Warptide wrote: 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)
That's a huge exaggeration, especially since they've already drawn parallels between TOW and HH, which still uses a version of the older Force Organization Chart.
I remember a few pages back, after the latest rules article, there was a discussion around if the magic phase going would mean an end to the dice pool and other magic phase related chicanery.
I was looking through the past articles and noticed a detail I'd forgotten:
Situations where a single spell can decide the outcome of a battle are rare. The focus has shifted from keeping track of dice pools or hands of cards onto the positioning of Wizards.
So I think it's pretty likely each spell caster has his or her own spell casting capacity in ToW.
Apologies if everyone else has remembered this and it's common knowledge!
Grail Seeker wrote: I don’t think they committed to a time. But I’m hoping it will be weekly.
As do I. They have twelve or thirteen weeks to fill if we assume an early February release, and obviously a couple more if it's later in the month. Provided the social media slip up is accurate.
That's a fair few articles to fill after the remaining three phase rundowns. Should be doable, but if they want to hand out only the bare minimum, I figure an article every two weeks could comfortably cover the core rules and give Tomb Kings and Bretonnian army rules an article each before we hit the pre-order period for whatever gets released first.
So while I hope we'll finally get to see things move more quickly, I'm not quite ready to believe just yet.
kodos wrote: Chance is that it will simply be a 2D6 test or 2D6+wizard value/LD for each spell
With either a limit on spells per phase or spell per wizard
Wow, I'm getting flashbacks of the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition 40K. We were used to stopping the action to deal cards for our Psykers. Then it became "well, now it's mostly LD tests in the shooting phase". I'm not necessarily complaining; it's just a hit of nostalgia I was not expecting.
KidCthulhu wrote: Wow, I'm getting flashbacks of the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition 40K. We were used to stopping the action to deal cards for our Psykers. Then it became "well, now it's mostly LD tests in the shooting phase". I'm not necessarily complaining; it's just a hit of nostalgia I was not expecting.
That's how Fantasy used to be back then as well. I have a nostalgia for the old spell cards and power cards etc from the Battle Magic and Warhammer Magic days.
GW wrote:Here at Warhammer Community, we’ve got more of the exciting reveals you crave and a further expedition into the rules of Warhammer: The Old World.
Seems like GW might actually pick up the pace. No complaints from me if they actually keep it up until the game's release.
For a February release date I'd expect to see an increase around December, building to a solid presentation during January in the buildup toward launch.
Fully open skirmisher units is an... interesting choice. I am kind of hoping they have some sort of harsh limits on how many you can bring, a la third edition, or else seeing 40 skink skirmishers across the board is going to be a miserable experience.
So the charge model is more or less the same as WAP?
That strikes me as the best way to keep everyone happy personally.
Edit: It won't work, obviously, but it seems like a reasonable compromise between the two positions - the randomness is significantly reduced without going back to "charges will always succeed if you're good at eying distances."
Astmeister wrote: So a non square unit doing a 90° turn is loosing immediately rank bonus, because it will be in marching order? Wyld!
I don't believe that's what is being said? The front/sides/rear of the unit would still be the same, just facing a different direction. You'll probably have to Reform to change between marching and combat order.
Astmeister wrote: So a non square unit doing a 90° turn is loosing immediately rank bonus, because it will be in marching order? Wyld!
I don't believe that's what is being said? The front/sides/rear of the unit would still be the same, just facing a different direction. You'll probably have to Reform to change between marching and combat order.
It says when you Turn you turn each model individually, so long/short sides will be swapped.
But that's fancy maneuver, normally you'll just wheel while staying in formation. I don't think there's anything particularly surprising in this article.
It looks ok, have to wait and see to really decide.
Have to wonder if marching order will be worth it if the tables shrink or not.
Not sure a specific speedy rule is needed to knights, as I feel they should have been fast enough.
But meh, learning rules in drip feed just annoying, I would much rather see some units and how they could interact with the rules.
lord_blackfang wrote: so Move+2d6 with premeasuring confirmed. Getting in close beforehand has the reward of not allowing stand and shoot.
Isn't it actually movement + 1D6 (but the best of a 2D6 throw)?
Also, nobody commenting on the going back to the triangle lance formation for Bretonia? I think it's cool but so impractical and it makes me throw away all my movement bases for the old lance formation...
