FAQ is out .

https://news.warhammer.com/optiext/optiextension.dll?ID=PMDTT0AVBwPt52Ay1iG4_H7bl4T2qJNHAfuvTN0juVz0bRv_peRS9JDy5Vo7WSkhjfbOi1Ry9zMHyE7sHo4

Parry is back.

2 fighting ranks when not charging. I assume spears get 3 then
Free swapping of weapons between rounds
Revised weapon profiles - halberds flails morning stars


Revised casting because the current system is turds and the 6th ed version will always be superior...

Lots of army list errata too, very happy to see all the Empire infantry getting a buff (in addition to the infantry improvements) and Leadership 10 on Generals is great.

Might be able to put up a decent fight with the army now without being limited to knights and cannons.

 Hellebore wrote:
2 fighting ranks when not charging. I assume spears get 3 then

Spears do, yeah.

Supporting Attacks (page 145) wrote:To make a supporting attack, a model must be directly behind a friendly model that is itself in a fighting rank.

The new rule for Infantry was written in such a way to not require Supporting Attacks to also need an erratum
EDIT: They of course did so anyway to nerf linehammer, but the core part remains unchanged.

I just like that you can now transmogrify a Casket of Souls into a bone-and-gold frog that does nothing until it remembers how to be a box again.

Finally, sense has been seen and Impetuous is a Ld check. Lots of units just graduated from the trash tier.

 Hellebore wrote:
Parry is back.

2 fighting ranks when not charging. I assume spears get 3 then
Free swapping of weapons between rounds
Revised weapon profiles - halberds flails morning stars


Revised casting because the current system is turds and the 6th ed version will always be superior...

I didn’t play 6th is the new system similar to that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I just like that you can now transmogrify a Casket of Souls into a bone-and-gold frog that does nothing until it remembers how to be a box again.

Reason to buy the frogs and be the ultimate troll in game

From a flavor standpoint i love stupidity now makes units just stand around, but WOW is that something I absolutely detest for my Troll Horde, especially against heavy shooting armies.

I’m really liking the update to Halberds.

Haven’t read the current rulebook for this edition, but as Sad Old Fart, the old Halberd never seemed to pay off unless in the hands of an Elf (WS and I), or a Chaos Warrior (WS, I and T).

In the hands of an Empire Soldier? Far better off with Spears or Sword and Board for their benefits.

I mean, with the changes to Empire overall in this and how big their starting CR can be now, you're still way better of with the Sword and Board with their 4+ armor to keep that static CR around longer vs a Halberdier's 6+.

Linehammer could have been fixed with something very simple - it's basically reflecting the old wrap around concept.

So just say that a number of models on either side of the enemy unit equal to its rank depth can attack in addition to the btb models. ie you charge an enemy unit with 4 ranks and 5 models wide, your unit can attack with 5 models in btb and 4 on either side, so the widest the unit can be is 13 models wide.

It's just wrap around and you can compare it without needing to do any measuring. This new rule will overly advantage fast moving units and disadvantage dwarfs, who will lose a big bonus from the game. As an inch is close to a single base, the dwarfs can now only get 6 extra frontal attacks while elves get 10! That is pretty bad.

I mean to me it makes sense an elf closes faster in melee then a dwarf but I understand what you mean. A dwarf is more durable than an elf so maybe that’s the trade off.

It's more that its a stat advantage that never used to exist, so now the movement value provides an additional benefit it never used to, while every unit still has their points as if that wasn't a factor.

There is a potential for it to make the value of high movement relatively higher than each army's currently been balanced against.

Especially when you have M3 vs M5 armies.

What it means basically is that elf units get to be 15" wide at full effect, but dwarf units can only be 11" at full effect.

I'm not sure elves being the line army is a look they were going for.

Perhaps but I think the intention is blocks not line hammer. Comp play aside, ideally you’re playing in a group that adheres to the spirit of the game and more infantry show up and less hero hammer / monster mash.

