Building a better Warhammer

[Archdaimon]

What I have in mind is the things that make the fluff of an army.

However much I agree with you that a statline change is useful, special rules helps identify an army.
Special rules should not be spammed, but a few are able to make an army stand out.

If elves, as an example, are just one statpoint higher than humans, and human elite equal to elven common troops something is missing. That which makes the army stand out.

Your idea for making saurus coldblooded is a great example. A special rule that makes the troops more fluffy and stand out. Can you follow me?

Also the specialrules are what makes the difference between brettonia and empire, else they are two equal armies. However much that is likable in a historical wargame, it is within the ability of fantasy to make such differences, and therefore preferable.

So each army should have some of the things that make them stand out from eachother into warhammer.

Examples:
Skaven increase leadership the more they are.
Brettonia has the lanceformation.
Lizardmen has coldblooded.
Undead is unbreakable and has this combat resolution thing.
Empire detachments?

The thing is just how to price these things.

[Xyon]

Why does it jump from version 1.2 to 0.4 and then continue back up from there on the website? Just trying to check out the most up to date versions of rules.

[Idle Scholar]

@Archdaimon

I fully sympathize with the philosophy of using the core rules to represent abilities wherever possible. If cold blooded can be done by a leadership increase then you don't have to roll an extra dice for each leadership test and you and your opponent don't need to remember the rule.

The problem with special rules is that they are all exceptions that have to be learned. They seem cool when you're younger and have nothing better to do than re-read your codex 50 times but all they really do is slow the game down and make it difficult to learn. If army differentiation can be done on the statline then all the better. If it can't then a special rule should come into play but it shouldn't be the first resort.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

What I have in mind is the things that make the fluff of an army.

However much I agree with you that a statline change is useful, special rules helps identify an army.
Special rules should not be spammed, but a few are able to make an army stand out.

If elves, as an example, are just one statpoint higher than humans, and human elite equal to elven common troops something is missing. That which makes the army stand out.

Ah, but there is more to it than that. Elves' basic stat line is better. They move 5" rather than 4" and their equipment is also different.

Different equipment means a different fighting style. Couple that with the stats and you have a totally different army.

I guarantee you that Empire and High Elves "feel" very different - without any special rules at all.

Your idea for making saurus coldblooded is a great example. A special rule that makes the troops more fluffy and stand out. Can you follow me?

Sure. As I said, a little chrome is a good thing. Adds color. But the chrome shouldn't be confused for the actual structure underneath it.

Also the specialrules are what makes the difference between brettonia and empire, else they are two equal armies. However much that is likable in a historical wargame, it is within the ability of fantasy to make such differences, and therefore preferable.

Actually, no. Bretonnia has superlative knights while Empire had better (and more balanced) infantry. My version of Bretonnia got rid of special formations, stakes, etc. and focused on the knights, because that is really what we are talking about.

But the mere fact that the Empire has gunpowder and fields elite infantry gives them a very different feel from Bretonnia. Additional special rules would be a waste.

So each army should have some of the things that make them stand out from eachother into warhammer.

Examples:
Skaven increase leadership the more they are.
Brettonia has the lanceformation.
Lizardmen has coldblooded.
Undead is unbreakable and has this combat resolution thing.
Empire detachments?

Yes and no.

Yes, special rules can add that extra bit, as I said above. Giving lizardmen the ability to ignore "disordered" results is huge, probably 20, maybe 30 points because of the cumulative effect (especially for low-morale troops that sit on the "bubble" part of the 2d6 bell curve).

However, WHFB uses them as substitutes for core mechanics, which is my point.

Bretonnia needs the lance because otherwise its cavalry can't win. Take that away and they are doomed. It is a core mechanic.

Similarly, High Elf spears need to fight in three ranks because without it they get utterly crushed by horde armies. It is an essential part of their fighting ability.

Indeed, many of the "standard" special rules (especially stubborn) exist to force the system to work.