Would also have been cool to see the rules for the lance formation.
I am very curious who will get Open Order and what that will mean for those units. It's an interesting addition to formation rules.
I am also very curious how reforms will work to move from Marching Column to Close Order. There were a lot of rules for changing ranks previously, which I always felt complicated things. This already seems much cleaner, but we are only getting small bits.
Random charges, but with lower range since you just keep the highest of 2D6 for infantry, not simply add them to your move. So there's a reduced randomness compared to 8th.
I'm more interested in the change to combat order and marching columns formations. Especially because units of 40 zombies / skavenslaves in a front of 5 and 8 ranks deep is no longer combat order valid, but marching column valid. So there's less abuse on "let's put as few models on the front so that the enemy can't fight with his full power if it has a bigger front" from these weak fighters that rely entirely on bonus ranks static bonuses to keep fighting.
It shows the designers know about how old Battle worked. Promising.
The Phazer wrote: So the charge model is more or less the same as WAP?
That strikes me as the best way to keep everyone happy personally.
Edit: It won't work, obviously, but it seems like a reasonable compromise between the two positions - the randomness is significantly reduced without going back to "charges will always succeed if you're good at eying distances."
Yeah it seems nice. A move 4 unit classically charged 8”. For this a charge of 4” plus highest of 2D6 gives you bounds of 5” to 10”, but you hit 8” 75% of the time. No silly across the board charges ala 8th, gives a zone of risk, makes dwarf and elf movement (assuming they’re still 3 and 5 respectively) still meaningful.
Like I am still a bit sad about the magic phase, but the charge change makes sense to me and I think marching columns as a way to help dwarves get up the board without the gak getting blown out of them by shooting heavy armies seems like a good solution. And it elegantly solves 4 v 5 front ranks.
This... seems actually quite good? Granted, will have to see how they are in practice (40k 10th seemed okay until the indexes were published) but I am pretty positive about this.
Move+(best of 2d6) is pretty nice, +4.5" average with very tame variance. I honestly miss it as difficult terrain movement in 40k. And it takes base M value into account.
Move+(best of 2d6) is pretty nice, +4.5" average with very tame variance. I honestly miss it as difficult terrain movement in 40k. And it takes base M value into account.
Note that they didn't say anything about how terrain affect moves of units in TOW.
Move+(best of 2d6) is pretty nice, +4.5" average with very tame variance. I honestly miss it as difficult terrain movement in 40k. And it takes base M value into account.
Note that they didn't say anything about how terrain affect moves of units in TOW.
I assume half speed, since half speed is already confirmed to exist as a concept in the rules.
Preventing deep tarpit units and having a dedicated marching formation seems like a nice change at first glance. Sacrificing rank bonuses for triple movement reads like a meaningful trade-off and should carry significant risk when your opponent manages to charge a marching unit. This interaction alone is surpisingly promising.
This all looks good to me! Well, I never played Bretonnians, so I don’t have an opinion about the lance formation. If nothing else, it‘s much easier to make custom movement trays than it used to be.
The Phazer wrote: This... seems actually quite good? Granted, will have to see how they are in practice (40k 10th seemed okay until the indexes were published) but I am pretty positive about this.
I'm quite happy with what the article proposes. Cutting charge range by a d6 removes the silliness of 8th ed charges without removing the variability that made 8th ed a more dynamic game. And 2d6 pick highest keeps swinginess in check. I like that.
And unlike you, 10th ed 40k never seemed okay to me, so I don't have to feel wary of this preview.
Move + 3.5-ish inches looks good - a decent amount of certainty, but with the snag that you have to plan for when It All Goes Wrong
Or deciding to take the gamble that, roughly 1/3rd of the time, you've got move + 6"
Going to make cavalry comparatively more risky - if swiftstide goes to all cav - at Move + (2d6 choose) + D6. Your guys could end up marooned much more easily if you get greedy.
A good compromise for charges between the 4-7th and 8th Ed approaches that gives an element of risk while keeping movement values relevant.
Removing rank bonus for ‘bus’ formation is an interesting choice, but probably for the best as it stops you going too large while limiting return attacks. Will play havoc with movement trays for tar pits though as you’ll likely want to reform to reduce frontage as you lose models off the back ranks.