I don't think that this achieves that really, it just means the faster you are the more line hammery you can be.

But the core issue for me, is that the original rule was identical for all armies, everyone could use equally wide lines. The new rule doesn't apply evenly. I am sceptical that changing a rule from equal implementation to a sliding scale of advantage implementation without any other points/rules changes won't map equally. Dwarfs aren't currently broken because they get more line attacks than elves, so punishing them to 'fix' linehammer is unnecessary.

Hence my suggestion of opposing rank depth as it's equal to all armies while still imposing a line limit.

So for infantry, if the front 2 ranks are wiped out, no one gets to fight back?

A common occurrence for my for O&G infantry units under the pre-FAQ rules with the cav and elite chaos forces I get to face.

Tomb Kings are going to love being able to take Regeneration saves vs. wounds caused by Unstable

The impetious change is very welcome, especially for Dragon Princes.

So the new rules for "Massed Infantry" is worded intrestingly. It says you can basically have just 1 infantry model to claim the bonus, even of the rest of your models in the melee is not infantry.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I feel like when April 1 rolls around, GW will get around to announcing a Classic Cathay MTO

I know you're joking, but they had some Cathay and Nippon figures back around the mid 80s, which I believe was just 10 years ago.

Some classic Samurai, Ninjas and Monks would be cool.

Oh, they 100% did. And not just monks, ninja, and samurai. I have one of the old dark elf on temple dog figures. REALLY wish I still had the Temple Dog. Sadly, it’s lost to the mists of time. But I do still have the rider although she’s mounted on an oop Marauder miniatures Cold Ones (MM71) now…

Valete,

JohnS

 Astmeister wrote:
So the new rules for "Massed Infantry" is worded intrestingly. It says you can basically have just 1 infantry model to claim the bonus, even of the rest of your models in the melee is not infantry.

Units don't have a rule unless the unit has the rule. One model in a unit does not confer the rule to the unit unless the rule says so.

Just read the rule text. Imho it clearly sound like you should get it, even if not all units in a melee have the rule.

Massed infantry of 1?

There is nowhere a mention on how the minimal size of an infantry unit should be to get this. So a single regular or heavy infantry character on foot could grant this imho.

For example the new Cathay Dragon Lady in human form (heavy infantry).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidenote:

I checked the epub from Warhammerdigital yesterday and they are apparently not updated (and never were?).

This is worth mentioning since the epubs were updated in 40k 8th edition with new rules from Errata.

Also 40k only updates with the paid subscription now, so an update to the digital books wasn't really expected

You mean if you have Warhammer + you get an update for your epubs for 40k?

I even have Warhammer + but for ToW it seems to not update.

Whilst I think most of the changes are great and are worded well enough so as not to cause more confusion (I'm sure there will be more exceptions later) I not convinced I understand how regeneration works. I've seen people state that you roll for regen after you apply damage with multiple wounds (x) rule. I agree that's clear enough, as is the ability to roll regeneration when a model loses a wound to crumble (whether intended or not, they've reworded the rule to allow this and removed the previous answer that disallowed it). So far so good. However I'm not sure how many dice to roll. I've seen lots of people state that you would roll one die for each damage caused. So, if you hit a 1 wound skeleton with a cannon, causing 4 damage. You would roll 4 dice and only if the skeleton rolled a success on all 4 dice, would it stand back up. I'm not so sure.

The regeneration rule states that a model recovers wounds already lost, but how many wounds does a model actually suffer? Under the rules "Hits that Inflict Multiple Wounds" it states that "For each unsaved wound, determine how many wounds are caused and apply those to the model hit. A model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile. Should a model do so, it dies instantly and any excess wounds are wasted." So, to me it appears that a model can only suffer sufficient wounds to reduce it to zero.

