Get those old models on the table! 'Refugees of the Mortals Realms'

Don't you get bummed that some of your good ol' models have suddenly not been taken up in the new Allegiances and keywords? Despite the fact they have no game balance issues and fit the Allegiance perfectly?

These models all have warscrolls and rules, but... don't belong to the rest of the Allegiance :(

Well, if you feel like doing justice to GW's "this is YOUR game" policy, especially if you are a tournament or event organizer, how about throwing in a checklist of "old" models u wish players can field?

Because they should have fun with the models they own: they have rules in this edition and and are perfectly viable!

REFUGEES OF THE MORTAL REALMS

A checklist of "old" units to add into "new" Allegiances.

Each change and addition has a little checkbox, so organizers can choose which to include and not.

What do you think? Any glaring omissions or potentially game-breaking combos I'm not seeing?

"The RuleHammer": a checklist compilation of rules patches & house rules

As some might feel I haven't dropped enough Warhammer Fantasy content recently (which is true), I felt it was time to just compile this version and send it out.

The RuleHammer: a rules patch compilation. (click to download) 
New versions of the file will be updated over time. Check back to see which version is available for download.

The "RuleHammer" is a compilation of house rules and rules patches, many of which have been discussed previously in this blog, and also from other alternate sources of inspiration.

What it is: the list contains small rules changes, trying to resolve some remaining problems of the Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition ruleset, in the simplest way possible, and without changing too many things. While this may lead to significant differences in gameplay (hopefully for the better), the document is meant to be as easy to incorporate as possible by players who already have a good grasp of the rules.

What it aims to achieve: to fix some of the rules inconsistencies, imbalances and general problems reported by the gaming community. In addition, some changes were introduced to inject a bit of "simulationism" or "realism" (oh, that loaded concept...) which some felt was missing in some aspects of the game. This is Warhammer Narratives after all.
The overall approach was to keep the game as faithful to the original ruleset as possible, without interfering with the rules players were used to, and simply changing individual single points, one at a time.

How to use it: go over the list, point by point, and agree with your opponent or gaming group which rules changes you want to use. Tick the boxes for those you wish to incorporate, and make sure everyone has a copy of the document with those choices.

This document is not meant to supplant or compete with other community-based projects, such as 'The 9th Age' or '9th Edition'. Rather, I hope to give a resource to players who were looking for something a bit less "chunky" than a completely redesigned ruleset, and give them flexibility over what they want to incorporate.

There you go, Community. Enjoy.
Hope people can make good use out of it.
All feedback is welcome.

PS: I know there is interest in Warhammer Fantasy Campaign rules. Im still working on expanding the base rules from 'Blood in the Badlands' with material from 'The General's Compendium': lots of random tables, veteran units and captured Heroes!

Rules Patches: ranks and Combat Resolution v8.1

PROBLEM: in a multi-unit combat, only the highest rank bonus from each side counts, even when several large units are involved. This removes value from horde-like tactics, and relegates large units of weak troops to be speedbumps or tarpits to slow down the enemy.
SOLUTION: all rank bonuses from units from the same side, involved in a multi-unit combat, count for the purposes of Combat Resolution.

This one may be a risky rules change... it can tip the balance of play quite a bit... and give even more power to large units of elite troops. Perhaps this rule should only be implemented if there is a limit to the size of units (see here) and flanking units with 2+ ranks should be able to disrupt its Steadfast (see here).

Rules Patch: Army Composition v8.1

PROBLEM: while large units of weak troops are and should be a staple of the game, large units of elite troops, especially when carrying "certain powerful magic banners" (you know what I'm talking about!), become unforgiving "death stars". These concentrate most points of the army into very offensive but also very defensive points, which make for extremely difficult games with few options left for the opponent.
Additionally, many of an army's most powerful units come from the Rare section, and very often whole army builds are designed around them (including 2 copies of the same rare unit to maximize their benefit). Not only does this make for very difficult army builds (as some Rare units can be very very powerful centerpieces), but also breaks the verisimilitude of seeing 2 Rare units on the same battlefield more often than you would see 2 of the same Special unit.
SOLUTION: any single unit (before any characters are added during the battle) cannot exceed 20% of the total points of the army (this would be 500 points in a usual 2500 points army). Only 1 of the same Rare unit and 2 of the same Special unit may be taken in a normal-sized army (up to 2500 points). These values are doubled for Grand Armies (2500+ points).

This simple rule change can single-handedly remove many of the more problematic army builds that have plagued 8th edition, such a 2x Terrogheists, 2x Hellpit abominations, etc. 
It should also curb some of the most powerful elite units from turning into veritable death stars, by preventing them from increasing their numbers exponentially and on top giving them expensive magic banners (which normally creates a unit that either is as destructive as it is impervious to damage, or simply so destructive that it will gain so much Combat Resolution advantage that it is unlikely to lose combat).

The Best of "The 9th Age - Fantasy Battles"

Here I will list what I find to be the best rules innovations the ETC and Swedish Comp guys came up for the 9th Age ruleset.

The sharp eye of these rules experts has been scanning the Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition ruleset for any inconsistencies that led to lack of balance in the game.
The 9th Age - Fantasy Battles ruleset is their creation (now in Beta release stage), which has overhauled and tweaked several things to make the game flow better, fairer and consistent. They are also inviting people to join in the effort.

First of all, I have to say that I admire their effort and intent, as I myself have strived to do much of the same in this blog. The game rules (as they are) can be improved and kept being played. There is no need to give up an entire ruleset, and a game that we love simply because it is no longer supported: Mordheim and Warmaster are a good example of that.