Shooting next, but it’s the Combat phase I’m the most interested in tbh - the balance of lethality vs being able to meaningfully attack is what will make or break the game tbh.
Number of attacks needs to be toned right down from 8th to keep unit sizes reasonable, but front rank wiping from previous editions is a massive tilt to cav and monsters and can mean weaker models just become wound counters.
Previously, marching columns formations didn't have any other advantage than allowing the formation to move in space too small for a wider front. Having a specific rule advantage like tripling your move is the real novelty and incitment to use that formation. But it also prevents abuse in combat phase by making them totally inefficient in battle with no rank bonus and no charge.
In old Battle, you often saw units of fighters that were "average" and rely on numbers to keep fighting, thus having as many deep ranks as possible. Formation of 5 front and 6 deep were very common. Now these same units will be "forced" to be 6 front and 5 deep at least to be combat effective, otherwise they'll be marching column material only.
Maybe I'm missing something - but is anyone going to bother with Marching Column? There may be other benefits etc - but on the face of it.
I.E. - you deploy in this formation. First turn march up 3*M" turn 1. You reform to go into "Combat Order" turn 2. You can now finally charge in turn 3? If Musicians allowed a normal move via "Swift Reform" (or similar) then okay, you can now go 4*M" forward. Otherwise its 3*M".
But... you could also just march twice in combat order over turn 1 and turn 2 for 4*M" then charge in turn 3. That way you aren't potentially exposed to being charged or something while still in Marching Column?
Tyel wrote: Maybe I'm missing something - but is anyone going to bother with Marching Column? There may be other benefits etc - but on the face of it.
I.E. - you deploy in this formation. First turn march up 3*M" turn 1. You reform to go into "Combat Order" turn 2. You can now finally charge in turn 3? If Musicians allowed a normal move via "Swift Reform" (or similar) then okay, you can now go 4*M" forward. Otherwise its 3*M".
But... you could also just march twice in combat order over turn 1 and turn 2 for 4*M" then charge in turn 3. That way you aren't potentially exposed to being charged or something while still in Marching Column?
We don't know what the missions are, some may want you to get up field fast. We also don't know what benefits charges give, it may not be as devastating for Dwarves or a dedicated Anvil unit to march T1 then reform to accept a charge T2.
Tyel wrote: Maybe I'm missing something - but is anyone going to bother with Marching Column? There may be other benefits etc - but on the face of it.
I.E. - you deploy in this formation. First turn march up 3*M" turn 1. You reform to go into "Combat Order" turn 2. You can now finally charge in turn 3? If Musicians allowed a normal move via "Swift Reform" (or similar) then okay, you can now go 4*M" forward. Otherwise its 3*M".
But... you could also just march twice in combat order over turn 1 and turn 2 for 4*M" then charge in turn 3. That way you aren't potentially exposed to being charged or something while still in Marching Column?
Moving triple your move is a bigger deal than in previous Battle editions where this formation never had that boost. It's mostly useful for big battlefields where you need to redeploy quickly your further units towards where the main / important fight is.
But I think that overall, it's main use is precisely to prevent units from using certain formations to keep being battle ready. Because a lot of battle formations favored by players in older editions suddenly become marching columns in TOW. That's the real change here.
not like the rule for changing to marching order to actually march was not there before
just everyone ignored it because moving models off the tray and back on was not something people bothered
and triple speed will be more important for faster units and changing 5 cavalry models is different to a block of infantry
Rihgu wrote: Will be interesting to see which legacy skirmishers units become Loose Order and which go back to 4th-7th style formations.
Could make some interesting distinction for elite units - e.g. maybe basic Skinks will be Loose Order and Chameleons will be skirmishers?
Beastman in 6th had that special rules that made them skirmishers for movement but fight in R&F formation, so I guess Loose Order will be this
Skirmish and Open Order seem distinct (the latter specifically mentions fighting in ranks), but largely undefined
Combat Order vs Marching Column- both are more than. Where does equal fall? I used a lot of 4x4 and 5x5 in various editions of WFB, but as written they aren't in combat order OR marching column.
