8th Ed. An unofficial 9th Edition - Brainstorming Thread

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Hello again one and all!

Not long ago, for some reason, I became inspired to start writing a set of unofficial rules for a 9th Edition of Warhammer Fantasy that still used the setting we know and love (as opposed to the Ninth Age) and that used a different set of changes to the rules written by one Matthias Eliasson (as I disagree with a few of the things he includes there). Now that I have actually started doing this, I have decided to turn to my favourite Warhammer community to ask you: Are there any rules in 8th that you would like to see changed in this unofficial 9th Edition? Are there any rules from editions prior to 8th that were ditched which you want to see returned to the game? And, last but certainly not least, are there any new factions you want to see added to the game?

I look forward to hearing what all you ever-loyal Warhammer Fantasy fans come up with!

(P.S. I used the 8th Edition prefix because I couldn’t post the thread with no prefix for some reason and in some ways we are essentially doing an ‘Everything Wrong With 8th Edition’ discussion).

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

I like the idea. I'm doing this myself for the Lizards

The way I understand it, you want to make changes to the main rulebook, is this correct? Or do you want to make changes all across the board?

Personally I would like cannons to be reworked. I would change them to be BS based, and not use any dice to represent where it lands, essentially just make it a variation of a bolt thrower, maybe with more plash damage than piercing through ranks.

A change to the Fear rule would be nice, since it is a rule that almost never does anything as is.

Changing the magic system to scale with game size or rework completely (I actually like some of the things AOS did there . Blasphemy I know but still. Of course spells would need to be toned down a bit then).

No general magic items list. I would make a bigger list for each faction, which enables better balancing and more unique items, rather than having to balance each item by however might use it best, and then leave the items useless for other factions.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

The way I understand it, you want to make changes to the main rulebook, is this correct? Or do you want to make changes all across the board?

The latter - I wish to alter the rulebook to make the game experience more enjoyable and then both replicate these changes across the army books of all the existing races and add new factions to the game with their own rules. I'm also changing the alignment system so that there are 6 main alignments, 3 serving the Good Grand Alliance (Life, Order and Civilisation) and 3 serving the Evil Grand Alliance (Death, Chaos and Destruction), with no non-aligned factions (Tomb Kings I'm putting in Order and Ogres I'm putting in Destruction). Trusted allies are allied factions from the same alignment, and suspicious allies are factions from different alignments but the same overarching Grand Alliance.

Personally I would like cannons to be reworked. I would change them to be BS based, and not use any dice to represent where it lands, essentially just make it a variation of a bolt thrower, maybe with more plash damage than piercing through ranks.

I am certainly planning to change the rule where cannons could insta-kill both a monster and its rider (which was ridiculous) into using the rules for ordinary shooting targeting monsters - on a 1-4 the cannonball hits the monster and embeds itself in its body, on a 5-6 it sails over the monster's head and hits the rider instead. Having it as BS-based would mean it would be a lot more difficult to hit something with it unless you have a BS of 4+ or better - I used an Ironbelcher Cannon in my first game of KoW and it kept missing all game because I needed a 5+ to hit - so I think changing it into a BS-based system would be too much of a nerf. Conversely Bolt Throwers could be buffed to use the Cannon system to represent their ability to scythe through ranks like cannonballs do, but as you say, Cannons could inflict splash damage while bolt throwers are more effective at piercing ranks.

A change to the Fear rule would be nice, since it is a rule that almost never does anything as is.

Fear currently nerfs the enemy unit so that their WS and BS go down to 1 for the remainder of the turn - I think that's OK actually as it represents the enemy being paralysed with fear. Perhaps it could be changed so that the unit suffering from fear can only hit on 6s in that turn, bringing back part of the rule from 7th, while Terror continues to make enemies run away.

Changing the magic system to scale with game size or rework completely (I actually like some of the things AOS did there . Blasphemy I know but still. Of course spells would need to be toned down a bit then).