I was very very skeptical at first, and there were rumours that they wished to overhaul too much in every armybook... doing away with certain units by simplifying things and so on... And the changing of the names, oh! the names!! Some people thought they were being too arrogant for making these decisions, and were screwing up any chance the ruleset had to gaining traction.
Truthfully, my first draft of this post (started a month ago) was indeed also a negative view.

So... there was huge outcry. And... they listened.
That is the best part of *responsible* community projects.
The wargaming community sometimes worries me that it is its own worst enemy: many people get easily frustrated and give up on great things for little reason, or invest too little of their time to really draw on what a ruleset can offer. And herd behaviour takes care of the rest, and things fall our of favour simply due to great numbers of people following "the general consensus".
The 9th Age, spearheaded by those who brought the ETC and Swedish Comp system for Warhammer Fantaasy Tournament play, is being responsibly driven. This much, after now reading the ruleset, I can now attest. And remaining bugs will be tweaked in the future, so nothing is set in stone, even now.
It takes a while to get used to, but then you start seeing the benefits. Yes, the name changes are corny, and barely passable as anything that could escape copyright infringement, but I'm a practical guy: I can call them whatever I want, I just want tools and rules I can work with. And they are including as many models and options people already have in it. If anything, The 9th Age offers more freedom to players than 8th, but also more balance.

*****************************************************************
Highlights
Here are some of the best rules innovations they have come up with. My praises go to them, wholeheartedly.

Fleeing 
Fleeing models that pass through enemy units or impassable terrain must take a Dangerous Terrain test that fails on a 1-3.

Aided Dispel
When a wizard attempts a dispel roll, each other friendly non-fleeing wizard may aid in the dispel. For each such aiding wizard, increase the dispelling wizard's modifier derived from his wizard level by +1, up to a maximum or wizard level of 4.

Miscasts
Miscasts now have a severity of the magical exploding hit (or other nasty effect) increase with the amount of power dice used. It's a slightly more clunky version (in my opinion) of my Rules Patch, but I think it works well and keeps the danger level of miscasts more under control (ie. u can still push through that 5-dicer, and the effect may still be mild).

Broken Concentration
A wizard that has Broken Concentration (that has failed a casting or dispel attempt) can still cast spells, but cannot add any bonuses (such as Wizard level, Aided Dispel, or bonuses granted by other effects) to casting or dispel attempts this Magic phase.

No More Foes
If a unit that was engaged in close combat with an enemy somehow finds itself no longer engaged with it when the Close Combat phase comes up (possibly because the enemy has been destroyed in the meantime), it can make a Combat Reform as thought it had won a round of close combat. If the unit had charged that turn, it can instead make an Overrun move.

Attack Allocation (no character walls)
Rank-and-file models engaged in close combat can always allocate attacks to rank-and-file models in the enemy unit they are engaged with, even if they are not in contact with such models.

Combat Reform and models in contact
At the end of each Combat Reform, you must have as many models from a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as you had before the reform. Character and champion models likewise must remain in contact with the same number of models, but they do not need to be the same models (and therefore, they may change position within the unit).

Cannons
Cannons now scatter the initial spot chosen by D6+1", but if a 'Hit' is rolled or they haven't moved, they are allowed to reduce the scatter by an amount equal to the crew's BS.
Then the cannonball hits the spot at full Strength (damaging any models), and rolls for bouncing. if it bounces further, any hits on models under the line are at half the Strength.

Combined Profiles
Chariots are now used with combined profiles when ridden by characters, just like Monstrous Mounts. This means that not only the highest value of each Characteristic and save between both parts of the model is used, the character receives the armor save from the chariot as well as any saves the chariot already has (including regeneration and ward saves).
Sadly, the current version's rules for Ridden Monsters are still hotly contested (see below).

Dangerous Terrain
Monstrous models roll two dice for Dangerous Terrain tests, and Monsters and Chariots roll four! For each '1' rolled, they take a wound with no armour save.

Bodyguard (character type)
This unit is Stubborn as long as it is joined by a character of the specified type.

Stubborn (Undead units)
Undead units that have the Stubborn special rule (not just steadfast) now halve the amount of wounds they receive from Unstable and death of the General. And yes, now there are several ways for undead units to gain Stubborn.

One of a Kind
This rule applies to some units, particularly very powerful, game-changing Rare units. They can only be taken once per army in normal army sizes, and Grand armies can take 2 (and it will scale up from then, I believe).
Great way to prevent those double Terrorgheists, Hell Pit Abominations, etc.

Buildings
Assaulting units, if they win a combat without the enemy breaking/being destroyed (and are not engaged with any other enemy), can choose to be nudged back 1" or staying engaged in the assault. However, if they assaulting unit loses a combat, it makes a Break test as usual and may flee.

Magic
This was seriously overhauled, but the core feel of 8th Edition magic definitely has been perfectly preserved.
Many (as I did) may flinch at how many spells were tweaked (or replaced) but remember! Spells and Magic have been the most overhauled items in Warhammer throughout the editions. And 8th edition was no exception: that's when all the ultra-bomb or ultra-buff/debuff spells were cranked up!
Power dice are now capped at max 5 per spell, but the highest casting costs have also been reduced (the highest is 19 I believe) in accordance to the power level of spells being brought down. So expect to see more power dice economy and more little spells being shot through.