Also technically speaking, you can shoot an enemy unit out of 'marching column' formation (which might be a benefit for them if they're close enough to engage). The example unit is 4x5. 8 casualties means they're 4x3 and no longer a marching column. And at 4 casualties, they fall into the 'undefined' category of ranks=files.
---
It seems a shame to see only Brets get lance formation (and swiftstride?) rather than open formations up. 3rd edition had more than this handful, and imo, they added a lot.
Combat Order vs Marching Column- both are more than. Where does equal fall?
Good question. Here, it's a resume, not the full rules written in book. Maybe there's a situation where they belong. Or maybe they're not valid formations anymore, possible as well.
Also technically speaking, you can shoot an enemy unit out of 'marching column' formation (which might be a benefit for them if they're close enough to engage). The example unit is 4x5. 8 casualties means they're 4x3 and no longer a marching column. And at 4 casualties, they fall into the 'undefined' category of ranks=files.
Depends on how the rules cover that case, but I can see it working fine as it : it just either becomes a valid formation after losses are removed or has to become one as soon as it can (in their next move phase, for example).
Tyel wrote: Maybe I'm missing something - but is anyone going to bother with Marching Column? There may be other benefits etc - but on the face of it.
I.E. - you deploy in this formation. First turn march up 3*M" turn 1. You reform to go into "Combat Order" turn 2. You can now finally charge in turn 3? If Musicians allowed a normal move via "Swift Reform" (or similar) then okay, you can now go 4*M" forward. Otherwise its 3*M".
But... you could also just march twice in combat order over turn 1 and turn 2 for 4*M" then charge in turn 3. That way you aren't potentially exposed to being charged or something while still in Marching Column?
Moving triple your move is a bigger deal than in previous Battle editions where this formation never had that boost. It's mostly useful for big battlefields where you need to redeploy quickly your further units towards where the main / important fight is.
But I think that overall, it's main use is precisely to prevent units from using certain formations to keep being battle ready. Because a lot of battle formations favored by players in older editions suddenly become marching columns in TOW. That's the real change here.
Mostly useful for zipping up flanks, as most units normally trying that were either Skirmishers or Light Cavalry, both of which aren’t a major threat engaging on the front if you’ve a banner and if Outnumber still presents a combat res bonus. Key is not to risk too expensive a unit, as +2 Combat Res still isn’t a sure thing. But for those armies without Skirmishers or Light Cavalry of their own, it is a way to keep enemy units off your own flank.
Charge rule is interesting, particularly as a Failed Charge still makes the full move of what was rolled up. Before, and memory is rusty, I think you just moved half distance? I presume there’ll be something in the rules that I can’t declare a charge at anything outside my maximum potential charge reach. Otherwise Stunties just got a nifty speed boost, as they’re more likely to move faster charging than marching.
I'm glad they dropped that extra D6" on the charge. While I'm not personally wed to static charge ranges or random charges, the long bomb charges of 8th 2d6+movement were pretty crazy.
Dropping it to 1d6+movement keeps things interesting and allows for more maneuvering.
charging looked good at first, but adding units that do use 2D6 makes it tricky
like normal M8 Cavalry doing 9-14" with 12" being the most likely, swift Cavalry doing 10-20" with 15" being the most likely
so we are back to "disadvantage" of fixed ranges that you can just place yourself outside the enemy charge range while still being inside your own (and only a bad roll, twice will hinder it)
(infantry that can have a lucky roll and charges 10", you can still savley have your swift cavalry at 11" as a triple 1 is unlikely, and if it happens to opponent can claim tactical superiority)
Combat Order vs Marching Column- both are more than. Where does equal fall? I used a lot of 4x4 and 5x5 in various editions of WFB, but as written they aren't in combat order OR marching column
always scroll down to the very bottom:
* In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep.
lord_blackfang wrote: If your regiment is exactly 4x4 or 5x5 it can't do anything until you lose a guy, the gap will define which is your rear rank
It's weird. The article states that a Close Order unit must have more models in a rank than they have in a file, but then the asterisk claims they need to be at least as wide as they are deep.
I'm going to assume that square formations are not allowed at all.
I do like the principle behind the rule, if only because it should make the board look more like a battlefield.
My taking of *In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep* is that square formations would be fine.
This is presumably trying to stop the 5*10 (or more) goblin/zombie/skaven slave bus.