The "Regeneration (X+)" rule as stated in the FAQ says, "Immediately after a Wound is lost, but before models with zero Wounds remaining are removed from play, a model with this special rule may make a ‘Regeneration save’ roll by rolling a D6 and comparing the result to its ‘Regeneration value’,
shown in brackets after the name of this special rule (shown here as ‘X+’). If the Regeneration save roll equals or exceeds the model’s Regeneration value, the lost Wound is recovered, but is still counted for the purposes of calculating the combat result." This indicates to me that the procedure for smacking that skeleton with a cannon ball would instead be to roll the damage, discard the excess wounds, then roll a regeneration save for the single wound that was actually lost and if successful the skeleton survives. If the same damage was instead dealt in a challenge the skeleton (champion) would survive if the single regen roll was successful, but you would not roll for regeneration for the 3 damage of overkill, which would count towards your combat resolution.

If the skeleton's unit then lost combat you would roll for regeneration for each wound lost because of the combat result outcome. Though in the case that you inflicted more damage than the unit had, I'm not sure how many dice you'd roll at this stage. I'd argue that they are a series of individual wounds and not applied at the same time, so you'd mass roll the regen saves and the outcome would essentially be that for each failed regen save you cause a single point of damage to the unit. This is the same way it would also work for standard attacks into a unit that only cause a single point of damage. Attacks are made in sequence, fast rolling is just a convention which is generally applied to all dice rolls, as suggested in the rule book.

Is my reading of the rule wrong, if so, why?

I think you might be correct.

It is unclear if this was intended by GW so we will have to wait for the next Faq for clarification. In the meantime it is probably as you said.

Have they added the faq to the digital rulebook? Wonder if they plan to print a small new rulebook no fluff but with all the changes?

Regeneration looks like a Magic style replacements effect, so I'd argue a skeleton hit by a cannonball suffers 4 wounds, the first one is removed, the Regeneration roll is made and succeeds in restoring the wound, the next wound is removed, Regeneration roll is made and so on, until a roll fails or you run out of wounds to allocate.

For convenience sake, you'd probably roll all Regeneration checks at the same time.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Wonder if they plan to print a small new rulebook no fluff but with all the changes?

Yes but not until we're less than 12 months away from a new edition

We are getting a reveal on 7/18 on the preview show. Looked like he was wearing a tomb king hat in the video? Wonder what that means?

And a cowboy hat and a top hat and a jester cap and a pirate hat and a road cone!

 nathan2004 wrote:
We are getting a reveal on 7/18 on the preview show. Looked like he was wearing a tomb king hat in the video? Wonder what that means?

If it's Tomb Kings (if the hats really represent a faction of some sort and that one was for TK), it could be some refresh to the old models. Skeletons are one that need it the most since they are based on the gothic/VC Skeletons of 5th edition with an upgrade sprue tacked on (on top of being a generally bad kit). Just a decent, dedicated TK-flavored infantry kit (or two, they could split melee and range Skeletons to have better models) would be a great place to push the army into a better place, model-wise.

Horsemen and Chariots are old but still perfectly serviceable in the Old World environment of supporting the older model range, but they could also receive a refresh to match if the announcement is chunky enough.

 Robert Facepalmer wrote:
And a cowboy hat and a top hat and a jester cap and a pirate hat and a road cone!

Surely this is too easy to be chorfs, maybe a double mislead?

Pirate hat- Dark Elves or Vampire coast?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Pirate hat- Dark Elves or Vampire coast?

I hope Vampire Coast, but I also vaguely remember people here talking about sky pirate goblins being a lore thing in AOS, so they could always be finally doing them. Which...to be fair, would be really cool.

 kurhanik wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Pirate hat- Dark Elves or Vampire coast?

I hope Vampire Coast, but I also vaguely remember people here talking about sky pirate goblins being a lore thing in AOS, so they could always be finally doing them. Which...to be fair, would be really cool.

I'd rather see hobgoblins than AoS.

 kurhanik wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Pirate hat- Dark Elves or Vampire coast?