*******************************
The Gripes (or "Please fix it soon!") (or "The rant")

Charges
The charger must still 'Close the Door' first, so absolute rediversion (ie. a tiny unit/model can divert and pull a huge unit out of alignment) is still very much a thing.
Oh I'm not alone in this: there is raging discussion on the 9th Age forum.
I have addressed this issue in the past in a previous 'Rules Patch'.
My stance, of course, is A) I prefer realism/simulation (oh those forbidden words!), B) that it interferes with my ability to plan strategies, because my instinctual expectations are that units should behave somewhat realistically (ie. as in a real battle), and when someone takes advantage of this, I find it very frustrating because it is only possible because the ruleset allows it. Those who defend the rule, and love redirection, mostly (maybe not all) have an attraction to this game that is based on its tactics, complexity and mental challenges (though not necessarily competitiveness). I don't as much: my main reason to love the game is the cinematic feel of battle, and tactical decisions derived from the point of view of a fantasy warfare general, not abstract game rules.
And that is where things grind to a halt, because both are valid reasons to love the game... but completely divergent when it comes to issues like this.
There is one good point though, which I'm not absolutely sure it is ultimately true, but bears very serious thinking:
"Because without diverters some armies wold lose 9/10 games. Regardless of the list or player skill. [...]"
Now, if this is true, my gut instinct is to think that then the game requires further fine-tuning to make sure this doesn't happen. However, I also harbor fears that this might be very very difficult to do, as it touches on how the the entire complexity of the moving parts of the game interacts with each other. And these are the guys who have had their finger on the pulse of overall game balance for years now. Are they simply biased because they are enjoy more tactical gamey rules, and think the effort not worth it? Or are they really aware of the scale of the problem?

Model Heights
I understand that for ease of play and limiting discussions, True Line of Sight can be seen as a hindrance. Models now have pre-set heights: Infantry & war beasts are small, Cavalry and Monstrous Beasts are Medium, Monsters are Large, etc.
While this does not bother me much, it is when these rules interact with scenery, and variable terrain elevation, that I find it aggravating: hills (or any partially obscuring terrain that still reveals half or more of the top part of a model) block line of sight. Line of Sight is based on whether the line can intersect the target model's base. I don't like infinitely high hills: I know they have been used a lot in the past to speed up gameplay, but... that subtracts Narrative from my game :(

***************************************
All in all, I will be jumping in and play with 9th Age, as it is closer to what I have been trying to get from 8th Ed than before. And it seems to be gaining traction online.
And hey, if you still have some gripes with it, nothing tells you that it won't be fixed in the future! Have hope!

Roll high and prosper.

Rules Patch: Battle Standard v8.1

In Warhammer 8th Edition, the 'Hold Your Ground' rule granted by the Battle Standard, which in 7th Edition granted re-rolls to Break tests, changed to allow re-rolls to *ALL* kinds of Leadership tests. This had a tremendous stabilizing impact when coupled with the General's Inspiring Presence.

PROBLEM: This change led to an increase in the benefits of maintaining as many units as possible within "the bubble": units within range of both the General's Inspiring Presence and Hold Your Ground not only re-roll Break tests at high Ld, but also swift reform tests, Panic tests, Frenzy tests, Fear tests, etc etc. This makes it so that, for the vast majority of armies, there are few benefits for mobilizing units outside this big clump, and that lessened the diversity of strategies.
SOLUTION: the 'Hold Your Ground' rule grants units within 12" the ability to re-roll Break tests and Panic tests.

This change puts more visibility on how important it is to keep Frenzied units under control, does not make swift reforms a certainty, and certainly brings back Fear and Terror as offensive mechanics to look out for, even in the thick of the front-line.
Given the huge value that re-rolling Break tests already is, the necessity of the Battle Standard in itself does not decrease in the slightest, but opens up opportunities for other rules to be relevant and interact more with strategies.

Rules Patch: Cavalry v8.1

This has been suggested often in forums (or variations of it). This is my own take on it.

PROBLEM: cavalry (especially the non-monstrous variety) suffers from a lack of performance, given that ranked units are so big, steadfast is prolific and their charge attack benefits are subpar.
SOLUTION: when a unit of Cavalry or Monstrous Cavalry charges, it gains Impact Hits (1) at the mount's Strength, plus an extra D3 Impact Hits are dealt on the charged unit(s)(distributed as shooting, not by a charging model in base contact) per rank bonus the cavalry unit has.

This rule gives penetrating power to cavalry units, specifically on the charge, and because the attacks will not be very high Strength, they are well suited to mow through large blocks of weak infantry (which is what cavalry was designed for historically).
This also meshes well with the Bretonnian Lance formation, where ranks bonuses are easier to attain with less knights.
Monstrous Cavalry will benefit less from this due to large units being less fieldable given their high points cost (as if they needed any improvement anyway) :p

Rules Patch: Loose Formation & Unit Splitting v8.3

Skirmisher movement in 8th edition changed significantly, in that it lost full 360degree facing and loose arrangement of models, into always having defined ranks and files, and reforming like Fast Cavalry. It limits how Skirmishers can move through narrow, tricky and impassable terrain features, and makes it impossible to explore battlefield terrain to the fullest (as large spaces are always requires to move units through).
Expanding this idea further, it would stand to reason that normal units, particularly small in number, could also spread out and move into narrow terrain (perfect for urban and jungle fights). This could have great value for smaller point games, making such units viable. This idea indeed was explored before in 'The General's Compendium' and the 'Lustria' campaign book.
I present here a revised version of loose formation and skirmisher movement, along with a new reform maneouver: Unit Splitting.

PROBLEM: units always move in ranks and files, even small units who could conceivably move much looser than the rules allow. The only exception to this are Skirmishers and to a degree Fast Cavalry. 
SOLUTION: Units can reform into a Loose Formation, and Skirmishers also follow these rules

  A unit of 10 models or less (5 models or less if Cavalry, or 3 models or less if a Monstrous Beast, Monstrous Infantry or Monstrous Cavalry unit) can adopt a 'Loose Formation' as part of a reform (or during deployment). 

