Librarium Online Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I don't really think that we should expect to see generic characters and mounts share the same profile. Perhaps for those few special characters (already seen in the first End Times book).

Not to sure about Monstrous infantry and what changes will occur.

As to rule composition, I was told that there are going to be 4 or 5 books. We've already seen the Undead so I expect that we'll see a:

Legions of Chaos - Beastmen, Warriors and Daemons book
Armies of the Old Ones - Elves and Lizardmen
Realms of the Old World - Empire, Dwarfs and Bretonnia

and the fifth book, if there is on, will cover OG, Ogres and Skaven
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,093 Posts
I don't know why you're trying to predict 10th. It seems unlikely that GW would release 9th edition rules as a deliberate stepping stone towards planned 10th edition rules.

Many particular suggestions seem plausible though. It looks as if monster and rider profiles will get revamped. We may also see significant changes to monstrous infantry (which will possibly necessitate a new Ogre army book, but that's not implausible). I'm not so sure about going back to a combined 50% character allowance though. In some ways, it would be good as it would give more flexibility, but it also means you may see some uber-hero characters. Perhaps it would work with an additional cap on the points of any single character model, but I doubt we'd see that because it would make Nagash nearly unsuable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
I pretty much agree with Ben, and intact captain I'm sure you've done a big u turn in your predictions that army books wouldn't merge.- but hey ;)

I personally believe that the combined stat line is here to stay, and as you say captain certain beasts might allow a stackable stat to the existing lord or hero, but also I'm with you captain in believing that the magic items will thin out even further, perhaps in order to stop the rampaging hero scenario.

What I do hope is that the cannon rules change. Having been on the receiving end of the two cannon army who aims two inches behind my warrior block which is in combat and what do you know scatter into it, we all know its not much fun.

There was also rumour talk of going to round bases and LOTR style movement trays in order to save costs, but I can't believe that.

I'm going to keep optimistic, and say that these are exciting times, the models coming out have moved into another league, and a big phase shift is happening to the GW universe both 40k and fantasy in order to set it up for another good few editions. Who knows, perhaps they just want to make it fun again. Lets face it, we all love a big model and cool looking stuff.

Oh and captain... have you applied for the CEO job yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,422 Posts
- If indeed the combined rider + mount profiles happen, then while it'll be a huge boon for those models and we might even see *gasp* dragon riding heroes & other ridden mounts return to the game, I can't help but realise that Greater Daemons will now become and even more massive joke than they currently are...
Of course, if ridden monsters get an 'uber buff, then hopefully it might force GW's hand to finally give us proper models for those Greater Daemons since the current ones barely come up to a Giant's waistline.

- No way Magic Items get marginalised in a game where freaking Magic plays a critical role in the Warhammer World's very fabric of being!
If anything, I could see us getting a slightly expanded Common Magic Items list, while the books themselves keep to the current 8-12 format.

- I call BS on the whole 'Fantasy is moving to 40k styled circle bases' rumors... GW is in the business of wanting to see us as much unneeded crap as they can. Making Fantasy more 40k-like means vastly reducing the number of models we'll use & thus buy.
Besides, there's far too much variance across the various units than in 40k for this to realistically work... In 40k, 10 Orks can charge into a unit of 10 Marines and still come out roughly even in kills. Across another combat phase or two, while the Orks will inevitably lose, they'll still typically take 50-60% or more of that Marine unit with them.
In Fantasy though, 10 Orks will get utterly pasted by 10 basic Chaos Warriors.
Fantasy would need 100% fundamental changes to how the entire close combat phase works to allow for a more 40k styled play... plus, what freaking SKAVEN! player is going to suddenly re-base their 250-300+ model army?!! (won't someone think of the rat-children?!!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
i totally agree E626, the whole round bases thing I think is rubbish, I really hope so I really really do.
but I do think that there is a pronounced effort to make 'cool stuff' more attractive to field. Lets face it, whenever anyone takes or suggests cool stuff the first thing they get told is no, because.. cannons.
I really hope those rules change. Are combined stats the answer? - probably not, after all, guy brings more cannons, and instead of one cannon firing at your greater, now you have three.

I don't think Captain was saying that magic items per se will get marginalised, but I do agree that perhaps as Captain says the talisman of preservation and its ilk might disappear if only to speed up those challenges locked in combat for all eternity builds.