I hope Vampire Coast, but I also vaguely remember people here talking about sky pirate goblins being a lore thing in AOS, so they could always be finally doing them. Which...to be fair, would be really cool.

If they actually had the brains to do crossover minis for their games Vampire pirates are in both lore - Vampire Coast seems a good bet as it has a fully fleshed out range via TW building on the original aritcles as well as stuff in the C7 WFRP4th ed. It would also have plenty of dramatic minis and centerpiece models for OW

There are green skin sky pirates and skaven as well I think in AOS

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Pirate hat- Dark Elves or Vampire coast?

Dark Elves or Eldar imo. We've just had Cathay and looks as though it'd be a good bet for Chaos Dwarves for AoS. New model ranges are sorted for time being. High Elves and (even) Wood Elves are now present in Old World. Dark Elves have an impressive, complete array of plastic kits that would easily slot back into the game.

Dark Eldar are due a release so pirate hat could be a reference to either.

Happy to be wrong and get Vampire Coast though, win, win for me!

Not Online!!! wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Pirate hat- Dark Elves or Vampire coast?

I hope Vampire Coast, but I also vaguely remember people here talking about sky pirate goblins being a lore thing in AOS, so they could always be finally doing them. Which...to be fair, would be really cool.

I'd rather see hobgoblins than AoS.

Good god I would love to see hobgoblins. Once I've painted up my Ogres I have a bunch of 3d printed hobbos + AOS wolf riders that I plan to make a hobgoblin based Chaos Dwarf army from. If they get their own army list and some of their own models I would be all there for it. That said...not really sure if they lineup with any of the rumors beyond maybe a few hobgrots in AOS, which for whatever reason was never huge on them compared to hobgoblins.

 nathan2004 wrote:
We are getting a reveal on 7/18 on the preview show. Looked like he was wearing a tomb king hat in the video? Wonder what that means?

The Teams of Legend PDF for Blood Bowl still has Tomb Kings and High Elves that haven't been released.

Sky pirate goblins being the crew for the chaos dwarfs evil Kharadron skyships would definitely work.
Bloodbowl isn't on the of shows being previewed, so I think the egyptian headdress feels more likely to be necrons to me

The Old World is on the list though so I’m going to wish for redone TK skeletons because those awful old skeleton kits are basically the only thing that stopped me collecting TK when they first dropped. Both times.
That said, there’s room to make plastic versions of existing TK metals too, like Ushabti.

Now that the armies are all out in the wild to play, it would make sense to start updating old models like they do for other armies and systems.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Now that the armies are all out in the wild to play, it would make sense to start updating old models like they do for other armies and systems.

Are they all out? We strongly suspect there's at least one new faction to come out (Kislev), and depending on how things shake out with Age of Sigmar we may see Legacy armies return to full status (looking at you, Dark Elves).

But, yes, I agree that there are models that could use some updating. Plenty of metal models that could move to plastic, for example.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Now that the armies are all out in the wild to play, it would make sense to start updating old models like they do for other armies and systems.

Are they all out?

I think all the ones they initially announced. Enough to call the core game fully accessible I would say, then they can start updating/adding kits and other factions.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Now that the armies are all out in the wild to play, it would make sense to start updating old models like they do for other armies and systems.

Are they all out? We strongly suspect there's at least one new faction to come out (Kislev), and depending on how things shake out with Age of Sigmar we may see Legacy armies return to full status (looking at you, Dark Elves).

But, yes, I agree that there are models that could use some updating. Plenty of metal models that could move to plastic, for example.

I think legacy fans need to give it a rest. If they were going to do legacy factions for TOW, they wouldn't be releasing chaos dwarfs for AoS, Cathay for TOW, etc. Writing has been on the wall for a long time and its time to finally acknowledge it.

