8th Ed. Hints of 9th Ed?

[Mr Phat]

DISCLAIMER WARNING: This is pure speculations and I am fully aware that it leaves a lot of room for skepticism so keep in mind that it is purely for debating matter


Remember how the HE book kinda gave away that High Magic was gonna be used by other races by leaving out any elfish fluff? A lot of people used this to predict that we also would get High Magic, so this got me thinking:

Does any of the newest books hint of what will happen in 9th ed?

Examples:
Apotheosis

Most people only see the spell for half of its use: recover wounds, and only think of the "the unit gains fear" part as a more or less indifferent bonus to the spell.
What if it is only indifferent in 8th, and it really heralds that Fear will change, making that part of the spell useful too?

looking further into this other newer things also utilizes psychology:

Bloodroar
A lot of people thought it was uncalled for that the Carno didnt get a suitable pricetag, and that it was despicable that it had to pay further for its upgrades instead of just having them as standard.

While Bloodroar is already a very fun thing to play with (I love to be able to failcharge chaff and see them turning their tails) it is very situational. Looking to the new DE book the Kharibdyss also has a Terror-test centered ability.

I know this part is very vague and that it goes heavily under the "speculation" category, but what if psychology gets more dangerous in the future, and bloodroar will be a no brainer auto-include well worth the cost?

As it is now: fear and terror rarely (at least to my experience) ever have any effect, as most armies keep their important units inside their generals LD bubble and keep their BSB close. If I was a game designer I would try to make it more viable and consistent. I realize that WHEN terror works it WORKS very well, but as unlikely as it is it is to most NOT something you would focus your play around.
(more skilled players: please take me to school if you disagree)

further:

Predatory Fighter

"BAD WRITTING!" "IT IS UNCLEAR!" "NO IT ISNT!" "YES IT IS!"
a lot of numbing and more or less useless discussions has been made over this subject.

camp1 think it allows extra supporting attacks

camp2 think the camp1 is stupid for thinking what they do as it in "no way can be read that way"

camp3 thinks it was meant to do what camp1 thinks, but RAW rules states that camp2 is sadly right
(im in this one)

What if this is especially written as it is because the writer has been caught in the
"we are in 8th but must not go too far away from our incoming 9th rules"-zone?

if you think about it is actually quite a difficult rule to describe if you know that the current "Supporting attacks" rule don't allow it, but that the incoming round-the-corner ruleset will. How would you make it walk that line?

If you look at it: it is written the best way it could be: neutral between both and will first apply its true purpose when the extra supporting attacks option also "opens" for the other armies.

I think that the supporting attack rules will change (not too much I hope) as a lot of things in our book more or less works around them:

Krox in skinks (no pf?)
Saurus blocks got free spears (but no pf?)
Trog Roar: (Pf needs to be more effective for this guy to shine)

..

I think it is also worth looking at what DOSNT change:
example: Some of the new DE units have the "Soulblight" spell from the death lore per a special rule, so I think its safe to assume that there WILL be a spell named that in 9ed.


This is a few examples from MY knowledge and I was curious if any of you have come across something where you thought "hmm...this is odd.." for 8th or just in general that could give whispers of what is about to come.

 

[Pinktaco]

Well, maybe they'll allow special rules to work with second rank. This way we would also get more out of our kroxigors (stomp), which along with PF could make a difference (6 kroxigors = 6 stomps and 18 chances of getting off PF).

I would, IMO, make kroxigors much more attractive, but not make them overly overpowered.

Alternatively it would bring some more use to our nerfed Skrox units (PD/Stomp), but I don't think it's quite enough.

However, saying that second rank would get their regular extra attacks (2 attacks from saurus warriors in second rank) to allow this would be ridiculous.

So here's hoping they allow special rules for second rank. I'm not sure if it would make units suchs as skullcrushers too overpowered.. or hordes of trolls, lol.

Now here's what I'm hoping for:

Thunderstomp to work on cavalry. I mean come the f**k on. Why shouldn't our big dinos not be able to stomp on a horse? It makes ZERO sense. I can accept that it would just be degraded to "stomp" instead of thunderstomp, but no stomps at all is ridiculous. I'm not sure if this should be viable against mounstrous infantry/cavalry (still just stomp). It wouldn't be too powerfull, but IMO our ancient steg is sort of useless after having charged a unit of knights. 3 attacks as WS3? lol....

A friend of mine have talked about that monsters in general might be better in 9th edition. Here's hoping they won't just be cannon fodder.

