frankelee wrote: I guess it probably shouldn't be surprising the Kislev ice guard might be scrapped. It was very not-Warhammer-Fantasy-Battles.
They weren't something pulled out of nowhere that was a sudden change for how Kislev was depicted.
Ice witches wielding magical frost weapons and having an import place in Kislev society is perfectly fitting with their lore.
Sorry guise, but I don't know much about the retcon lore post 6th edition. It very well can be that it fit WFB in 2015, or WFB in 2024, either way it's a very late and significant tonal change from what the game was. And I remember a lot of people on the internet saying it came across as kind of weird and not very Warhammer. And of course those types of Kislev troops weren't models at any point right up through the End Times. But if GeeDubs is hoping to sell the game to middle aged guys with too much disposable income then it still wouldn't surprise me if they at least didn't prioritize stuff that those of us who played in the 90s and 2000s don't recognize as being legitimately within the tone and feel of the setting.
No - this is fitting with lore from the very beginning - mostly initially established by 1st Edition and 2nd WFRP back in the period you are talking about or earlier.
So yes it is perfectly within the setting - always has been.
I have a copy of all the WFRP 1st and 2nd edition books, go ahead a cite where an Amazonian guard of magic ice weapon using warrioresses were a standing force in the Kislev army, lol. It's fine if you like it, it's very odd and outside typical Warhammer lore.
frankelee wrote: I guess it probably shouldn't be surprising the Kislev ice guard might be scrapped. It was very not-Warhammer-Fantasy-Battles.
They weren't something pulled out of nowhere that was a sudden change for how Kislev was depicted.
Ice witches wielding magical frost weapons and having an import place in Kislev society is perfectly fitting with their lore.
Sorry guise, but I don't know much about the retcon lore post 6th edition. It very well can be that it fit WFB in 2015, or WFB in 2024, either way it's a very late and significant tonal change from what the game was. And I remember a lot of people on the internet saying it came across as kind of weird and not very Warhammer. And of course those types of Kislev troops weren't models at any point right up through the End Times. But if GeeDubs is hoping to sell the game to middle aged guys with too much disposable income then it still wouldn't surprise me if they at least didn't prioritize stuff that those of us who played in the 90s and 2000s don't recognize as being legitimately within the tone and feel of the setting.
No, it absolutely is not.
4th edition Warhammer Armies: The empire, released in 1993 (...or 1996? Found both dates), has Kislev included but is very brief. They are depicted as more of a grounded human faction at this stage, but it's very, very brief; it basically amounts to a small amount of lore of pretty much "There's a place called Kislev" and 3-4 units. Winged Lancers, Katarin etc. Mentions Kislev is ruled by warrior-sorcerers with their magic based on the land itself and Frost/ice focused. Magic Ice Hawks, Ice Bridge that can carry units, Fearfrost as a magic frost sword etc. Art of Boris Usra riding a bear is shown, albeit it seems he isn't actually talked about at all so appears to not be a character...just a guy riding a bear. Also unclear if this is meant to be the same as Boris Ursus a few years later.
The 1996 Citadel Journal list had fantastical elements, including Bear mounts for heroes, Bear Cavalry, packs of bears and Baba Yaga. Common later lore things like their bear god, bears being sacred etc are mentioned here as similar to later lore but i'm unsure what was and wasn't already established in more "official" sources before this article, so while it's debatable as to how canonical the stuff here is (Citadel Journal is an official publication, but people could submit stuff), some of the things included here did also appear in definitely more official sources - I'm just unsure when specifically some of that first appeared and what is and isn't already established for them by the time this article was written.
Their Warmaster army list in 2002, had packs of tamed bears and bear mounts and a spell to transform into a giant bear (and mentions they build temples in which they keep pits full of bears to send out to war). That old art of Boris Ursa on a bear appears again.
The Ambassador series, Written by Graham Mcneill in 2003/2004, supposedly had those mystical fantasy elements included - Katarina apparently summons spirits of Kislev warriors in bodies of ice, for example. Bokha palace also has parts entire sections made of ice.
Their 6th edition army in 2003 did not have much in the way of that side of things, mostly just Boris Ursus as the most out-there in terms of units, albeit the book did depict conversions of both a hero on giant bear and bear cavalry. Their connection to various spirits are mentioned but its unclear as to if they book considers them as real or not. It mentions the religion involving bears with a God of Bears who takes the form of a bear - so despite the lack of bear units, bears are still said to be a very important thing to Kislev overall. Magical lore for different Gods are mentioned. The palace having sections made of ice are mentioned by the book too.
The Warhammer RPG "Realm of the Ice Queen" expansion released in 2007 once again follows the fantasy Kislev side and is the most comprehensive depiction of Kislev out of the lot - because its an RPG there's a lot of stuff. The various spirits mentioned previously are defined more specifically, there's magical creatures like Frostfiends and Firebirds, Hag Witches (like Baba Yaga was) are there, the map of the city of Kislev shows Bokha palace with the ice structure parts, Katarina has the enchanted Ice Palace, it details the importance of the Ice Witches, all the ice magic like ice weapons, the other cults/gods appear again with magic for them etc.
A unit of Ice Witches wielding magical weapons is perfectly in line with how Kislev lore already was. Those specific elements (Magical Frost Witches with Magical Ice weapons) were definitely already a thing in 2007 at the very least and potentially before (as I didn't do a huge indepth look into it), as the foundations were definitely there before then.
You being unaware of Kislev lore does not make it a retcon.
I appreciate the extensive look at the material, but again none of it references an Amazonian guard who uses magic ice weapons and wears armor that looks very reminiscent of Warcraft. If someone who knew nothing about Warhammer lore read your description over they'd get a very inaccurate image of what classic Warhammer Fantasy was because it's missing the fact that 95% of it is a more grounded mix of historical and Tolkien fantasy. Sure Kislev has bear riders. Didn't say they shouldn't. Sure their sorceresses can use ice magic and it can have some fun spell descriptions involving ice. It also can blow them up on a (not especially uncommon) poor magic roll. That's all fine, and it's also not at all what was being discussed. Magic is uncommon and dangerous, Warcraft armor hasn't made it to the Old World yet.
But again, if anybody wants to cite the page where we all can read about the Kislev ice-weapon woman guard in WFRP books or WFB army books, nobody is stopping them. It seems more that you all just like the designs and are trying to over-extend that personal opinion into something more concrete, which you have yet to cite any justification for, so that people can't disagree with you. But you're failing because of course nothing I said was factually incorrect, rather you just aren't happy to hear it. Which is fine.
frankelee wrote: I guess it probably shouldn't be surprising the Kislev ice guard might be scrapped. It was very not-Warhammer-Fantasy-Battles.
They weren't something pulled out of nowhere that was a sudden change for how Kislev was depicted.
Ice witches wielding magical frost weapons and having an import place in Kislev society is perfectly fitting with their lore.
Sorry guise, but I don't know much about the retcon lore post 6th edition. It very well can be that it fit WFB in 2015, or WFB in 2024, either way it's a very late and significant tonal change from what the game was. And I remember a lot of people on the internet saying it came across as kind of weird and not very Warhammer. And of course those types of Kislev troops weren't models at any point right up through the End Times. But if GeeDubs is hoping to sell the game to middle aged guys with too much disposable income then it still wouldn't surprise me if they at least didn't prioritize stuff that those of us who played in the 90s and 2000s don't recognize as being legitimately within the tone and feel of the setting.
No - this is fitting with lore from the very beginning - mostly initially established by 1st Edition and 2nd WFRP back in the period you are talking about or earlier.
So yes it is perfectly within the setting - always has been.
I have a copy of all the WFRP 1st and 2nd edition books, go ahead a cite where an Amazonian guard of magic ice weapon using warrioresses were a standing force in the Kislev army, lol. It's fine if you like it, it's very odd and outside typical Warhammer lore.
frankelee wrote: I guess it probably shouldn't be surprising the Kislev ice guard might be scrapped. It was very not-Warhammer-Fantasy-Battles.
They weren't something pulled out of nowhere that was a sudden change for how Kislev was depicted.
Ice witches wielding magical frost weapons and having an import place in Kislev society is perfectly fitting with their lore.
Sorry guise, but I don't know much about the retcon lore post 6th edition. It very well can be that it fit WFB in 2015, or WFB in 2024, either way it's a very late and significant tonal change from what the game was. And I remember a lot of people on the internet saying it came across as kind of weird and not very Warhammer. And of course those types of Kislev troops weren't models at any point right up through the End Times. But if GeeDubs is hoping to sell the game to middle aged guys with too much disposable income then it still wouldn't surprise me if they at least didn't prioritize stuff that those of us who played in the 90s and 2000s don't recognize as being legitimately within the tone and feel of the setting.
No, it absolutely is not.
4th edition Warhammer Armies: The empire, released in 1993 (...or 1996? Found both dates), has Kislev included but is very brief. They are depicted as more of a grounded human faction at this stage, but it's very, very brief; it basically amounts to a small amount of lore of pretty much "There's a place called Kislev" and 3-4 units. Winged Lancers, Katarin etc. Mentions Kislev is ruled by warrior-sorcerers with their magic based on the land itself and Frost/ice focused. Magic Ice Hawks, Ice Bridge that can carry units, Fearfrost as a magic frost sword etc. Art of Boris Usra riding a bear is shown, albeit it seems he isn't actually talked about at all so appears to not be a character...just a guy riding a bear. Also unclear if this is meant to be the same as Boris Ursus a few years later.
The 1996 Citadel Journal list had fantastical elements, including Bear mounts for heroes, Bear Cavalry, packs of bears and Baba Yaga. Common later lore things like their bear god, bears being sacred etc are mentioned here as similar to later lore but i'm unsure what was and wasn't already established in more "official" sources before this article, so while it's debatable as to how canonical the stuff here is (Citadel Journal is an official publication, but people could submit stuff), some of the things included here did also appear in definitely more official sources - I'm just unsure when specifically some of that first appeared and what is and isn't already established for them by the time this article was written.
Their Warmaster army list in 2002, had packs of tamed bears and bear mounts and a spell to transform into a giant bear (and mentions they build temples in which they keep pits full of bears to send out to war). That old art of Boris Ursa on a bear appears again.
The Ambassador series, Written by Graham Mcneill in 2003/2004, supposedly had those mystical fantasy elements included - Katarina apparently summons spirits of Kislev warriors in bodies of ice, for example. Bokha palace also has parts entire sections made of ice.
Their 6th edition army in 2003 did not have much in the way of that side of things, mostly just Boris Ursus as the most out-there in terms of units, albeit the book did depict conversions of both a hero on giant bear and bear cavalry. Their connection to various spirits are mentioned but its unclear as to if they book considers them as real or not. It mentions the religion involving bears with a God of Bears who takes the form of a bear - so despite the lack of bear units, bears are still said to be a very important thing to Kislev overall. Magical lore for different Gods are mentioned. The palace having sections made of ice are mentioned by the book too.
The Warhammer RPG "Realm of the Ice Queen" expansion released in 2007 once again follows the fantasy Kislev side and is the most comprehensive depiction of Kislev out of the lot - because its an RPG there's a lot of stuff. The various spirits mentioned previously are defined more specifically, there's magical creatures like Frostfiends and Firebirds, Hag Witches (like Baba Yaga was) are there, the map of the city of Kislev shows Bokha palace with the ice structure parts, Katarina has the enchanted Ice Palace, it details the importance of the Ice Witches, all the ice magic like ice weapons, the other cults/gods appear again with magic for them etc.
A unit of Ice Witches wielding magical weapons is perfectly in line with how Kislev lore already was. Those specific elements (Magical Frost Witches with Magical Ice weapons) were definitely already a thing in 2007 at the very least and potentially before (as I didn't do a huge indepth look into it), as the foundations were definitely there before then.
You being unaware of Kislev lore does not make it a retcon.
I appreciate the extensive look at the material, but again none of it references an Amazonian guard who uses magic ice weapons and wears armor that looks very reminiscent of Warcraft. If someone who knew nothing about Warhammer lore read your description over they'd get a very inaccurate image of what classic Warhammer Fantasy was because it's missing the fact that 95% of it is a more grounded mix of historical and Tolkien fantasy. Sure Kislev has bear riders. Didn't say they shouldn't. Sure their sorceresses can use ice magic and it can have some fun spell descriptions involving ice. It also can blow them up on a (not especially uncommon) poor magic roll. That's all fine, and it's also not at all what was being discussed. Magic is uncommon and dangerous, Warcraft armor hasn't made it to the Old World yet.
It's odd that you go from "It's not in the lore, it's a retcon!" to that complaint instead once you were shown to be wrong about the idea not fitting in with kislev lore.
She's wearing a slightly elaborate set of Siberian/Steppe themed armour (or wherever Kislev is inspired from specifically) with a bit of extra decoration because she's meant to be a fairly high status elite warrior. Nothing about it that come across as "Warcraft" to me in a way that is much more egregious than how some Kislev units had been shown before designs.
Like just look at the guy on the front of the RPG:
Absolutely not grounded overall, they have quite significant elements of outlandish fantasy design.
But again, if anybody wants to cite the page where we all can read about the Kislev ice-weapon woman guard in WFRP books or WFB army books, nobody is stopping them. It seems more that you all just like the designs and are trying to over-extend that personal opinion into something more concrete, which you have yet to cite any justification for, so that people can't disagree with you. But you're failing because of course nothing I said was factually incorrect, rather you just aren't happy to hear it. Which is fine.
No one has claimed that there are "Kislev ice-weapon woman guard in WFRP books or WFB army books". That doesn't stop the elements that make up this unit having been present in Kislev lore even in the time period of the 90s/2000s you're on about.
It seems more that you're just moving the goalposts just and using an absurd strawman argument so you can keep refusing to accept things because you don't like the designs and want to complain regardless.
And like, you're talking about a setting that has all sorts of weird and magical fantasy elements. Griffons, Unicorns, Dragons, Ghosts, Pegasus, all manner of monsters, magical creatures and other nonsensical things. If that's what you think changes the tone of the setting then that implies that somehow you're oblivious to all that other stuff that already exists in WHFB. It doesn't do anything for the tone of Kislev when they already have Ice Witches who use Ice Weapons and have an important place in mainstream Kislev society, let alone the setting overall.
frankelee wrote: I guess it probably shouldn't be surprising the Kislev ice guard might be scrapped. It was very not-Warhammer-Fantasy-Battles.
They weren't something pulled out of nowhere that was a sudden change for how Kislev was depicted.
Ice witches wielding magical frost weapons and having an import place in Kislev society is perfectly fitting with their lore.
Sorry guise, but I don't know much about the retcon lore post 6th edition. It very well can be that it fit WFB in 2015, or WFB in 2024, either way it's a very late and significant tonal change from what the game was. And I remember a lot of people on the internet saying it came across as kind of weird and not very Warhammer. And of course those types of Kislev troops weren't models at any point right up through the End Times. But if GeeDubs is hoping to sell the game to middle aged guys with too much disposable income then it still wouldn't surprise me if they at least didn't prioritize stuff that those of us who played in the 90s and 2000s don't recognize as being legitimately within the tone and feel of the setting.
No - this is fitting with lore from the very beginning - mostly initially established by 1st Edition and 2nd WFRP back in the period you are talking about or earlier.
So yes it is perfectly within the setting - always has been.
I have a copy of all the WFRP 1st and 2nd edition books, go ahead a cite where an Amazonian guard of magic ice weapon using warrioresses were a standing force in the Kislev army, lol. It's fine if you like it, it's very odd and outside typical Warhammer lore..
I have them all as well - and as you well know thats not what I said - if you actualy go back and look at your books you will read how important Ice magic and Ice witches are.
I appreciate the extensive look at the material, but again none of it references an Amazonian guard who uses magic ice weapons and wears armor that looks very reminiscent of Warcraft. If someone who knew nothing about Warhammer lore read your description over they'd get a very inaccurate image of what classic Warhammer Fantasy was because it's missing the fact that 95% of it is a more grounded mix of historical and Tolkien fantasy. Sure Kislev has bear riders. Didn't say they shouldn't. Sure their sorceresses can use ice magic and it can have some fun spell descriptions involving ice. It also can blow them up on a (not especially uncommon) poor magic roll. That's all fine, and it's also not at all what was being discussed. Magic is uncommon and dangerous, Warcraft armor hasn't made it to the Old World yet.
But again, if anybody wants to cite the page where we all can read about the Kislev ice-weapon woman guard in WFRP books or WFB army books, nobody is stopping them. It seems more that you all just like the designs and are trying to over-extend that personal opinion into something more concrete, which you have yet to cite any justification for, so that people can't disagree with you. But you're failing because of course nothing I said was factually incorrect, rather you just aren't happy to hear it. Which is fine
OK seriously? Warhammer is grounded - what complete nonsese - especially Fantasy battles - again actually look at the covers of your books - its armies and mages and dragons clashing in massively over the top battles - now i get YOU might want Warhammer to be about the Sewer Watch but Fantasy battle is absolutely not.
There are plenty of examples shown above by other for your "Cite me" obession- just read the actual lore mate.
Anyone saying that WHFB was based in Tolkien fantasy is automatically wrong. The elements borrowed from Moorcock are far more obvious and important to the setting, and Moorcock was the anti-Tolkien. Moorcockian fantasy is also way way way more over the top and Kislev fits right in with what's already there.
ImAGeek wrote:
I'm still just going to treat this as the biggest MTO run on fantasy models they have done and use it as an excuse to stock up on things I haven't yet paid a fortune for. I really don't see how they can sell this as wargame made for more experienced gamers in the modern market.
It's odd that you go from "It's not in the lore, it's a retcon!" to that complaint instead once you were shown to be wrong about the idea not fitting in with kislev lore...
No one has claimed that there are "Kislev ice-weapon woman guard in WFRP books or WFB army books". That doesn't stop the elements that make up this unit having been present in Kislev lore even in the time period of the 90s/2000s you're on about.
It seems more that you're just moving the goalposts just and using an absurd strawman argument so you can keep refusing to accept things because you don't like the designs and want to complain regardless.
You're living in your own fantasy world on this one.
So yeah, I believe you believe any of that. But, I also believe you're getting a bit upset and it's clouding you're thinking. My argument didn't change, yours very quickly did. My goalposts didn't move. Yours are currently headed down the highway. Go ahead and cite where these models fit into WFB, that is your essential claim, you have repeatedly failed so far. If you can't do it, well then keep posting to save face by whining about me. You can have the last word.
I have them all as well - and as you well know thats not what I said - if you actualy go back and look at your books you will read how important Ice magic and Ice witches are.
If you believe I don't think Kislev have ice magic than you have misunderstood my intent good sir.
OK seriously? Warhammer is grounded - what complete nonsese - especially Fantasy battles - again actually look at the covers of your books - its armies and mages and dragons clashing in massively over the top battles - now i get YOU might want Warhammer to be about the Sewer Watch but Fantasy battle is absolutely not.
There are plenty of examples shown above by other for your "Cite me" obession- just read the actual lore mate.
That your understanding of Warhammer lore goes as deep as looking at book covers, I can believe. Again, I don't see anything here but angry internet commenting because your opinion was challenged. Okay. You can compete for the last word as well.
chaos0xomega wrote: Anyone saying that WHFB was based in Tolkien fantasy is automatically wrong. The elements borrowed from Moorcock are far more obvious and important to the setting, and Moorcock was the anti-Tolkien. Moorcockian fantasy is also way way way more over the top and Kislev fits right in with what's already there.
You're one of the people whose posts I generally read on thread chaos0xomega, I think you usually have good points, but I find this point simplistic and binary, and not worth debating personally.
I don't think it makes much difference whether some elite Kislev women unit's gear is made of ice or iron.
I do however tend to agree with frankelee. If such a unit had been created in 4th-6th, they'd almost certainly just be regular women with conventional weapons - and any superiority would be demonstrated by a slightly upgraded stat line. I.E. kind of grounded. Its later editions where "this unit is magic all of the time" seems to take hold.
It's odd that you go from "It's not in the lore, it's a retcon!" to that complaint instead once you were shown to be wrong about the idea not fitting in with kislev lore...
No one has claimed that there are "Kislev ice-weapon woman guard in WFRP books or WFB army books". That doesn't stop the elements that make up this unit having been present in Kislev lore even in the time period of the 90s/2000s you're on about.