Agree with responses that marching order may benefit say cavalry that wouldn't care about a rank bonus and just want to move up quickly. I guess it depends if there's a minimum frontage you have to maintain.
I don't think you can really discuss the charge rules (beyond not liking 8th editions "long charges" - which didn't hugely bother me) without knowing how combat works. They are fundamentally tied together.
Hoping for 4' round tables, to contrast with the square bases.
You jest but the local oldhammer group gathers to play older editions of WHFB on round banquet tables at the local Freemasons lodge. They mark out a rectangle on it, of course, so they aren't really playing a round battle but they could lol.
I like the idea of Marching Column but it sounds like a pain to play. You'll have to either swap out movement trays, turn every model 90 degrees to make a wide formation a long one, or not use movement trays at all.
Combat Order vs Marching Column- both are more than. Where does equal fall?
Good question. Here, it's a resume, not the full rules written in book. Maybe there's a situation where they belong. Or maybe they're not valid formations anymore, possible as well.
Its literally a picture of rules text with examples.
Combat Order vs Marching Column- both are more than. Where does equal fall? I used a lot of 4x4 and 5x5 in various editions of WFB, but as written they aren't in combat order OR marching column
always scroll down to the very bottom:
* In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep.
I did miss that (for various reasons, not least because I don't look for asterisks or footnotes in web pages, but also because they aren't footnoting the important stuff- the rules pic). Not sure why the rules in the image don't just include the correct wording in the first place.
Johanxp wrote: So when we give certain orders we have to change the shape of units by moving the necessary miniatures, one by one? So movement trays become useless?
If so... It sounds tedious.
Changing formation was always a thing in fb. You expected aos like rules?
So am I talking out of my arse (or just don't know old editions enough) but the whole marching column thing really seems to be on point with old WFB/the old cadre of designers who loved historical wargaming. I wonder what the odds are they've contracted an old hand to the design team?
Also am I right in thinking in the reduction of charge ranges that movement/positioning will be even more important, and that the game will feel "larger scale" compared to the actual size of the minis.
And the whole Open Order thing, so the unit will still be rank and file as normal but perhaps it's to represent more loose or disorganised formations like savage orcs, as opposed to staunch shield walls of elves or whathaveyou.
I've never played a "blind deployment" game (ie where you use something to block board view and both deploy all at once) but given there's now more movement options it sounds like it could be fun!
triple marching be very useful for scenarios too. Games where units need to get off a table edge or into enemy deployment zones would be impacted simply by having it as an option. Calling a game in turn 4 because it's impossible physically move units far enough is never fun.
While I preferred static charge distances, the M+2D6 (highest) is pretty acceptable. Coupled with the magic changes, I'm cautiosly optimistic about ToW.
Kalamadea wrote: triple marching be very useful for scenarios too. Games where units need to get off a table edge or into enemy deployment zones would be impacted simply by having it as an option. Calling a game in turn 4 because it's impossible physically move units far enough is never fun.
While I preferred static charge distances, the M+2D6 (highest) is pretty acceptable. Coupled with the magic changes, I'm cautiosly optimistic about ToW.
triple elves are going to be a headache.... 15" a turn is nuts. Let alone cavalry going 24" in one turn. Going to be hard to stop them getting off the board...
Dwarfs though are getting much better charge support, as is the way with the random dice rolling - Max charge of 9" is triple their move, so it's a 50% greater range. the average rolls are going to slow down elves and speed up dwarfs, but only in charging.
Triple moves will speed up the already fast units even more.
The Phazer wrote: So the charge model is more or less the same as WAP?
That strikes me as the best way to keep everyone happy personally.
Edit: It won't work, obviously, but it seems like a reasonable compromise between the two positions - the randomness is significantly reduced without going back to "charges will always succeed if you're good at eying distances."
Agreed. It allows enough randomness to prevent the ol' quarter-inch shuffle that plagued so many of my games in the past.
The second step is to actually make your Charge Moves. To establish the range of their charge, units roll two dice, pick the highest score from the two and add it to their Movement characteristic. This means a unit of Skeleton Warriors has a charge range of between 5” and 10”, but Bretonnian Knights are rather more dangerous – their Swiftstride special rule adds an extra d6” to every charge they make.
