate rules. That, or the entire concept of 'Monstrous Infantry' is going to become vestigial in 9th, and be gone by 10th as it's phased out. It is probably going to be replaced by changes to the Supporting Attacks rules, or we're going to see an end to Supporting Attacks altogether (I know, but we'll get to that). 3W infantry like the new Blightkings is definitely something I think that we'll see more of, but I have a feeling that we're not getting the full breadth of what the Blightkings are, just yet. As it stands, they're a pretty garbage Infantry unit, but if they get full Supporting Attacks (or everyone else loses them), and they get Stomp (or everyone else loses it) then they suddenly become quite good.
Initially, I thought that all of those rules were here to stay, because the Undead Legions picked up some Monstrous Infantry models. However, like I said - I have a feeling that if Monstrous Infantry stays, it's going to carry a lot less weight than it did in 8th, and will probably be largely phased out by the end of 9th.
Rule: Composition
I fully expect to see Lords and Heroes combined into a straight 50%. The differentiation between Lords and Heroes is probably going to be phased out by 10th edition anyways, and basically supplemented by the idea that you have 2W characters, and then 3W who can ride monsters. It will start to free up a lot of what we're already seeing in the newer books. For example, you will have non-standard allowanced for magic items, things like 25pts and 75pts rather than the straight 50/100. Also, we'll see oddball statlines, like "Heroes" with 4A and "Lords" with just 2W, etc. Whether those things come to pass is still up in the air, obviously, but it's the fact that it will become more "acceptable" if they do away with the black-and-white division between Lords and Heroes.
We should also expect allies, in some capacity. I would prefer if they gave strict allied rules for a handful of archetypes in the core rulebook or in the updated armybooks (probably both, with the ABs saying to replace the Core rules). The "Undead Legions" is going to become an option. Likewise, we'll probably start seeing "Chaos Legions". I would personally like to see differnet "levels" of alliance, from things like the Undead and Chaos books which can mix freely, to things like Empire and Dwarfs who have a few more restrictions. Most likely, however, they'll just allow free mixing of certain armies, based on a chart. I expect many of the charts to be largely binary, as in, 2-3 armies mixing together, and no cross pollination between them. So most likely:
Tomb Kings + Vampire Counts
Beastmen + Warriors + Daemons
Empire + Dwarfs
Brets + Wood Elves
as the obvious "givens". That leaves:
High Elves + Lizardmen (which is fluffy, but an odd one)
Dark Elves + ???*
O&G + ???**
Skaven + ???
Ogres + Any (return to mercenaries)
*I can actually imagine a full Elf list. Something where Wood Elves can ally with either High or Dark Elves, but I went way out on a limb and said that if the Dark Elves are included in an End Times book, we might actually see a sort of "Khainite" army mixing Dark and High Elves, and that might carry into 9th as a sort of "pre-sundering" army. Doubtful. My guess is that they'll share Wood Elves, or that Dark Elves might be allowed to ally with Slaanesh Daemons specifically.
**O&G could be allowed to ally with Dwarfs to create a sort of Chaos Dwarf army, but again - doubtful. I'm really hoping that they get something in the End Times book which helps to point out what direction they might go. I would really hate to see any Tyranid-style armies who simply cannot make an alliance.
Changes: Game
Welcome back to Hero-Hammer. Kinda. A lot of these rules would allow the game to return to smaller units. I'm not saying that we're going to lose Steadfast or Hordes, but the simple the loss of Supporting Attacks would be enough to cut a full rank off of each regiment before factoring in the lessened damage output of enemies. Meanwhile, 50% Heroes along with the temptation to really take some big monster-riders would mean that most armies end up as a single center-piece character taking up nearly 50% of your list, and then a spattering of small regiments around his feet.
That's what they're probably pushing, at least. What I'm expecting to see, is 3k becoming the new 2.5, so that we can afford to chuck a few more Heroes in around that big monster. That big monster, in the meantime, won't catch on unless they also fix the rules for cannons to keep them from scaring all the monsters off the table. And that is going to be the tipping point for 9th: is it the end of auto-hit cannons?
BIG GRAIN OF SALT
(take two, and call me in the morning with your opinions)
Rule: Ridden Monsters
Will now use the "Monstrous Cavalry" style rules. They will get the WS, Ini, Ld, and Save of the rider. They get the Toughness of the Mount. They use the total wounds of both the rider and the Mount. They also use the combined attacks of the rider and the mount.
To ease the transition, the number of attacks provided by the mount will probably be capped somewhere - something like +4A, based on what I've seen from the new Chaos Lords. As new Armybooks roll out, Dragons and other monster mount options won't have as many attacks, they'll just cap themselves. By the time we see 10th edition, the actual "cap rule" will be gone, and all monstrous mounts will be limited to having no more Attacks than the cap previously allowed.