What GW refuses to claim 3rd party producers will take. Unless you're doing an event inside Warhammer World legacy factions aren't going anywhere. Not that GW really needs to do anything other than sell the models for AoS, probably get people buying square bases from them for extra.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Now that the armies are all out in the wild to play, it would make sense to start updating old models like they do for other armies and systems.

Are they all out? We strongly suspect there's at least one new faction to come out (Kislev), and depending on how things shake out with Age of Sigmar we may see Legacy armies return to full status (looking at you, Dark Elves).

But, yes, I agree that there are models that could use some updating. Plenty of metal models that could move to plastic, for example.

I think legacy fans need to give it a rest. If they were going to do legacy factions for TOW, they wouldn't be releasing chaos dwarfs for AoS, Cathay for TOW, etc. Writing has been on the wall for a long time and its time to finally acknowledge it.

Your petulant schadenfreude has been so roundly rejected by the TOW community I wonder why you still bother. There are multiple community FAQs and soft updates for the Legacy armies, they're often welcomed in tournament play, and Legacy players are seen as pillars of the community.

I have an idea why you bother, though: you don't actually play this game. I suspect you're one of those aspirational players who mostly engage with the hobby through commerce -- plowing purchases into your basement to fill a gaping void. You're always quick to tell everyone in every thread how you're buying three copies of every release, but after a couple of years of reading you doing that it's quite apparent that you could not possibly have the time to build, paint and use all of the stuff you talk about.

I'm actually quite proud of the TOW community for doing what it can to support Legacy armies and players and not let GW forget that they provided insufficient scope on the project, and nobody wants this version to override the version everybody knows would be superior.

 Altruizine wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Now that the armies are all out in the wild to play, it would make sense to start updating old models like they do for other armies and systems.

Are they all out? We strongly suspect there's at least one new faction to come out (Kislev), and depending on how things shake out with Age of Sigmar we may see Legacy armies return to full status (looking at you, Dark Elves).

But, yes, I agree that there are models that could use some updating. Plenty of metal models that could move to plastic, for example.

I think legacy fans need to give it a rest. If they were going to do legacy factions for TOW, they wouldn't be releasing chaos dwarfs for AoS, Cathay for TOW, etc. Writing has been on the wall for a long time and its time to finally acknowledge it.

Your petulant schadenfreude has been so roundly rejected by the TOW community I wonder why you still bother. There are multiple community FAQs and soft updates for the Legacy armies, they're often welcomed in tournament play, and Legacy players are seen as pillars of the community.

I have an idea why you bother, though: you don't actually play this game. I suspect you're one of those aspirational players who mostly engage with the hobby through commerce -- plowing purchases into your basement to fill a gaping void. You're always quick to tell everyone in every thread how you're buying three copies of every release, but after a couple of years of reading you doing that it's quite apparent that you could not possibly have the time to build, paint and use all of the stuff you talk about.

I'm actually quite proud of the TOW community for doing what it can to support Legacy armies and players and not let GW forget that they provided insufficient scope on the project, and nobody wants this version to override the version everybody knows would be superior.

You're part right. If you can find the earliest rumors about TOW he was one of the loudest voices gaking on every rumor as false. Right along with the "Just play AOS" crowd.

Its one thing to play a legacy faction (I still have my ogres and legio of azgorh on square bases from days of old, never got around to rebasing them for AoS), its another thing to make every friggin discussion about the game about legacy factions.

Theyre done. Get over it. We have a new game with new factions. Enjoy it.

My big question is why people stopped playing that game if the only thing they waited for was ignoring what GW is doing anyway

Only playing games that are officially supported by GW, in name only because the rules are community made anyway.

There is no hope with GW just a business plan and TOW will only get what said plan allows and not what people hope for.
Once Dark Elves being reworked for AoS we may see them in TOW.
Or all current factions are replaced with something new in future and the amount of legacy armies increase instead of decreas.

If you want an official game to play, play what is there now or just keep playing legacy rules (as if you already ignore GW, there is no real reason favouring the rules over any other versions)

chaos0xomega wrote:
Enjoy it.