I'm planning to reduce the effectiveness of magic so that I would say it's roughly between 7th and 8th in terms of power. I'm also hoping to return some of the spells from 7th because in certain cases I felt they were so much more thematic alongside the lore they came from than the corresponding ones in 8th (the Lore of Beasts spells in particular, as I loved how the 7th Ed versions were all embodying the spirits of different animals - I aspire to bring that back and ditch the 8th Edition spells).

No general magic items list. I would make a bigger list for each faction, which enables better balancing and more unique items, rather than having to balance each item by however might use it best, and then leave the items useless for other factions.

I agree that reverting to something like they used in 7th would again be more thematic, as it's not that likely that different factions have stuff that does the same thing except for things like dispel scrolls, which all races should have in some form.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

I am certainly planning to change the rule where cannons could insta-kill both a monster and its rider (which was ridiculous) into using the rules for ordinary shooting targeting monsters - on a 1-4 the cannonball hits the monster and embeds itself in its body, on a 5-6 it sails over the monster's head and hits the rider instead. Having it as BS-based would mean it would be a lot more difficult to hit something with it unless you have a BS of 4+ or better - I used an Ironbelcher Cannon in my first game of KoW and it kept missing all game because I needed a 5+ to hit - so I think changing it into a BS-based system would be too much of a nerf. Conversely Bolt Throwers could be buffed to use the Cannon system to represent their ability to scythe through ranks like cannonballs do, but as you say, Cannons could inflict splash damage while bolt throwers are more effective at piercing ranks.

I don't know actually, since if it was changed to use BS it can be buffed, and possibly be even better at hitting its target. Maybe shooting in general could nerf the hordes a bit, by getting a +1 to hit against units of a certain size, just like with Large Targets, this would also help cannons.

Fear currently nerfs the enemy unit so that their WS and BS go down to 1 for the remainder of the turn - I think that's OK actually as it represents the enemy being paralysed with fear. Perhaps it could be changed so that the unit suffering from fear can only hit on 6s in that turn, bringing back part of the rule from 7th, while Terror continues to make enemies run away.

I do think that Fear can be quite powerful, it just either hardly ever works and when it does it's on a unit where it does not matter much in the first place. I would give Fear more of a passive, something like -1 WS and/or -1 LD to anything in base contact. That way it always does something.

I'm planning to reduce the effectiveness of magic so that I would say it's roughly between 7th and 8th in terms of power. I'm also hoping to return some of the spells from 7th because in certain cases I felt they were so much more thematic alongside the lore they came from than the corresponding ones in 8th (the Lore of Beasts spells in particular, as I loved how the 7th Ed versions were all embodying the spirits of different animals - I aspire to bring that back and ditch the 8th Edition spells).

Sounds nice

I agree that reverting to something like they used in 7th would again be more thematic, as it's not that likely that different factions have stuff that does the same thing except for things like dispel scrolls, which all races should have in some form.

Yup exactly. Any magic heavy armor was very good for our saurus characters, but not very thematic if I'm being honest.
Dispel scrolls could even be made unique, just like we have the cube of darkness, which can stop remains in play. Maybe other factions could have a dispel scroll with limited range, while others just add dice to their dispel attempt. Could be another way of emphasizing which factions are better or worse at magic.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I don't know actually, since if it was changed to use BS it can be buffed, and possibly be even better at hitting its target. Maybe shooting in general could nerf the hordes a bit, by getting a +1 to hit against units of a certain size, just like with Large Targets, this would also help cannons.

Interesting idea. I am including a mechanic that only allows units with the 'Light Infantry' type, e.g. Goblins, Empire State Troops and so on, to be taken in horde sizes, while more powerful infantry are restricted to being in smaller units because they're more likely to travel around in small bands of heroes rather than unruly masses. Because light infantry are especially squishy anyway, it would be more realistic if a cannonball tore through a horde and killed 8-10 chaff blokes, compared to 8th at the moment where cannons can only kill a rough number of men equivalent to how deep the unit is despite hordes being so much easier to hit.