It seems more that you're just moving the goalposts just and using an absurd strawman argument so you can keep refusing to accept things because you don't like the designs and want to complain regardless.
You're living in your own fantasy world on this one.
So yeah, I believe you believe any of that. But, I also believe you're getting a bit upset and it's clouding you're thinking. My argument didn't change, yours very quickly did. My goalposts didn't move. Yours are currently headed down the highway. Go ahead and cite where these models fit into WFB, that is your essential claim, you have repeatedly failed so far. If you can't do it, well then keep posting to save face by whining about me. You can have the last word.
You absolutely did move the goalposts. Here's a quote of your own post for you:
> Sorry guise, but I don't know much about the retcon lore post 6th edition. It very well can be that it fit WFB in 2015, or WFB in 2024, either way it's a very late and significant tonal change from what the game was.
Absurd for you to try to claim you weren't talking about the lore when you outright mention lore as the context for the post.
You haven't even done anything to argue against what I said with it fitting their lore and style. You've just immediately gone to being condescending, rude and straw-manning things.
They fit, as i've said several times now. Their lore matches up with the sort of thing Kislev had before and has been portrayed as for years.
Design wise, there is nothing about them that is any more outlandish than many, many other WHFB things. Even within just Kislev's look, as i gave examples of already.
Go ahead and show where my argument "quickly changed".
BrookM wrote: Could you guys use spoiler tags for those posts please?
I don't quite understand why we're discussing Kislev fluff at all given that this is News and Rumours and we haven't heard anything about Kislev for like a year If this was the Epic N&R thread we would have been told to get back on topic even if it WAS discussion pertinent to the upcoming release
Tyel wrote: If such a unit had been created in 4th-6th, they'd almost certainly just be regular women with conventional weapons - and any superiority would be demonstrated by a slightly upgraded stat line.
You understand this is the same time period where GW released Amazons with lasgun staves, right? GW back then was not above an elite unit with magic ice weapons.
I'm looking forward to a certain section of people lose their over there being women foot knights.
There's very little visual difference between a man and a woman of the same height in most armors. The padding underneath goes a long way toward hiding feminine curves. Unless it's specifically configured to highlight her (ahem) feminine assets or she takes off her helmet, even a pretty busty woman in a breastplate won't be all that obvious.
Consider Eowyn in the LOTR movies. Yes, we know it's her, we recognize her face. But is she not OBVIOUSLY a woman until she takes off her helmet.
So my army features several female knights, even if you can't tell which ones they are, and you can't prove otherwise.
Most of the Riders in the movie were women! It was the only way to get enough skilled horse riders.
Yep. And nobody noticed.
Which makes the whole argument about women in armor pretty silly, in my opinion.
I don’t have my computer powered up right now to check myself but are foot knights an option in Total war? If so, might give us insight into new units coming in old world?
nathan2004 wrote: I don’t have my computer powered up right now to check myself but are foot knights an option in Total war? If so, might give us insight into new units coming in old world?
I think what people are forgetting about the Ice Guard is this: If GW didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. CA doesn't just get to invent units themselves. Like all license partners, they have to get everything approved (or simply created by) GW.
So you can say that Ice Guard aren't really part of Kislev, but GW says they are, and that's all there is to it. The buck stops with them.
Lord Damocles wrote: Is that supposed to be a woman? The only thing suggesting that to my eyes is the lack of a handlebar moustache. I assumed that it was just a younger male.
I could see it either way. A bit of green wash on the chin, cheeks, and above the upper lip to simulate stubble and it would look very different. Maybe even just using a slightly darker skin tone could make a big difference.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think what people are forgetting about the Ice Guard is this: If GW didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. CA doesn't just get to invent units themselves. Like all license partners, they have to get everything approved (or simply created by) GW.
So you can say that Ice Guard aren't really part of Kislev, but GW says they are, and that's all there is to it. The buck stops with them.
It's a game first and foremost. The game drives the lore, not the other way around.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think what people are forgetting about the Ice Guard is this: If GW didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. CA doesn't just get to invent units themselves. Like all license partners, they have to get everything approved (or simply created by) GW.
So you can say that Ice Guard aren't really part of Kislev, but GW says they are, and that's all there is to it. The buck stops with them.
It's a game first and foremost. The game drives the lore, not the other way around.
According to the designers, the model design drives both first and foremost.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think what people are forgetting about the Ice Guard is this: If GW didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. CA doesn't just get to invent units themselves. Like all license partners, they have to get everything approved (or simply created by) GW.
So you can say that Ice Guard aren't really part of Kislev, but GW says they are, and that's all there is to it. The buck stops with them.
I don't think that changes anything for the members of the rose tinted nostalgia brigade. To them, everything nu-GW does is wrong and evil, and everything old-GW did in the past was perfect, and if nu-GW does something that violates their beliefs about what old-GW would have done, then its wrong.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think what people are forgetting about the Ice Guard is this: If GW didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. CA doesn't just get to invent units themselves. Like all license partners, they have to get everything approved (or simply created by) GW.
So you can say that Ice Guard aren't really part of Kislev, but GW says they are, and that's all there is to it. The buck stops with them.
It's a game first and foremost. The game drives the lore, not the other way around.
Actually the minis drive the lore first and foremost. GW has a model-first process, it goes model -> lore -> rules.
One new unit that’s in the early stages of development is set in the Ice Court – the seat of the ruling Tsar or Tsarina. Known as the Ice Guard, they’re an elite fighting formation of warrior women, equally skilled with bow and blade.
Not really sure why people are thinking that because they've not shown anything already it means they aren't coming
I think it's interesting that it appears the design philosophy of GW has changed dramatically since a lot of the earlier Bretonnian range was released (duh!). That is to say, I think there used to be more of the people who came into designing WFB from a historical wargaming perspective, like the Perry twins, bringing a somewhat historical perspective and design to the armor and weaponry. For me, the new Bretonnians, particularly the helmets, clearly show the influence that new designers draw from D&D and Warcraft or other fantasy settings in the 2000s, including AoS.
To me, if previous Bretonnians were like 80% 13th century Western European knights and 20% fantasy, these appear more like 50-50%.
Osorios wrote: I think it's interesting that it appears the design philosophy of GW has changed dramatically since a lot of the earlier Bretonnian range was released (duh!). That is to say, I think there used to be more of the people who came into designing WFB from a historical wargaming perspective, like the Perry twins, bringing a somewhat historical perspective and design to the armor and weaponry. For me, the new Bretonnians, particularly the helmets, clearly show the influence that new designers draw from D&D and Warcraft or other fantasy settings in the 2000s, including AoS.
To me, if previous Bretonnians were like 80% 13th century Western European knights and 20% fantasy, these appear more like 50-50%.
The original Bretonnian range was designed for a historical wargame that GW was working on, but when that ended up not being released the moulds were re-purposed for Warhammer Fantasy. Over the years, as models got added to the range, the fantasy aesthetic got strengthened.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think what people are forgetting about the Ice Guard is this: If GW didn't want it to exist, it wouldn't exist. CA doesn't just get to invent units themselves. Like all license partners, they have to get everything approved (or simply created by) GW.
So you can say that Ice Guard aren't really part of Kislev, but GW says they are, and that's all there is to it. The buck stops with them.
It's a game first and foremost. The game drives the lore, not the other way around.
Nah. Model designers come up with model. It's tossed to fluff and rule writers with premise "make sure this is mentioned in fluff and has rules"
That sounds believable. They've already got LI stuff in White Dwarf and a lot of models and content on show. So pushing Old World out for LI makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, that all seems plausible enough. Also fits with Valrak's rumours.
I also wonder if the norm will effectively be one new plastic unit, one or two multiuse plastic monsters, and a bunch of resin character models, and then old models. That seems plausible. They could do with a new plastic wyvern for the Orcs for example.
The last big remaining question for me then would be if they really bring back the BFSP Night Goblin kit, or if they just tell you to use the AOS models.
Not really anything of interest, and if you already follow any GW game its likely this page is going to have no useful information but I guess its more for people looking up 'the old world' online.
I'd have thought they would have at least sneaked a sneaky reveal to generate a little traffic to the page.
LI taking over the November slot has been going around for a while now so nothing new the February thing is also not new as GW had a mistake after Saturdays stream and posted this bevor deleting it again:
The actually interesting part is the two other paragraphs. The second one is reasonable as Bretonia also got an infantry squad in addition to their leader model but the third paragraph has one part that makes me lean towards it being fake in that it says it will have "a" Starter set. Meanwhile Valrak, who that early next year with Legions Imperialis taking over the November slot rumour originated from, said that there wouldn't be a single classical starter set with both factions but instead both Bretonia and Tomb Kings will get their own "launch sets". I can't remember if those include the rulebook but its clear that it would be two "starter sets" and not just one this way.
Could of course just be that whoever wrote that just wasn't that precise but then again its 4chan so should be taken with salt in the first place
Those rumours from 4chan seem be taken from Hasting's post on War of Sigmar:
Spoiler:
Well, I hear there's only 2 new (plastic) kits for TK, one a hero/lord on chariot, the other a unit of sand mummies (whatever that means).
The (not) starter box (TK v Brets) will drop last week Jan/first week Feb at a cost of 185 gbp. It contains only plastic models, so none of the new resins, old resin/metal minis, although these will launch at around the same time, possibly even the following week/fortnight, along with standalone rulebook and plastics from the not starter box. There will be some "quality of life" stuff the following month (plastic templates, dice etc.), and in late summer another box of Orcs vs Empire, apparently O&G get one new plastic kit (possibly boar chariot) and empire gets 3 plastic kits. There is a new "narrative" book to go alongside these releases, as the first release the components from this bunch will release "soon"(tm) afterwards, along with a couple of NEW resin pieces for both, one of which is a named Orc character
Summary:
TK only receive two new plastic kits: Hero/Lord on chariot, and a unit of "sand mummies"
TK vs Bret (not) starter dropping last week Jan/first week Feb, price will be £185
Will only contain plastic models, none of the new resin/old resin/metal minis
New resin/old resin/metal minis will launch around the same time, possibly the following week/fortnight alongside standalone rulebooks and plastics from the "not starter"
"Quality of life" stuff the following month (plastic templates, dice etc.)
Late summer box of Orcs vs Empire, O&G receive one new plastic kit (possibly boar chariot), Empire 3 plastic kits
New "narrative" book to go alongside these releases, components from this bunch will release "soon" afterwards, along with a couple of new resin pieces for both, one of which is a named Orc character
Hasting also commented "I have heard that the TK chariot is beautiful, and having seen the new Bret stuff I don't doubt that."
Seems plausible. Seeing a new plastic chariot next to the 20+ year old ones will be jarring, especially since the core of the army is going to be based on 20+ year old kits, the same ones that are (one) of the main reasons people never started TK.
Seems very plausible, but if the TK core isn't being updated, that will be very disappointing.
Sucks to be a TK player that wanted new models, but TBH I'm really, really hoping the old troop models remain the same as the old kit. I need hundreds to the old skeletal horses, and if they remake them you can count on them being like modern sculpts with the legs sculpted on.
With the old kits, sure they are very old but it also allows for most of the vampire counts force to be easily available (as long as you are happy to the new AoS stuff in).
I would take it as a bonus if the old TK skeletons and riders are the ones they go with. Happy to see them replaced in the future sure, but for now as this is a half-hearted half-baked release anyway, at least its a 2 for 1 army deal allowing VCs to have some hope of continuing their old armies. We are getting old kits no matter what, might as well be ones that work in our favour.
Sand mummies, huh? I wonder how that might go. Apophas, but with sand instead of scarabs? A Sharknado with ravenous mummies sticking out of whirling sand? Dessicated dead without wrapping, preserved by the desert?
They'll be the king's horses pulling the king's chariot. I'd expect a ton of bling on them that makes them specific to the kit and not suitable for other units, even if GW put them on their own sprue.
Sathrut wrote: Those rumours from 4chan seem be taken from Hasting's post on War of Sigmar:
Spoiler:
Well, I hear there's only 2 new (plastic) kits for TK, one a hero/lord on chariot, the other a unit of sand mummies (whatever that means).
The (not) starter box (TK v Brets) will drop last week Jan/first week Feb at a cost of 185 gbp. It contains only plastic models, so none of the new resins, old resin/metal minis, although these will launch at around the same time, possibly even the following week/fortnight, along with standalone rulebook and plastics from the not starter box. There will be some "quality of life" stuff the following month (plastic templates, dice etc.), and in late summer another box of Orcs vs Empire, apparently O&G get one new plastic kit (possibly boar chariot) and empire gets 3 plastic kits. There is a new "narrative" book to go alongside these releases, as the first release the components from this bunch will release "soon"(tm) afterwards, along with a couple of NEW resin pieces for both, one of which is a named Orc character
Summary:
TK only receive two new plastic kits: Hero/Lord on chariot, and a unit of "sand mummies"
TK vs Bret (not) starter dropping last week Jan/first week Feb, price will be £185
Will only contain plastic models, none of the new resin/old resin/metal minis
New resin/old resin/metal minis will launch around the same time, possibly the following week/fortnight alongside standalone rulebooks and plastics from the "not starter"
"Quality of life" stuff the following month (plastic templates, dice etc.)
Late summer box of Orcs vs Empire, O&G receive one new plastic kit (possibly boar chariot), Empire 3 plastic kits
New "narrative" book to go alongside these releases, components from this bunch will release "soon" afterwards, along with a couple of new resin pieces for both, one of which is a named Orc character
Hasting also commented "I have heard that the TK chariot is beautiful, and having seen the new Bret stuff I don't doubt that."
Seems plausible. Seeing a new plastic chariot next to the 20+ year old ones will be jarring, especially since the core of the army is going to be based on 20+ year old kits, the same ones that are (one) of the main reasons people never started TK.
This flies in the face of earlier rumors (from Valrak?) which seem increasingly accurate based on what was revealed this weekend with regards to Bretonnia. We were told no 2-player box and instead individual faction boxes. We were also told that the Tomb Kings were getting a bone dragon ridden by a Liche or something to go opposite the Bretonnian pegasus hero. We even have what appears to be a rumor engine preview of the bone dragons wing. I'm hesitant to believe this is accurate.
Also have a hard time believing they would release a new plastic hero on chariot and not also have it be able to build a non-hero chariot option.
chaos0xomega wrote: .
Also have a hard time believing they would release a new plastic hero on chariot and not also have it be able to build a non-hero chariot option.
same with the Pegapony for Bretonnia, so not unlikely
I didn't think the Empire had cannon until after the Nuln engineering/gunnery school was established, which hasn't happened yet in lore?
Also, I could have sworn Mikhael was identified as a fraud at some point in the past couple years? Might be confusing him with someone else, but I recall someone was posting rumors to reddit which ended up being total bs. Could have sworn it was him.
The Empire has the Steam Tank in this era. The main thing the Empire currently lacks during this time is Wizards. The college of Magic won't be a thing until after the Great War Against Chaos ends.
Am I too optimistic for thinking that the 'Compendium Book' could be this generation's 6e Ravening Hordes?
Yes. Probably. I can hope though.
Worse still the rumour actually reads 'Compendium BookS'
I suspect we will multiple 'get you by' books that will be outdated within a month, as soon as the first standalone army book/narrative book is released separately.
I'm not against the idea of them doing this, to get the game going quickly at least. But when they charge what they do for books and they become outdated almost instantly, whats the point. By the time you get a new force painted up from scratch, the first books will be invalidated. Might as well wait for the next batch of book releases tbh
But gosh, no land boats, no wizards, it's really making me wonder why they made TOW a prequel.
There were Imperial Wizards prior to the formation to the College of Magic. They were just highly suspect and ill-trained. Usually called hedge-wizards from what I recall.
nathan2004 wrote: Part of me would kill for a freaking War Wagon...dang I loved that model but never was able to acquire it.
GW did a MTO for the old Halfling Hot Pot a few years ago. So I have slowly been building up some hope that they might be able to do a MTO for the old 90s Empire range.
nathan2004 wrote: Part of me would kill for a freaking War Wagon...dang I loved that model but never was able to acquire it.
I got myself one not so long ago, but damn had I been hoping this would be the perfect chance to finally see one in plastic! I do not know how people got theirs built to stay together 30 years ago, other than superglue has gotten worse as time has gone on!
I'm dreading getting mine done, as the parts are so thin!
With TOW being a 'prequel', I would think they would use this as a chance to update older 80s designs like the war wagon in place of canons and big griffin models etc
But from the sounds of the rumours, we are just getting 8th ed left overs, AoS leftovers but a new cannon!
I think people should take a deep breath. Getting worked up over what might not be coming, just because of some rumours? Yeah yeah, this is the internet and all that... but still.
Concerning a War Wagon in plastic: could happen for the initial Empire wave (despite the latest rumours), or later. Or - and I consider this more likely - it will get a FW resin model. For now I remain in the "wait and see" camp.
Previous rumor was that the *standalone* Bretonnian box would have had a Pegapony hero, 12 horsey knights, 36 bowmen, 36 men at arms - no mention of foot knights. Not sure if that would justify 1/2 of the 185 GBP price, I would personally lean towards no.
Don't tease me like that, Hellebore. That would only lead to false hopes (such as Sigmarite Sisters as an option in Empire armies or *gasp* a reboot of Mordheim).
Hellebore wrote: I wonder if it will be in the middle of the 3E, concurrent with Mordheim. That provides a lot of potential.
It seems to be quite a bit later than Mordheim.
The original Louen Orc Slayer reference would seem to date it well after, then more recently GW have said it is set after the Vampire Wars as the reason VC are not a main army for it.
Mordheim is set before the first Vampire War, so significantly earlier.
Prior to the announcement of The Old World, I thought that if GW were to do anything with the setting they only just blew up, they'd go with Mordheim. Maybe when Necromunda was more complete and sales start to slag.
I wouldn't take the existence of The Old World or the time its set in as any sign for or against Mordheim. The game seems separately viable to me. If they want to remake it, I'd expect it'll be because they want to replicate what they have with Necromunda, regardless of any success or failure The Old World might have. Not the least because GW sees value enough in the Warhammer Fantasy setting to invest (ever so cautiously) in a followup game without much proof of its viability.
Geifer wrote: It's a good time. GW makes it exceptionally easy on the competition with their lack of commitment.
Sadly for Gw, the warhammer fantasy IP long outgrew its need for official GW support. Its not even like 40k, where it 'needs' gw to continue using very specific iconography on its minis.
Geifer wrote: Prior to the announcement of The Old World, I thought that if GW were to do anything with the setting they only just blew up, they'd go with Mordheim. Maybe when Necromunda was more complete and sales start to slag.
I wouldn't take the existence of The Old World or the time its set in as any sign for or against Mordheim. The game seems separately viable to me. If they want to remake it, I'd expect it'll be because they want to replicate what they have with Necromunda, regardless of any success or failure The Old World might have. Not the least because GW sees value enough in the Warhammer Fantasy setting to invest (ever so cautiously) in a followup game without much proof of its viability.
Setting is supposed to be after 1999 and 2300 when Magnus the Pious cleanses Mordheim. So its a possibility. The game is living very well as fan supported though. I hope GW just keeps their hands off it. Not like they're going to release a starter set with cardboard buildings again. And they cant compete with the selection in 3d printed terrain...
kodos wrote: if we assume the mentioned 32 model boxes for Archers is the current 45 GBP price point, the mentioned content would be 50% discount in the box
Here's my back of the napkin math for a GW set of 32 models. 45GBP is less than two dollars per model. Can't have that. Let's double it to 64 GBP. Then let's add another to round it to a nice 65 GBP. Then we'll put a $99 USD price tag on it, which should only be $79 USD, because reasons. Then we'll charge the Aussies $420 aussie dollars for those 32 models. Bob's your uncle!
I'd be really surprised if we see anything close to $2 per model for anything out of ToW, even really old plastic sculpts. Which is a shame, because I might be interested in older models, but not at current price points.
I just assume they'll cost about $60-$75 a box for a full regiment. Which oddly would make them nearly the same cost as when they were originally released
These aren't new plastics that need paying for themselves. Especially the re-release stuff. These are literally the cost of materials for them.
I'm figuring 75-90 for a full box, based on the cost of 20 Mk3/6 marines or 10 Cataphractii/Tartaros Termies.