I also don't buy into this getting into the game cheaper by less models. The army box is a great starting point and will do for 1000 points, how cheap do you want it? The standard 40k game is 1500pts, the wfb 2000. But I bet the money that a 40k player doesn't spend in boots on the ground they spend on vehicles and artillery.

There's going to be massive upheaval thats for sure, but the lay of the land won't be clear till End Times End. and by then you're into fantasy's 32nd birthday, so it'll be one hell of a ride whatever happens!

(which makes me of similar age to a tomb king I suppose, as I had as a present the first edition rules when they came out! - in my defence I was not even into my teens then!).
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I don't know why you're trying to predict 10th. It seems unlikely that GW would release 9th edition rules as a deliberate stepping stone towards planned 10th edition rules.
I'm not trying to predict 10th so much as the books which will drop following 9th. And there is a tendency to have a few "stepping-stone" rules in between editions. 7th->8th was a pretty big shakeup compared to the jumps from 5th->6th->7th. It also makes sense when you consider that if they phase a rule out, why would they continue printing it in the ABs? And then, once that happens, is it easier to get it back, or just let it die?

Look at WHFB army selection. My Brets book still tells me how many Core units I need to have in a 2000pt game, because it was published before the current percentage system. None of the other books have that. Likewise, if they change a rule in 9th (monsters grant +A rather than use their own) every book dropped in 9th will likely cap monsters at that value of attacks, by 10th they could just write "monsters add their attacks value to the riders". In this situation, it would definitely be a boon for GW, because it means that in 10th they could start releasing "uber monsters" with more than X attacks.

I'm not so sure about going back to a combined 50% character allowance though. In some ways, it would be good as it would give more flexibility, but it also means you may see some uber-hero characters. Perhaps it would work with an additional cap on the points of any single character model, but I doubt we'd see that because it would make Nagash nearly unsuable.
I don't think we'll see character point caps - it's too complicated, and it would hurt some armies (Chaos, Elves, etc). Rather, if they just throw everything into one big combined pool, I think we'll start to see those nonstandard character statlines, where you have 3W "Heroes" and such, and characters who can take more/less than the "usual" amount of magic items (3W hero with 75pts of items). Plus the trimming on the magic items will limit us on how many truly beasty characters they can produce.

The idea is to make Nagash and the other ET stuff viable in more games, not limit it. Look at the WoC forums - nobody is all that excited about the new "Big Nurgle" characters they've just released. They're cool models, but there's no other mount to 'counts as' those big creatures as, and we're just going to keep using our Unkillable BSBs and other 'usual' builds. I'm thinking that GW might try to hamstring the "player built" characters in order to push more of the named characters that they offer. Especially if they plan on working the ET stuff into the 9th ed Armybooks.

AND THAT'S REALLY THE CAVEAT HERE - are they going to fold End Times into 9th, or will it just be an one-shot supplement?

I pretty much agree with Ben, and intact captain I'm sure you've done a big u turn in your predictions that army books wouldn't merge.- but hey ;)
I never said I was happy about it. I would certainly love it if 9th didn't include any core rules for merging armies, and they left that to people who want to buy/allow supplements and scrolls. In fact, I would even prefer it be released as scrolls, so that rather than a "Dark Elves can ally with Army X" they could release a scroll for Dark Elves allying with Slaanesh, with special rules and a character or two, and then release another slate mixing High Elves and Dark Elves to create a Khainite or Pre-Sundering army. Stuff like that, rather than just "pick any unit from Book A, to mix with Book B" because that opens the door for so much abuse (I don't want to see SkullCannons and Skullcrushers in every damn Chaos army ever)