Judging from the article, swiftstride is either a cavalry specific rule or a Bretonnian cav specific rule. I have to imagine it's the latter since that rule was not in 6th nor 7th IIRC and it was for all cavalry, and it's the same as here (just worded differently). Wonder if Bretonnia's Purebreed special rule still stands tho.
Anyway, all looks to be in order; I'm not so sure about the Lance Formation actually forming the wedge, I'm not certain it'd make that big of a difference in the movement phase; one thought is that the wedge indicates that the unit is in the Lance Formation instead of marching formation, which may be confused with the lance as done in 6th edition (3 files wide only). It'd be interesting to me to see how the lance formation will behave in melee though; also what happens if the unit is charged while in the Lance.
I'm also assuming the Marching Order formation will be at an disadvantage in melee, in that only the first rank gets supporting attacks and the flanks don't, besides the combat resolution penalties.
5 'man' unit goblin wolf riders in column 1 model wide and 5 ranks deep moving 27 inches up the table edge, reforming and turning 90 degrees turn 2, to be ready for a turn 3 rear or flank charge of 18 inches to the enemy.... glorious.
Hellebore wrote:Dwarfs though are getting much better charge support, as is the way with the random dice rolling - Max charge of 9" is triple their move, so it's a 50% greater range. the average rolls are going to slow down elves and speed up dwarfs, but only in charging.
Which feels wrong on every level and why I will not be playing this game. My plus column is that minis will be coming back out. GW will get my money in that respect which means it'll endorse a ruleset I don't endorse, but I had to swallow that pill buying AOS branded WFB models anyway, so I can live with it.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: 5 'man' unit goblin wolf riders in column 1 model wide and 5 ranks deep moving 27 inches up the table edge, reforming and turning 90 degrees turn 2, to be ready for a turn 3 rear or flank charge of 18 inches to the enemy.... glorious.
Secret tip - Overcome these gameplay hacks by... Not playing with WAAC numpties.
yeah, don't actually use the rules, just line up everything, move it straight forward and start complaining how your hammer units cannot kill the anvil units in a frontal charge without support
(as people also suggest for AoS instead of trying to actually use movement tactics)
light cavalry getting behind the line and having something in the back to catch them is an essential part of any melee heavy game
this is not an issue at all as if a 5 model light cavalry unit can overrun your army, you have done something wrong (and it is neither the opponent being WAAC nor the fault of the rules)
what is a problem, that the random charges are too still too swingy in addition to have the disadvantage of fixed ranges
Infantry is doing 5-10", standard cavalry 9-14" and swift cavakry 10-20"
so instead of placing your cavalry 8,01" away from infantry to get the charge without being charge, you now just do 10,01" and your opponent hoping for you to roll a double/triple 1.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: 5 'man' unit goblin wolf riders in column 1 model wide and 5 ranks deep moving 27 inches up the table edge, reforming and turning 90 degrees turn 2, to be ready for a turn 3 rear or flank charge of 18 inches to the enemy.... glorious.
Secret tip - Overcome these gameplay hacks by... Not playing with WAAC numpties.
What is exactly WAACy hacky about it? I know we are far from complete rules which may have a lot of things that disallow this (like "no free reform after march" for example), but so far it seems perfectly legal, fair and very fast cavalry-like. And not that different to what we had in 6th (move further but subsequent charge shorter and unreliable)
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: 5 'man' unit goblin wolf riders in column 1 model wide and 5 ranks deep moving 27 inches up the table edge, reforming and turning 90 degrees turn 2, to be ready for a turn 3 rear or flank charge of 18 inches to the enemy.... glorious.
Secret tip - Overcome these gameplay hacks by... Not playing with WAAC numpties.
What is exactly WAACy hacky about it? I know we are far from complete rules which may have a lot of things that disallow this (like "no free reform after march" for example), but so far it seems perfectly legal, fair and very fast cavalry-like. And not that different to what we had in 6th (move further but subsequent charge shorter and unreliable)
Remind me what was the average profile of a wolfrider?
Because as memory serves the only thing going for them was the outflanking and the wolfs and that wasn't a lot.
In that scenario i'd be more concerned about barbarian cav, but even with these a semi competent deployment will shut that move down instantly atleast until you managed to break a block to roll up a flank.