They may be old kits but they have enhanced value because NoStAlGiA. Also, the cost to warehouse, store, and maintain a set of steel molds for ~10 years in usable condition is higher than most people realize, both in terms of the cost of that square footage/cubic volume, but also the energy costs and labor involved. You can't just plop them down in any old room and let them sit and collect dust. Best practices actually require long term storage in a conditioned environment within set temperature and humidity tolerances (i.e. you're paying for HVAC year round), and periodic lubrication/oiling to prevent rust, etc.
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm figuring 75-90 for a full box, based on the cost of 20 Mk3/6 marines or 10 Cataphractii/Tartaros Termies.
They may be old kits but they have enhanced value because NoStAlGiA. Also, the cost to warehouse, store, and maintain a set of steel molds for ~10 years in usable condition is higher than most people realize, both in terms of the cost of that square footage/cubic volume, but also the energy costs and labor involved. You can't just plop them down in any old room and let them sit and collect dust. Best practices actually require long term storage in a conditioned environment within set temperature and humidity tolerances (i.e. you're paying for HVAC year round), and periodic lubrication/oiling to prevent rust, etc.
So my old models will probably increase in resalevalue, not decrease, of old world reprints the same models.
chaos0xomega wrote: I don't really know of any GW minis that haven't increased in value over time, so that goes without saying.
I think blood knights actually got cheaper when they got a plastic kit for AOS. The finecast models cost $100 and I think they're like forty dollars less now. Though thats more of a case of the models being way overpriced
That's a good point on that. I wonder how that's impacted the value of metal blood Knights though. There's plenty of minis that have been resculpted, but the older ones gain value over the newer ones. Juan Diaz daemonettes for example.
chaos0xomega wrote: That's a good point on that. I wonder how that's impacted the value of metal blood Knights though. There's plenty of minis that have been resculpted, but the older ones gain value over the newer ones. Juan Diaz daemonettes for example.
Ah yes, Juan Diaz daemonettes. Made of a hard, firm, lustrous material. And of such value they inflame covetous and possessive desire far in excess of reason. Indeed the Slaanesh is strong with these ones.
Back on topic, the last few Made to Orders for old minis make me wince at the probable price point for The Old World, even for ancient plastics. GW will charge what it thinks it can get away with. And that's usually a lot.
chaos0xomega wrote: That's a good point on that. I wonder how that's impacted the value of metal blood Knights though. There's plenty of minis that have been resculpted, but the older ones gain value over the newer ones. Juan Diaz daemonettes for example.
Not every sculpt can gain value though. Most lack certain attributes
chaos0xomega wrote: I don't really know of any GW minis that haven't increased in value over time, so that goes without saying.
I think blood knights actually got cheaper when they got a plastic kit for AOS. The finecast models cost $100 and I think they're like forty dollars less now. Though thats more of a case of the models being way overpriced
Yes, as nice as it is to see a price go down on a new incarnation of a kit, the price of the metal/resin Blood Knights was a pretty significant outlier from the moment they were released. The reason for the price decrease is just that the plastic version is priced in line with other five model elite cavalry like Chaos Knights. Outside of discount boxes, the only way the price of a GW kit goes down is if it's repackaged like for instance Juggernauts. Model count is doubled but price is a little lower than double.
Horus Heresy's prices have been brought up by a few people occasionally. GW going a similar route with The Old World and offering a small bulk discount that 40k and AoS don't get is about the only way I see us getting any reprieve on price. Otherwise the game will have the same premium we know and love from GW. Let's not forget that we're paying for the brand name. Material cost and age of sculpt won't play much of a role.
Geifer wrote: Material cost and age of sculpt won't play much of a role.
See it as an investment for new kits / books to come. While I get what you're saying, it's actually not true : they still do play a role. GW here doesn't just release stuff from before, they still need to produce everything - from plastic new bases to new cardboard boxes. Old molds need maintenance. There are also new kits as they showed it in the previews. And material / logistic cost has risen up significantly since the days of Warhammer Battle.
As for the "competition"...Kickstarters and 3D sculpting are nice and all, but they're not a competition in itself to The Old World here - they are actually dependant of existing game systems more than anything else and they certainly don't want to replace them if they want to keep selling. On KS, a lot of these files are never printed because it's all about FOMO and file hoarding "just in case" most of the time (a bit similar to boardgames from CMON). The number of actual armies fully printed (not even talking about being painted ) is a full job in itself only a handful few will commit to the end. Especially when it's intended to be played only in your close group and certainly not in official stores / tournaments because, well...it's clearly not GW stuff, you know. You can always say "but I know people who came with printed stuff at stores / tournaments !"...they're more the exception than the rule.
However, it's a good thing to have more variety on the market, and it's interesting to see what is the interpretation of the same faction by different people. So it's a very good situation for the hobby, more than for the game. GW will be fine.
Geifer wrote: Material cost and age of sculpt won't play much of a role.
See it as an investment for new kits / books to come. While I get what you're saying, it's actually not true : they still do play a role. GW here doesn't just release stuff from before, they still need to produce everything - from plastic new bases to new cardboard boxes. Old molds need maintenance. There are also new kits as they showed it in the previews. And material / logistic cost has risen up significantly since the days of Warhammer Battle.
As for the "competition"...Kickstarters and 3D sculpting are nice and all, but they're not a competition in itself to The Old World here - they are actually dependant of existing game systems more than anything else and they certainly don't want to replace them if they want to keep selling. On KS, a lot of these files are never printed because it's all about FOMO and file hoarding "just in case" most of the time (a bit similar to boardgames from CMON). The number of actual armies fully printed (not even talking about being painted ) is a full job in itself only a handful few will commit to the end. Especially when it's intended to be played only in your close group and certainly not in official stores / tournaments because, well...it's clearly not GW stuff, you know. You can always say "but I know people who came with printed stuff at stores / tournaments !"...they're more the exception than the rule.
However, it's a good thing to have more variety on the market, and it's interesting to see what is the interpretation of the same faction by different people. So it's a very good situation for the hobby, more than for the game. GW will be fine.
Are you talking about the new foot Knights of the realm or the old mounted foot Knights? I'm assuming you mean the former, the mounted Knights are tiny by comparison, they look like teenagers riding ponies by comparison.
chaos0xomega wrote: Are you talking about the new foot Knights of the realm or the old mounted foot Knights? I'm assuming you mean the former, the mounted Knights are tiny by comparison, they look like teenagers riding ponies by comparison.
I'm talking about mounted knights of the realm that are about to be rereleased. The new CoS seems to be exactly the same size of plastic peasants, so I was wondering what the knights look like
This is a good link on horse sizes through the ages (note that the average medieval man was slightly shorter at 170-174 cm depending on the exact period)
Riders are actually taller, bout 2-3mm from bottom of the foot to to eye level. Thats before you account for the older rider basically bein gin an upright position and the new riders being in a more seated position that shaves a few more mms off their height. So there is actually a good degree of difference in the size of the riders, but I think its less noticeable due to the proportions of the old riders making the key focal points (hands, feet, head) seem closer in size to those of the new riders.
old GW is probably a bit on the small side (but not as much as you expect)
A bit? I have old Fantasy skeletons and vampires and they look freaking tiny nexto Age of Sigmar stuff. If you think you can use Old World minis for AoS think again.
old GW is probably a bit on the small side (but not as much as you expect)
A bit? I have old Fantasy skeletons and vampires and they look freaking tiny nexto Age of Sigmar stuff. If you think you can use Old World minis for AoS think again.
Proof:
I will say those AoS models are from the Underworlds war bands where each model is essentially a mini hero in the game and a bigger scale up in my opinion.
Attack of the 4cm tall vampires! I get GW wanted to do some upscaling, but I don't understand why those four vampires needed to be truescale Space Marines.
From what I understand, giant vampires is an AoS lore thing apparently? Something about vampirism makes them grow significantly in size vs a baseline human or something.
I think its about shifting them from a faction in Old World that basically hid all the time within mortal settlements; to one that's standing super proud on their own right. They have vast land tracks now and they don't have to hide, they are prideful and marching in all their glory.
And we are setting them become more feral which I think is also part of making them more about being vampires and less "elf with pointy teeth" desgn wise.
They aren't just taller, some are sporting bat hair and others are turning into wolf/bat creatures
Overread wrote: I think its about shifting them from a faction in Old World that basically hid all the time within mortal settlements; to one that's standing super proud on their own right. They have vast land tracks now and they don't have to hide, they are prideful and marching in all their glory.
And we are setting them become more feral which I think is also part of making them more about being vampires and less "elf with pointy teeth" desgn wise.
They aren't just taller, some are sporting bat hair and others are turning into wolf/bat creatures
The feral vampire trope has been going on since about 7th Edition Fantasy (and the vamp sculpts have been the worse for it ever since), AoS has just leaned into it even more with the bat hair etc. even on non Vargheist/Strigoi types.
Does anyone know how AoS vamps compare to end times era characters like Mannfred and Neferata? Weren't thise already a bit larger in scale than previous models?
In any case, I will probably opt for the best designs while trying to keep discrepancies minimal. Skaven and Orks don't really have that particular problem in the first place. AoS Death delivered updates to most(?) VC units and I don't see them doing a smaller scale variant for ToW. I'm definitely also not going to buy the old dire wolves or fell bats.
chaos0xomega wrote: From what I understand, giant vampires is an AoS lore thing apparently? Something about vampirism makes them grow significantly in size vs a baseline human or something.
Depends on the bloodline and the Realm - Neferata's children are often not feral but there are some. The Realms do make a big difference which makes sense for entities that can live for milennia.
Im not talking about ferals or monstrous vamps though, I'm talking about the AoS depiction of even the regular regal looking human vampire types having the minis be noticeably taller than regular humans. Someone once told me it was because vampirism in the mortal realms causes them to grow bigger and stronger than a typical human.
BertBert wrote: Does anyone know how AoS vamps compare to end times era characters like Mannfred and Neferata? Weren't thise already a bit larger in scale than previous models?
In any case, I will probably opt for the best designs while trying to keep discrepancies minimal. Skaven and Orks don't really have that particular problem in the first place. AoS Death delivered updates to most(?) VC units and I don't see them doing a smaller scale variant for ToW. I'm definitely also not going to buy the old dire wolves or fell bats.
Yes. Quite significantly, based on the need for GW to overdetail the models now. In effect the new vampires are a couple heads taller then the old ones. They are not cross compatible. The models are all going up around 35-37mm range. These aren't The Old World vampire army.
Style-wise, as well- They are also not compatible. They look like Modern Art Masterpieces, and some of them do not even look like they belong in the same game.
Many of the AoS models could just be used for ToW. It wouldn't surprise me if they just start putting square and round bases in many of the kits and call it a day. Or start doing movements trays with circular insets.
Sunno wrote: Many of the AoS models could just be used for ToW. It wouldn't surprise me if they just start putting square and round bases in many of the kits and call it a day. Or start doing movements trays with circular insets.
They could be used for both but I don't think GW wants that to happen. Why sell one model for two systems if you can just sell two models instead. Just look at HH and 40k, nearly all HH models where removed for 10th.
Many AOS models also are covered in stormcast bits or other AOS specific doodads (though the rockgut troggoths are good to go). I dunno if that’s necessarily a deal breaker though, since I imagine a lot of the rereleased empire models will have Karl Franz iconography
Sunno wrote: Many of the AoS models could just be used for ToW. It wouldn't surprise me if they just start putting square and round bases in many of the kits and call it a day. Or start doing movements trays with circular insets.
They could be used for both but I don't think GW wants that to happen. Why sell one model for two systems if you can just sell two models instead. Just look at HH and 40k, nearly all HH models where removed for 10th.
Because I think GW would be hard pressed in many cases to justify making double kits. A night goblin is a night goblin. A vampire skeleton warrior is vampire skeleton warrior. A Skink is a Skink. I put any of those AoS models on a square base it IS a ToW model (and visa-versa of course). I just dont think GW would sell the volumes to justify making two kits in the case of line troops for armies that basically exist in both setting, stupid AoS names not withstanding.
Characters, special units and centrepiece models/monsters could be another matter I grant you.
One might think and yet they removed all the 30k models from 40k to keep those systems apart
You might think it will be a good idea of not having a AoS skeleton kit as well as a TOW skeleton kit
GW thinks it is better to let you by both hence why there is Khemri in one and Vampires in the other game
Same for Goblins, one dedicated for each game so people by both if they want to play both
kodos wrote: One might think and yet they removed all the 30k models from 40k to keep those systems apart
You might think it will be a good idea of not having a AoS skeleton kit as well as a TOW skeleton kit
GW thinks it is better to let you by both hence why there is Khemri in one and Vampires in the other game
Same for Goblins, one dedicated for each game so people by both if they want to play both
Is there any reason to assume night goblins won't be in ToW? Given they're also a decade + year old set of sprues, same for spider riders.
kodos wrote: One might think and yet they removed all the 30k models from 40k to keep those systems apart
You might think it will be a good idea of not having a AoS skeleton kit as well as a TOW skeleton kit
GW thinks it is better to let you by both hence why there is Khemri in one and Vampires in the other game
Same for Goblins, one dedicated for each game so people by both if they want to play both
Is there any reason to assume night goblins won't be in ToW? Given they're also a decade + year old set of sprues, same for spider riders.
I don't expect those to be replaced for TOW. I could see them making a new AoSified goblin kit for Gloomspite gits that doesn't really fit the TOW aesthetic and keep selling the old night golbins for TOW
I had a quick look and there are more than a hundred "AOS" kits currently on sale that was originaly released for WHFB. Surely GW will want to sell these kits for TOW aswell as for AOS? It will also take them a very long time to replace them if that's the plan.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: You'll probably notice that most of those kits are for armies that arent' involved in old world.
A lot of them are, sure. But there are still plenty of kits for the core factions like Empire, Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins and Chaos.
I think it'll be really interesting to see how this release unfolds. It's a unique release in many ways so I'm not expecting it to follow the usual pattern.
In terms of legacy empire stuff, from what I understand most of it doesn't fit into TOW. IIRC TOW is set pre-steam tanks (I think?), pre magic college (which eliminates luminarks, celestial hurricanums, and battle wizards), and before Magnus the Pious and Grand Theogenist Volkmar the Grim (who started the trend with religious fanaticism in the Empire, and ergo there would be no flagellants in TOW before him). The only kit still for sale that would fit into TOW then would be the Freeguild General on Griffon kit, in theory anyway - the Imperial Zoo won't be founded for another few hundred years and existing fluff was clear that it was Karl Franz who acquired the Griffons for the zoo in the first place, so its entirely possible that they won't be included either.
I can't really comment on the Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins, and Chaos stuff too much. The dwarf stuff mostly strikes me as things that probably should be included in TOW, though depending on previous fluff I can see the gyrocopter/bomber being excluded or something as being too modern. Otherwise I'm not really sure what other units dwarves had available that they could build an army list around. Orcs and Goblins probably depends on how they want to approach them, there are certainly a number of legacy WHFB kits which were expunged from TOW that could be brought back for TOW exclusively ala Bretonnians and Tomb Kings, though whether thats enough to build a cohesive army is kind of unclear. I certainly wouldn't expect them to take the new orruk ard boyz as a substitute for the black orcs that they replaced, for example, so I expect the old black orc kit to make a comeback. The flipside is that the old night goblin kit is the current gloomspite shoota/stabba kit, I don't see how you have orcs and goblins without what i recall to have been the main goblin unit in the army. As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I half expect them to bring back the old chaos warrior and knight kits for TOW rather than using the new slaves to darkness kits. Even still, like half the StD range is made up of old Chaos Warriors stuff, so I don't know if they are going to cut stuff from the next StD battletome or if the chaos warrior army list in TOW will be smaller and go in a different direction?
chaos0xomega wrote: In terms of legacy empire stuff, from what I understand most of it doesn't fit into TOW. IIRC TOW is set pre-steam tanks (I think?), pre magic college (which eliminates luminarks, celestial hurricanums, and battle wizards), and before Magnus the Pious and Grand Theogenist Volkmar the Grim (who started the trend with religious fanaticism in the Empire, and ergo there would be no flagellants in TOW before him). The only kit still for sale that would fit into TOW then would be the Freeguild General on Griffon kit, in theory anyway - the Imperial Zoo won't be founded for another few hundred years and existing fluff was clear that it was Karl Franz who acquired the Griffons for the zoo in the first place, so its entirely possible that they won't be included either.
I can't really comment on the Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins, and Chaos stuff too much. The dwarf stuff mostly strikes me as things that probably should be included in TOW, though depending on previous fluff I can see the gyrocopter/bomber being excluded or something as being too modern. Otherwise I'm not really sure what other units dwarves had available that they could build an army list around. Orcs and Goblins probably depends on how they want to approach them, there are certainly a number of legacy WHFB kits which were expunged from TOW that could be brought back for TOW exclusively ala Bretonnians and Tomb Kings, though whether thats enough to build a cohesive army is kind of unclear. I certainly wouldn't expect them to take the new orruk ard boyz as a substitute for the black orcs that they replaced, for example, so I expect the old black orc kit to make a comeback. The flipside is that the old night goblin kit is the current gloomspite shoota/stabba kit, I don't see how you have orcs and goblins without what i recall to have been the main goblin unit in the army. As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I half expect them to bring back the old chaos warrior and knight kits for TOW rather than using the new slaves to darkness kits. Even still, like half the StD range is made up of old Chaos Warriors stuff, so I don't know if they are going to cut stuff from the next StD battletome or if the chaos warrior army list in TOW will be smaller and go in a different direction?
Mostly correct although Flagellants date back to the lifetime of Sigmar himself and the steam tanks are created around 2020 so depending on the exact date are about - in fact more of them might still be working. Griffons are likely to have been tamed for a long time.
Dudeface wrote: Is there any reason to assume night goblins won't be in ToW? Given they're also a decade + year old set of sprues, same for spider riders.
if GW is not doing double factions and having the same in AoS and TOW, either Night Goblins are not in TOW or are gone in AoS by the time O&G get their release in TOW
there are 3 Goblin factions, Wood, Night and Regular Goblins, of which 1 is an AoS faction
depends if GW want a clear cut like with HH and 40k, rather regular Goblins coming back than Night Goblins get re-packed with 2 different bases
chaos0xomega wrote: In terms of legacy empire stuff, from what I understand most of it doesn't fit into TOW. IIRC TOW is set pre-steam tanks (I think?), pre magic college (which eliminates luminarks, celestial hurricanums, and battle wizards), and before Magnus the Pious and Grand Theogenist Volkmar the Grim (who started the trend with religious fanaticism in the Empire, and ergo there would be no flagellants in TOW before him). The only kit still for sale that would fit into TOW then would be the Freeguild General on Griffon kit, in theory anyway - the Imperial Zoo won't be founded for another few hundred years and existing fluff was clear that it was Karl Franz who acquired the Griffons for the zoo in the first place, so its entirely possible that they won't be included either.
I can't really comment on the Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins, and Chaos stuff too much. The dwarf stuff mostly strikes me as things that probably should be included in TOW, though depending on previous fluff I can see the gyrocopter/bomber being excluded or something as being too modern. Otherwise I'm not really sure what other units dwarves had available that they could build an army list around. Orcs and Goblins probably depends on how they want to approach them, there are certainly a number of legacy WHFB kits which were expunged from TOW that could be brought back for TOW exclusively ala Bretonnians and Tomb Kings, though whether thats enough to build a cohesive army is kind of unclear. I certainly wouldn't expect them to take the new orruk ard boyz as a substitute for the black orcs that they replaced, for example, so I expect the old black orc kit to make a comeback. The flipside is that the old night goblin kit is the current gloomspite shoota/stabba kit, I don't see how you have orcs and goblins without what i recall to have been the main goblin unit in the army. As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I half expect them to bring back the old chaos warrior and knight kits for TOW rather than using the new slaves to darkness kits. Even still, like half the StD range is made up of old Chaos Warriors stuff, so I don't know if they are going to cut stuff from the next StD battletome or if the chaos warrior army list in TOW will be smaller and go in a different direction?
I'm expecting everything to stay for the initial "ravening hordes"-lists phase of the game. What happens next is anyone's guess.
Sunno wrote: Many of the AoS models could just be used for ToW. It wouldn't surprise me if they just start putting square and round bases in many of the kits and call it a day. Or start doing movements trays with circular insets.