Also on a final note:

Make magic just a bit more stable, but less devastating. I hate those uber spells. Dwellers Bellow and Purple Sun are just super ridiculous. Our very own uber spell from High Magic is ridiuclous as well. I got it off twice yesterday in one game. If it isn't dispelled immediately it'll haunt your opponenet in one way or another and it's super effective.

I just find it sort of lame when people rely on these super spells to win the game. I mean, we've all heard of players who'll try and six-dice one of these spells until they get it off. IMO that shouldn't be the intention of the game. A large part of the game is in the actual strategic play and removing a whole unit with magic isn't exactly my idea of out-playing your opponent.

So to summarize:

- Allow special rules to work in the second rank (and other ranks).
- Do something for monsters, in general.
- Make magic more stable, but less game winning/devastating.

 

[hdctambien]

I have a feeling they are going to change the way regeneration works. Based on the Slann's Transcendent Healing and how the new Hydra heals. I wonder if there might be a new "Upkeep Phase" where regeneration (and maybe other abilities/spells) trigger

 

[Sleboda]

I also have felt like the PF rule may be a hint at 9th. I have a sneaking suspicion that Supporting Attacks will allow the full compliment of Attacks. Gotta sell those new With Elf kits (with their 4 attacks per model) somehow, right?

Another hint may be in Tiktaq'To. There is much fussing over him not being allowed to join units and yet having a rule that benefits the unit he joins. What if 9th will allow flyers to join units? Problem solved.

The new rules for the Stegadon riders, making them all one model without parts you can target, and having other beasts like that in the army may give us a hint of things to come too.


I have also thought just a little bit about how easy it is to kill a Carnosaur and wondered if maybe the next edition will solve this by having some sort of combined profile benefit for characters on monsters. I don't know what that would be (Rider's ward save applies to whole model? Rider can force attacks to go on him or his beast - no longer attacker choice? Add up all the wounds on the model, use the best Toughness, and don't remove it until all damage is done? Dunno.), but something to keep the big guy alive (and make mummies riding sphinxes not the worst possible idea in Warhammer) would help.



Another reason I think some of these may be true is the lack of FAQ support since April. GW was on a pretty good run there for a while with getting FAQs out for new books in a fairly timely fashion. The biggest goofs were taken care of pretty quickly. We have not seen support for several recent books, and if a rules re-set is coming, it might explain why - maybe these rules "mistakes" are not mistakes after all.


On the other hand, we have history working against GW. They've never been that farsighted. The same thing keeping me from calling them sinister is what keeps me from calling them brilliant - maybe they are just too dumb to be either malicious or forward thinking.

 

[olderplayer]

There are a number of reasons to suspect GW does not intend to allow more supporting attacks than one in subsequent ranks for all but monstrous models, but perhaps 9th ed will allow more attacks from the second rank or behind. to a limited extent. I am more inclined (given GWs track record of late) to think that the PF special rule ambigiuity/conflict with the supporting attacks limit was an oversight (no one thought about it or, as one past play tester for GW stated, they simply chose not to clarify the issue even when identified in play testing) and it will be clarified with an FAQ (allowing them to change the clarification as needed for 9th edition or as play continues). The inability of GW to issue FAQs since April, especially with so many recent army books, is more indicative of a decision to issue FAQs periodically in waves with a lot of FAQs (and errata and amendments at once for consistency), rather than being more proactive and selective. I would not be surprised if the FAQs came out in lat November or early to mid December and even in early January after the new army books have been tested a bit and there is a a lull in thd new books for a couple months.

Also, we are not sure yet that 9th ed will come out next summer (the usual timing, although September would be interesting timing for a variety of reasons). If, as strongly indicated, dwarves and wood elves will get new books in the first half of next year, then only Brettonians remain to be fixed with Skaven and Beastmen the last two books in 8th ed and clearly written with 8th ed at least partially in mind.

I do think GW should rethink war machine rules (particually cannons that don't scatter) in terms of allowing premeasuring but addressing the ease at which they can kill characters and monsters either not in units or not getting a look our sir (perhaps allowing the targetted point where the cannon ball lands to be subject to a scatter rather than just the forward artillery dice inches error and then having the traditional bounce with art. dice). That may have been relfected in the overcosting of monsters in the recent army books this year.

 

[Pinktaco]

I have also thought just a little bit about how easy it is to kill a Carnosaur and wondered if maybe the next edition will solve this by having some sort of combined profile benefit for characters on monsters. I don't know what that would be (Rider's ward save applies to whole model? Rider can force attacks to go on him or his beast - no longer attacker choice? Add up all the wounds on the model, use the best Toughness, and don't remove it until all damage is done? Dunno.), but something to keep the big guy alive (and make mummies riding sphinxes not the worst possible idea in Warhammer) would help.