Another mechanic I'm introducing is the idea of unit formations based on the mechanic in the Total War games - units can either be in tight formation (where models have to be in base contact as normal in Fantasy), loose formation (where models can be up to 1" apart like in AoS) or skirmishing (where models can be up to 2" apart), and each of these formations has its perks and drawbacks. Cannons of course would be a lot more deadly against units in tight formation compared to loose or skirmish formations, while tight formation units would get their full rank bonus and supporting attacks and units in loose formation would get no rank bonus due to being unformed and may well have fewer supporting attacks.

I do think that Fear can be quite powerful, it just either hardly ever works and when it does it's on a unit where it does not matter much in the first place. I would give Fear more of a passive, something like -1 WS and/or -1 LD to anything in base contact. That way it always does something.

I'd say a -2 penalty to WS and Ld would be a good starting point - it's a strong enough penalty to be sufficiently worrying to fight Fear-causing units yet not too far overboard. Terror can then consist of suffering these penalties and also being forced to take a leadership test, with the Ld penalty, and running away if the test is failed.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I'd say a -2 penalty to WS and Ld would be a good starting point

That is far too powerful in my opinion.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

That is far too powerful in my opinion.

Perhaps just -2, or even -1, to Ld then, without any penalties to WS?

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Perhaps just -2, or even -1, to Ld then, without any penalties to WS?

How about having the -1 to Ld, and then keep the LD test, and if they fail that, they get -2 to WS?

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

How about having the -1 to Ld, and then keep the LD test, and if they fail that, they get -2 to WS?

I’d say that would be a better compromise. Perhaps increase the Ld modifier to -2 as -1 doesn’t have that much effect, but otherwise that’s a bit more lenient.

 

[pendrake]

Are there any rules in 8th that you would like to see changed in this unofficial 9th Edition? Are there any rules from editions prior to 8th that were ditched which you want to see returned to the game?

This is the approach that ought to have been taken back when AS1 came out.

Incremental changes.

Don’t, don’t, don’t go for a thorough rewrite on the first pass.

Decide what the worst problem was with 8th Edition. Fix that and only that. Play for six months.

Then fix whatever looks like the next worst problem.

My opinion is that the worst problem with 8th was the magic....the handful of game-ends-now spells.

I think the second worst problem was the strange, unnatural superiority of Infantry over Cavalry. (Which itself reversed the Cavalry > Infantry condition of 6th.) I wanted that balanced.

The rule that was ditched that I would like returned was 6th Edition Skirmish formations. Blob shapes, curved lines, etc. 8th Edition required precise spacing of half-an-inch between ‘skirmisher’ soldiers and rectangular formations. Real, 1:1 Scale, soldiers properly call a formation like that Open Order ...marching bands do this all the time. That is not skirmishing.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

This is the approach that ought to have been taken back when AS1 came out.

I’m pleased and proud to hear you say this!

Decide what the worst problem was with 8th Edition. Fix that and only that. Play for six months.

Then fix whatever looks like the next worst problem.

The thing is though, I’m not intending this to be simply Warhammer 8.1. Yes part of the conversation is an ‘Everything Wrong With 8th Edition’ discussion, but I want this to conjure up a separate feel to 8th, with its own separate mechanics. I’d prefer it if I included all the changes we have agreed first and then tweak them as we go during playtesting.

My opinion is that the worst problem with 8th was the magic....the handful of game-ends-now spells.

Agreed - I have already included some info on how I intend to make magic less gamebreaking.

I think the second worst problem was the strange, unnatural superiority of Infantry over Cavalry. (Which itself reversed the Cavalry > Infantry condition of 6th.) I wanted that balanced.

I agree with this too - Cavalry units were strangely underpowered except when mounted characters were included in their units. I thought of possibly giving all Cavalry some Impact Hits, because they would hit infantry very hard on the charge - look at when Cavalry charge in the Total War series, you have infantry flying up into the air and everything. I was thinking of Impact Hits(1) for light Cavalry, Impact Hits(D3) for heavy cavalry and monstrous infantry and Impact Hits(D6) for Monstrous Cavalry and monsters. Of course particular units can have special rules that alter the number of Impact Hits their cavalry units can do - I was thinking of giving Bretonnia an army special rule that gives all its light cavalry Impact Hits(2) and heavy cavalry Impact Hits(D3 + 1), to represent the superiority of their cavalry over everyone else’s. Conversely Spider Riders I imagine wouldn’t have much impact because spiders crawl into battle rather than gallop, so they wouldn’t inflict Impact Hits at all (although they would have bonuses for traversing terrain that other cavalry wouldn’t have, say treating all difficult terrain as open terrain and so on).