I doubt it. They've confirmed all the factions that have had major aos model revamps (lizardmen, vampire counts etc) won't be supported, so it seems they are drawing distinct lines between the model ranges. Wouldn't be surprised if they bring back the old chaos warrior kit instead of the aos one
Dudeface wrote: Is there any reason to assume night goblins won't be in ToW? Given they're also a decade + year old set of sprues, same for spider riders.
if GW is not doing double factions and having the same in AoS and TOW, either Night Goblins are not in TOW or are gone in AoS by the time O&G get their release in TOW
there are 3 Goblin factions, Wood, Night and Regular Goblins, of which 1 is an AoS faction
depends if GW want a clear cut like with HH and 40k, rather regular Goblins coming back than Night Goblins get re-packed with 2 different bases
Well, the wood (or forest?) goblins are in AoS as the spider goblins or whatever they are called. The spider riders and arachnarok spiders are part of gloomspite gits. So either they pull a cities of sigmar and cull them from the gloomspite faction to port them back to TOW or they aren't part of TOW. likewise the wolf-riding goblins that were recently added to gloomspite are vaguely "regular goblin" in style, so... I dunno.
Personally, I kind of expect them to "fork" the model ranges for Empire/Dwarves/O&G/Chaos (and anything else that was missed). As someone else said, during the "Ravening Hordes" phase where everything is working off of pdf lists or whatever initial army compendium they might have released, I assume the models will continue to pull double duty. Of course things like Seraphon or Ogre Kingdoms which I don't expect to ever get full support in TOW will have to make due with AoS kits or the legacy-WHFB-cum-AoS kits with their pdf lists indefinitely, but I expect that as both games develop we may come to a point where the core factions in TOW that have overlap with AoS have their own separate versions of things. Gloomspite gits have their own "moonclan grots" kit, and TOW Orcs & Goblins have their own separate "nightgoblin cultists" kit or whatever, and that Slaves to Darkness have "Darkoath Chaos Warriors" while TOW has "Norscan Chaos Warriors" or something. Like, I don't expect the current steam tank or Freeguild Marshal on Griffon kits to last in AoS indefinitely, they will eventually be replaced with something, though whether they are replaced with updated versions of themselves or with new iterations on the concept (for example Cogfort and "Freeguild Marshal on a Ghurian Dracogryphe (TM)") is unclear - if its the former then I expect there to be a TOW Steamtank and Empire General on Griffon kit (which are hopefully updated from the current versions, the Griffon kit is fine but the Steam Tank is ancient) and an AOS version of the same. If its the latter then I expect that TOW will get new versions of steam tank and griffon (because its covered in things that say "Karl Franz") in time while AoS goes its own direction.
Some of the new vampires work okay in WHFB. The ones from underworlds are all gorgeous, but all way too big and that mace wielding one is supposed to be the burly large one even within that set, using him as a guide is cherry picking the worst offender. Cado Ezechiar fits into WHFB pretty well. He's standing on a giant tactical tree, but you can clip that away if you wanted to. He is still big, about a head taller than the Isle of Blood elven mage of a similar pose, but he's almost the exact same size as the old Wood Elf Lord. He's on a taller tree than ther WE, but fits better on a 20mm square and he ranks up fine thanks to that tactical tree. Once armies go to 25mm standard bases he'd fit in even better.
Any of the Blood Knights would work fine for a mounted vampire, especially a Blood Dragon line, and I don't own the model, but I suspect the Vampire Lord with bat-hair would fit in without too much work. There's some good conversions out of the new Vampire Blood Bowl team as well. Again, a little big, but Heroes and Lords should stand out a bit from the chaff.
I just hope the rules are decent, my faith in current GW is pretty low now that 10th ed 40K is here.
I realize that a bunch of my armies from the original WaFaBa won't have anything other than a pdf list for their faction. I hope those lists include as much that was part of these armies, across their durations of the Warhammer run. For instance, it would be great if the lizard men had the Dread Saurian, the skaven still had the brood horrors, the high elves had the Merwyrm. Those to me were such fun additions to the armies, it would be nice to still see them included.
I'm most interested to learn about how they are going to handle the Chaos Dwarf list. Not just because they're my favorite old world army, but there are several variations to them over the duration of WaFaBa. I would ultimately love a fusion of the Forgeworld Legion of Azgorh, and the Chaos Dwarf Ravening hordes list, as that would include most of the more modern (circa 90's + = modern to me ) Evil Dwarfs. Bonus points if they want to include the 'Realm of Chaos' and older stuff (bazooka, mortar, swivel gun, tower, carts, maybe the ass canon. ) , that would be fun.
chaos0xomega wrote: In terms of legacy empire stuff, from what I understand most of it doesn't fit into TOW. IIRC TOW is set pre-steam tanks (I think?), pre magic college (which eliminates luminarks, celestial hurricanums, and battle wizards), and before Magnus the Pious and Grand Theogenist Volkmar the Grim (who started the trend with religious fanaticism in the Empire, and ergo there would be no flagellants in TOW before him). The only kit still for sale that would fit into TOW then would be the Freeguild General on Griffon kit, in theory anyway - the Imperial Zoo won't be founded for another few hundred years and existing fluff was clear that it was Karl Franz who acquired the Griffons for the zoo in the first place, so its entirely possible that they won't be included either.
I can't really comment on the Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins, and Chaos stuff too much. The dwarf stuff mostly strikes me as things that probably should be included in TOW, though depending on previous fluff I can see the gyrocopter/bomber being excluded or something as being too modern. Otherwise I'm not really sure what other units dwarves had available that they could build an army list around. Orcs and Goblins probably depends on how they want to approach them, there are certainly a number of legacy WHFB kits which were expunged from TOW that could be brought back for TOW exclusively ala Bretonnians and Tomb Kings, though whether thats enough to build a cohesive army is kind of unclear. I certainly wouldn't expect them to take the new orruk ard boyz as a substitute for the black orcs that they replaced, for example, so I expect the old black orc kit to make a comeback. The flipside is that the old night goblin kit is the current gloomspite shoota/stabba kit, I don't see how you have orcs and goblins without what i recall to have been the main goblin unit in the army. As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I half expect them to bring back the old chaos warrior and knight kits for TOW rather than using the new slaves to darkness kits. Even still, like half the StD range is made up of old Chaos Warriors stuff, so I don't know if they are going to cut stuff from the next StD battletome or if the chaos warrior army list in TOW will be smaller and go in a different direction?
When was Blackpowder discovered, because it's been removed each time War of the Beard lists were published (wihch is obviously a lot earlier), and I want to say was not present in Grudge of Drong either, but my memory is a bit hazy on that?
chaos0xomega wrote: In terms of legacy empire stuff, from what I understand most of it doesn't fit into TOW. IIRC TOW is set pre-steam tanks (I think?), pre magic college (which eliminates luminarks, celestial hurricanums, and battle wizards), and before Magnus the Pious and Grand Theogenist Volkmar the Grim (who started the trend with religious fanaticism in the Empire, and ergo there would be no flagellants in TOW before him). The only kit still for sale that would fit into TOW then would be the Freeguild General on Griffon kit, in theory anyway - the Imperial Zoo won't be founded for another few hundred years and existing fluff was clear that it was Karl Franz who acquired the Griffons for the zoo in the first place, so its entirely possible that they won't be included either.
I can't really comment on the Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins, and Chaos stuff too much. The dwarf stuff mostly strikes me as things that probably should be included in TOW, though depending on previous fluff I can see the gyrocopter/bomber being excluded or something as being too modern. Otherwise I'm not really sure what other units dwarves had available that they could build an army list around. Orcs and Goblins probably depends on how they want to approach them, there are certainly a number of legacy WHFB kits which were expunged from TOW that could be brought back for TOW exclusively ala Bretonnians and Tomb Kings, though whether thats enough to build a cohesive army is kind of unclear. I certainly wouldn't expect them to take the new orruk ard boyz as a substitute for the black orcs that they replaced, for example, so I expect the old black orc kit to make a comeback. The flipside is that the old night goblin kit is the current gloomspite shoota/stabba kit, I don't see how you have orcs and goblins without what i recall to have been the main goblin unit in the army. As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I half expect them to bring back the old chaos warrior and knight kits for TOW rather than using the new slaves to darkness kits. Even still, like half the StD range is made up of old Chaos Warriors stuff, so I don't know if they are going to cut stuff from the next StD battletome or if the chaos warrior army list in TOW will be smaller and go in a different direction?
When was Blackpowder discovered, because it's been removed each time War of the Beard lists were published (wihch is obviously a lot earlier), and I want to say was not present in Grudge of Drong either, but my memory is a bit hazy on that?
Blackpowder was present at Mordheim in 1999-2005, so by the time of the endtimes its been around at least 500 years, so yes will be present in ToW
chaos0xomega wrote: In terms of legacy empire stuff, from what I understand most of it doesn't fit into TOW. IIRC TOW is set pre-steam tanks (I think?), pre magic college (which eliminates luminarks, celestial hurricanums, and battle wizards), and before Magnus the Pious and Grand Theogenist Volkmar the Grim (who started the trend with religious fanaticism in the Empire, and ergo there would be no flagellants in TOW before him). The only kit still for sale that would fit into TOW then would be the Freeguild General on Griffon kit, in theory anyway - the Imperial Zoo won't be founded for another few hundred years and existing fluff was clear that it was Karl Franz who acquired the Griffons for the zoo in the first place, so its entirely possible that they won't be included either.
I can't really comment on the Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins, and Chaos stuff too much. The dwarf stuff mostly strikes me as things that probably should be included in TOW, though depending on previous fluff I can see the gyrocopter/bomber being excluded or something as being too modern. Otherwise I'm not really sure what other units dwarves had available that they could build an army list around. Orcs and Goblins probably depends on how they want to approach them, there are certainly a number of legacy WHFB kits which were expunged from TOW that could be brought back for TOW exclusively ala Bretonnians and Tomb Kings, though whether thats enough to build a cohesive army is kind of unclear. I certainly wouldn't expect them to take the new orruk ard boyz as a substitute for the black orcs that they replaced, for example, so I expect the old black orc kit to make a comeback. The flipside is that the old night goblin kit is the current gloomspite shoota/stabba kit, I don't see how you have orcs and goblins without what i recall to have been the main goblin unit in the army. As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I half expect them to bring back the old chaos warrior and knight kits for TOW rather than using the new slaves to darkness kits. Even still, like half the StD range is made up of old Chaos Warriors stuff, so I don't know if they are going to cut stuff from the next StD battletome or if the chaos warrior army list in TOW will be smaller and go in a different direction?
When was Blackpowder discovered, because it's been removed each time War of the Beard lists were published (wihch is obviously a lot earlier), and I want to say was not present in Grudge of Drong either, but my memory is a bit hazy on that?
Cathay used it way back before the time of Nagash and exported some to Lahmia to fight him. Dwarfs used it but very carefully sometime later and took along time to approve it for use in the military
For the Empire, I believe its some time around the year 2000 IC. This is because it wasn't there when Vlad took over Drakenhof Castle, but it is there in Mordheim.
For Cathay though, they've had it for thousands of years. They feature in one of the Nagash books when the Tomb Kings were still alive.
Dwarfs I've no idea, but after the War of Vengeance.
I think (hope) they will do whatever they need to in order to have an interesting range of units and functions on the tabletop. I enjoy the WFB fluff but I'll spit in its eye in order to have a variety of interesting and cool black powder weapons. GW has been changing the fluff for so long in order to service the game (or just change it to their whims) that it's always funny when people continue to get bent out of shape because they ignore something that was written in a WD supplement 30 years ago.
ToW isn't set all that long before WHFB 8th, just a couple hundred years. This is a good video covering the expected timeline of ToW. Basing the timeframe on the names and dates in the Warhammer Community articles and maps, ToW takes place between 2201 and 2302. WHFB was early 2500s, The End Times were 2520s. If you're familiar with Feliz and Gotrek novels, Trollslayer begins in 2495.
Remember that Mordheim is set in 2000, so anything in a Mordheim warband list is 200~300 years old by ToW. The Empire definitely has Gunpowder by the time of ToW, and has for a while. No wizards as we know them in WHFB Empire lists, but certainly warrior-priests and self-taught mystics/hedge wizards. The timeline on Warhammer Wiki puts the dwarves giving gunpower to the Empire in 1991
Mozzamanx wrote: For the Empire, I believe its some time around the year 2000 IC. This is because it wasn't there when Vlad took over Drakenhof Castle, but it is there in Mordheim.
The optional rules for Mordheim specifically state that black powder was still relatively new and experimental to humans of the Empire and, worse, that the supplies in the ruined city were not always the best quality, or even legitimately black powder at all and offered some more detailed misfire rules for guns (left out of the core rules for simplicity’s sake) to represent this.
skullking wrote: Bonus points if they want to include the 'Realm of Chaos' and older stuff (bazooka, mortar, swivel gun, tower, carts, maybe the ass canon. ) , that would be fun.
Boar centaurs maybe too? And why you mentioned the daemon ass cannon with a tongue-out emoticon....?
Kalamadea wrote: Some of the new vampires work okay in WHFB. The ones from underworlds are all gorgeous, but all way too big and that mace wielding one is supposed to be the burly large one even within that set, using him as a guide is cherry picking the worst offender. Cado Ezechiar fits into WHFB pretty well. He's standing on a giant tactical tree, but you can clip that away if you wanted to. He is still big, about a head taller than the Isle of Blood elven mage of a similar pose, but he's almost the exact same size as the old Wood Elf Lord. He's on a taller tree than ther WE, but fits better on a 20mm square and he ranks up fine thanks to that tactical tree. Once armies go to 25mm standard bases he'd fit in even better.
Any of the Blood Knights would work fine for a mounted vampire, especially a Blood Dragon line, and I don't own the model, but I suspect the Vampire Lord with bat-hair would fit in without too much work. There's some good conversions out of the new Vampire Blood Bowl team as well. Again, a little big, but Heroes and Lords should stand out a bit from the chaff.
I just hope the rules are decent, my faith in current GW is pretty low now that 10th ed 40K is here.
Look, I think a retcon to TOW lore that vampires have whatever gigantism that step-on-me-vampire-lady from Resident Evil has is a valid choice.
Kalamadea wrote: ToW isn't set all that long before WHFB 8th, just a couple hundred years. This is a good video covering the expected timeline of ToW. Basing the timeframe on the names and dates in the Warhammer Community articles and maps, ToW takes place between 2201 and 2302. WHFB was early 2500s, The End Times were 2520s. If you're familiar with Feliz and Gotrek novels, Trollslayer begins in 2495.
Remember that Mordheim is set in 2000, so anything in a Mordheim warband list is 200~300 years old by ToW. The Empire definitely has Gunpowder by the time of ToW, and has for a while. No wizards as we know them in WHFB Empire lists, but certainly warrior-priests and self-taught mystics/hedge wizards. The timeline on Warhammer Wiki puts the dwarves giving gunpower to the Empire in 1991
A lot can change in the span of 200-300 years though. Not that much of anything in WHFB necessarily changed in that time, but in terms of human history 200-300 years made the difference between burning wood for heat and light, riding horses for transport, and using bows and arrows for warfare and nuclear power, airplanes, and atomic bombs.
skullking wrote: Bonus points if they want to include the 'Realm of Chaos' and older stuff (bazooka, mortar, swivel gun, tower, carts, maybe the ass canon. ) , that would be fun.
Boar centaurs maybe too? And why you mentioned the daemon ass cannon with a tongue-out emoticon....?
The boar centaurs are only featured pushing the carts, and tower, but I'd love to see them as a separate unit also. I used the emoticon, because ass canons are very silly.
I don't think there's anything to bend, Steam Tanks are completely fine for TOW. They've been around for hundreds of years. If anything there should be more of them because fewer have been destroyed.
BertBert wrote: Did they reveal yet whether all base sizes will be upscaled to the next increment or just 20->25mm?
To my knowledge GW hasn't said anything new on the topic yet. They probably don't want to give the game away before they have their own base packs to sell, for fear of customers turning to third parties.
Mr Morden wrote: Cathay used it way back before the time of Nagash and exported some to Lahmia to fight him.
It's best not to put any stock in what the Time of Legends books have to say. The author wasn't very respectful of Nehekharan history, to put it politely.
On the topic of Steam Tanks, they exist during the events of the Old World. Its creator, Leonardo di Miragliano constructed them in the 2000s, so if we are set during the 2200s, they've been active for about 200 years. In fact, there would be more Steam Tanks in service now, than there would be during the time Modern Fantasy is set, since about 4 of them get destroyed and they can't be rebuilt. We know of at least one Steam Tank that took part during the Great War Against Chaos, the Deliverance, and it was built in 2035.
Leonardo also created the Imperial School of Engineers in 2012. This is where we get the Steam Tanks and war wagons from. Before, blackpowder weaponry was simple cannons and handguns, but with the School of Engineers, we get repeater handguns, Hochland Longrifles, Grenade Launchers, and pigeon bombs. The First Helblaster Volleygun was made in 2253 and was an experimental weapon fitted on a Steam Tank, and was made by the same person who made the repeater handgun.
The most important part that changes in the 2200s is the founding of the first foundry and Imperial Gunnery School. This is where the current blackpowder weapons would be better refined and come even close to dwarf guns. Malakai Makaison is even a lecturer at this institute during modern Warhammer Fantasy.
Steam Tanks and other experimental weapons fit perfectly in the Old World. Maybe the Mechanical Horse and Helstorm are potentially made post Great War.
BertBert wrote: Did they reveal yet whether all base sizes will be upscaled to the next increment or just 20->25mm?
To my knowledge GW hasn't said anything new on the topic yet. They probably don't want to give the game away before they have their own base packs to sell, for fear of customers turning to third parties.
Mr Morden wrote: Cathay used it way back before the time of Nagash and exported some to Lahmia to fight him.
It's best not to put any stock in what the Time of Legends books have to say. The author wasn't very respectful of Nehekharan history, to put it politely.
Personally I feel the ToL authors did a great job of putting at least some flesh on the barest of bones that existed and given that Warhammer lore does change and shift through editions I think its as valid as anthing else.
Regarding gunpowder, the Nuln Gunnery School was set up around the 1990s IC, according to WFRP2E, I'm not saying they will go with it (I bloody well hope so) but it's not a deal breaker for it either.
Vlad was decapitated by a cannon ball in Bogenhof during the Vampire Wars in both the Vampire Counts army books 7th and 8th editions (pages 15 and 12 repsectively), and Konrad army was mauled by Mortars at Kleiberstorf (VC8EP13,14,21,23. VC7EP16,17,31). The Vampire Wars was a little over 200 years before the Great War.
Leonardo went to the Empire and worked for the Prince of Altdorf in 2012 IC in the 5th edition Dogs of War timeline, so that's also before the Great War, which TOW is supposed to be set a short spell prior. He set up the "Stephan Franz School of Engineering" in Altdorf according to White Dwarf Magaine #296 UK (page 50) and made a lot of stuffs. Some contradictory lore about the Steam Tanks thereabouts, but one of the first Steam Tanks "the Conqueror" had its hull striking in 2025 IC (Unifoms and Heraldry of the Empire page 67), and Deliverance entered service in 2035 IC. Again, well before the Great War.
So that leaves just the Repeater Handguns & Pistols, Helstrums and Hellblasters, which were invented by Imperial Engineering School engineers, and never had a specific date of invention.
Other things that shouldn't appear as they are in 8th -- Reiksguard Knights, Altar of Sigmar (commissioned by Magnus the Pious himself after he became Emperor, so after the Great War), and all the Colleges of Magic stuffs.
Reiksguards are easily resolved, first as the video game Mark of Chaos simply called their Reikland Knights "Reiklander Knights" during the campaign, which is set right after Asvar Kul's defeat, GW can just invent a new Order of Knights; or, since they did get a separate kit in the 6-8th span, just let players color their own Orders. White-steel armour plus red plumes are that unique, com'on.
Altar of Sigmar is a chariot, just say Grand Theogonists had their own mounts, and war chariots had been an option some chose to build for themselves. That Golden Girffon is just some other statue made by a prior Grand Theogonist/Arch Lector, and Volkmar is not Volkmar, easy.
Oh, also in VC army book 8th edition page 15, Mannfred was cut down by the Stirland Count on a Griffon, so Griffon mounts are certainly not out of the question (because the Vampire Wars ended some 150 years before the Great War). There were also supposed to have Knights of the White Wolves riding giant wolves and Cockatrice-riding Knights in the lore text of the Demigryph Knights in 8th edition, long-lost to legends, but also viable to be added in TOW if FW so incline (will they? won't they? I dunno, not that invested in them either way).