  In 'Loose Formation', models in a unit are not arrayed in lines and ranks, but rather as a loose group or rough line. All models in the unit must remain within 1/2" from at least one other model from the unit.
Models in the unit move individually (do not wheel the unit as a whole) and can pivot freely, but the whole unit must end all its move with its models all within 1/2" of each other, and facing the same direction. 

  Units in 'Loose Formation' are NOT treated as Skirmishers for purposes of movement through terrain.
  
When charging, the front arc of any model  in the unit can be used to determine the whole unit's front arc. On a successful charge, all models move towards their target up to their charge distance, until a maximum of such models has been brought into base contact, lined up into a rank. Any remaining models are lined up in ranks and files, behind the front rank. When charged, once the enemy unit is in base contact, models in the unit in 'Loose Formation' move into base contact, maximizing models in contact, as described above.
Attacking units never gain flank and rear bonuses in Close Combat against units in 'Loose Formation', but units in 'Loose Formation' also count as having zero ranks, for both the purposes of Rank Bonus or disrupting an enemy unit. 
Furthermore, units in 'Loose Formation' do NOT benefit from Combat Result bonuses from Standards.

A non-Skirmisher unit may return to a normal ranked formation with a reform.

Skirmishers: in addition to ALWAYS having to be in 'Loose Formation' (regardless of number of models in the unit), Skirmishers have a 360 degree front arc (thus able to charge in any direction). Skirmishers also can shoot even if they have marched (although they will still take a -1 penalty To Hit), unless the weapon has the Move or Fire rule. In addition, ranged attacks targeted at a Skirmisher unit take a -1 To Hit penalty.

EDIT#1(changed so that units in Loose Formation do not have a facing, and have 360 degree front arc)
EDIT#2(changed so that front arc of a unit in Loose Formation is drawn from any model that composes it; Skirmishers have an all-around front arc)
EDIT#3(Non-skirmisher units in Loose formation are NOT treated as skirmishers when moving through terrain; non-skirmisher units in Loose Formation do not benefit from Combat result bonuses from Standards).

PROBLEM: large units listed in a player's army list sometimes become a problem when a scenario requires a different unit size (possibly to maneuver through terrain).
SOLUTION: A non-Skirmishing unit may divide itself into two separate units as a reform

As  reform maneouver, a unit may split itself in two, along a dividing line between any two ranks or any two files. Separate the two units by shifting one of them slightly from the other by 1". Command group and character models may be distributed as desired between the two units, within the restrictions of a reform. Any effects (such as a spell) that the original units was currently suffering (or benefiting) from apply to both daughter units.
Note that each of the "daughter units" must consist of a number equal or higher than the minimum number of models required to field the unit.

Converting the best of 'Age of Sigmar' into Warhammer 8th Edition

In this post I will suggest ways in how we can harness some of the new mechanics featured in Age of Sigmar, and apply it to 8th Edition Warhammer rules, in a seamless way that can enrich the whole 8th Edition experience.

Today we saw Age of Sigmar hit the shelves and the websites.
Reactions have been mixed, but I suspect many have taken the blow quite hard.
Mostly, I believe, due to the shift into a more-light-hearted game (gimmicky rules that involves out-of-the-game elements, like players pantomiming or something), the loss of Psychology mechanics, and (apparently) the total loss of ranked units.
Another major shift in the core mechanics was the disappearance of Toughness (replaced with Wounds having become a Hit Point bar) and combination of armor/ward saves into a single save. And finally, there is no balancing mechanic (at least so far!) that controls how many models/warscrolls can be used by each players.

HOWEVER!
There are great game design ideas in Age of Sigmar, and we cannot deny how great they are (from amidst all the other things we dislike).
So, why don't we find a way to inject them into the tried-and-true game engine, slowly built over more than a decade and several editions, working better than it ever did, that is Warhammer 8th Edition?
So what can we adapt?

•  Loose Formation of units: models in a unit can be distributed in any shape, but never more than 1" from another model in the same unit. If anything causes the unit to be split up it MUST reform the next round. After charge moves, models not yet in contact with the charged enemy unit can make a pile in move of up to 3" to help bring them in contact with the enemy. This is roughly how unit formation works in Warhammer 40k, and similar to how Skirmishers used to work before 8th Edition. There is no reason why normal units, particularly those with a low model count, cannot adopt Loose Formation with a reform action. They could then move through terrain unhindered, maneuver through the battlefield much more easily than larger units, and make tactical flanking attacks.
• Combat range: models do not use base contact to determine which models they can attack, but a reach (of 1" to 2") based on weapon type. This is also similar to how combat reach works for Warhammer 40k, and indeed it is a simplification from "base contact plus the rank behind the one in base contact". It also resolves the problem of character walls on the front ranks for units, as now attacking the second rank is possible.
• Planting the Standard: the new version of Battle Standard Bearers grant a certain benefit out to 12", but if they plant the standard and don't move(charge, run, etc) that turn, the effect widens to 18". This is quite cinematic and makes for a great effect.
• (EDIT) Monsters become weaker with injury: a simple yet effective piece of rules that brings things together nicely. As monsters, and certain large chariots, lose Wounds, their number of attacks or range of special abilities decreases, ensuring that every wound inflicted on them counts and decreases their effectiveness.

 In following posts I will adapt these into proper 'rules patches' as I have done previously for other rules.

I will also look at the other side of the equation: what can we inject of 8th into Age of Sigmar, to bring back the feeling of ranked unit combat and psychology that we were used to?