The thing is just how to price these things.

That is the trick, isn't it? And the problem with pricing intangibles is that the cost isn't always apparent.

Conqueror's point values are based on mathematical probabilities. That is the stat line's costs are built around a multiplier of the base unit value of 10. That is why spears cost so much more - they increase base attacks. In addition, their cost is multiplied by the melee skill of the unit because the deadlier the unit, the more those extra attacks will count. GW, by contrast, has a flat cost for its weapons which frankly doesn't work.

When we start getting into special rules, the math breaks down. Take the undead. How to you price "the horror," which is my equivalent of fear (-2 to ML for all units in contact)?

Through trial and error, I put it at 20 points, and (again this is from memory) I think it's 50 for the whole undead package.

But wait! What about undead characters? Characters normally provide leadership - and when you look at how those costs are determined, characters pay more for leadership because it affects more than just themselves.

Yet the undead don't need leadership. So their characters are cheaper.

My point is that even a straightforward set of rules can take a lot of work.

Since you asked, Empire does had detachments, though they don't do much (that is, I include them more because people may have detachment-sized units than that they are terribly effective). Empire's big "special rule" is that it has gunpowder and a nice balance of unit types.

Bretonnia got virtues, and nothing else, because in Conqueror, superlative knights with MS 5 and A morale dominate.

Dwarfs got a base-line increase on their Save. Orcs got a package of things because they use larger bases and I needed some way to compensate them for their reduced frontage.

Skaven, I haven't even looked at. Chaos, I have, and with a little free time can come up with the marks for the four gods.

And so on.

Oh, and since it came up, the current rules are the ones closest to the top of the blog. Yes, the numbers reset because I did a big revision and basically "re-set" everything. Publication - actual for-real publication is "1.0" so everything is building up to that. The 1.x versions were the playtest/experimental/"wouldn't it be fun to make a game" versions.

If there is an army that you would like to see, let me know and I can see what I've got. I will warn you that I no longer have all the fantasy book and my "bible" for WHFB armies is Ravening Hordes because that little booklet really distilled each army to its essence. The special rules in that were (of necessity) short and sweet.

(Just off the top of my head, Tomb Kings and VC are primarily different in unit selection because magic isn't necessary to run undead armies. I've got a VC list around here somewhere, but haven't gotten to TK yet.)

[Archdaimon]

you sir, conviced me

If it is not to much bother can I pursuade you to put out what you have thought of for the armies?

[Archdaimon]

During the evening the post got longer and longer sry for that.

A)

Studied your bettonian list.

-Wondering about your reflections on their high morale values?
Your ahve given the commeners ML value C... Wouldn't D be more fitting? then with the leader bolstering it to C?
Same with Baron, maybe leadership B and only A reserved for the Duke?


-Is there a reason that the Duke doesn't have more than 2 attacks? (I can understand the sentiment of getting away from herohammer, but would it alter the system much giving leaders more attacks?)
Same goes for Grail knights?

-One of the most beautiful models in the bret range is the pegasus knight. How much would the ability to fly cost?

-Have I understood you rules correctly that mounts do not fight? (seens right!)

B) Monsters

-Maybe I am damaged with to much regular WH, but how to handle monster mounts. A lot of people have nice models with characters on mounts. Could it be an idea to price them as regular characters?
Simply build the mount with stats and then price it as a character? without the LD extra cost?

C) Empire Armylist

Working a bit on an empire list I have a few questions:

- Any idea how to represent the warrior priest? they are very colourfull addition to the army.
however, hatred not being an issue in these rules, any suggestions?
- Reiksguard, are the elite infantry. In the WH there sole advantage is fullplate, GW and stubborn.
Stubborn is a weird rule, so good riddance, but without hte fullplate they end up squishy against units such as foot knights (an example) with their maces. potentially i was thinking of giving them higher ML, but it seemed unfitting. With the 4+ high ap attack they seemed pretty cool enough!
I was thining:

Reiksguard: 240p

MS: 4
SS: 0
SV: 4+
W: 1
AT: 1
MV: 4
ML: B
eq: Great weapons, full plate

The problem with this unit is that it actually breaks the rules!! your armor of dwarven steel costs 50 points. I believe the reiksguard should be elite, but going eq heavy might not be the way...
(neither do I like the idea of ms5, it should be reserved for characters and such... not elite humies...)