The Wizards... now, I know some are expecting Warlocks/Hedge Wizards etc., also possibly implement some of them as priests (like of Taal for Amber, Shallya for Jade), and I see that. But, there's another possibility:
In fantasy roleplay 1st edition the Realm of Sorcery supplement, there used to be a lot of magical schools in the Empire -- to be sure the Colleges were still established by Teclis and law-codified by Magnus, but other existed for various reasons.
The Middenheim Guild of Wizards and Alchemists was built early in the 500s IC, because Middenheimers didn't care much for Unberogen laws. This led to a "Wizards' War" during the late 1900s when many of their wizards turned out to be necromancers and daemonologists. The guild had to clean house themselves. Notably, Dieter Helsnicht was "was a great and renowned wizard who lived in the Empire city of Middenheim during the Time of the Three Emperors" in the 4th edition Undead army book, and this lore stayed with him in 5th edition and 8th edition, though whether he was known as a Wizard in 8th during his time in Middenheim was not mentioned. Cubicle 7 revived the guild in their WFRP 4th edition remaster of the original Enemy Within campaign, and honestly I think it's workable for Middenheim to openly support the guild when the Wolf Emperor was bascially independent from the electoral system anyway.
And in Talabheim there's a separate school of magic in Realms of Sorcery, Talabheim Battle College was founded in 1361 IC by a hedge wizard (p37). 1361 is a good year because that's right after the still canonical separation of Talabheim under "Emperess" Ottillia. The original backstory of the Battle College was that Ottilia felt the pressure from the elected Emperor in Stirland and had to raise her defense. That's long rectonned, of course, since the subsequent battle between Ottila and the elected Emperor, as portrayed in "Empire At War" background book, featured no magic users on either side.
Now, I am of the opinion the Empire shouldn't have any (official) schools of magic outside of the Colleges of Altdorf, but, the Age of War and Three Emperors was a chaotic time, the other claimaints, especially Middenheim and Talabheim, which prosecuted the Sigmarite faith, had no reason to follow Sigmar's objection against sorcery and could have easily created their own haphazard magical traditions. Human magicians, after all, existed long before the Empire. These outlaw schools can then be purged and consolidated when Teclis arrived in the Empire and conducted his teachings of the human wizards as portaryed in 6-8E Empire army book as well as WFRP2E, thus leaving one, legally recognised school of magic in the whole of Empire.
It'd be fitting, in my opinion, that Talabheim fielding "not-Amber Wizards" in the form of Shamans, after the Taalic theme, and perhaps "not-Jade Wizards" also, being something something about Rhyea the mother goddess. Middenheim has the Shaman-theme covered with the Warrior Priests of Ulric, but they can leveage the guild to field Bright Wizards and Gold Wizards (what with alchmey and all that).
Marienburg, it's got a college of Sea Magicks in WFRP1E: Marienburg: Sold Down the River, so after the breakdown of Countess Magritta's election (mentioned also in Mordheim in 1970s), Marienburg would be effectively a separate claimaint, the school of "Sea Magicks" could then be used to house the Celestial, Light and Grey Orders. It's sadly that this "college" did not have a department for magic until after the great war, but Cubicle 7's 4th edition Roleplay supplement Sea of Claws stated that whilst the department of sea magicks was not officially established until 2310IC, study of magic existed before Teclis' arrival. So it can still fit.
Nothing too dramatic there to be honest beyond magic being separated out between phases. Game structure seems to be at least tacitly very similar to latter editions. It's when we get into the meat of combat rules that it'll get particularly interesting.
Well, that's not a huge picture, but it sounds nice so far. Excited to hear more over the next few months. Just a bit too far off to really care much, myself.
Shows enough to showcase some differences from previous editions and get people talking. But not there isn't enough there for the neckbeards to really latch onto and complain about.
Obviously magic has changed quite a bit, but I’ll save comments for when we the bigger picture with all things wifwaf.
Rallying sounds interesting. More or less as it was, but -1 to Ld if below half strength, and you need a snake eyes if below 25%.
That, I think I like. Whilst we don’t know if I can overrun routed units, on the assumption that option is still there, I now have some kind of incentive not to - like the chances of a shattered unit rallying being pretty slim.
It also sounds like it’ll distract my personal pet hate - min maxxing and multiple small units.
Pretty sure they mentioned Pushed Back at an earlier juncture, but I’m very interested to find out more, as it sounds less like combat results are literally Make Or Break.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Utter Speculation? Pushed Back strikes me as something that could be linked to relative unit size. Like, if I have more ranks, or more wounds (to allow Ogres and the ilk some literal heft) you might end up pushed back by the difference if I win combat?
Utter Speculation? Pushed Back strikes me as something that could be linked to relative unit size. Like, if I have more ranks, or more wounds (to allow Ogres and the ilk some literal heft) you might end up pushed back by the difference if I win combat?
Warmaster had literally that. The whole combat was pushed back a number of cm equal to the combat result. It would be interesting to see that make it's way into the 28mm game.
It’s going to be an interesting mechanic with any luck.
Whilst I barely dabbled with Warmaster, I’m a very old hand at Warhammer.
If I can no longer depend on driving my beloved Chariots into and over their target unit (multiple chariots on a single charge was my style, for maximum carnage), then they’re going to be more vulnerable than ever to being bogged down. Which I don’t necessarily consider a bad thing!
Likewise Deathstar type units may lose some appeal if there’s the same risk that despite a healthy combat win, their flanks will be exposed to a counter charge.
Pushed back used to be a thing back in days of yore. Some of us have wanted it back since it disappeared because it gave you a chance to literally drive heavy combat units off objectives if you had the numbers.
I'm wondering if it is going to be like earlier editions of where you had a pool of magic dice and pick out how many dice you want to roll to achieve a 7+.
Fayric wrote: The things I pick up from this article is: they will do army specific items and spells, and the stuff dont look to be gamechangers, yet usefull.
The horn that turns off flying seems pretty game changing. Especially since it appears that it can be used every single turn!
I'm wondering if it is going to be like earlier editions of where you had a pool of magic dice and pick out how many dice you want to roll to achieve a 7+.
Unlikely since there's no single phase.
Sounds more like 40k/aos. Roll 2d6, try to get casting value, maybe have dispel there that needs to roll above what caster rolled.
Fayric wrote: The things I pick up from this article is: they will do army specific items and spells, and the stuff dont look to be gamechangers, yet usefull.
The horn that turns off flying seems pretty game changing. Especially since it appears that it can be used every single turn!
Fayric wrote: The things I pick up from this article is: they will do army specific items and spells, and the stuff dont look to be gamechangers, yet usefull.
The horn that turns off flying seems pretty game changing. Especially since it appears that it can be used every single turn!
What did it do before - its not a new artefact.
It was a one-use item that just turned off Flying for 1 turn. Had no potential to turn off Flying for literally every turn of the game.
It was a one-use item that just turned off Flying for 1 turn. Had no potential to turn off Flying for literally every turn of the game.
It will likely be one-use again. They can't be that daft.
Well you also have to roll to make this one work whereas I assume the old one you did not I assume? GW can be that daft - I seriously doubt there has been any actual playtesting
Fayric wrote: The things I pick up from this article is: they will do army specific items and spells, and the stuff dont look to be gamechangers, yet usefull.
The horn that turns off flying seems pretty game changing. Especially since it appears that it can be used every single turn!
What did it do before - its not a new artefact.
not sure about the horn but there was a artifact that prevents flying for a turn that was one use only
Automatically Appended Next Post: important note is that fly looks to be with its own speed instead of using the movement stat
so no flying might just remove the "ignore terrain" feature
Yeah, there are still too many unknown variables. What is Flying (X), how do morale tests work, what LD do bret characters have, are there LD modifiers and so on.
If we just go by the old rules, it equates to a 72/83% success rate on paladins/lords respectively, which seems quite strong.
The second requirement means you want to be out of combat by the start of the next turn, which is usually what you are going for with Brets anyway.
Fayric wrote: The things I pick up from this article is: they will do army specific items and spells, and the stuff dont look to be gamechangers, yet usefull.
The horn that turns off flying seems pretty game changing. Especially since it appears that it can be used every single turn!
What did it do before - its not a new artefact.
not sure about the horn but there was a artifact that prevents flying for a turn that was one use only
Automatically Appended Next Post: important note is that fly looks to be with its own speed instead of using the movement stat
so no flying might just remove the "ignore terrain" feature
Fly always (at least as far back as 6th) used it's own speed instead of using the movement stat. In previous editions, it was 10-20" (depending on edition and which, and many flyers had much lower move speeds. For example, Lizardmen Terradons were M2. But with Fly, moved 10 and marched 20.
I assume the Fly (x) rule is just a more granular version of that concept. An M2 model like a Terradon might have Fly (10) or Fly (8) or Fly (12) depending on how fast the rules writers find appropriate.
I'm also open to the possibility that enchanted items in general have a net "one use only" restriction, which would make this item one use only.
edit: I don't want to suggest that the stats are going to remain the same, but if it's implemented as I suspect, and as per above...
a 72% chance each turn you're out of combat to reduce a dragon from Flying 10-20" per turn down to moving 6-12" per turn, without ability to move over units that might have been deployed ahead of it due to it's speed... is pretty painful for the dragon's player.
Less painful if it's a 72% chance of stopping it once but still game changing.
edit2: I'd also like people to consider how many people are going to be playing Bretonnia, as one of the major faction releases, who have both this artifact, and pretty notable flying units.
Two armies of pegasus knights tooting horns at eachother, waiting for the opponent's toot to hit the wrong note.
glad to see units flee in this game and not vanish from the table when they fail a moral check.
it's a feature in modern gw games I've really come to loathe.
Empire had the Orb of Thunder as well, although it was a bound spell and not taken that often unless you knew you were up against a significant flying force.
In the realm of 'new from the ground up' I have... unkind... thoughts about featuring a reroll 1s spell.
What's wrong with this kind of thing? I always figured it was a good way of just adding a *bit* more power, without the larger step of turning a 5+ to hit unit up to 4+ instead for example. Especially if you're rolling more than 10 dice for attacks in a combat.
Promising start with the rules. I do have a giggle at people who stamp their foot and declare they're not interested in the whole thing just because of X-single-rule. (er in general, not aimed at Voss)
In the realm of 'new from the ground up' I have... unkind... thoughts about featuring a reroll 1s spell.
What's wrong with this kind of thing? I always figured it was a good way of just adding a *bit* more power, without the larger step of turning a 5+ to hit unit up to 4+ instead for example. Especially if you're rolling more than 10 dice for attacks in a combat.
Promising start with the rules. I do have a giggle at people who stamp their foot and declare they're not interested in the whole thing just because of X-single-rule. (er in general, not aimed at Voss)
Not sure exactly what Voss's objection is, but mine is that re-roll 1s is an incredibly bland, uninteresting effect that is already grossly overused in 40K and AOS. It's a flat 17% increase in damage output against all targets under all conditions, woohoo.
Adding +1 to hit is more impactful, yes, but its utility varies depending on what you're hitting on to begin with, restricting it to certain conditions or certain attack types can add a layer of strategy to its use, and it doesn't involve extra rolling.
I'm not going to leap to any conclusions on the basis of a one-off preview, but magic being showcased via the toast sandwich of gameplay effects does not bode well.
Not sure exactly what Voss's objection is, but mine is that re-roll 1s is an incredibly bland, uninteresting effect that is already grossly overused in 40K and AOS. It's a flat 17% increase in damage output against all targets under all conditions, woohoo.
GW has taken early player feedback into account and has decided to integrate mechanics to make the gameplay more active and exciting! For example, if a Bretonnian player brings a chalice to the game and shouts FOR ZE LADY their units may gain +1... etc and so on
Surely "reroll 1s" is just ONE tool in the toolbox of game design, does it have to be some sweeping harbinger of Bad Game?
It was a one-use item that just turned off Flying for 1 turn. Had no potential to turn off Flying for literally every turn of the game.
It will likely be one-use again. They can't be that daft.
This is the company that gave HE the Crutch of the World Dragon. Don't be so sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Zarkov wrote: Also there were items previously that turned flying off all game.
E.g. the Skaven Storm Banner.
COULD turn flying off the whole game. IF it was activated in turn 1, and never failed the 50/50 chance of shutting off during each player's turn. Something like a 0.05% chance per game...
Granted, waiting until later in the game to activate it does increase the odds of it still being active on the last turn (if the Skaven player activates it on the top of turn 5 there's a 6.25% chance it'll still be running at the bottom of turn 6), it's still pretty unlikely.
Odds are it kills flying for a full turn, maybe two. Not a whole game.
Fayric wrote: The things I pick up from this article is: they will do army specific items and spells, and the stuff dont look to be gamechangers, yet usefull.
The horn that turns off flying seems pretty game changing. Especially since it appears that it can be used every single turn!
What did it do before - its not a new artefact.
One Use Only: The horn may be sounded at start of any Bretonnian turn, until the start of next Bretonnian turn, no enemy unit may fly -- they are forced to use their ground movement. Note that this may also alter the enemies' flee/pursuit distance.
From 6th edition Army book. The new horn better be the same or it's a free pass to air control area all game.
I hope they don't removed the Wind of Magic pool from the game, while there's not a magic phase, they can still generate the dice pools before the first phase and had to conserve spell use throughout the turn.
Utter Speculation? Pushed Back strikes me as something that could be linked to relative unit size. Like, if I have more ranks, or more wounds (to allow Ogres and the ilk some literal heft) you might end up pushed back by the difference if I win combat?
Warmaster had literally that. The whole combat was pushed back a number of cm equal to the combat result. It would be interesting to see that make it's way into the 28mm game.
3rd Ed. WFB had pushback, and that predates Warmaster by a bit...
Voss wrote:Completely new from the ground up! But also kept complexity from old editions!
In the realm of 'new from the ground up' I have... unkind... thoughts about featuring a reroll 1s spell.
Turn structure seems workable (and familiar). Return of morale is nice, though double 1s for <25% is just pointless rolling.
Seeing the turn explained makes me cautiously optimistic. As long as they burn random charge distance in a fire...
Seeing the turn explained makes me cautiously optimistic. As long as they burn random charge distance in a fire...
No, I like random charges. Maybe not bugnuts random, but from both a battlefield perspective and a game perspective, its just better.
I don't miss the old WFB days of people knowing to move 1.255" inches back to stay exactly out of charge range of their opponents and being able to sweep opponents that don't know to precisely partition and mentally map the battlefield.
And from too many real battlefield tours, what people think of as 'perfectly flat' ground... isn't. For a unit to stay in formation and keep up (especially on the charge) is actually rather difficult and unreasonable. Its not something that can be done with precision down to fractions- a battlefield isn't a football pitch, its probably farm land or wilderness, which means uneven in unexpected places..
In the realm of 'new from the ground up' I have... unkind... thoughts about featuring a reroll 1s spell.
What's wrong with this kind of thing? I always figured it was a good way of just adding a *bit* more power, without the larger step of turning a 5+ to hit unit up to 4+ instead for example. Especially if you're rolling more than 10 dice for attacks in a combat.
Promising start with the rules. I do have a giggle at people who stamp their foot and declare they're not interested in the whole thing just because of X-single-rule. (er in general, not aimed at Voss)
Not sure exactly what Voss's objection is, but mine is that re-roll 1s is an incredibly bland, uninteresting effect that is already grossly overused in 40K and AOS. It's a flat 17% increase in damage output against all targets under all conditions, woohoo.
Adding +1 to hit is more impactful, yes, but its utility varies depending on what you're hitting on to begin with, restricting it to certain conditions or certain attack types can add a layer of strategy to its use, and it doesn't involve extra rolling.
I'm not going to leap to any conclusions on the basis of a one-off preview, but magic being showcased via the toast sandwich of gameplay effects does not bode well.
Exactly this. They can't combine 'built from the ground up' with 'staple mechanic that they been overusing and plugging into every spare hole at every opportunity for the past several editions of every game they put out.'
I also dislike the game time lost to rerolls. And as written, this is a probably a 12" to 16" bubble. Every single attack for the round in command range of the caster. (actually probably a bigger area, since its 'within' rather than 'wholly within.'
Seeing the turn explained makes me cautiously optimistic. As long as they burn random charge distance in a fire...
No, I like random charges. Maybe not bugnuts random, but from both a battlefield perspective and a game perspective, its just better.
I don't miss the old WFB days of people knowing to move 1.255" inches back to stay exactly out of charge range of their opponents and being able to sweep opponents that don't know to precisely partition and mentally map the battlefield.
And from too many real battlefield tours, what people think of as 'perfectly flat' ground... isn't. For a unit to stay in formation and keep up (especially on the charge) is actually rather difficult and unreasonable. Its not something that can be done with precision down to fractions- a battlefield isn't a football pitch, its probably farm land or wilderness, which means uneven in unexpected places..
In the realm of 'new from the ground up' I have... unkind... thoughts about featuring a reroll 1s spell.
What's wrong with this kind of thing? I always figured it was a good way of just adding a *bit* more power, without the larger step of turning a 5+ to hit unit up to 4+ instead for example. Especially if you're rolling more than 10 dice for attacks in a combat.
Promising start with the rules. I do have a giggle at people who stamp their foot and declare they're not interested in the whole thing just because of X-single-rule. (er in general, not aimed at Voss)
Not sure exactly what Voss's objection is, but mine is that re-roll 1s is an incredibly bland, uninteresting effect that is already grossly overused in 40K and AOS. It's a flat 17% increase in damage output against all targets under all conditions, woohoo.
Adding +1 to hit is more impactful, yes, but its utility varies depending on what you're hitting on to begin with, restricting it to certain conditions or certain attack types can add a layer of strategy to its use, and it doesn't involve extra rolling.
I'm not going to leap to any conclusions on the basis of a one-off preview, but magic being showcased via the toast sandwich of gameplay effects does not bode well.
Exactly this. They can't combine 'built from the ground up' with 'staple mechanic that they been overusing and plugging into every spare hole at every opportunity for the past several editions of every game they put out.'
I also dislike the game time lost to rerolls. And as written, this is a probably a 12" to 16" bubble. Every single attack for the round in command range of the caster. (actually probably a bigger area, since its 'within' rather than 'wholly within.'
Good for you. Random charge length is still a non-starter for me. If it's in, then I'm sticking with 6th. Period. It's one of 5 mechanics that will make TOW D.O.A. to me if it's incorporated.
No, I like random charges. Maybe not bugnuts random, but from both a battlefield perspective and a game perspective, its just better.
I don't miss the old WFB days of people knowing to move 1.255" inches back to stay exactly out of charge range of their opponents and being able to sweep opponents that don't know to precisely partition and mentally map the battlefield.
and how does random charges change that?
so you just stay 0,01" out of range whatever the maximum number of the random roll is and be able to sweep opponents who don't know or are just don't care with sometimes someone doing a risky roll and gets the maximum for little effect
of course it helps players because they can blame the dice for the outcome of the game
which is something I dislike in general, I want to play against the opponent and not against the game and not need lucky rolls that decide the outcome
so if random charge ranges are there, I am out as well
Depends what you want a charge to do, be part of the tactical thinking of the game, or just a mechanism to get you to a different set of rules (melee attacks).
It would however make more sense if all movement was random, rather than just charges. If the uneven ground makes it impossible to determine an average movement over an abstract time frame, then it should also make marching/walking impossible to determine as well.
If you wanted to add a little crunch, you could actually combine the two.
Your optimal charge distance is 2xM, but you roll 2D6 to see how far you move anyway.
For each point over your 2xM the dice roll is, you lose an attack from being disordered and over stretching your line, but you can still move that far and complete a charge anyway.
Notice that anything with a movement of 6+ can't do this, because their speed is so high they will never have an issue.
So basically foot troops get a 'slogging' effect, while everything else is fine.
You could also just do 2xM+1D6 for all charges, if you really need randomness without it being crippling.
Random charges generate failed charges a lot, and I'm not sure if that's a valuable aspect of the game to have nor not.
It might be worth having a threat aura around all regiments - their M in inches.
If an enemy regiment is within their threat after they've charged and failed, it tests for fear or something similar.
The effect of a regiment bearing down on you doesn't go away if they don't reach your line within the aloted amount of time.
Voss wrote: For a unit to stay in formation and keep up (especially on the charge) is actually rather difficult and unreasonable.