If truly Warhammer ranked combat as it was will no longer be supported (because we still don't know if there will be a future supplement that may grant it), then that means in effect we can do with 8th Edition what we want (as it will be an unsupported game, much like Mordheim! And we can keep playing for a long long time, as long as we have good campaign frameworks and scenarios to plow through!

Warhammer 8th Edition is dead! Long live 8th Edition!!

Rules Patch: Fear and Terror v8.1

A few of these are taken straight from the recent rumours for Warhammer Fantasy 9th edition.
They are indeed good ideas that re-balance rules that have been mostly nerfed since the beginning of 8th edition, and had caused some spells and items to have become too expensive or useless.
(update: these rumours turned out to be utter fabrication and did not feature in the release of Age of Sigmar at all... but I take my hat off to those who tought them up!)

PROBLEM: Fear and Terror have little impact on the game, mostly due to the ability to re-roll Leadership tests in proximity of the Battle Standard Bearer. The penalties they grant are just fine, but it rarely comes into play.
SOLUTION: Fear tests are taken at a -1 penalty to Leadership, and Terror tests are taken at -2 to Leadership.
In this way, Fear/Terror causing units now suddenly become more risky to fight against, and the psychological impact of having your WS reduced to 1 now and again vs another unit is an effective deterrent during the game, essentially recreating a General's worry that their troop's nerve might not hold against such scary opponents. Additionally, it makes Terror significantly more powerful than Fear, and fittingly so, especially for Monsters and some characters. Also, it makes some spells and items now quite useful.


PROBLEM: many Fear-granting spells and items become useless on units that already benefit from that rule.
SOLUTION: Whenever a unit with the Fear ability gains the same ability from another source, it stacks and grants the Terror ability instead.

Rules Patch: Miscasts v8.1

##### Credit to Raymond (from the Lustria Online and Bugman's Brewery forums) #######
Also similar variations have been discussed throughout forums.

6-dicing spells of ultimate destruction sequentially and/or on first turn, to ensure they go off reliably, can precipitate a lot of frustration from opponents. The threat of miscast exists, but the amount of dice committed is irrelevant for the severity of the miscast (and thus not a deterrent). On the other hand, a unlucky miscast on few dice can be horribly crippling, and kill an entire game due to bad luck.

PROBLEM: The severity of a miscast is completely unconnected from the amount of dice committed, leading it to be little of a deterrent when considering 6-dicing spells.
SOLUTION: When a Wizard miscasts, roll D6+(number of power dice used). Refer to the following table to see what happens:

D6+power dice      Effect

                3-4         Magical Feedback (allied wizards take S6 hit, lose power dice)

                5-6         Detonation (S10 hit to all in base contact, lose power dice)

                7-8         Calamitous Detonation (S10 under small template, lose power dice)

                9-10       Power Drain (-D3 wizard level, cannot cast spells that phase)

                11-12     Dimensional Cascade (S10 hit under large template, wizard or power dice lost)

The details of each result above are as described in page 34. of the Warhammer Rulebook 8th ed.
Note: if a miscast is triggered by an effect that did not involve spellcasting or use of power dice (such as the Hellheart), assume that 2 power dice were used for the purposes of the roll.

This change simply reorders the miscast table, and makes it progressively worse depending on the base number of dice used. This causes that triggering a miscast on a high number of dice is an extremely risky proposition, either risking losing Wizard levels or a Dimensional cascade. Throwing more dice at a spell is literally playing with fire now. On the other hand, unlucky miscasts on a few power dice are no longer crippling.

Rules Patch: Winds of Magic roll v8.1

##### Credit to Raymond (from the Lustria Online and Bugman's Brewery forums) #######

The Magic Phase is a part of the game that can change the fortunes of players significantly, whether they are the caster of the dispeller. It is not only random, but the degree by which it can grant a sudden advantage to a player with is highly variable.

While the roll for the Winds of Magic is ultimately statistically fair for each player, because it is the same randomized value, the fact that the number of actual Magic Phases that really matter are so few means that it can be incredibly swingy. Especially for armies which use magic not as an additional bonus, but actually rely on the Magic Phase being successful.
In this way, there is no amount of wizard or magic items that can be brought that guarantees magical reliability, so that between two players a game can be ultimately decided because of two bad Magic phases in a row.


PROBLEM: the roll for Winds of Magic at each player's turn is very swingy, sometimes creating situations where a victory is earned purely due to a few bad rolls on the Winds of Magic compared to the opponent.
SOLUTION: When the first player in any given Turn rolls for the Winds of Magic, that roll applies for all players for that turn (ie. do not roll again for winds of magic for every player after the first, each turn). Place those dice aside in a place where they will be untouched, so that the following player(s) can refer to them when their Magic Phase comes up. At the beginning of next Turn, after all players had a go, roll the Winds of Magic anew.

Any effect that modifies or affects the roll of the Winds of Magic takes place when this roll is first made (ie. the first player's Magic Phase). Any effect that is triggered by the roll in the Winds of Magic when it's a specific player's turn (such as the Reign of Chaos table) only takes place during that player's turn, using the Winds of Magic roll rolled at the beginning of the turn.

This change retains the flavorful random value of the Winds of Magic, but eliminates imbalances between each player's Turn, which often lead to frustrating losses due to a simple die roll involving no decision from the part of a player. Each player gets equal opportunity at exploiting the Winds of Magic in each given Turn, eliminating a random factor which often led to uninteresting games.

(75 points worth of the Master of the Black Arts vampire power do seem worth it now, hey?)