The rule that was ditched that I would like returned was 6th Edition Skirmish formations. Blob shapes, curved lines, etc. 8th Edition required precise spacing of half-an-inch between ‘skirmisher’ soldiers and rectangular formations. Real, 1:1 Scale, soldiers properly call a formation like that Open Order ...marching bands do this all the time. That is not skirmishing.

Again I agree. I’ve thought of having 3 different formations in the game, again based on what they do in Total War - tight formation, where all models are in base contact as normal, loose formation, where each model can be up to an inch apart like in AoS and in any shape they want, and Skirmish formation where models can be up to 2” apart and in any shape they want, with each formation having its pros and cons in terms of shooting and combat.

 

[pendrake]

@Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl

Have you waded through this thread:

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/whfb-8-5.17593/

??

 

[pendrake]

tight formation, where all models are in base contact as normal, loose formation, where each model can be up to an inch apart like in AoS and in any shape they want, and Skirmish formation where models can be up to 2” apart and in any shape they wan

Those last two are too much alike. Stick with:
Ranked
Open Order
Skirmish
(those first three have all had movement trays designed for them. Avoid re-inventing the wheel.)

If you want to add something truly new (to Warhammer): add Mob.

Mob is a bunch of models, bases touching, but jumbled, gaps allowed if models hang so far over their bases they bang together higher up, bases can be round or other shapes, bases in the unit can be mixed. Shape is always roughly as deep as it is wide. Models should be jumbled into either: a nearly square move tray or a large round move tray.

 

[pendrake]

The thing is though, I’m not intending this to be simply Warhammer 8.1. Yes part of the conversation is an ‘Everything Wrong With 8th Edition’ discussion, but I want this to conjure up a separate feel to 8th, with its own separate mechanics

This is dissapointing. ^ It is how T9A happened. It is how WFB 8.5 was attempted and went away to die somewhere.

I will try to say it another way. Warhammer 8 was pretty good it just needed some leaks plugged.

I am suggesting that you go for WFB 8.01, then 8.02,... and carry on until the Ultimate Perfected Warhammer is achieved at (optimistically) 8.27 or so.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Those last two are too much alike. Stick with:
Ranked
Open Order
Skirmish
(those first three have all had movement trays designed for them. Avoid re-inventing the wheel.)

If you want to add something truly new (to Warhammer): add Mob.

Mob is a bunch of models, bases touching, but jumbled, gaps allowed if models hang so far over their bases they bang together higher up, bases can be round or other shapes, bases in the unit can be mixed. Shape is always roughly as deep as it is wide. Models should be jumbled into either: a nearly square move tray or a large round move tray.

This is dissapointing. ^ It is how T9A happened. It is how WFB 8.5 was attempted and went away to die somewhere.

I will try to say it another way. Warhammer 8 was pretty good it just needed some leaks plugged.

I am suggesting that you go for WFB 8.01, then 8.02,... and carry on until the Ultimate Perfected Warhammer is achieved at (optimistically) 8.27 or so.

I’m not intending for this to go the way of the 9th Age - I’m going to make it a proper 9th Edition, NOT 8.1, 8.2 e.t.c, yet it will still be set in the Warhammer Fantasy world with a ruleset that is still recognisably from Warhammer Fantasy, just with a new look, format and some changes that make it more like 9.0 and not Warhammer 8.1.

I’m sorry mate but I feel 8th Edition has quite a few points wrong with it that I want to fix to make a game that is more thematic, more enjoyable, less brutal and OP and (particularly) doesn’t force players to build armies with a huge amount of models unless they play a chaff army. I’m asking you all for suggestions on additional changes I can put in my 9th Edition rulebook and am grateful for all the response you’ve been giving me, but I still want to do this my own way with my own naming conventions- otherwise it won’t feel as if it’s truly my own creation and it will feel more like a creation where I initiated it but everyone else then takes over and does the rest for me. I just initiated this thread to bounce around potential rules changes to make sure they’re not too OP.

@Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl

Have you waded through this thread:

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/whfb-8-5.17593/

??

I would look further at this 8.5 Edition if it wasn’t subsumed by Facebook’s evil tentacles forcing me to sign up simply to view it.

 

[pendrake]

I would look further at this 8.5 Edition if it wasn’t subsumed by Facebook’s evil tentacles forcing me to sign up simply to view it.

Well. That sucks. I am no fan of Facebook either, I thought somewhere in that thread they explained their ideas. (Rather than just attempt to garner traffic to a fb Page.) Alas.

I was thinking some ideas had been suggested in there.

 

[pendrake]

I looked harder at the 8.5 thread. There are a lot of links to Dropbox ...for some materials.

 

[Scalenex]

This is the approach that ought to have been taken back when AS1 came out.

Incremental changes.

Don’t, don’t, don’t go for a thorough rewrite on the first pass.

I agree with this 1000%

Decide what the worst problem was with 8th Edition. Fix that and only that. Play for six months.

Then fix whatever looks like the next worst problem.

I agree with the basic concept. Fix one problem at a time. Not necessarily one problem per six months, I'm not that patient.

My opinion is that the worst problem with 8th was the magic....the handful of game-ends-now spells.

I am not sure if that is the biggest problem, but I would not be opposed to some slight nerfing of the ueber-spells. If we do nerf magic severely, we should probably make the miscast chart a bit less nasty.

One idea I had was to let Magic Resistance apply against miscast damage, but as my friend pointed out "That would really benefit Slann with Temple Guard more than everyone else."

He got me there. If Magic Resistance applied to miscast damage I would happily load up my Slann with MR talismans or give my the MR bestowing banner.

I think the second worst problem was the strange, unnatural superiority of Infantry over Cavalry. (Which itself reversed the Cavalry > Infantry condition of 6th.) I wanted that balanced.

I think 90% of the imbalances in 8th edition can be fixed by adjusting the points and only the point value. If a unit is "too powerful" or "too weak" it can be fixed with a points adjustment. The jungle swarm is an under-powered unit, but if we made them 10 points a swarm base they would be very overpowered. Therefore the ideal points value is somewhere between 10 and 35 points.

The rule that was ditched that I would like returned was 6th Edition Skirmish formations. Blob shapes, curved lines, etc. 8th Edition required precise spacing of half-an-inch between ‘skirmisher’ soldiers and rectangular formations. Real, 1:1 Scale, soldiers properly call a formation like that Open Order ...marching bands do this all the time. That is not skirmishing.

I would like to have the fluid formations like in 6th edition. I would probably want to boost the points cost of most skirmishing units.


But I think the easiest thing to change is points values. It can also be adjusted incrementally very often.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

My opinion is that the worst problem with 8th was the magic....the handful of game-ends-now spells.

I think the worst problem were cannons. Most monsters were basically unusable because them. They were just to damn accurate against single targets. Also hitting both the rider and the mount (in the case of ridden monsters) was OP.

I think 90% of the imbalances in 8th edition can be fixed by adjusting the points and only the point value. If a unit is "too powerful" or "too weak" it can be fixed with a points adjustment. The jungle swarm is an under-powered unit, but if we made them 10 points a swarm base they would be very overpowered. Therefore the ideal points value is somewhere between 10 and 35 points.

 

[Scalenex]

I think the worst problem were cannons. Most monsters were basically unusable because them. They were just to damn accurate against single targets. Also hitting both the rider and the mount (in the case of ridden monsters) was OP.

I am hard pressed to come up with ways to weaken the cannon without ruining them. My first instinct is just make cannons more costly or monsters cheaper. My second thought is to give riders a better chance at avoiding the templates but that only helps characters on mounts, a lot of monsters don't have characters.

You also have to understand that Warhammer players whose primary armies have cannons get defensive at the suggestion that cannon rules be changed.

When thinking about canons. Think about your response if someone tells you Slann are too good and need a severe nerfing.