My ancestor General Upton would disagree. His charges were so organized they were extremely effective. I mean ... He did threaten to shoot you if you didn't keep up or fired your musket too early... But his charges were so awesome that one of them is immortalized in art and poetry.
Crikey we don't need another thread derailment into the age old random vs fixed charges, go fight in the Fantasy sub forum about that You either like them and want them or don't, 500 words won't change someone with the opposite opinion...
The article looks good. As person who normally does not play GW games im actually really interested in ToW as its the game of my childhood that i wanted to play, had a few models but just could not afford anything near an army. Im sure the rules will be pretty similar or an enhancement of the old fantasy ruleset. Like most GW games the rules will be good to good enough.
What im more interested in is what is "the package" going to be. Costs for models, model overlap between ToW and AoS, cost of the app (if any), will all the model rules be in the app or will I have to buy a app, subscription AND physically buy a sodding book like 40K? Will GW finally move away from a requirement for physical army books like the rest of the damn world. etc etc. How will the game be actually implemented and rolled out? Once I know that then I can solidify my interest (or not).
I do like that the graphical layout of the material looks similar to the 6th ed book, which was IMO really pretty graphically, with all its borders and vignettes.
They are also reusing a lot of classic WFB art, which while perhaps lazy, is fine for me because it's good art.
I hope they don't go digital only. The printed books are the only reason I can play older editions currently and will lose that ability the SECOND the online version is obsolete.
I can't see GW going digital only - they make so much income off their books. Plus for a lot of people miniature games are a way to disconnect from the online.
GW aren't a small firm, they can afford to invest into a wave of printed books and expect them to sell. It's not like smaller wargame firms where a book is a major cost for them that is a huge financial risk if it fails to sell
In the realm of 'new from the ground up' I have... unkind... thoughts about featuring a reroll 1s spell.
What's wrong with this kind of thing? I always figured it was a good way of just adding a *bit* more power, without the larger step of turning a 5+ to hit unit up to 4+ instead for example. Especially if you're rolling more than 10 dice for attacks in a combat.
Promising start with the rules. I do have a giggle at people who stamp their foot and declare they're not interested in the whole thing just because of X-single-rule. (er in general, not aimed at Voss)
Slows game down for one.
Look at 40k where despite increased lethality the game kept going SLOWER as the rerolls were being added...
If games take longer despite models being removed faster there's something wrong and large part of that was all the damn rerolls.
Voss wrote: In the realm of 'new from the ground up' I have... unkind... thoughts about featuring a reroll 1s spell.
I had similar thoughts.
To try and stab at my issue. The problem isn't an activatable reroll 1s aura as a gameplay mechanic. Although we know from past experience this is something which starts small and then spreads everywhere.
My issue is more this this strange... language of design.
Sort of have a similar view on 10th edition 40k.
"We are designing a whole new game/new edition". But the reality is... not really. They are sort of taking something that was written in say Spanish - and now writing it in Italian. Its different - but not so different. I'm not sure they've thought everything through as a result.
Its that challenge of translation. There's conveying the poetry of phrases in another language, versus going through word by word in a dictionary. In my view a good translation has to be a thing in itself.
Now clearly this issue will vary. Some would have been happy if GW had taken the 6th edition rulebook and said "that's it, those are the rules." I'm not so sure myself - but I just hope the rules have been considered in a holistic sense. I'm less concerned for example about the Bretonnian Horn being overpowered - and more this idea of "this was in the game, so it has to be in ours. Just stick it in and move on to the next issue."
But I will say my interest in Old World is kind on the down low until I see some unique Marienburg units for the Empire for the civil war they got going on
Heh, I was going to post that here as a joke, but figured that there would be some who would take it seriously as a Bretonnian thing and not understand the FEC connection.
Removal of magic phase is a bit sad. I guess we'll go the AoS / Mordheim way (roll 2 die and add their result, if the total is equal or higher than Casting Value, then the spell is passed - here, article done ).
I'm not even sure that it's a question of efficiency, to be honest. Magic phase in old Battle was a mini game in its own, and I believe that was a big part of the charm of Warhammer Battle in comparison to other game systems. I still remember the versions where we were using cards for winds of magic (when you may not even cast a spell in your turn because you draw only dispel cards and didn't have a rule allowing you to use them as power cards ).
Well, I played enough AoS and Mordheim games so that it's not a big deterrent to me for TOW, but a page has definitively been turned here.
Sarouan wrote: Removal of magic phase is a bit sad. I guess we'll go the AoS / Mordheim way (roll 2 die and add their result, if the total is equal or higher than Casting Value, then the spell is passed - here, article done ).
I'm not even sure that it's a question of efficiency, to be honest. Magic phase in old Battle was a mini game in its own, and I believe that was a big part of the charm of Warhammer Battle in comparison to other game systems. I still remember the versions where we were using cards for winds of magic (when you may not even cast a spell in your turn because you draw only dispel cards and didn't have a rule allowing you to use them as power cards ).
Well, I played enough AoS and Mordheim games so that it's not a big deterrent to me for TOW, but a page has definitively been turned here.
Funny, I wasn’t a fan of the magic phase for the same reason you liked it. It felt too much like “ok, we’ll stop playing this wargame to play a card game/dice game over here” at times.
Funny, I wasn’t a fan of the magic phase for the same reason you liked it. It felt too much like “ok, we’ll stop playing this wargame to play a card game/dice game over here” at times.
Well, it was certainly more relevant if both sides have sorcerers or they don't involve dwarves.
I'm not saying it was without flaws, I understand why they removed it. I'm just saying it was one of the characterizations of Warhammer Battle, and now it's gone for good. That's why I'm sad to see it away.
I get what you're saying Sarouan and I'm not in complete disagreement however I'm waiting to see if it's the 2d6 per spell casting method or if each wizard generates their own power dice at the start of your turn and you use those dice to cast powers throughout the turn.
Hopefully it's the later which would add a lot of decision making to the turn. Wizard level might even cap how many dice you can throw at a spell too, like that to be included.
No, I like random charges. Maybe not bugnuts random, but from both a battlefield perspective and a game perspective, its just better.
I don't miss the old WFB days of people knowing to move 1.255" inches back to stay exactly out of charge range of their opponents and being able to sweep opponents that don't know to precisely partition and mentally map the battlefield.
and how does random charges change that?
so you just stay 0,01" out of range whatever the maximum number of the random roll is and be able to sweep opponents who don't know or are just don't care with sometimes someone doing a risky roll and gets the maximum for little effect
of course it helps players because they can blame the dice for the outcome of the game
which is something I dislike in general, I want to play against the opponent and not against the game and not need lucky rolls that decide the outcome
so if random charge ranges are there, I am out as well
Fair. If random charge ranges are gone, I'm out and will stick with 8th. I HATED the quarter-inch just outside charge range shuffle that consumed so many of my sixth and seventh edition games. And it made it hard for new players to get in. They'd play a few games, get smoked because they couldn't figure out the thin line between in and out of charge range and lose horribly, and quit.
Or they'd learn one of many cheats people used to pre-measure charge distance, which is no better.
Sure, you can stay just outside max charge range. I move up to where your infantry needs a 10 to charge, but my cavalry needs a 7. Go ahead, risk that charge. If you make it I'll be the first to congratulate you. Back up 3" just to stay out of charge range? Go ahead, surrender the center of the map and watch me surround you. It's about learning how to manage probability and risk... something real generals also had to deal with.
But far be it from me to tell you that the way I prefer to play is the way you SHOULD play. One of us will like TOW, one of us won't, and that's okay.
(Barring the fairly high probability GW will break TOW sufficiently that NEITHER of us like it... )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I can't see GW going digital only - they make so much income off their books. Plus for a lot of people miniature games are a way to disconnect from the online.
GW aren't a small firm, they can afford to invest into a wave of printed books and expect them to sell. It's not like smaller wargame firms where a book is a major cost for them that is a huge financial risk if it fails to sell
I CAN see them putting the rules online, and charging hundreds of dollars for a 'collector' quality rulebook... that becomes obsolete every couple years so they can sell another one.
Kodos is a Kings of War fanatic, so he's out with or without random charges anyway.
Random charges are mostly hated by players who want "skill" to matter (they're usually tournament-friendly and like to think of themselves as good players) while they are liked by players who don't care about that kind of stuff (and understand that games using dice have a "luck factor" that is impossible to remove unless you remove dice in all of their mechanisms, anyway).
Besides, when people talk about "skill" in wargames like Battle or KoW, it's usually more about list building than strategy and tactics. It's mostly there so that petulant and arrogant elitist players feel like they're above the "filthy casuals". If they're out, I say good riddance - that's something I never missed when Battle died and all these "That Guy" tournament players went to other systems to plague them.
Personally I think the managing risk from random charges is a big part of being a good player. You can say it "reduces skill" to have it but it's weird that the same people end up on top in 40k and AoS consistently without that extra skill level.
I personally hope random stays. As a dwarf player in the days of yore I HATED fixed charges and the change in 8th (for that) brought me so much joy.
As for the rules previewed so far I'm liking what I'm seeing.
Random charge distances do still give you the opportunity to stay outside of charge range anyways- it's just a greater distance. If you decide to take your chances and stay inside that distance and get charged, that's not randumb, that's experiencing the consequences of taking a risk.
I also have no love for the 'I'm going to put my models juuuuuust far enough away that you 100% can't charge me but I can 100% charge you in my next turn' routine. And forbidding pre-measuring has never been a viable solution or, frankly, a good mechanic to begin with.
lord_blackfang wrote: The local toxic WHFB scene indeed quit overnight the moment random charge ranges came in.
Yeah. I even offered that we could agree that units were 0,2 inches out of charge range if he would just fething place his units, but no. It was as if some players enjoyed masturbating the movement of their trays 8,2 inches away from yours twenty thirty little shuffles before being satisfied.
Sarouan wrote: Removal of magic phase is a bit sad. I guess we'll go the AoS / Mordheim way (roll 2 die and add their result, if the total is equal or higher than Casting Value, then the spell is passed - here, article done ).
I'm not even sure that it's a question of efficiency, to be honest. Magic phase in old Battle was a mini game in its own, and I believe that was a big part of the charm of Warhammer Battle in comparison to other game systems. I still remember the versions where we were using cards for winds of magic (when you may not even cast a spell in your turn because you draw only dispel cards and didn't have a rule allowing you to use them as power cards ).
Well, I played enough AoS and Mordheim games so that it's not a big deterrent to me for TOW, but a page has definitively been turned here.
Yeah same boat, I liked the magic mini game in Warhammer! Cards, dice pool, whatever, I liked them all for what they were! My main armies where Tomb Kings and Vampires, so magic was pretty central for both of them so I'm quite curious to see how it turns out for those armies.
Liking the look of the preview so far overall, seems rather enjoyable. I'm still in
Sarouan wrote: Kodos is a Kings of War fanatic, so he's out with or without random charges anyway.
Random charges are mostly hated by players who want "skill" to matter (they're usually tournament-friendly and like to think of themselves as good players) while they are liked by players who don't care about that kind of stuff (and understand that games using dice have a "luck factor" that is impossible to remove unless you remove dice in all of their mechanisms, anyway).
Besides, when people talk about "skill" in wargames like Battle or KoW, it's usually more about list building than strategy and tactics. It's mostly there so that petulant and arrogant elitist players feel like they're above the "filthy casuals". If they're out, I say good riddance - that's something I never missed when Battle died and all these "That Guy" tournament players went to other systems to plague them.
Nope.
What people disliked about the random charge distance in 8th edition was the massive fluctuation of results it could give. 2D6 + movement, was ludicrous, for a movement 4" unit/model ot could have a charge anywhere from 6" to 16"
If it had of been 2D3 + Movement, or Movement + 1D6, it wouldn't have been as badly received I imagine.
stonehorse wrote: What people disliked about the random charge distance in 8th edition was the massive fluctuation of results it could give. 2D6 + movement, was ludicrous, for a movement 4" unit/model ot could have a charge anywhere from 6" to 16"
You had a 5/6 chance of making a 9" charge, and a 1/6 chance of making a 14" charge. Bell curve plus a fixed value meant fairly predictable results, but with no guarantees unless you were at 6" or 38% of maximum possible charge range.
It actually creates about the same fluctuation as a single die would. With D6+Move, the 5/6 chance is 5" and the 1/6 chance is 10", so the spread between those values is the same as the 2D6 system, and the guaranteed-success distance of 4" is comparable at 40% of the maximum range. It's just shorter average charge range than march speed, which might be odd.
Maybe the occasional snake eyes or boxcars gave the impression that 2D6 was highly variable, but in practice it really wasn't. Compared to a single-die system, you get more extreme extremes but more consistent outcomes around the middle of the range.
I wouldn't mind 2D3+Move, but then it'd be back to being predictable enough for higher-Move armies to carefully position to be virtually guaranteed to get the charge.
stonehorse wrote: What people disliked about the random charge distance in 8th edition was the massive fluctuation of results it could give. 2D6 + movement, was ludicrous, for a movement 4" unit/model ot could have a charge anywhere from 6" to 16"
You had a 5/6 chance of making a 9" charge, and a 1/6 chance of making a 14" charge. Bell curve plus a fixed value meant fairly predictable results, but with no guarantees unless you were at 6" or 38% of maximum possible charge range.
It actually creates about the same fluctuation as a single die would. With D6+Move, the 5/6 chance is 5" and the 1/6 chance is 10", so the spread between those values is the same as the 2D6 system, and the guaranteed-success distance of 4" is comparable at 40% of the maximum range. It's just shorter average charge range than march speed, which might be odd.
Maybe the occasional snake eyes or boxcars gave the impression that 2D6 was highly variable, but in practice it really wasn't.
I wouldn't mind 2D3+Move, but then it'd be back to being predictable enough for higher-Move armies to carefully position to be virtually guaranteed to get the charge.
However that doesn't remove the point that it is a sizeble difference between add 2" and 12" to Movement 4. Yes the average will be 7, which from what I remember people positioned their units with that in mind to try and stay out of a units charge range. I'm all for a bit of randomness as it makes things fun and interesting, not against that. Just the way it was handles felt sloppy. Same with KoW nerve test, 2d6 has too big a range of potential results.
Hulksmash wrote: Personally I think the managing risk from random charges is a big part of being a good player. You can say it "reduces skill" to have it but it's weird that the same people end up on top in 40k and AoS consistently without that extra skill level.
I personally hope random stays. As a dwarf player in the days of yore I HATED fixed charges and the change in 8th (for that) brought me so much joy.
As for the rules previewed so far I'm liking what I'm seeing.
I've always been of the opinion that the charge distance should be randomized, but not necessarily fully randomized. It really should be something like M+D6" or M+2D3", so you have a guaranteed charge distance, plus the possibility to charge further, rather than just being straight 2D6" where you are completely at the mercy of the dice or M+2d6" where you're potentially running across the entire table on a good roll.
I'll say it again: I saw the whole 1/8" push thing once in the entirety of the time I played 6th, and I was FLGS staff working GW nights twice a week. The guy did it to me personally, I hit him with one turn of Curse of Arrow Attraction with 4 Repeater Bolt Throwers and 2 20 man Archer units peppering his highest value unit. He picked up the pace from there on out.
Past that? I never even saw it pulled off in tournaments.
Then the slow dwarf infantry can on a good roll charge way further than the fast light cavalry could on a bad roll. If it were M + 1d3 for each increment of Move value above X" and/or having it so cavalry and other supposedly fast units get to roll 3 dice and discard the lowest and then the reverse for some slower units. Mix and match the modifiers and also have the terrain work in a similar way with adding or removing a die or flat values.
You could then make it so something have a decent movement stat but due to size or how the unit is organized/equipped they don't really charge much further. Like a big monster with a large stride might have a Move of 8" but it can't really move much faster so it gets an extra 3d6 remove the highest for charge distance. It might not charge very far often but even its minimum charge is quite decent due to Base Movement 8". Then you might have a smaller monster that have 6" or 7" normal movement but charge the normal 2d6 or it might even have a bonus to represent how it crazily charges forward and rolls 3d6 and discard the lowest die. It would in some games charge a shorter distance than the larger monster but most of the time it would charge further even though it normally moves slower.
I think random charges is fine in a game with very limited amount of turns and the IGOUGO structure. Just don't make them too random. MESBG who I play the most have movement = charge distance and you are allowed to measure all the time. But that game have low lethality and games usually have many more turns than WFB or 40k has as well as both sides fight simultaneously so if there are no cavalry it doesn't have that much of an impact on who got the charge. It all depends on how the game is built. Both fixed or random can work.
The random roll on charge is meant to represent any unforseen events that might interrupt the charge, like if someone in the front got tripped on a rock and those behind them trips on the fallen comerade. The formation/momentum interrupted, the unit is forced to stop in their charge and regroup.
For cavalry, one horse may became scarred by some sudden screech and veered into a neighboring rider, forcing the whole unit to pivot and reform; a monster can suddenly become unruly and or distracted, a mistake in a necromancer's incantation led a block of skeletons to stop in their tracks, etc..
Hell, I vaguely remember an explaination given for the random charge distance in a past edition, 40K or fantasy, was that the order was not interpreted equally across the unit, some charge, others stand their ground, so they had to reform.
What people disliked about the random charge distance in 8th edition was the massive fluctuation of results it could give. 2D6 + movement, was ludicrous, for a movement 4" unit/model ot could have a charge anywhere from 6" to 16"
If it had of been 2D3 + Movement, or Movement + 1D6, it wouldn't have been as badly received I imagine.
Yeah, these people disliked the lack of control on the charge sub-phase when random charges were in - suddenly they couldn't hinder the way their opponents tried to charge them as easily as before, and they were upset by it. Who are they ? Those at the top, be it local or tournaments, who knew the game good enough to use these tricks.
Of course, with random charges as the way there were, there are other ways to prevent enemy charges and there were other tactics / strategies used by those who stayed. Those ? They were the true "good players", because they adapted to the new rules instead of blaming them for being "bad".
Besides, when you play dwarves as I did too with different editions of Warhammer Battle, you knew that before random charges were introduced, charges initiated by melee dwarf units were...let's say very short (pun intended ). That's why the only way to play dwarves before random charges was putting as many shoots as you could. With V8...melee dwarf lists were actually playable thanks also to them.
In general, before random charges, infantry always struggled to charge in comparison to cavalry, monster and all of the stuff that was 4+ in movement. Reason why the variancy is "so high" is precisely so that they were more par to par between them.
Klickor wrote: Adding 2d6 to all move values is a bit stupid.
In Battle V8, there were rules for cavalry to roll 3d6 and keep the 2 best ones. With their high movement added, it was really hard to escape their charges other than being out of their view. And there were other rules as well, so it's not as "constant" as you may it look like.
If random charges are in for TOW (and I think they will be, they serve a lot of purpose despise what some from KoW say here), I expect there will be some rules like that for varied types of units.
kodos wrote: yeah, but why is marching than not a random 2D6 distance?
or weapon range, command range and more important spells?
if unforseen only happens on a charge but everything else is always exactly as planned, not is not a very good argument
Because charges were the heart of Warhammer Battle, the center of the main action. That's why charge denial is frustrating for players, and random charges are a tool to make it more difficult on purpose. While there was shooting and magic, they were more here to support the main assault and Battle, in opposite to 40k, was at the core a close combat game.
kodos wrote: yeah, but why is marching than not a random 2D6 distance?
or weapon range, command range and more important spells?
if unforseen only happens on a charge but everything else is always exactly as planned, not is not a very good argument
I'v marched in a para-military bootcamp and I can tell you simply that a march is not the same as a charge; marching or even trotting is meant to be ordered, marching order will be given and the command has to make sure the formation has heard the order clearly before doing so. A march in 8th edition WHFB rulebook is known as "going at the double", which is not a sprint, but a short of fast walk with the knees raised (unlike walking casually) where the formation remain intact and still leave enough time for everyone to figure out where they are and where they need to be.
Doing a charge is almost never taught to us part-timers because it's very difficult -- it's done on very short notice since it's meant to cover long distances in a very short amount of time. The professionals sprint when they charge. I've never witnessed a whole squad charging that remain in formation, and that's during demonstrations in our training, precisely because of how difficult it is. Now multiply the number of sprinting individuals by about 20 and stretch their the length from their ranks over 100 feet, and see if there's time for everyone to hear the order to charge at the same time.