Gawd I hope for this. Say they get their seperate attacks, but only use ONE armour save and ONE ward save for both. So say an oldblood with Armour of Destiny and Dawnstone would mean that the entire model have that. AS+1 and +4 ward save carnosaur would be sweet.

Also - the same can be applied to stegadons with a skink chief on the back.

I wouldn't mind saying that the model then "only" have the 5 wounds from the Carnosaur and not add wounds up (to a total of 8) and I consider 3 wounds to be a tad too low for such a creature. But I dunno if this would be too powerful?

A regular oldblood is already powerful as is, put him on a carno with the above mentioned and he should be a beast whenever he reaches combat.

 

[Sleboda]

I gotta admit that one reason, probably the biggest one, for me wanting combined profiles is that I am getting old.

When I was in my late teens playing 3rd edition, with pushbacks, free hacks, simple and complex maneuvers, the vorpal hurricane of chaos, mercenaries, and more, I loved the complexity.

Now I just want a balanced game with simple rules. I don't want there to be any units with more than one part. Chariots, monsters+riders, salamanders+handlers, mixed cohorts...all of it. Just give me a unit with a single statline and set of rules. Don't even let champions get singled out. A champion upgrade to a unit just gives the unit more more attack and/or lowers the number of attacks of one enemy character facing the unit.

Abstract it all and give me block that don't have so much crap to track.


The only exception I would want is that a character in a unit still has a degree of independence from his unit.

 

[Khornefed]

I do think GW should rethink war machine rules (particually cannons that don't scatter) in terms of allowing premeasuring but addressing the ease at which they can kill characters and monsters either not in units or not getting a look our sir (perhaps allowing the targetted point where the cannon ball lands to be subject to a scatter rather than just the forward artillery dice inches error and then having the traditional bounce with art. dice). That may have been relfected in the overcosting of monsters in the recent army books this year.

This. It is unbelievable how deadly accurate Artillery is. It forces us to spend an inordinate amount of time preparing for and worrying about the potential 90 pt model across the table.

The cannon should scatter right or left d6 inches unless a "hit" is rolled. And hitting a single model that moved in its previous turn should be nearly impossible. And any artillery piece that moves or changes face (mounted on a chariot or not) should not be able to fire.

Flip that around, all artillery should be able to be in purchased prepared defenses that allow their crew some ability to defend themselves in combat.

 

[Mr Phat]

The cannon should scatter right or left d6 inches unless a "hit" is rolled.

This ^
has been my thoughts too, because isnt that basicly how cannons did in reality?
powder Cannons are no near precise enough to "snipe" targets...they were pointed at defensive structures or where the enemy army was most dense.

Whatever the target moved or not can be adjusted with the amount of dice, if its D6 or D3, which also could be used to define the mastery of the cannoncrew:
are we dealing with an aged empire veteran who have spend more time aiming cannons than breathing or are we dealing with a battlecrazy bloodletter who is pissed of that he got todays cannon-duty instead of chopping skulls in the front-row
(where said cannon in reality also is pissed of since its another angry deamon caged in metal)

Flip that around, all artillery should be able to be in purchased prepared defenses that allow their crew some ability to defend themselves in combat.

Agreed.

 

[AmorphousCube]

A few crazy conspiracy type ideas to think about: (Although some are just wish-listing)

Perhaps in 9th ed there will be nothing stopping characters with flying mounts from joining units of flyers, since our book doesn't tell us that we can, but our special character buffs his unit.

Perhaps in 9th ed channeling will be a bigger deal, (Primary way of generating Dice?) due to the focus on in in our book (Oracle channel item, +2 channel dice discipline (since we cannot count on the channeling staff still being there and we have to justify the cost))- Bit of a stretch

Perhaps in 9th ed Monsters will count as having 2 ranks (and therefore disrupt flanks) and steadfast is either gone entirely or lost when disrupted- due to the large amount of new and expensive monster models GW is selling (This one is a huge stretch really)

Perhaps in 9th ed every lore will have 2 signature spells, since the army book ones do.

Perhaps in 9th ed both players will share a magic phase, since Fiery convocation is once every phase (Massive stretch again...)

Perhaps in 9th ed the point a cannon choses will scatter 1d3 before the artillery dice is rolled. (Or maybe 1d6- BS, or something. Again to justify the monetary cost of these monsters. (Probably never going to happen- more a wish list item than a proper prediction.