Rules patch: Monster Mounts v8.1 (and chariots)

Much discussion has been had recently regarding the new "End Times" combined profile of models mounted on monsters. Here I wish to address how to re-balance the existing split profile mounted models, which, in conjunction with my previous patch on cannons, should render these models fully attractive for fielding and for the right reasons.
But before, I will rant. I'm so sorry. (please scroll down for actual rules patch please)

RANT START:
  Many have applauded that changing to combined profiles of monster mounts + riders is a good idea that streamlines the game. With the increased numbers of wounds, it is now easier for these important models to survive the first turns of cannon-fire, and thus justify their points worth in the game. However, I put forward that the problem was never in the mounts themselves, but in the rules for cannons (which affect both rider and mount unlike other ranged attacks, as I addressed here). Therefore, trying to fix the problem by changing something which was not the problem itself is bound to cause further disruption of the rules.
  First, combined profile models induce two major changes in how mounts behave: they benefit from all the defenses (armor & wards) of the rider, and (most aggravating) their attacks benefit from the bonuses of the rider. This is best seen on Karl Franz Ascendant's griffon attacks benefiting from Ghal Maraz's power, or Mortach Manfred von Carstein's dread abyssal's attacks being used to fuel the Magic phase. From my "roleplay-y point of view", this is quite unrealistic, and feels far too forced.
  Secondly, because combined profiles blend the defenses and attacks of the rider and mount, this creates unmanageable balance issues which invariably require these models to be pre-designed (such as special characters) and therefore limit customization (which is one of the key features of character creation in Warhammer). In this way, it will become impossible (at least under the current ruleset) to merge profiles as they exist in current rulebooks, as the threat of expanding the attack and defense benefits of the rider to the mount itself will make the game unplayable (10 attack vampire lord on zombie dragon with Red Fury, a 4+ ward and a 1+ armor?... and 9 wounds).
In my humble opinion, the rules were just fine, but I will try to address them a bit further.
RANT END

PROBLEM: Characters mounted on monsters (or chariots, which fall under the same rules) can be significantly vulnerable to be taken down directly (cannons, massed close combat attacks), which contradicts their high points investment. Characters mounted on monstrous mounts (such as elves on Great Eagles or Chaos Knights on Juggernauts) are more protected: they always use the highest of the characteristics between the two (rider or mounts) in addition to increasing the armor save as normal for a mount. On the other hand, riders of monsters/chariots gain no additional benefit other than an increase in armor, becoming more vulnerable and can be targeted freely in close combat by any model that can attack them.
SOLUTION: when models attack a ridden monster model (or ridden chariot), if they wish to direct their attacks at the rider they must first succeed on a roll of 3+ to get past the mount (or the chariot which is in the way). Roll once for each attack that you wish to target at the rider (even if they come from the same model). If they succeed they may target the rider normally, otherwise they must direct their attacks at the mount. Note that this only applies to attack allocation in close combat: abilities which affect a unit in base contact (such as the The Other Trickster's Shard) would still affect the entire mounted model (both rider and mount).
This makes the mount(or chariot) an effective defense for the rider, but the chance of attacks getting through is higher in close combat (3+ to hit the rider) than when the model is targeted by ranged attacks (5+ to hit the rider). This keeps close combat still the best chance to strike directly at the rider, as before, but helps the rider stay protected, as he is on a high vantage point and a huge monster is blocking the way.

The patch is incredibly simple, and the monster can still be taken down first (which tends to actually be easier than taking down some characters, what with armor and ward saves). This will leave the (previously mounted) character very unprotected and (if facing a ranked unit) mostly lacking in attack output to counteract the static CR such a unit can put out (and invariably might force the character to break).
Put together with the patch "cannons only hit the rider+mount on a 5+, otherwise only the mount is hit", which is also incredibly simple, I believe this puts these expensive but very cool looking models back as the centerpieces of your army.

There you go. Simple patches (hopefully) that tackle the initial issue at its heart (instead of switching the rules of mounted characters on their heads).

Rules Patch: Charges v8.2 (I'm gonna enjoy this one)

Charging mechanics suffered a significant amount of change from 7th to 8th edition, and I'd have to say definitely for the better: no range guessing, work out each charge and response at a time, etc etc.
However, some things went away, and other things have crept up that make the charge mechanics odd and somewhat reality-defying.

Here are a few suggestions, use them together or one at a time (depending on which rules aggravate you more), hope they serve you well.

PROBLEM: 2D6" of charge range added to Movement characteristic, even on an average roll, can be significantly farther than what a unit could otherwise cover during a march move (especially units that are slow). Dwarves in particular stick out, being able to shoot out on a charge, but otherwise being extremely slow.
SOLUTION: the roll for charge range is M + D6 + D3" (EDITED from +D4"). Models with the Swiftstride rule roll an additional D6 (as before) and discard the lowest D6 of the two (not the D3).
This makes charges slightly shorter, and make the Movement characteristic of the model more relevant. On average, and considering Swiftstride, each unit will still charge roughly equivalent to their march move, and only to a maximum of M + 10 on the highest roll.

PROBLEM: distance between chargers and chargees (thats a word, right?) is measured by the shortest point between them, causing some situations with chargers which are not directly facing the target measuring from their closest front corner, and gaining a very wide wheeling move completely for free because full movement covered during charge is not counted for, only closest distance).
SOLUTION: distance between charger and target is measured from the center of the front rank of the charger, and the middle point of the face of the target unit (be it the front, side or rear of it).
Measuring from the center is the most balanced compromise I could find. Although I considered measuring from the farthest front corner of the charger, if you then have to measure to the farthest front corner of the chargee, that would be complicated, or the wording would have to be "the corresponding corner facing the farthest corner of the charger"...  and rules argument over wording would ensue, I would need a diagram to explain... this way is simpler.