For that matter, weapon range is well represented by ballistic skill: when the misfire of a gun or an arrow falling short can be blame on the skill of the user, therefore a part of the user's ballistic skill as an archer might have misjudged the distance, or a gunner failed to compensate for the wind etc. Spells fail because the caster cannot command the wind, that's represented in the randomness to cast a spell. As for command range, if there are to be commands like in 40K, they should require a command roll of some sort, you get no disagreement from me there.
Because charges were the heart of Warhammer Battle, the center of the main action. That's why charge denial is frustrating for players, and random charges are a tool to make it more difficult on purpose. While there was shooting and magic, they were more here to support the main assault and Battle, in opposite to 40k, was at the core a close combat game.
and marching denial was a thing as well
if you remove charge denial and replace it with a random roll, because "charges can be unforseen" why is march denial not just removed and not replaced by random march roll because "marches can be unforseen"
and magic or shooting was everything but "just support", it was just hated by the people if you build a list that would win without any melee action just by magic or shooting
this is just a bad argument and not very consistent
lcmiracle wrote: I've never witnessed a whole squad charging that remain in formation, and that's during demonstrations in our training, precisely because of how difficult it is. Now multiply the number of sprinting individuals by about 20 and stretch their the length from their ranks over 100 feet, and see if there's time for everyone to hear the order to charge at the same time.
well, compared to reality it depends on the time and army as well as the level you look too
a group, a company or a battalion formation will be looked differently for charges in order, but for the larger group you want them to arrive in order at the same time and not just one by one and pulling that off is not easy (like Napoleonic French infantry used a different formation for charges because it was easier that way while the cavalry trained that multi regiment charged and was one of the few that could to that which made them so much more effective the larger their numbers was)
Warhammer never really made that a thing in game that there are wild charge or charges in bad order versus charges in good order
but if the random roll for distance should be that, than Orcs need to roll something different than Elves, like the Orcs doing 2D6, while Elves have double movement + 2D3
Because charges were the heart of Warhammer Battle, the center of the main action. That's why charge denial is frustrating for players, and random charges are a tool to make it more difficult on purpose. While there was shooting and magic, they were more here to support the main assault and Battle, in opposite to 40k, was at the core a close combat game.
and marching denial was a thing as well
if you remove charge denial and replace it with a random roll, because "charges can be unforseen" why is march denial not just removed and not replaced by random march roll because "marches can be unforseen"
and magic or shooting was everything but "just support", it was just hated by the people if you build a list that would win without any melee action just by magic or shooting
this is just a bad argument and not very consistent
Instead of talking of "bad arguments", try to understand why the mechanism was introduced instead.
Armies based on magic and shooting were indeed hated because before random charges, it was easy to play them and destroy the opponent enough before he gets into close combat. With random charges, the 1st players to moan about it were shooting list players...precisely because random charges put the battle sooner into their defensive lines, before their shoots make too much damage in opponent melee units to make them irrelevant. So they had to think more about other tactics / strategy to counter that instead of just "putting the guns as far as possible from the enemy army and shoot shoot shoot".
You just don't know what you're talking about because you never cared playing Warhammer Battle V8. You're a KoW player, where charges are still double the move characteristic. So of course you're a fervent disliker of random charges and try to make it look bad no matter what...you're one of the guys who left.
It must be said however, that wfb was literally killed the edition random charges were introduced...
We are told it's because they didn't have enough customers, but perhaps the leaving of people like kodos was the reason their customer base dried up in the first place.
Now that's just correlation, and there are many arguments thrown around about what the causes were.
But I lost interest in wfb from that edition as well, for a range of reasons, like ASF elves and random charges.
The speed charges could generate at 2d6+m was just ridiculous. The Average human charge increased from the previous edition by +~50% and maxed at 200% their original distance, while the minimum was still 75% their original charge speed. Dwarf charge speeds increased on average by 66%, maxing at 250% their original speed. Im a dwarf player and that was just ridiculous.
and it completely changed the tempo of the game, making the tactical manoeuvre aspect of the game less relevant and turning the game into a scrumfest.
Maybe gw thinks nostalgia can paper over the design issues they will have by trying to bring back rules from THE VERY EDITION THAT KILLED IT, but I hope they go back to earlier editions for their design inspiration.
kodos wrote: so you agree that "realism" is a bad argument and that a 2-12" variation in movement is too much
We're talking about a game with wizards, dragons and goblins. "Realism" was never the point of it.
That's why shooting weapons have such a low range ("in reality, a bow shoots further than that !"), why heroes can have more than one wound, why regiments are so low in number of models ("But one miniature can represent dozens of the same soldier !" "yeah, it's a BS excuse for people not wanting to accept their armies are not representative of the "reality" - otherwise, they would have played 10mm scale instead")...must I keep on ? I think not.
Compromises are always made when you design a game. If "realism" is in the way of the fun, I think it's a good thing to put it away.
Because charges were the heart of Warhammer Battle, the center of the main action. That's why charge denial is frustrating for players, and random charges are a tool to make it more difficult on purpose. While there was shooting and magic, they were more here to support the main assault and Battle, in opposite to 40k, was at the core a close combat game.
and marching denial was a thing as well
if you remove charge denial and replace it with a random roll, because "charges can be unforseen" why is march denial not just removed and not replaced by random march roll because "marches can be unforseen"
and magic or shooting was everything but "just support", it was just hated by the people if you build a list that would win without any melee action just by magic or shooting
this is just a bad argument and not very consistent
Instead of talking of "bad arguments", try to understand why the mechanism was introduced instead.
Armies based on magic and shooting were indeed hated because before random charges, it was easy to play them and destroy the opponent enough before he gets into close combat. With random charges, the 1st players to moan about it were shooting list players...precisely because random charges put the battle sooner into their defensive lines, before their shoots make too much damage in opponent melee units to make them irrelevant. So they had to think more about other tactics / strategy to counter that instead of just "putting the guns as far as possible from the enemy army and shoot shoot shoot".
You just don't know what you're talking about because you never cared playing Warhammer Battle V8. You're a KoW player, where charges are still double the move characteristic. So of course you're a fervent disliker of random charges and try to make it look bad no matter what...you're one of the guys who left.
Unless, of course, you guff your charge roll and don't have distance, buying more of a chance for the enemy to shoot you. This goes both ways, honestly.
The mechanic was introduced because of the lethality introduced by 7th and the relative version of 40K at the time, both of which adopted random charges in their next edition rather than fixing the lethality issue. The number of people who've gone back to 6th is on par with the number of people who stayed with 8th or took on one of the fanmade editions. There's a reason for that. It isn't just kodos and the KOW players who dislike random charges.
Unless, of course, you guff your charge roll and don't have distance, buying more of a chance for the enemy to shoot you. This goes both ways, honestly.
The mechanic was introduced because of the lethality introduced by 7th and the relative version of 40K at the time, both of which adopted random charges in their next edition rather than fixing the lethality issue. The number of people who've gone back to 6th is on par with the number of people who stayed with 8th or took on one of the fanmade editions. There's a reason for that. It isn't just kodos and the KOW players who dislike random charges.
Of course it's not just them. Mind you, leaving for an older edition or another game entirely is, in the end, the same : you left instead to adapt.
BTW random charges has absolutely nothing to do with lethality introducted by 7th, because it's also in 8th you have the infamous "fight on 2 ranks by default" mechanism - and the hordes. And stubborn command tests if you have more ranks than the opponent.
That's the true lethality, and why shooting armies had to have melee units to delay / deal with the key opponent units instead of just putting shooting units as much as they can. The difference is that we got into close combat action sooner (and that you enjoy fighting with your units more rather than winning with static combat bonus and make the enemy automatically flee because of them even though you still have numbers with you).
But you wouldn't know that, since you didn't play V8 and just kept playing older editions.
You may indeed not like some game mechanisms and that is fine, but you can't deny their purpose.
Maybe gw thinks nostalgia can paper over the design issues they will have by trying to bring back rules from THE VERY EDITION THAT KILLED IT, but I hope they go back to earlier editions for their design inspiration.
V8 didn't kill Battle. End Times did, quite litterally.
The reason why Battle was slowly losing players (more a question of difficulty to recruit new blood, players were more veterans than anything else who leave naturally as they keep aging ) was more to do with lack of scenarios with different victory conditions, a bloated game system that is not easy to learn when you're totally new, no real "beginner friendly" entry level (it wasn't as structured as now with AoS, the way lists were built were very rigid even in comparison to 40k at the time, which is partly why it was always more popular than Battle), a very elitist (and arrogant) competitive scene with top players with "scummy behaviour" more rewarded than the fairplay ones that didn't give a good reputation to the game in the end...A lot of factors than just "random charges", in the end.
Here with TOW, it's clearly for nostalgia first - but as with Horus Heresy, the environment should be less focused on the competitive scene and more about building your collection and having fun with the same nostalgia / collection and/or narrative driven players, so it should be a bit friendlier for newcomers. Even though it's clearly targetting the veterans and GW certainly doesn't have the same sale expectations than for Warhammer Battle at its Golden Age - TOW is just a Specialist Game project, in the end.
The reason why Battle was slowly losing players (more a question of difficulty to recruit new blood, players were more veterans than anything else who leave naturally as they keep aging ) was more to do with lack of scenarios with different victory conditions, a bloated game system that is not easy to learn when you're totally new, no real "beginner friendly" entry level (it wasn't as structured as now with AoS, the way lists were built were very rigid even in comparison to 40k at the time, which is partly why it was always more popular than Battle), a very elitist (and arrogant) competitive scene with top players with "scummy behaviour" more rewarded than the fairplay ones that didn't give a good reputation to the game in the end...A lot of factors than just "random charges", in the end.
The reason Battle was slowly losing players was that you needed a crazy amount of money just to get started which i don't think will be better now (along with the "no beginner friendly" entry level you mentioned). Enjoy the nostalgia and the new models because not much will be different after the release hype goes away.
Hellebore wrote: It must be said however, that wfb was literally killed the edition random charges were introduced...
We are told it's because they didn't have enough customers, but perhaps the leaving of people like kodos was the reason their customer base dried up in the first place.
Now that's just correlation, and there are many arguments thrown around about what the causes were.
But I lost interest in wfb from that edition as well, for a range of reasons, like ASF elves and random charges.
The speed charges could generate at 2d6+m was just ridiculous. The Average human charge increased from the previous edition by +~50% and maxed at 200% their original distance, while the minimum was still 75% their original charge speed. Dwarf charge speeds increased on average by 66%, maxing at 250% their original speed. Im a dwarf player and that was just ridiculous.
and it completely changed the tempo of the game, making the tactical manoeuvre aspect of the game less relevant and turning the game into a scrumfest.
Maybe gw thinks nostalgia can paper over the design issues they will have by trying to bring back rules from THE VERY EDITION THAT KILLED IT, but I hope they go back to earlier editions for their design inspiration.
Personally I wouldn't put too much blame on 8th ed. For all its flaws, 7th ed wasn't much better. People like to recall the overpowered army books as the thing that ruined 7th ed, but at its core it was an edition of cavalryhammer. The combination of fixed charge range and inability to fight back if you took enough casualties to match your front rank skewed the game heavily towards fast, high lethality units. Playing a mixed army was pretty much pointless if you went up against a cavalry spam army. I saw a lot of matchups back then that led to short, unsatisfying games that were decided during deployment. People around here were not particularly thrilled to play such games (or, well, to lose such games in the case of some). In typical GW fashion 8th didn't fix the source of that frustration but instead just shuffled things around and added all new sources of frustration.
In my opinion the demise of Fantasy isn't even primarily to be blamed on the latter editions of the game themselves but the environment in which players dropped out and sales plummeted. Alongside 8th ed existed 6th ed 40k that had some controversial additions and holds the record for shortest edition lifespan yet, getting replaced after only twenty three months, and 7th ed 40k that we all know turned into a complete trainwreck that bled players and reinforced a long downwards trend in GW's profits. That trend started in the Aughts after the LotR bubble burst. I find it likely that the death of Fantasy was decided on when GW realized that cutting costs and slimming down their operation wasn't going to turn things around. That may or may not have happened before there even was any sales data on 8th ed Fantasy.
The discussion of fixed versus random charge ranges is kind of pointless, much like looking at any other rule that may have been picked for The Old World in isolation (or rather in ignorance of the larger framework). Both approaches have their pros and cons, and depending on how they interact with other rules, are perfectly capable or ruining an edition of Warhammer even if they worked in older editions or different games. There's nothing inherently wrong with using rules from the edition during which Warhammer Fantasy was killed, even rules which are considered to be controversial, as long as their function is adequately analyzed and put into context of the whole rule set, with changes and added restrictions if need be.
I'd be less worried about what edition a rule first appeared in and more how it all fits together in the new rule set. Which isn't something we can conclusively guess at with what little information we have so far.
WHF lost a lot of players during late 7th Edition with the bad army books
Community rules made some stay but most quit with 8th as the "this time" promise not going off as the problems the new rules solved were replaced by new problems with the new army books
hardly and new players startet with 8th and the majority switched to 40k
minor details in the rule had less influence in general as it was the total package
bad balance, no updates, high models prices and increased amount of models needed
and for TOW it will be the same, minor details won't make it a success but the overall package will
The reason why Battle was slowly losing players (more a question of difficulty to recruit new blood, players were more veterans than anything else who leave naturally as they keep aging ) was more to do with lack of scenarios with different victory conditions, a bloated game system that is not easy to learn when you're totally new, no real "beginner friendly" entry level (it wasn't as structured as now with AoS, the way lists were built were very rigid even in comparison to 40k at the time, which is partly why it was always more popular than Battle), a very elitist (and arrogant) competitive scene with top players with "scummy behaviour" more rewarded than the fairplay ones that didn't give a good reputation to the game in the end...A lot of factors than just "random charges", in the end.
The reason Battle was slowly losing players was that you needed a crazy amount of money just to get started which i don't think will be better now (along with the "no beginner friendly" entry level you mentioned). Enjoy the nostalgia and the new models because not much will be different after the release hype goes away.
I think the key thing to realise is that there isn't one golden goose egg of "this was the sole reason why" the game started to dwindle. There were multiple aspects that built up over time and for some people there were different reasons why they left/reduced. The issue was once it started happening they started snowballing and once there was a general trend that became an issue in itself.
Big rosters of models to get started was certainly one aspect and a big barrier to new people getting into the game or even just existing people starting a new army. The rules didn't really work until 1K points and even then you really wanted 1.5 or 2 K points for it to really shine for most armies. 500 point fights were strange and could be very wonky or just dull because you had so little on the table.
But that alone wasn't it; the lack of new players in any volume meant that not only were big point counts where the game worked best; but they were also what everyone who was around had. So anyone new had an uphill struggle to get into the game and "join everyone else". Lack of newbies; lack of a suitable smaller game format; lack of marketing that there was a smaller game format - all these things compounded and made worse the fact that the core game rules required/worked best with big armies.
But there were loads of other things too.
It's the same as how Privateer Press fell from their height. Again not one single thing but multiple happening all within the same timespan and building on each other.
Sarouan wrote: Kodos is a Kings of War fanatic, so he's out with or without random charges anyway.
Random charges are mostly hated by players who want "skill" to matter (they're usually tournament-friendly and like to think of themselves as good players) while they are liked by players who don't care about that kind of stuff (and understand that games using dice have a "luck factor" that is impossible to remove unless you remove dice in all of their mechanisms, anyway).
Besides, when people talk about "skill" in wargames like Battle or KoW, it's usually more about list building than strategy and tactics. It's mostly there so that petulant and arrogant elitist players feel like they're above the "filthy casuals". If they're out, I say good riddance - that's something I never missed when Battle died and all these "That Guy" tournament players went to other systems to plague them.
When battles are won or lost on how subtly you can cheat the 'no premeasuring charges' rule, I'm out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: I'll say it again: I saw the whole 1/8" push thing once in the entirety of the time I played 6th, and I was FLGS staff working GW nights twice a week. The guy did it to me personally, I hit him with one turn of Curse of Arrow Attraction with 4 Repeater Bolt Throwers and 2 20 man Archer units peppering his highest value unit. He picked up the pace from there on out.
Past that? I never even saw it pulled off in tournaments.
YOU saw it once. I saw it ever darn game. It sounds like your local meta was way less WAAC than mine was.
Besides, when you play dwarves as I did too with different editions of Warhammer Battle, you knew that before random charges were introduced, charges initiated by melee dwarf units were...let's say very short (pun intended ). That's why the only way to play dwarves before random charges was putting as many shoots as you could. With V8...melee dwarf lists were actually playable thanks also to them.
In general, before random charges, infantry always struggled to charge in comparison to cavalry, monster and all of the stuff that was 4+ in movement. Reason why the variancy is "so high" is precisely so that they were more par to par between them.
Agreed. Fixed charge ranges force dwarves to either lose 100% of the time, or play pure gunline at the back of the map. From there, you might as well roll a D6 each, higher result wins, and move on to more interesting games.
"Why did WHFB die" is a long running discussion that gets the thread locked. But FWIW I think the issue is that GW didn't care that the game was an imbalanced mess, and players were increasingly unwilling to put up with it. I'd say the rot was really there in 7th (not that 6th was perfect). People talk about the Daemons army book - but frankly DE and VC weren't dramatically better from the perspective of everyone else. The gulf between the haves and have-nots was awful, and I think 8th was just a good time for people to give up the ghost. (And frankly, that yawning gap continued through the years of unabated codex creep). 6th and 7th 40k (frankly late 5th) were also suffering similar problems - and this is why games like Warmahordes and later X-Wing boomed. Representing meaningful competition to GW that hasn't really existed before or since.
Complaints about charging can get threads locked too I guess - but as we see rules for the new edition, it is I guess vaguely relevant.
I think a key factor that needs to be remembered is other changes in 8th rather than just random charges.
Before 8th the charge was the be-all and end all. You charged, you got to fight first, you wiped the front rank, they couldn't fight back. That is fundamentally different to a system where fighting first is down to initiative, and models step up to fight.
The former made infantry blocks basically worthless except as a redirector (being fodder for most cavalry - or any higher M units). The second however encouraged the 30-50 man great weapon deathstars, that could take a hit and then delete... well, basically anything except other deathstars.
I hope GW have spent some time trying to square this circle. Blocks of say 20~ infantry, with champions, standard bearers and musicians, should be the core of the game. There should be some sort of cap on going dramatically higher - but also rules so they don't just get run over by other stuff.
I'd half hope you get units in fixed sizes, dare I say it, like AoS*, as a way to deal with some of the death star stuff and go back to having a meaningful army and now unkillable chaff that will bog you down all game
JimmyWolf87 wrote: Nothing too dramatic there to be honest beyond magic being separated out between phases. Game structure seems to be at least tacitly very similar to latter editions. It's when we get into the meat of combat rules that it'll get particularly interesting.
I'm desperate and impatient to see the rules of the shooting phase!!!
I agree with you on most of your list @Tyel.
However I think infantry was not quite so useless in 6th and 7th because a 20 man squad could hold its ground unless a breaker (at least 6 knights with warbanner or more) hit them.
They were good for board control and fighting other board controlers or light units off.
Also one problem about 8th: 40+ man squads of super expensive stuff. Who wanted to start a dwarfs army knowing he had to buy 40 hammerers for 160 euros alone?
Astmeister wrote: I agree with you on most of your list @Tyel.
However I think infantry was not quite so useless in 6th and 7th because a 20 man squad could hold its ground unless a breaker (at least 6 knights with warbanner or more) hit them.
They were good for board control and fighting other board controlers or light units off.
Also one problem about 8th: 40+ man squads of super expensive stuff. Who wanted to start a dwarfs army knowing he had to buy 40 hammerers for 160 euros alone?
Useless is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration - and we've all seen knights fluff their small number of attacks on the charge.
But from memory (and we are talking 15ish years) most competitive lists in late 7th had a lot of fast stuff because infantry were just too slow/vulnerable. Which also brought about the 8th edition table flip. A lot of people didn't like discovering an almost all cav army bought specifically to meet 7th's meta was now bad in 8th.
Especially when as you said you now needed very expensive bricks of infantry.