What I do hope is that the cannon rules change. Having been on the receiving end of the two cannon army who aims two inches behind my warrior block which is in combat and what do you know scatter into it, we all know its not much fun.
- If indeed the combined rider + mount profiles happen, then while it'll be a huge boon for those models and we might even see *gasp* dragon riding heroes & other ridden mounts return to the game, I can't help but realise that Greater Daemons will now become and even more massive joke than they currently are...
Of course, if ridden monsters get an 'uber buff, then hopefully it might force GW's hand to finally give us proper models for those Greater Daemons since the current ones barely come up to a Giant's waistline.
Yeah, but then, look at how "quickly" they've decided to update the Brets and Wood Elves. They don't really care if the oddball model is unplayable. They practically wrote VC and TK out of the game entirely, at the start of 8th.
I would like to see new Greater Daemons, and I have a big feeling that they'll come with the next DoC book as some absolutely gargantuan models. But when DoC will get a new book? No idea.
The combined stats would hurt a lot of people, initially though. If they do go with a +X Attacks format, and then cap the number of extra attacks, armies with really huge monsters like Dragons are going to be in for it. I already said that in the initial post - small ridden monsters would be all the rage: gryphons, manticores, etc. Any book carrying a Dragon into 9th would just shelve the monster. But that's not any different than what's happening now, so why would GW worry about it?

No way Magic Items get marginalised in a game where freaking Magic plays a critical role in the Warhammer World's very fabric of being!
If anything, I could see us getting a slightly expanded Common Magic Items list, while the books themselves keep to the current 8-12 format.
I could see them expanding the list, but there's really not much to add. And again, all of this is linked to how they're going to handle the combined riders/monsters (if they go that direction at all). That's why the thread title isn't just "My Predictions for 9th". A lot of this stuff will almost certainly not come to pass, I'm sure. Partially because it's rational and makes sense (anathema to GW) and partly because it's going pretty far out onto a limb.
I doubt that we'll see an expanded list, but we might not see it shrink. I think that we'll see some items go away and be replaced by others. I'm guessing there will be a handful of items which try to make footy characters better at dealing with big gribbly monsters, but nothing that will let them truly threaten the big stuff. If GW is smart, they'll nerf the daylights out of "player made" and "infantry/cavalry" in order to push more of the big stuff.

I also don't buy into this getting into the game cheaper by less models. The army box is a great starting point and will do for 1000 points, how cheap do you want it? The standard 40k game is 1500pts, the wfb 2000. But I bet the money that a 40k player doesn't spend in boots on the ground they spend on vehicles and artillery.
I'm not the one who wants a cheaper game. But everyone (especially newbies) want to see a cheaper game rather than a more expensive one. I think that part of the change might be intended to make smaller games more playable, even within the percentage system. Right now, characters are hard to field in any game of fewer than 1kpts. So perhaps they're trying to use the 50% rules so that you can play a 500pt game and still have a 250pt character?

Also, we aren't the target audience anymore. Us old guys don't buy minis like the new kids do. First, we have less of a disposable income (newbs either have rich parents, or they have a job and little or nothing in the way of taxes, bills, debts, wives, kids, medical conditions, or coke habits). Secondly, we already have everything we need for the game. A newbie has to buy his general and all of his troops. We only have to buy stuff when the nerf our current stuff, if we even care. So maybe GW is finally realizing that cost of entry is the big barrier here. When little Timmy walks into the GW with his parents, it's a lot easier to say that you can sell him a couple boxes of troops, and then next week sell him a big general, and he'll be all set to play 500pt games. You don't have to tell him that his army will suck because it's top-heavy, or that the average game is 5-6 times that size, because he's hooked in and has an army on the table. Much easier than saying, "well, you need to have at least 1000pts to get a gaming army, so... drop $300 please"

What I do hope is that the cannon rules change. Having been on the receiving end of the two cannon army who aims two inches behind my warrior block which is in combat and what do you know scatter into it, we all know its not much fun.
1. That's illegale, unless there's a viable target behind the warrior's that he can point the gun at. I'm also almost positive that there's a rule/faq out there which says that you aren't allowed to target a weapon if there's a chance that it will scatter into combat or hit friendlies. I'm thinking of this, because there's a tactic floating around regarding putting a model directly between a cannon and block of enemy troops, so that the enemy cannot shoot you, because an overshot would plow his own ranks.
2. I did say that there's a huge reason for them to finally change cannons. I'd like to see them go to BS-based, like the Bolt Thrower, or the "indirect" fire of a Stone Thrower. One idea that I had is that the initial "drop point" of the shot scatters, and then you draw a line through that for the bounce. Really though, I'd like to get rid of the Scatter-die altogether, because it's the most common point of contention in most games, and always the first game-aid to go missing. Just rebalance the core weapons (everything is now in the core book, for Cannons/BTs/STs) to make them a "Hit/Miss" on Ballistic Skill weapon and leave it at that. That definitely won't happen though, the Scatter is here to stay.