D) Elves, Dwarves and Leadership

- Elven and Dwarven units have high ML value without the support of a character (they ought to have anyway). This makes the use of their ML much less important like the Undead. What are your thoughts on lowering points there?

E) statline names:

With all the M-somethings, I would suggest a statline namechange for ease of remebrance and communication:

CC = Close Combat skill
R = Ranged Combat skill
(A)S(V) = (Armor) Save
AT = Attacks
MV = Movement
LS = Leadership

The advantage is that none of those names share letters and are therefore not as easily mixed up, which with the current nmes might be the case for new players and rules readers (I surely did!).
(To back my claim, I study rhetorical communication, it might seem a small thing, but it can change hte initial attitude towards the rules a lot.)

[Commissar von Toussaint]

During the evening the post got longer and longer sry for that.

A)

Studied your bettonian list.

-Wondering about your reflections on their high morale values?
Your ahve given the commeners ML value C... Wouldn't D be more fitting? then with the leader bolstering it to C?
Same with Baron, maybe leadership B and only A reserved for the Duke?

I'm fine with making the commoners D morale.

-Is there a reason that the Duke doesn't have more than 2 attacks? (I can understand the sentiment of getting away from herohammer, but would it alter the system much giving leaders more attacks?)
Same goes for Grail knights?

Yes, it would. Characters in Conqueror serve two purposes:

1. They provide leadership
2. They kill other characters/monsters

I really don't want them slaughtering rank and file troops.

-One of the most beautiful models in the bret range is the pegasus knight. How much would the ability to fly cost?

Dunno. I'll have to think about that. It depends on whether they fly or are winged. I would say winged.

-Have I understood you rules correctly that mounts do not fight? (seens right!)

You are correct.

B) Monsters

-Maybe I am damaged with to much regular WH, but how to handle monster mounts. A lot of people have nice models with characters on mounts. Could it be an idea to price them as regular characters?
Simply build the mount with stats and then price it as a character? without the LD extra cost?

Monstrous mounts is something I haven't done much with, primarily because I wasn't much into them in WHFB. Most of my playtesting has been core rules, so that's another reason.

Yes, basically it would be two characters. And you are correct that the mount's ML cost would not be increased since no one but it would use it.

C) Empire Armylist

Working a bit on an empire list I have a few questions:

- Any idea how to represent the warrior priest? they are very colourfull addition to the army.
however, hatred not being an issue in these rules, any suggestions?

Warrior Priests do two things: hatred and some spells. Since there is no hatred, a spell or two might be enough. Fairly easy to price, too.

- Reiksguard, are the elite infantry. In the WH there sole advantage is fullplate, GW and stubborn.

It depends on which Reiksguard you are talking about.

Back in the day, the Reiksguard was just well-equipped infantry. WS 4 and maybe (I'd have to check) ld 8. Hardly anything to get excited about.

Stubborn and full plate with greatswords were an attempt to make them elite infantry. GW had to do that because the WHFB engine by itself doesn't allow elite infantry - the stats don't matter enough.

Conqueror does. Merely haveing MS 4 and ML B makes you a cut above. Add in heavy armor and a greatsword and you are talking about one hard unit. If you want them to be even harder, give them shields so they can shrug off missile fire. You are correct that a 4+ save is right out - that's reserved for the dwarves.

D) Elves, Dwarves and Leadership

- Elven and Dwarven units have high ML value without the support of a character (they ought to have anyway). This makes the use of their ML much less important like the Undead. What are your thoughts on lowering points there?