Late 7th is not a good example because certain combs had 2/3 of the using 300 points more than the meta armies (in addition to being mostly fast units) because they could not compete otherwise
This is debatable. In terms of Revenue, GW basically remained flat from around 2005/2006 through to 2016. Yes, there were up and down years but revenue didn't meaningfully change during that time and set around 120 million GBP +/- ~10-15 million. During the timeframe you're really discussing, from around 2009-2016, GW peaked at around 135 million in 2013 only to decline to 118 million in 2016, which is a delta of about 17 million, but was only about 7 million less than it was in 2009. This is statistically insignificant and happened during a global financial crisis, etc. Whatever "competition" WMHDs and X-Wing may have provided GW at the time amounted for very little. If you take the view that the market did not grow during this time frame and those revenue losses were the result of competitors grabbing market share, then all of GW's competitors combined would have been pulling no more than maybe 20-25 million GBP/yr at the time.I can tell you from first hand knowledge that X-Wings best year of sales was around that mark on its own (25-30 million USD) so clearly thats not the case and the market actually grew a bit to accommodate rival games, but the point stands that if GWs biggest "competitor" was only about 15% as large as itself, then it wasn't really that much of a competitor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oops, didn't see Ingtaers message before submitting, my bad :(
SU-152 wrote: I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.
No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I don not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.
It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.
How is 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??
If fixed charges are a thing, it gets really dull with premeasuring, since you exist with perfect knowledge of when and where you will be eating a charge, which is basically saying you are choosing to give up a huge advantage.
So unless there's a compromise and there's some kind of incentive or defense for eating charges, it'll be a poor situation imo.
Pre-measuring ban died in most gw games like over decade ago. AT has it i think. 40k/aos doesn't. Aos has never had it, 40k had...looong time ago.
Doubt it comes back and good riddance. It was only making life hard for noobs in their 1st games. About as skillfull or interestinj as stealing from baby
SU-152 wrote: I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.
No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I don not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.
It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.
How is 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??
If fixed charges are a thing, it gets really dull with premeasuring, since you exist with perfect knowledge of when and where you will be eating a charge, which is basically saying you are choosing to give up a huge advantage.
So unless there's a compromise and there's some kind of incentive or defense for eating charges, it'll be a poor situation imo.
Even without only noobs on 1st games wouldn't know are they in range or not. Too many tricks and easy math.
tneva82 wrote: Pre-measuring ban died in most gw games like over decade ago. AT has it i think. 40k/aos doesn't. Aos has never had it, 40k had...looong time ago.
Doubt it comes back and good riddance. It was only making life hard for noobs in their 1st games. About as skillfull or interestinj as stealing from baby
SU-152 wrote: I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.
No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I don not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.
It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.
How is 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??
If fixed charges are a thing, it gets really dull with premeasuring, since you exist with perfect knowledge of when and where you will be eating a charge, which is basically saying you are choosing to give up a huge advantage.
So unless there's a compromise and there's some kind of incentive or defense for eating charges, it'll be a poor situation imo.
Even without only noobs on 1st games wouldn't know are they in range or not. Too many tricks and easy math.
Well yes, if you know how far apart forces are at the start, track how far every unit moves, track out the angles and whack out the pythagoran theories and a scientific calculator then yes, you can get within 0.5" easily on your 2nd game.
Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.
I'd like to see 6th ed as the basis, with modern sensibilities added in. The core rules of 6th were pretty sound and it's where I had the most fun playing WFB.
I'd prefer some kind of alternation or more indepth reaction system than just stand and shoot or run away.
Also, simplified movement mechanics. Wheeling and turning are important for the game to retain its tactical regimental feel, but they need to be easy to use and simple to explain, but not too reduced in detail either.
Hopefully they remove ASF as a standard rule, and only have it as a charging ability.
And especially not having the elves use it for an army wide rule...
Hellebore wrote: And especially not having the elves use it for an army wide rule...
They need to address the imbalance in WS vs S/T in the mechanics. ASF Elves was another (the 3rd at least) pass at dealing with the fact that Elves being costed as elite models but dying like Goblins doesn't work out on the tabletop.
Dudeface wrote:Well yes, if you know how far apart forces are at the start, track how far every unit moves, track out the angles and whack out the pythagoran theories and a scientific calculator then yes, you can get within 0.5" easily on your 2nd game.
Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.
I do carpentry in my spare time and spent half a decade in a previous job identifying parts with lengths between 6" and 20" by sight. I am no savant but I can reliably guess sub-24" ranges on the tabletop down to about half an inch. I'm far from the only person who can do that.
At an old hobby shop, the owner had made some really awesome fantasy tables out of interlocking foam tiles. Problem was, each tile was exactly one foot across and it was impossible to hide the borders. Guess how often the Empire and Dwarf guys missed with their cannons.
It's really not fun for anyone involved when a skill so irrelevant to wargame generalship- and so easy to cheat, even just through sequencing- can win or lose a game. I consider it a wargaming atavism on the level of using a pellet gun and ship silhouettes to resolve your naval wargame impact locations, and would much rather see a game system address the problem of overly deterministic positioning through some other means.
Fortunately, there are quite a few alternatives that achieve friction/uncertainty through game mechanics rather than obfuscating distances.
Baragash wrote:
Hellebore wrote: And especially not having the elves use it for an army wide rule...
They need to address the imbalance in WS vs S/T in the mechanics. ASF Elves was another (the 3rd at least) pass at dealing with the fact that Elves being costed as elite models but dying like Goblins doesn't work out on the tabletop.
Horus Heresy 2.0 revised the ancient WS table to have a much stronger effect, so I think there's a distinct possibility that they'll do the same for TOW.
At an old hobby shop, the owner had made some really awesome fantasy tables out of interlocking foam tiles. Problem was, each tile was exactly one foot across and it was impossible to hide the borders. Guess how often the Empire and Dwarf guys missed with their cannons.
That kind of table was really common everywhere I played, and I wandered a lot during that period. 'Guess' weapons were precision tools that could only be stopped by misfires.
And especially not having the elves use it for an army wide rule...
It was really fun when the high elves first got it and dark elves... didn't. They got the cut and paste point changes instead and some units dropped to stupid cheap values, but could be cheesed out with massive numbers of attacks (for the time- nothing compared to more recent editions). It was one of huge tipping points for a lot of people that GW really didn't have a clue about the impact of their design decisions.
Always strike first on High Elves were the beginning of the end for me. 2 out of 6 of my most frequent opponents played HE while I played Wood Elves. So I pay like 18pts for 1 wound t3 models with at best a 6+ ward save that needs to make its value back in melee. "Oh nice! An entire faction that kills my best melee units before they ever get to fight. Their archers kills my Wardancers in melee. GREAT!!!".
Didn't help that each army after that were even stronger than the High Elves. Dark Elf death stars you couldn't do anything about. Massive fearless undead units you couldn't break before they were back at previous size due to magic and then the Demons.
Sure I could play pure Tree spirits or 100% archers to help in some of the matchups but both of those play styles were really boring. I still have like 40 Glade Guards that are like 60% painted that I never finished when I quit WFB. Not fun to paint so many and when I realised I would have even less fun playing with them it dawned upon me that WFB wasn't my game anymore.
ASL and ASF are such weird rules, especially when that just straight up overrides initiative most of the time. All Elves were already initiative 5 at minimum, is that ASF even that significant? I mean I guess if you have a character at I5 going up against a block of Elf spearmen it'd be pretty big, otherwise it just seem like army-wide tax to me.
Would if changing Great Weapons to -2 I instead would have been better than ASL. The mean Initiative is already 3 so that'd make it the same as ASL, while the Elves still strikes at the average I3.
Dudeface wrote: Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.
2"? You can't be off by 2" when shooting a stone thrower 5 feet diagonally across the table. The margin of error when setting up 12" charges was around the thickness of a piece of paper for experienced players.
lcmiracle wrote: ASL and ASF are such weird rules, especially when that just straight up overrides initiative most of the time. All Elves were already initiative 5 at minimum, is that ASF even that significant? I mean I guess if you have a character at I5 going up against a block of Elf spearmen it'd be pretty big, otherwise it just seem like army-wide tax to me.
Would if changing Great Weapons to -2 I instead would have been better than ASL. The mean Initiative is already 3 so that'd make it the same as ASL, while the Elves still strikes at the average I3.
I can't see people paying elite points (eg 15-16pts) for an I3 T3 Sv5+ Elf, they'll just take Phoenix Guard.
lcmiracle wrote: ASL and ASF are such weird rules, especially when that just straight up overrides initiative most of the time. All Elves were already initiative 5 at minimum, is that ASF even that significant? I mean I guess if you have a character at I5 going up against a block of Elf spearmen it'd be pretty big, otherwise it just seem like army-wide tax to me.
Would if changing Great Weapons to -2 I instead would have been better than ASL. The mean Initiative is already 3 so that'd make it the same as ASL, while the Elves still strikes at the average I3.
It was absolutely significant, since they were swinging before charging units. High Elves could generally out-maneuver their foes (which was frequently critical in WHFB), but since it didn't matter if they got charged or not, who cares? Charging Swordmasters with anything less than heavy cavalry was virtually-guaranteed suicide, and even the heavy cavalry had about a 50/50 shot.
Dudeface wrote: Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.
2"? You can't be off by 2" when shooting a stone thrower 5 feet diagonally across the table. The margin of error when setting up 12" charges was around the thickness of a piece of paper for experienced players.
OK, so clearly you're in favour of premeasuring and I assume random charges?
lcmiracle wrote: ASL and ASF are such weird rules, especially when that just straight up overrides initiative most of the time. All Elves were already initiative 5 at minimum, is that ASF even that significant? I mean I guess if you have a character at I5 going up against a block of Elf spearmen it'd be pretty big, otherwise it just seem like army-wide tax to me.
Would if changing Great Weapons to -2 I instead would have been better than ASL. The mean Initiative is already 3 so that'd make it the same as ASL, while the Elves still strikes at the average I3.
It was absolutely significant, since they were swinging before charging units. High Elves could generally out-maneuver their foes (which was frequently critical in WHFB), but since it didn't matter if they got charged or not, who cares? Charging Swordmasters with anything less than heavy cavalry was virtually-guaranteed suicide, and even the heavy cavalry had about a 50/50 shot.
If I recall at least in 8th ed Always Strike First provided re-rolls to hit if your initiative was higher than the enemy's. That went down well with everyone who didn't play High Elves. That stuff was introduced around the time when the current 40k and AoS designers took over.
This is probably one of those things to dread when looking at what modern flavor The Old World rules might include. GW has misstepped a lot in the last decade with re-roll orgies and dumping initiative for strike first/normal/last systems. If the Old World designers are into that kind of nonsense even to a fraction of the main studio guys, there'll be precious little hope for the rule set.
Hopefully it won't be long until the next article and they don't draw out the four phases over the next three months.
I agree with you on that basis - but I'm not really talking competitive as businesses. I'm talking competitive as in "you walk into a FLGS and see people playing it." You see communities flourishing - and attracting people to start playing (and collecting) X rather than a GW game. I feel the period around 2010-2017 was different in that respect with what came before - or after. But clearly its subjective, and may just be my experience rather than universal.
Anyway, its ancient history.
I feel the ASF stuff runs into a wider problem of "my guys are more elite than your guys". To a degree this applies to every GW game, but I think it was especially acute in WHFB because the stats are sort of one-dimensional. Stuff chops or gets chopped. I'm not sure how they resolve that (or even if they try) in TOW - but I feel it was the cause of a lot of army book creep, and as said player dissatisfaction.
Its arguably the same issue of fixed charges. Sure, positioning my high elves in 9"~ of your M4" units, so I can simultaneously execute 3 charges in my next turn and destroy most of your army feels very good "for me". But it probably feels kind of lame and awful "for you".
Dudeface wrote: Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.
2"? You can't be off by 2" when shooting a stone thrower 5 feet diagonally across the table. The margin of error when setting up 12" charges was around the thickness of a piece of paper for experienced players.
OK, so clearly you're in favour of premeasuring and I assume random charges?
I liked it both ways, actually, but I agree with folks saying guessing range is a skill with a steep, frustrating learning curve for beginners while not really having anything to do with tactical ability. I have derived great satisfaction from declaring 36.5" and hitting the enemy unit champion right between the eyes with a stone thrower, but that probably doesn't justify the extreme barrier to winning for new folks, or folks with some sort of spacial thinking impairment.
And probably an overwhelming majority of non-GW games in the market currently have premeasuring with fixed charge ranges, so I don't think premeasuring is intrinsically tied to random ranges.
I'm ok with random charges. When I played the older editions and charging was just twice your movement, I never failed a charge at all. I'm ok with the random charges a la 8th edition. I liked the guess weapons but I also think you need an element of randomness in there as well - d6 and add that distance to your number with a 6 being a misfire. Ensures there is some variability such as wind or something else. That or go the 40k route. Roll 2d6 and the scatter, the shot scatters the distance rolled less your BS. Then it always scatters unless you roll a hit.
I generally liked 8th edition - the changes I would have made revolved around unit sizes. I think the requirements for units should have been min 5 models per rank but you cannot be deeper than your frontage. That would have stopped the shananigans skaven and gobbos where they had 5 models on the front but were 10 ranks deep and nigh unbreakable. Want 10 ranks, have a unit that has a frontage of 10.
Dudeface wrote: Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.
2"? You can't be off by 2" when shooting a stone thrower 5 feet diagonally across the table. The margin of error when setting up 12" charges was around the thickness of a piece of paper for experienced players.
OK, so clearly you're in favour of premeasuring and I assume random charges?
I liked it both ways, actually, but I agree with folks saying guessing range is a skill with a steep, frustrating learning curve for beginners while not really having anything to do with tactical ability. I have derived great satisfaction from declaring 36.5" and hitting the enemy unit champion right between the eyes with a stone thrower, but that probably doesn't justify the extreme barrier to winning for new folks, or folks with some sort of spacial thinking impairment.
And probably an overwhelming majority of non-GW games in the market currently have premeasuring with fixed charge ranges, so I don't think premeasuring is intrinsically tied to random ranges.
How would you introduce a disincentive for a charge Mexican stand off? As the rules for fantasy were, the boon from charging was generally enough to ensure you want to be the one getting it off. To have premeasuring and fixed charges they need to shift that ratio of risk/reward so that either charges are less relevant or there's sufficient reward for being the person who knows they're going to take the charge.
How would you introduce a disincentive for a charge Mexican stand off? As the rules for fantasy were, the boon from charging was generally enough to ensure you want to be the one getting it off. To have premeasuring and fixed charges they need to shift that ratio of risk/reward so that either charges are less relevant or there's sufficient reward for being the person who knows they're going to take the charge.
Well, like I said, pretty much every game that exists today has fixed ranges with premeasuring. This includes Kings of War and Conquest, as far as I know, both highly tournament-oriented rulesets, one vanilla IGOUGO, one semi-random alternating. I've not detected any claims that their charging mechanics are broken. And as far as I know, in all regiment systems, including WHFB regardless of edition, most of the time you wanted to be the one getting (frontally) charged.
Good mission design and mechanics for in combat movement forward and backwards.
Yolo charging to get first charges off isn’t great for the game.
If you also have units with scouting and forward positioning in traditional slower army’s you also create some balance to movement there.
And also utilising counter charging tactics and ability’s.
It’s such a important part of the game that it should get the extra time.
How would you introduce a disincentive for a charge Mexican stand off? As the rules for fantasy were, the boon from charging was generally enough to ensure you want to be the one getting it off. To have premeasuring and fixed charges they need to shift that ratio of risk/reward so that either charges are less relevant or there's sufficient reward for being the person who knows they're going to take the charge.
This (erroneous) notion appears so often that I don't even need to write an answer again, I can just copy and paste it:
My main wargame is Warmachine and there threat ranges are static, but the game gives players a deep toolbox of things they can do to lessen the impact of the opponent having a few inches of threat range advantage. Baiting, jamming, sacrificing, redirecting, screening, using terrain, buffing/debuffing, clever scenario play ... all depending on players' decisions and choices. In my opinion it makes for a much more engaging game than a one where you just generate a random number to arbitrarily tell you whether what you are attempting to do makes any sense or not.
And even with Warmachine having both premeasuring and fixed ranges it is not my experience that threat range means everything, there are so many ways to counter that, despite the all or nothing nature of WM alpha strike (target destroyed on the charge is the default result) and the importance of scenario.
I like this report as an example. Despite oppressive threat ranges and going first the Cryx player has his army carefully corralled, contained and taken apart by a much slower enemy. He loses because tactics, not because he didn't roll enough for his charges.
My first fix for this in WFB would be to reduce differences between Mv of units. If in 6th Bretonnians could fail their charge due to not guessing range correctly and still be safe from an infantry countercharge something is just off.
How would you introduce a disincentive for a charge Mexican stand off? As the rules for fantasy were, the boon from charging was generally enough to ensure you want to be the one getting it off. To have premeasuring and fixed charges they need to shift that ratio of risk/reward so that either charges are less relevant or there's sufficient reward for being the person who knows they're going to take the charge.
Well, like I said, pretty much every game that exists today has fixed ranges with premeasuring. This includes Kings of War and Conquest, as far as I know, both highly tournament-oriented rulesets, one vanilla IGOUGO, one semi-random alternating. I've not detected any claims that their charging mechanics are broken. And as far as I know, in all regiment systems, including WHFB regardless of edition, most of the time you wanted to be the one getting (frontally) charged.
KoW has a small amount of poorly implemented random charging.
Here we go again with random charges vs fixed charges.
The good point is we'll get GW's final answer for TOW in a few more articles.
Whatever they decide, people really interested in TOW will play as the rules say - the others will just go back to their perfect game system, convinced their view is the only right one.
Sarouan wrote: Here we go again with random charges vs fixed charges.
The good point is we'll get GW's final answer for TOW in a few more articles.
Whatever they decide, people really interested in TOW will play as the rules say - the others will just go back to their perfect game system, convinced their view is the only right one.
We already said, this is not the place. Start another thread for range guessing and charges. I know there's no real news but that's OK let this thread lie fallow for a bit and debate rules philosophies in the Fantasy Forum.
Astmeister wrote: I agree with you on most of your list @Tyel.
However I think infantry was not quite so useless in 6th and 7th because a 20 man squad could hold its ground unless a breaker (at least 6 knights with warbanner or more) hit them.
They were good for board control and fighting other board controlers or light units off.
Also one problem about 8th: 40+ man squads of super expensive stuff. Who wanted to start a dwarfs army knowing he had to buy 40 hammerers for 160 euros alone?
Someone who knew about the existence of Mantic Dwarves.
I'll grant you, many people don't like the aesthetic, but they ARE cheap enough to buy in volume.
triplegrim wrote: Why is compulsory movement after charges and movement? Shouldnt you be fleeing at the end of the turn or at the least at the beginning?
Regular movement is after compulsory movement. This is how it's worked as far as I've played.
First you declare charges, then you do flee movements/other compulsory stuff, then you get to pick your remaining movements. Now they've added some spells to the very last bit of it.
This is another unknown. Though GW has stated they are opting for a more complex system, I have a hunch they'll avoid army percentages and establish mins and maxes for heroes and core some other way. I just can't see them going back after their other systems are as simple as "pick one hero aaand... that's it you're good." (slight exaggeration)
I think the fact that they have a two-tier morale mechanic, with the worse tier triggering after the unit is reduced to 25% of its starting size, is a good indication that they aren't afraid of a little complexity with % math.
That being said, % army comp is unnecessary, they can just cut out the middle-man and provide you with the point minima and maxima that can be spent on each category of units for a given game size. Why tell people that they can spend a max of 25% of their points on special units in a 2000 point game, when you can just tell them that they can spend a maximum of 500pts? Realistically the game is balanced around a narrow range of point values, probably from 1500-2500 points. Going above or below that threshold can and will cause balance issues and a subpar experience. So that being the case, the likely solution is that GW will provide a "small", "medium", and "large" size format - say 1500pts, 2000pts, and 2500pts, and just tell you what the min/max amount of points spent on each category is.
Thats already basically what Horus Heresy does with regards to Lords of War, I expect it will be the same approach for WHFB.
triplegrim wrote: Why is compulsory movement after charges and movement? Shouldnt you be fleeing at the end of the turn or at the least at the beginning?
triplegrim wrote: Why is compulsory movement after charges and movement? Shouldnt you be fleeing at the end of the turn or at the least at the beginning?
over there being women foot knights.
) , that would be fun.
) was more to do with lack of scenarios with different victory conditions, a bloated game system that is not easy to learn when you're totally new, no real "beginner friendly" entry level (it wasn't as structured as now with 