I'm going to keep optimistic, and say that these are exciting times, the models coming out have moved into another league, and a big phase shift is happening to the GW universe both 40k and fantasy in order to set it up for another good few editions. Who knows, perhaps they just want to make it fun again. Lets face it, we all love a big model and cool looking stuff.

Oh and captain... have you applied for the CEO job yet?
Yeah, I'm trying to keep positive about it too. This thread is pretty much my trying to rationalize the most radical changes they could pull on us. So kind of my "worst case scenario". I know that it could be much, much worse, but I don't think it's likely that we're going to see 40k style bases, skirmish formations, or any of the other garbage that people keep spewing into the rumor mills.

I don't really want to be the CEO of the company, just a lead designer. The CEO has a lot more on his plate than just making an enjoyable game, and that's something that I think we all sort of forget when we post the "GW done me wrong!" rants. I would be happy to take the instructions given by the CEO (sell more big stuff, get more kids into the game, etc) and then work that into the rules. I've thought about putting a resume cover-letter on the front of my Nippon book and just mailing it to the GW offices, but they don't want me; I'm a filthy American.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
1. That's illegale, unless there's a viable target behind the warrior's that he can point the gun at. I'm also almost positive that there's a rule/faq out there which says that you aren't allowed to target a weapon if there's a chance that it will scatter into combat or hit friendlies. I'm thinking of this, because there's a tactic floating around regarding putting a model directly between a cannon and block of enemy troops, so that the enemy cannot shoot you, because an overshot would plow his own ranks.
...
.
Dude, that is legend! - I'd never have thought of that!

Yea, it was when I went to my first council of war. It was the ogre player who was all sweetness and light until my crushers smashed his face in on turn one, and I managed to final trans 6 of his gutstar by sheer fluke, then he just played dirty. His two iron blasters were "aiming x inches behind the warriors" obviously at a rock the keen eyed crewman had spotted, but oh look, they scatter into your warrior block of khorne halberd who were holding their own quite nicely.

On a side note, I too would really not like to see the skull cannon scenario you mentioned. just be happy if they just put 'letters back to their original statline and up the points, which is what they should have done anyway.

On a total aside... Mono khorne friendly house rule for warriors, your thoughts?
a) army wide MR

b) an ability similar to Karnarak which forces enemy wizards to suffer something for casting against khorne's host?

c) Elevate Banner of rage to big points but the whole army never loses its frenzy?


Isn't the Jeremy Vetock a new worlder? - he's produced great stuff. perhaps you could send it marked for his attention? :)
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
On a total aside... Mono khorne friendly house rule for warriors, your thoughts?
a) army wide MR

b) an ability similar to Karnarak which forces enemy wizards to suffer something for casting against khorne's host?

c) Elevate Banner of rage to big points but the whole army never loses its frenzy?

Isn't the Jeremy Vetock a new worlder? - he's produced great stuff. perhaps you could send it marked for his attention? :)
Hey, go figure - I didn't know that he was a 'Murican.
And I'll bite on those army-wide rules too. If I were doing it, there are a few "levels" that I'd run past my opponent, each one more "invasive" than the last.

1) The 'Easy' option:
:: Collars of Khorne are no longer limited to 1/Army
:: MoK confers Hatred, rather than Frenzy

2) Slightly more "Hardcore" option
:: MoK at 4pt/model, and confers Frenzy+MR1
:: "Dwarf-style" dispel dice granted with +1 while General is alive, and +1 while BSB is alive

3) New Rule option
--Pick a name: 'Blood Speaker of Khorne', 'Brass Prophet of Khorne', 'Bloodwrought Invoker', 'Gore Shaman'
M4, BS3, WS6, S4, T4, I6, A2, W2, Ld8 ____ 65pts (Infantry, Character)
Equipment: 2HWs, Chaos Armor
Special Rules: Mark of Khorne, Eye of the Gods
--Unrelenting Fury - this model can never lose Frenzy
-- Arcane Vessel - although the _name_ has no Wizard levels, it may still take take Arcane items, and may attempt to channel for Dispel Dice as though it were a wizard.
--Vengeance of Khorne - Any time this model or unit is the target of a successful spell (excluding Blood Boons), place a Vengeance Token or suitable marker next to the __name__. The unit gains a level of Magic Resistance for each token in play, up to MR3. The _underline_ begins the game with 1 Vengeance Token.
--Blood Boons - the __name__ may cast the following 'Boons' as Bound Spells of power level 5. You may discard any number of Vengeance Tokens before rolling to cast the Boon. Each token discarded grants a +1 to the roll.