The problem is that characters can also be on their own, so they have to pay something. I see where you are going - if the army doesn't have a unit below ML B, why do the characters pay extra?

The answer is that this is what they actually cost - and that if you wanted to put an elf into a human unit, you shouldn't have to recalculate the point costs.

There may be a little "leakage" in terms of the army's actual value, but unless you are seriously loading up on characters, it shouldn't matter that much - and I think it beats the alternative of having to explain that coalition armies (or ones with allies) have to redo their points.

E) statline names:

With all the M-somethings, I would suggest a statline namechange for ease of remebrance and communication:

CC = Close Combat skill
R = Ranged Combat skill
(A)S(V) = (Armor) Save
AT = Attacks
MV = Movement
LS = Leadership

The advantage is that none of those names share letters and are therefore not as easily mixed up, which with the current nmes might be the case for new players and rules readers (I surely did!).
(To back my claim, I study rhetorical communication, it might seem a small thing, but it can change hte initial attitude towards the rules a lot.)

At this point, the real pain is changing all the documents. I use Morale rather than Leadership because that's the word that best describes what is going on.

[Archdaimon]

Great. When you have some thoughts on flying creatures let me now

I was thinking that right now in whfb warriorpriests add a dispel dice. Instead of giving them magic, maybe just give them the ability to counter one spell, maybe a bit like the dwarven runesmith?

And concerning prices:
a) an extra attack and spears have the same price addition. Yet the extra attack cannot be negated, the spear ability can. Maybe this is to little to matter, but it is worth considering.
b) I suggest that the formula for calculating prices for spear become the following:
10xmsxa. Reason is that right now, a unit can have an extra attack and get spears whilke only paying for 3 attacks when they in reality get 4...

and concerning name change isn't a simple matter of the "find and replace" ability found in most office-like software?

oh and the I understand the morale thing... maybe then for the final edition consider putting movement in the beginning, as the two M's get away from eachother. (and every whfb dude out there is just used to see movement first. Never underestimate the power of habit!)

Continueing my brainstorm

1) the slann.
The fluff tell us that they are the best mages in the warhammer world. Basicly saving everyones ass quite often.
What we know of the slann:
He is a tough toad (lots of wounds, high ward), but a sucky fighter.
This means low MS (2), quite many wounds (as many as 4 or 5), ordainary 1 attack for mages etc.
He needs to be a better master mage than others I feel. another +1 is very very powerful, as mischance would then be extremely uncommon. Being able to cast 3-4 spells seems strong too. What do ye all think? If the extra +1 (net +2) is chosen, would +100% of character cost be sufficient?
2) Skinks a kroxigors in regiments together...
This I have a hard time figuring out if it actually makes a difference. The idea is quite funny, but have a hard time seeing if it is just bullocks?!

3) Again on Characters:
You write one character per unit... As most of your characters are basicly "champions" this work well. But can, by the powerplayer, be misused.
Borrowing a bit from warhammer, I have been thinking of seperating characters into 3 tiers.
First tier basicly a champion (in some few cases with better morale, most often not, bound to be equipped same way as unit he is with), second tier a hero with typicly better morale, again else no big difference except for magical weapon options and free weaponry, 3rd tier with better leadership, better fighting stats, overall best character (I would argue that some leaders of this caliber should have 3 attacks, Chaos warriors, Saurus Warrios, Black Orc bosses should have options to bring 3 attack lords!).
Each unit provide a character slot. Every second 1st tier slot can be used for a 2nd tier slot. Every 2nd tier slot can be used for a 3 tier slot.
It might seem clunky, but this way have a rule that makes sure no one spams biggest bosses, dukes and whatnot.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Great. When you have some thoughts on flying creatures let me now

Maybe tomorrow, we'll see.

I was thinking that right now in whfb warriorpriests add a dispel dice. Instead of giving them magic, maybe just give them the ability to counter one spell, maybe a bit like the dwarven runesmith?