 

[Spiney Norman]

I'm rather hoping they will combine profile for Monster mounts in the same way they have done with MC mounts, that would go a long way to explaining why carnosaurs are 60pts more than a Kharibdyss. A single combined armour save and ward plus taking the highest W/T values would make monster mounted characters a very different proposition, and we might see such current non-choices as empire wizards on Griffons and high elf wizards on dragons become viable (lets face it, who wouldn't want their high elf dragonmage to be upgraded to 5 T6 wounds with a 3+ AS).

I think that would also make pretty good in-game sense as well, I never really understood why you could specifically choose to attack an Oldblood in combat without going through his carnosaur first.

Currently the only positive side to taking a monster for a character is the extra 6" for General & BSB compounded by the likelihood that if hit by a cannon, both monster and character might easily die from the same shot as a colossal negative.

 

[Mr Phat]

Makes sense, I hope you're right.
Except that Kroq-Gar's "Attuned to the beast" becomes invalid, so sadly I also doubt it.

Unless they make a twist that still allows the death of either rider or steed.

 

[Pinktaco]

Makes sense, I hope you're right.
Except that Kroq-Gar's "Attuned to the beast" becomes invalid, so sadly I also doubt it.

Unless they make a twist that still allows the death of either rider or steed.

I'm sure there are rules from the current 7th edition army books that doesn't make much sense in regards to the current 8th edition rules from the BRB. It is no worse than GW just changes the rule or tells us to ignore it in a FAQ after 9th edition have been released.

It shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

[Spiney Norman]

Makes sense, I hope you're right.
Except that Kroq-Gar's "Attuned to the beast" becomes invalid, so sadly I also doubt it.

Unless they make a twist that still allows the death of either rider or steed.

I'm sure there are rules from the current 7th edition army books that doesn't make much sense in regards to the current 8th edition rules from the BRB. It is no worse than GW just changes the rule or tells us to ignore it in a FAQ after 9th edition have been released.

It shouldn't be much of a problem.

Exactly, whether or not LM was written with a future rules set in mind they can't just ignore cast swathes of the current rules. Besides most of KG's profile was a cut and paste job from last edition anyway.

 

[Mr Phat]

I guess thats true also.

The Troglodon "beastrider" rule also backs your thoughts up to some degree.

 

[Spiney Norman]

I guess thats true also.

The Troglodon "beastrider" rule also backs your thoughts up to some degree.

Well that's the thing, they made the change to all ridden monsters that were not hero/lord mounts at the start of the edition, a single defensive profile, but two separate attack profiles, when you lose all your wounds, that's it, you're gone.

They need to implement a similar system for mounted characters, though I can appreciate why they haven't, a 50pt item that gives a ward save to an old blood is quite a different proposition to a 50pt item that gives a ward save to an old blood and his carnosaur. Its fair to say that ridden monsters would be a fair bit more valuable than unridden monsters, quite unlike the current situation.

 

[Mr Phat]

a 50pt item that gives a ward save to an old blood and his carnosaur

+4 scaly skin
+2 from Armour of destiny?
add a 4+ wardsave
autopick, maybe even two.

its interesting to see how they will solve this.
Mount magic item allowance based on their riders could be fun (not putting money on it happening.)

 

[havik110]

The problem with cannons right now is not that they can snipe, but that they do D6 wounds...

drop it back to d3+1 or d6-1 (and i like the idea of only 1 armor save like monstrous cav...) and only hitting one of the targets and we dont have as much as a problem...

GW over compensated in 8th to stop monster mash type lists...they wanted you to buy 90+ skinks and 50 saurus and 30 temple guard because it makes them more money than just selling the 1 stegadon that most lizardmen players already own...(lets face it, in 7th you owned 2 and they both were set up as engines)

 

[Pinktaco]

Making it D3 might be too harsh? I've thought about that myself, but honestly who's the going to even bother taking them then? How about dropping the strength value? S10 mean that every wound cannot be saved.

 

[hardyworld]

If standard cannons had an additional initial scatter (D3-1)" and did D3+1 wounds they would still be great. Remember the total chance that the initial spot would change is 1-(1/3+2/3*1/3)=44.444%, so sniping is a coinflip instead of guaranteed. Cannons still have a 66.666% chance to do 3+ wounds with that change (same as a D6), but have the extreme values nerfed. If dwarf runes or great cannons were upgraded to reroll the initial scatter, bounce distances, or change the number of wounds to D6+1 or whatever, I'd be fine with that because they are paying extra for those abilities to make them better.

S10 has never been the issue and I cannot see a cannonball strength ever below 8 (notwithstanding magic) which would have little effect on the game unless you are a TK player.

This is all conjecture.