Is it really so wrong to say that I would enjoy it more if the Legacy factions were fully supported? I happen to like my Dark Elf army, and it would be nice if it weren't Legacy for Old World since it's a complete afterthought for Age of Sigmar.

I’m gonna split the difference here.

GW have clearly done their sums and had a think, and decided that whilst they’re giving The Old World another shot, it wouldn’t be practical to just put all pre-existing armies back into full production.

Army Books/Arcane Journals take time to write and playtest.

Part of the solution is to focus on a historical period of conflict, and cover the various forces most involved. Cathay is pushing the boat out as an entirely new, never seen since 3rd Ed force.

For everyone else? Here’s a Ravening Hordes, Get You By list. But we’re making it clear that, for now, that’s your lot.

That doesn’t mean “that’s your lot forever and ever and ever”. Just a clear statement of current intent and planning.

Given they’ve been spelunking in the archives, I can see that being the status quo for much longer. Whilst I would like to see older kits from updated forces refreshed (Tomb Skellington, Empire Dinky Knights to name but two) first, who knows what’s going to happen next?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m gonna split the difference here.

GW have clearly done their sums and had a think, and decided that whilst they’re giving The Old World another shot, it wouldn’t be practical to just put all pre-existing armies back into full production.

That's not really what they've done/isn't an accurate assessment of goings on, and people following closely already have the information to determine that.

Vamps and Skaven are perfect examples. Everything in their TOW lists is already in production for AOS. They have new models that came out recently that would have been in development concurrently with TOW development. The reason they are, nevertheless, Legacy armies, is because GW is committed to siloing the SDS and Main Studio sales spreadsheets. That's it, that's all. It was not the negligible effort of slapping the Legacy list and paragraphs of old fluff together that posed an insurmountable obstacle. It was simply that the WHFB models were still in use in AOS and there wasn't a complete, totally separated old range to dredge up and release.

 Altruizine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m gonna split the difference here.

GW have clearly done their sums and had a think, and decided that whilst they’re giving The Old World another shot, it wouldn’t be practical to just put all pre-existing armies back into full production.

That's not really what they've done/isn't an accurate assessment of goings on, and people following closely already have the information to determine that.

Vamps and Skaven are perfect examples. Everything in their TOW lists is already in production for AOS. They have new models that came out recently that would have been in development concurrently with TOW development. The reason they are, nevertheless, Legacy armies, is because GW is committed to siloing the SDS and Main Studio sales spreadsheets. That's it, that's all. It was not the negligible effort of slapping the Legacy list and paragraphs of old fluff together that posed an insurmountable obstacle. It was simply that the WHFB models were still in use in AOS and there wasn't a complete, totally separated old range to dredge up and release.

Which makes it all the more weird why they shoved the entire Beastman army to the other game, and yet left the Dark Elves sitting doing nothing. Doing the inverse might have made sense (Beastmen had an AoS army book, and the Dark Elves are doing diddly), but what we got is utterly befuddling.

Setting wise, Beastmen were doing nothing in AoS aside from being punching bags in pretty much every other army's books where as they're a major player in ToW.

Dark Elves also still feature very heavily in two AoS armies, people just choose to stay with all the new human units for one of those.

They kind of feature in Cities of Sigmar except for not appearing in ANY of the marketing nor promotion of them what so ever. They are just kind of "there".

The DoK relies on one expansion book that's technically for the previous edition of the game.


Sure the Beastmen don't do much promotion of the story; but honestly the whole Destruction Grand Alliance is basically like that - the huge ork Whaagh that was going on kind of didn't really do anything. It happened and then it stopped happening.

Beastmen however had a book; models; unique terrain. They were in active "safe" development.

Them being pulled was much more of a surprise; just as much as Dark Elves being ignored for 10 years and then not being pulled out along with high elves, dwarves and wood elves ( you know ALL the other non-human replaced models from Cities of Sigmar)