I'm not keen on boosting the anti-magic. Instead I'd like to give them positive abilities.

And concerning prices:
a) an extra attack and spears have the same price addition. Yet the extra attack cannot be negated, the spear ability can. Maybe this is to little to matter, but it is worth considering.
b) I suggest that the formula for calculating prices for spear become the following:
10xmsxa. Reason is that right now, a unit can have an extra attack and get spears whilke only paying for 3 attacks when they in reality get 4...

Spears are predicated on you using them correctly, of course.

I think you are trying to say that if you gave a unit with a base of 2 AT spears, the second rank would also get 2 AT, meaning four total attacks, though only paying for 3 in points.

My answer to this is that at no point have I considered units with a base of 2 attacks getting spears. That is why even when I get around to doing chaos knights, they will have one attack.

Combat in Conqueror is bloody enough without attack inflation.

and concerning name change isn't a simple matter of the "find and replace" ability found in most office-like software?

In theory. But when you run it, every combination of the two letters shows up, and then all previous editions have to be scrubbed. I'll tell you, I've changed a couple of things so far and each change was a serious pain.

oh and the I understand the morale thing... maybe then for the final edition consider putting movement in the beginning, as the two M's get away from eachother. (and every whfb dude out there is just used to see movement first. Never underestimate the power of habit!)

Changing the order of the profile is even more painful.

Continueing my brainstorm

1) the slann.
The fluff tell us that they are the best mages in the warhammer world. Basicly saving everyones ass quite often.
What we know of the slann:
He is a tough toad (lots of wounds, high ward), but a sucky fighter.
This means low MS (2), quite many wounds (as many as 4 or 5), ordainary 1 attack for mages etc.
He needs to be a better master mage than others I feel. another +1 is very very powerful, as mischance would then be extremely uncommon. Being able to cast 3-4 spells seems strong too. What do ye all think? If the extra +1 (net +2) is chosen, would +100% of character cost be sufficient?
2) Skinks a kroxigors in regiments together...
This I have a hard time figuring out if it actually makes a difference. The idea is quite funny, but have a hard time seeing if it is just bullocks?!

The easiest thing to do is give them a unique spell or two. Maybe their own "lore." Or allow them to pick spells from all lores rather than one. Basically you and I are on the same page in thinking small.

3) Again on Characters:
You write one character per unit... As most of your characters are basicly "champions" this work well. But can, by the powerplayer, be misused.
Borrowing a bit from warhammer, I have been thinking of seperating characters into 3 tiers.
First tier basicly a champion (in some few cases with better morale, most often not, bound to be equipped same way as unit he is with), second tier a hero with typicly better morale, again else no big difference except for magical weapon options and free weaponry, 3rd tier with better leadership, better fighting stats, overall best character (I would argue that some leaders of this caliber should have 3 attacks, Chaos warriors, Saurus Warrios, Black Orc bosses should have options to bring 3 attack lords!).
Each unit provide a character slot. Every second 1st tier slot can be used for a 2nd tier slot. Every 2nd tier slot can be used for a 3 tier slot.
It might seem clunky, but this way have a rule that makes sure no one spams biggest bosses, dukes and whatnot.

I'm pretty sure that my points values can handle people overdoing characters. GWs point values don't work out, which is why they have to come up with core, rare, special, etc.

I'd love someone to try to prove me wrong, though. Have someone take a character-heavy army vs a "normal" one and see what happens!

[Archdaimon]

Now writing seriously on the Empire list and have come quite far. Can probably send you a copy of my ideas tomorrow.

Have a question though at your pricing of shields and light armour for characters in the brettonia list. They seems very lov compared to what you suggest in your point guide.
each save addition should be +5 points not 3,5 and 8. How did you get to those numbers? Same goes for ranged weaponry. (Or the short version, your formula or reflections on pointcosts for equipent for characters...)