Monsters which have special rules for their CC attacks will likely be allowed to keep them, but newer books will not have those rules unless they are specifically price-balanced to mesh with the rider. This means that initially, 8e monster-mounts which have no additional attack-based special rules are probably going to feel overpriced and somewhat unpopular, while mounts which do bring certain special rules to the table are going to be the new black, until they get a 9e book to rebalance them.
The can also see them putting some kind of limit on Magic Items for Monstrous Mount characters. Most likely, you cannot take a Magic Weapon or Armor when riding a Monster, and your Wardsave is limited to no better than a 5+ (or simply getting rid of the Talisman of Preservation from the Commons, since most ABs don't have 4++ Talismans anyways, and those that do will disappear upon update).
Rule: Monstrous Infantry
Is probably here to stay, although I'm not positive how it's going to work out. I have a feeling that we're going to see 'Stomp' and 'Monstrous Infantry' become two separate rules. That, or the entire concept of 'Monstrous Infantry' is going to become vestigial in 9th, and be gone by 10th as it's phased out. It is probably going to be replaced by changes to the Supporting Attacks rules, or we're going to see an end to Supporting Attacks altogether (I know, but we'll get to that). 3W infantry like the new Blightkings is definitely something I think that we'll see more of, but I have a feeling that we're not getting the full breadth of what the Blightkings are, just yet. As it stands, they're a pretty garbage Infantry unit, but if they get full Supporting Attacks (or everyone else loses them), and they get Stomp (or everyone else loses it) then they suddenly become quite good.
Initially, I thought that all of those rules were here to stay, because the Undead Legions picked up some Monstrous Infantry models. However, like I said - I have a feeling that if Monstrous Infantry stays, it's going to carry a lot less weight than it did in 8th, and will probably be largely phased out by the end of 9th.
Rule: Composition
I fully expect to see Lords and Heroes combined into a straight 50%. The differentiation between Lords and Heroes is probably going to be phased out by 10th edition anyways, and basically supplemented by the idea that you have 2W characters, and then 3W who can ride monsters. It will start to free up a lot of what we're already seeing in the newer books. For example, you will have non-standard allowanced for magic items, things like 25pts and 75pts rather than the straight 50/100. Also, we'll see oddball statlines, like "Heroes" with 4A and "Lords" with just 2W, etc. Whether those things come to pass is still up in the air, obviously, but it's the fact that it will become more "acceptable" if they do away with the black-and-white division between Lords and Heroes.
We should also expect allies, in some capacity. I would prefer if they gave strict allied rules for a handful of archetypes in the core rulebook or in the updated armybooks (probably both, with the ABs saying to replace the Core rules). The "Undead Legions" is going to become an option. Likewise, we'll probably start seeing "Chaos Legions". I would personally like to see differnet "levels" of alliance, from things like the Undead and Chaos books which can mix freely, to things like Empire and Dwarfs who have a few more restrictions. Most likely, however, they'll just allow free mixing of certain armies, based on a chart. I expect many of the charts to be largely binary, as in, 2-3 armies mixing together, and no cross pollination between them. So most likely:
Tomb Kings + Vampire Counts
Beastmen + Warriors + Daemons
Empire + Dwarfs
Brets + Wood Elves
as the obvious "givens". That leaves:
High Elves + Lizardmen (which is fluffy, but an odd one)
Dark Elves + ???*
O&G + ???**
Skaven + ???
Ogres + Any (return to mercenaries)
*I can actually imagine a full Elf list. Something where Wood Elves can ally with either High or Dark Elves, but I went way out on a limb and said that if the Dark Elves are included in an End Times book, we might actually see a sort of "Khainite" army mixing Dark and High Elves, and that might carry into 9th as a sort of "pre-sundering" army. Doubtful. My guess is that they'll share Wood Elves, or that Dark Elves might be allowed to ally with Slaanesh Daemons specifically.
**O&G could be allowed to ally with Dwarfs to create a sort of Chaos Dwarf army, but again - doubtful. I'm really hoping that they get something in the End Times book which helps to point out what direction they might go. I would really hate to see any Tyranid-style armies who simply cannot make an alliance.
Changes: Game
Welcome back to Hero-Hammer. Kinda. A lot of these rules would allow the game to return to smaller units. I'm not saying that we're going to lose Steadfast or Hordes, but the simple the loss of Supporting Attacks would be enough to cut a full rank off of each regiment before factoring in the lessened damage output of enemies. Meanwhile, 50% Heroes along with the temptation to really take some big monster-riders would mean that most armies end up as a single center-piece character taking up nearly 50% of your list, and then a spattering of small regiments around his feet.
That's what they're probably pushing, at least. What I'm expecting to see, is 3k becoming the new 2.5, so that we can afford to chuck a few more Heroes in around that big monster. That big monster, in the meantime, won't catch on unless they also fix the rules for cannons to keep them from scaring all the monsters off the table. And that is going to be the tipping point for 9th: is it the end of auto-hit cannons?
BIG GRAIN OF SALT
(take two, and call me in the morning with your opinions)