PROBLEM: charging, as opposed to being charged, provides as benefits only a +1 to CR, +S bonuses if wielding certain weapons, +1A if you have Devastating charge, and the fact that you can enhance your unit during your own magic phase (which you know its going to see combat immediately). However, it provides little intrinsic benefit for the combat itself (in 7th chargers used to strike first), other than the +1 CR.
SOLUTION: chargers gain +D3 Initiative in the round of combat during which they charged.
This is a middle ground solution between 7th edition "Chargers strike first" and 8th edition "everyone strikes at Initiative". This counterbalances slightly some of the issues caused by models that will always strike first (even if they dont have the rule), and gives more reason to players to commit their units to charge instead of being charged. Undead, for instance, gain little benefit from charging, as they almost always get hit first, and have to endure 2 rounds of combat before they can heal their units back up.

PROBLEM: the charging unit always 'closes the door' first to its target (even if the target is significantly smaller), often making it swing around significantly and cause it to be redirected (to great effect).
SOLUTION: the smaller unit between charger and chargee is the one that 'closes the door'. To decide which unit is larger, it will be the one with more full ranks (of 5+ models, 3+ for monstrous units, or 1 for monsters). Units of Cavalry, Monstrous Cavalry/Infantry/Beasts, Chariots and Monsters always count as having +1 rank for this purpose, to represent their added ability to break formations. If both units have equal number of ranks, then they both close in into each other by the same amount until they are in contact. The exception to this rule are Frenzied units: they will always 'close the door' first to their target.

(EDITED 3-12-15: added +1 bonus for monstrous inf, beasts and chariots, and monsters always count as being 1 full rank)
This rule gets rid of the unrealistic situations where a tiny small unit redirects a huge unit by a significant angle. It will still allow Frenzied units to be baited and redirected around, so this weakness can still be exploited. It significantly limits the strategy of redirecting, but its renders the game more realistic.

Rules patch: Steadfast v8.1 (so many things that can be changed...)

Oh, this one has been aggravating me personally, ehehe, and it's surprising how much people disagree with how GW made the rule in this edition, but nobody seems to be willing to address it in a practical manner. At least as a gentleman's agreement in casual games.

PROBLEM: charging a ranked unit on its flank or rear with another unit (with at least 2 or more ranks of five or more models) disrupts the first unit's ranks. This negates that unit's rank bonus (GOOD!) but does not negate steadfast (REALLY!?).
SOLUTION: disruption negates steadfast. (I can't make this any simpler.) EDIT(6/06/15) A unit cannot be steadfast against any model that can Thunderstomp them.
This rebalances the steadfast mechanic, especially considering the significance of flank charges in a combat. Furthermore, it grants more stability to Monsters, which can struggle severely against large blocks of infantry, and have the odds stacked against them in terms of breaking the opponent.

PROBLEM: undead units gain no benefit from being steadfast, which is a huge benefit to most other races in Warhammer, and often the reason why many terrain pieces (such as buildings) are beneficially exploited by generals.
SOLUTION: undead units that are steadfast suffer 2 less wounds due to Unstable. This stacks with any other effects that modify the Unstable rule (such as a -1 to Unstable wounds granted by a BSB).
Despite the fact that undead are mindless, and the strength of their numbers should not impact their capacity to fight effectively, the combat pressure a large body of corpses provides should be taken into account. Generally, this will mostly come into play with units such as skeletons and zombies, which are easily destroyed anyway, so it simply mitigates how crippling this mechanic is to such units.

Hopefully, neither of these two changes are too powerful, but make the game more logical and coherent, and ensure that some races don't get the short end of the stick when it comes to certain situations, SIMPLY due to a game mechanic particularity (such as undead gaining no benefit from steadfast from being inside buildings).

Rules patch: spears v8.3

This one is mostly a realism fix (for the narrative/roleplay-inclined out there), as spears themselves do not perturb the balance of the game in any way.

PROBLEM: although the "fight in extra rank" ability of spears nicely recreates the 'phalanx' combat technique, spears do not provide any additional benefit against charging cavalry (which was one particular usage in which the spear shined, particularly during the middle ages).

SOLUTION: a spear-wielding model on foot gains an additional benefit if it has not marched during its turn (it can however 'swift reform' and still gain this benefit). If such a unit is charged on its front by a unit of warbeasts, cavalry, monstrous cavalry or a monster, it gains +1 Strength during the first round of combat against those particular models only. Any attacks directed against enemy models that are not in contact with the front of the unit, or that did not charge this turn, do not receive this benefit. 

This provides good utility for spearmen units, especially when used defensively, making them more reliable against some of the worst hard-hitters in the Warhammer range, and the perfect answer to heavily armored cavalry. However, to gain this benefit requires them to severely sacrifice their mobility, and still does not increase significantly their ability to Wound their target in the first place, essentially preventing the rule from giving too much power for so few points (spears are normally 1 point/model).

With this rule, which is situational and rarely coming into play in an aggressive (forward-moving) army, the usage of spears in Warhammer becomes more realistic and coherent, and the dreaded 'schiltron' becomes a tool in a Warhammer general's arsenal.