On that note I have an Idea:
How about you calculate the price for shooting skill into the ranged weapon that is an option for the character. Example: If you buy and Empire general and buys a pistol, you pay for the ss and the cost of the weapon. If you choose not to give ranged weaponry, you never pay for the SS?

I am trying to put restrictions on characters in the Empire armylist, then you can see what you think of it!

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I'm not sure why Bretonnia's values are what they are. Bretonnia is newer, which may reflect my thoughts on character points. Or it may be a typo.

They should be half of what a unit should pay, but I was probably experimenting with further reductions because characters seemed overpriced. The Orcs list was modified at the same time and shows no reduction. I'll have to look into it.

Keep in mind that this is a sometime-obsession, which is to say that I rarely get a chance to play anymore. When I do, I get back into it, make some improvements, and then three months go by and I forget where I was.

On the plus side, each pass leaves me that much closer to completion. I am interested to see what you come up with for Empire.

I will say that there is no "right" way to do someone else's (i.e. GW's) lists. I own the rules - you own the lists. And I put the points in there specifically so you could make your own. I hate the way GW tries to own every aspect of its games. Players just lease the rules.

As for weapons, the Empire has pistol costs for most characters. There reason I separated archer from non-archer is that it makes army design much faster. Most people are going to get a shooter or a hacker. I suppose I should put a combination of the two in there as well for completeness.

[Archdaimon]

I'll just continue a bit of work, as I really like the foundation you made. Most of what I am talking about is tweaks, all within the scope of the army lists.

Some of the point math is less obvious. One of them is magic; do you have a secret formula hidden somewhere to explain what magic should cost...

And yes, characters do seem a tad overpriced, but soon we will get to the real playtesting of my armylists, and then we can see if tweaks for characters are necessary.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

I wanted to discourage characters, so they should be a little pricey. At the same time, they may have been too much and I think the Bretonnian reduced costs reflect my changing thoughts on this.

Magic is 20 points based on trial and error. Master is based on a percentage because it is a marginal increase. The idea is to make it more expensive to take a master than two basic wizards.

Why?

Because WHFB basically eliminated 2 and 3-level wizards. Who takes 'em? If you take a wizard, it's either a level 1 scroll-caddy or a level 4 spellmeister. This way it is cost-effective to take some smaller wizards.

This is the second points system I've used and seems to work. But more playtesting may show up its flaws.

[Archdaimon]

Well the questions concerning magic is mostly if you had a formula like for the rest, or how you reached that price. That could be helpful in calculating variations (warriorpriest, runesmiths, slanns etc. etc.).

Have you considered a price for regular infantry skirmishing?

I have a pdf document with my empire armylist:
http://rapidshare.com/files/33748167..._Beta.pdf.html

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Magic's price is based on what it seems to be worth.

Here is how I came up with it.

You get no more than six spells per game.

The spells work about half the time.

The opponent can stop them as well.

The spells then have semi-random damage.

This then was compared to what weapon I could give that would have similar damage-causing abilities - basically how much of the game could it affect.

The countermagic power added nothing real to the cost of the wizard since if there are no other wizards, it gets ignored. But it does count against the utility of the wizard itself, since if a wizard is there, you run the risk of losing your spell even if it works.

The upshot is that 20 points seemed about right and then the multiplier (.8 of existing cost) ensures that master wizards are more expensive than two basic wizards. This is as it should be, since a master is more effective at casting and stopping, and can use more spells, so there is more chance that he will earn his points on a given round.

I've read your list and it looks good. Not that different from mine. A couple of questions:

1. Where is the hellblaster? Didn't you like my rules?
2. Wouldn't it be easier to do lords/heroes/champions for the characters? Honestly, I'd just as soon say: Everyone has to have a general, other than that do what you want. Open it wide up. I bet the all-character army gets crushed, but I'd be interesting to see what happens.

Anyhow, good job. Keep me posted.