+Fury of the Blood God (augment): the unit gains Frenzy. If it is already subject to Frenzy, it instead gains +1A.
+Body of Brass (augment): the units counts it's armor save as being 1 higher against Shooting attacks and Direct Damage spells
+Skulls for the Skull Throne! (augment): the unit gains Hatred. If it is subject to Frenzy, it is instead treated as having Stubborn while this spell is in play.
+Blood for the Blood God! (augment): The unit gains Hatred and Devastating Charge. If they have lost Frenzy previously, they regain it. After resolving this spell (even if it is dispelled) remove the _name_ from the game as a casualty. Any enemy model in base contact with the _name_ suffers an automatic S3 hit, with the Flaming special rule.

Options:
May ride a Warshrine for Xpts
May ride a Chaos Chariot for Xpts
May ride a Steed of Chaos, which may have Barding
May ride a Juggernaut of Khorne, Xpts
May carry magic items worth up to 25pts.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I think that any of those three options separately would be fair for a mono-MoK army. The third option, with the new model/stats, replaces Wizards in the list. Obviously, no MoK Army can benefit from these rules and include a Wizard.
The character might be a titch powerful, but that's seriously just off the top of my head, with no real playtesting. My thoughts are that the PL5 spells are easily dispelled by the normal L4 Wizard, and they're based on a similar feature for Warrior Priests. The rest of the stuff is basically Warrior Priest or Runesmith stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
Thanks Captain :)

Your third option made me smile, as it harkens back to the Slaves to Darkness book.

Back then you could still take a wizard marked with khorne, but being khorne, he effectively made them an anti wizard turning them into a walking dispel scroll.

You had X number of spells for each level for the duration of the game and that was it. So instead of that your spell allocation was effectively a boosted dispel scroll of each spell level. Again the old mechanics meant that you had to sacrifice a spell of equivalent level to the one you were trying to dispel and then roll off for success. The Khorne anti magician had a bonus point or two to tip the balance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
Hey Cap,

Yes Vetock is most definitely an Americajin.

I'd seriously consider sending him a copy of your Nippon book and a cover letter - what's the worst that can happen, as opposed to the best that might happen?

You owe it to yourself to try - or you'll never know - and besides I need it to come good for you so that you can write the Liber Khorne :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
With the new Khaine End Times book, my mate who plays elves is having an absolute blast with the new characters and rules. He's used the new Imrik character and took out a fair chunk of my army.

Anyway, I do sort of like how models do have combined stat lines but some of the rules are really over-powered, for instance; in my game Imrik was able to do a breath attack, make all of his attacks and do a thunder stomp before I got to attack. That saw my beloved Nagash die before he got to retaliate.
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
With the new Khaine End Times book, my mate who plays elves is having an absolute blast with the new characters and rules. He's used the new Imrik character and took out a fair chunk of my army.

Anyway, I do sort of like how models do have combined stat lines but some of the rules are really over-powered, for instance; in my game Imrik was able to do a breath attack, make all of his attacks and do a thunder stomp before I got to attack. That saw my beloved Nagash die before he got to retaliate.
Heh, I didn't even consider that a mixed statline on an ASF Elf would mean that Stomps are done at Initiative (ASF+ASL). However, he shouldn't have been able to Stomp Nagash - Nagash is not Infantry.
I would say that what he's probably enjoying the most is getting both "prowess" rules onto his Elves though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
However, he shouldn't have been able to Stomp Nagash - Nagash is not Infantry.
Curses. My Nagash had managed to get a heroic killing blow through and he failed in ward save, before he removed the model he recalled thunder stomp. Oh well, thank you for that though.

And he is loving the new characters. He is also in love with the new rules for Alarielle
 

·
Fanatic
Joined
·
882 Posts
Also the thunderstomp still always strikes last as a stomp/thunderstomp is not subject to any special rules, eg. Killing blow, flaming attacks etc...
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top