EDIT: originally had the spearmen gain +1S instead of ASF. Although while logical, it ignored the fact that spears should strike the chargers first, regardless of the impact of the charge. But putting in both rules with no change in points would be overpowering, so I sticked with the ASF.
EDIT #2: the idea above was not really good... it rendered (quite obviously, if one wonders for a bit) Elven spearmen with no added bonus (as they already have ASF). So I went back to my original idea (a charge into spears grants extra force to the spear attack) and granted the next best thing to St bonus: +1 to Armor Penetration. 
EDIT #3: bonus from spears returned to +1S, as it originally was. This was inspired by the recent rumours about Warhammer Fantasy 9th Edition. Spearmen on foot are not overpowered as it is, and with the limitation of  not being able to claim this benefit if it marched, it is not an exaggerated benefit.

Rules patch: Cannons v8.1

What better thing to start the "rules patches" section than with trying to fix the rules for cannons.
I am well aware than I am not by far the first, nor will I be the last, to try and do this. Nevertheless, I think it should be done.

PROBLEM: Cannon shots are 100% accurate in terms of lateral accuracy (i.e. they only scatter longitudinally), which is unrealistic and in some situations (like shooting at lone infantry characters) game-breaking.

SOLUTION: When determining where a cannonball will land, after picking the spot you wish to shoot, you must scatter it with a scatter dice and a d3 if your shot is within short range, or a d6 if your shot is at long range. Only then do you roll for range with the artillery dice. All effects (benefits or penalties) that normally affect the artillery dice roll do not affect the first scatter roll.

This keeps the cannon pretty good when shooting at large things, because the scatter is not too much, but it curbs its ability to shoot at small targets. Additionally, it grants advantage to it when the cannon is shooting at point blank.

PROBLEM: When cannon shots hit ridden monsters/chariots, it always affects the rider as well.

SOLUTION: the rider only is affected by a cannonball hit on a 5+, just as for a shooting attack or a template-based attack.

This keeps the monster/chariot mount good for its points, because its death by cannon-shot does not immediately mean the death of the character (it is essentially like a 3+ Look Out Sir save). However, the cannon-shot still successfully eliminated the mount (which is worth a lot of points), fulfilling its purpose, and now the character has to scurry to safety.

Overview

Cannons are generally quite cheap for what they can perform in a game. This includes eliminating high-points monsters, but also characters as well. This has led to a metagame optimization arms-race, which disfavours monsters and characters riding them, as well as characters running outside units. As such, units which are otherwise gorgeous to collect/paint and a pride to field, become a liability in terms of list optimization.

This patch tries to address both the realism issues, as well as balance issues, by giving targets a slight advantage against the predictability of where the shot will land, as well as keeping monster mounts a reasonable choice for characters. However, it does not hamper the utility of the cannon, because the probability to hit a monster with it still remains good.

Not-too-nerfed, I hope.

The state of the art: the rant that starts it all

To kick this blog off, I'll begin with the reasons that made me start it, and see if you might find some common ground in the following rant.

As some may agree, Warhammer Fantasy (as per the current edition, at least) suffers somewhat from the divide between what players call the competitive (warhammer as a sport) and the fluffy (warhammer as a storytelling/roleplaying experience).

While this has been discussed at length by others, I put forward that one of the biggest reasons that happens is that the core game rules do nothing to bridge this gap. The Core Rules only provide a basic framework for running fantasy battles, and your average basic pick-up game (which is the norm if you don't have a large enough group) runs without invoking any narrative components.
For an RPG player, this is generally no problem, because a rulebook/sourcebook is simply the tool used to build a story, which grows cooperatively between the players and the GM when they meet up.
Warhammer, however, is an adversarial game with no GMs to arbiter it (in most cases), so rules and balance are of much more importance to players (and reasonably so). Therefore, smooth operation of the rules and ensuring fairness is required for enjoyable gameplay.
Additionally, while an RPG session depends heavily on story elements to glue it together, a Warhammer battle has no need of story/narrative elements in itself, and can run simply as a strategy game (the competitive view). Therefore, narrative elements can easily be seen as superfluous add-ons, as they normally have no effect on the game.

From a gaming/strategy perspective, the Core Rules (as they are) have also caused a shift in the game towards a points denial approach to victory. This is fomented by the rules themselves: the battle setup of the 6 core scenarios and victory conditions. Additionally, the game penalizes certain unit choices, because they are simply sub-optimal in these conditions, as well as interaction with some armies whose basic strategy relies more heavily on avoidance tactics (Wood Elves for instance).
I am not by far the first to tackle this: MrMalorian and TheSustainableCenter have already approached this question nicely.

The way some things work (cannons, redirecting, steadfast, conga-lining, undead crumble, etc) is also quite incoherent with what you would expect in an actual battle, and simply become rules gimmicks that are used to great effect in strategy, in contradiction to common sense (especially for newer players).  

These are all points that I hope to cover in this blog.

Thankfully, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!    :)

The solution can be very simple: include more scenarios, adopt house rules, and overall make the game better with our own hands. If RPGs do this ALL THE TIME without ANY problems, there is little reason why it can't happen for Warhammer.

Not everybody knows about it, because it's not official? Well, DotA didn't start official either, and it's huge now. And Erratas ARE official, but not everybody carries them around (and they can decide games).

As said in many Warhammer Rulebooks of editions past, "Warhammer is your game".

What I hope to contribute with this blog is a series of options and "patches", if you will, that you may find interesting and useful to add/modify in your game, that I have put together and use in my games. Mix and match, use what you like, throw away and spit on what you don't.

Whether for gaming among friends (your garage-hammer) or for a framework of standardized rules in your Friendly Local Game Store.

The goal is to bring Warhammer closer together, bridging the gap between army optimization (which is perfectly reasonable that everyone does) and interesting narrative games, with more purpose to the conflict, more variety in objectives and allowing all units to shine and have their place in the spotlight.

Explore, use it, tweak it and have fun.