[Archdaimon]

Magic: ok

List:
yeah, where is the hellblaster. I was actually thinking a lot about it. The thing is, the many incarnations of I have seen has been rather arbitrary. Either it blows up, og it kills everyone else.

Kinda like saying I roll a dice on 1-2 I win, 3-4 we fight on with 5-6 you win... kinda yatzee.

yet the figure is cool, and it must be possible to make some less arbitrary rules for it.
On top of my head something like the player chooses how many barrels he wants to fire, max 3. He then rolls to hit as usual, max range 12" (16/18?"). If he hits he rolls a d6 for each barrel. That many hits are scored. If two dices roll the same they cancel each other out.

kinda like a grapeshot cannon, just constantly. Price somewhat more that a cannon - close to 200 points I think.

You might be right about characters. Depending on the rest of my surroundings think that may be the way to go. Another might be that we nerf the price for characters a wee bit, and then keep these restrictions.
These restrictions could also be a part to restrict rareunits.

something else:

I noticed that if you do a matchup between knight on foot with ha, shield and mace against reiksguard with heavy armor and greatweapons, they have the exact same chance to hit save etc.
Difference is the heavy armor greatweapon option is almost 50 points cheaper for a 20 man unit.
Ok they are worse of against shooting, but maybe the mace is priced a bit heavy? or greatweapon a bit to little... those things pawns!

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Have you seen my rules for the hellblaster? If you go to the link and scroll down, it should be on that empire document. If not, I'll upload it tomorrow.

As for the mace vs great weapon, mace is more expensive because you get AP 1 and benefit from the shield. The difference from 5+ to 4+ is a 50 percent increase, which is why I make maces more expensive.

Basically, my thought on hand weapons is that the cheapest option is the sword/basic hand weapon. After that, flails and maces cause the price to go up more steeply than great weapons because there is no tradeoff. So the trade off has to be the point costs.

Heavy armored infantry with great weapons against charging cavalry get no save. With a mace and shield they still get a 6+ save, so that's a big deal. Against each other (as you point out) they are both a 6+, but they won't always face each other. Basically the mace/shield combination has more capability and when pricing for capability, you have to increase the marginal costs along with the benefits. That's why flails - which negate shields and are AP 1 are so expensive.

So you pay 40 more points (260 vs 220) but have a unit that is more capable and survivable. Basically it can do more things.

[Archdaimon]

I see. When I wrote the mace just seemed overpriced. Any who, not so important.
And will check your empire list for sure if I can find it.

For warrior priests I was thinking of the following:

Cost the +20 for being a wizard. He does however grant no dispel dice, (and his prayers cannot be dispelled, might seems a bit overpowered though!). Prayers work for the warriorpriest and any unit he is with, but can be cast on no other unit. One boon a turn.

(5+) Boon of Courage: +1 to morale tests for the rest of the turn.
(x) Boon of Vengeance: Something +1 in combat... seems to strong though!!!
(x) Boon of Hope: Unit looses disordered status.

When I look at it, it seems very powerful, but fluffy. potentially he should be priced more, but keep theese abilities. I like the fact that the priest works primarily with hope and moral. So maybe skip the boon of vengeane, and change it with another morale boon?

Talking religion, what did you do with flagellants?
I was thinking ms2, ignoring shaken?

[Archdaimon]

just read your list.
We agree on flagellants a lot
What are you reflections on pricing them?

Concerning the hellblaster:
Very similar to what I thought. Your version seems quite powerful though even compared to cannons.It will result in many more hits and deaths I believe, unless you halve hits like with other shooting? If not, I believe it should be priced somewhat higer, especially with the +1, +2 to... it is almost nevermiss 1d6 hits on a unit... hmm... maybe not that much more that what the cannon does... hmm... playtesting

[Archdaimon]

Concerning the warriorpriest spells, vengeance should be changed...
More like one of your lifespells, either resistance or inspiration!