Wolf riders, just like every fast cavalry was absolutely crucial in 6th, not because of sheer stats, but incredible utility. Who won the battle of support, won the game almost every time.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: 5 'man' unit goblin wolf riders in column 1 model wide and 5 ranks deep moving 27 inches up the table edge, reforming and turning 90 degrees turn 2, to be ready for a turn 3 rear or flank charge of 18 inches to the enemy.... glorious.
So fast cavalry used well. If your opponent can't find a way to stop a unit of 5 light cavalry models getting in your flank/rear in 2-3 turns than it's not a rules problem. The rules previewed are looking good. Already a lot better than I expected!
RustyNumber wrote: I took the implication to be you could do it with multiple tiny units, a "homing missile" system against war machines and small ranged units
Which is exactly what light cav should be doing - harressing missiles and war machines.
RustyNumber wrote: I took the implication to be you could do it with multiple tiny units, a "homing missile" system against war machines and small ranged units
Unlikely because warmachines are behind the line and a decent volley of any missile unit of factions with warmachines is bound to send the gobbos packing.
Unless we are talking about chaos warriors, in which case the cannon itself will eat the gobbos, or the barbarian cav will. And basically all chaos warriors armies require barbarian cav due to the gaping hole of the roster in order to counter skirms, side charge/support monsters and as cheap shock cav.
Primarily if you get through and charge a bolttrhower etc, then you either broke the enemies line already, in which it would be more usefull to side charge an enemy unit with them to roll up the enemy army or your opponent failed in deployment and positioning/ forgot to keep reserves to plug ranks.
Either Way is indicative of either good play on the goblins side or mistakes on the opponents side. Both of which however highlight the role light cav plays.
kodos wrote: So using the movement phase to get an advantage is WAAC I can see now why people don't like certain games/Editions
kodos wrote: yeah, don't actually use the rules, just line up everything, move it straight forward and start complaining how your hammer units cannot kill the anvil units in a frontal charge without support
(as people also suggest for AoS instead of trying to actually use movement tactics)
light cavalry getting behind the line and having something in the back to catch them is an essential part of any melee heavy game
this is not an issue at all as if a 5 model light cavalry unit can overrun your army, you have done something wrong (and it is neither the opponent being WAAC nor the fault of the rules)
.
Yes, such attitude seems to exist. Interestingly I've only learned that people play like that (using only the most basic part of the toolbox) recently, thanks to YT video battle reports.
I am wondering if playstyle affects this perception. For example recently I've been surprised to watch some of the 6th edition reports from this channel
and, boy, if you played WFB like that no wonder your opponent having a few inches of charge range advantage made all the difference! To copy my comment from underneath this report:
I have watched a few of these reports already, and the saturation of player agency, interesting, meaningful and non-obvious decisions per unit of gameplay time (or per page of rules) seems abysmal. These blocks just get shuffled forward until they meet what was deployed directly across the battlefield from them and then totally random combat Yhatzee gives some result which tips balance in favour of one of the sides...
My memory tells me that the game was far more strategic than that. Or maybe it's the fact that for some reason you don't use a lot of sacrificial units, especially fast cavalry which can redirect these expensive blocks at unfavourable angles. I remember always playing with 3 min. Wolf Rider units in O&G, 3 min. units of Warhounds inChaos, 3 min. Dire Wolves in Vampires etc. Can't imagine just having nothing to throw away to delay this Black Knight Bus for a turn (or to toy with those Khorne Knights all newbies erroneously thought were awesome because stats ;D)!
I remember using your shooting, magic and support units to kill enemy support units, because with more sacrificial support than your opponent you could control their movement (by baiting or redirecting, or taking a charge and overrun into an anvil and countercharging in a flank). With so little support it really feels like blocks shuffling forward and dice deciding everything...simple, shallow gameplay not justifying dozens of pages of rules and 2+ hours spent doing it.
Johanxp wrote: So when we give certain orders we have to change the shape of units by moving the necessary miniatures, one by one? So movement trays become useless?
If so... It sounds tedious.
Changing formation was always a thing in fb. You expected aos like rules?
Please, do not provoke. I play Kow and Conquest, two great ruleset, modern and streamlined but not as silly as Aos. This ruleset smell old.
As an Oldhammer player I like a lot of what I see here.
Open formation was used by beast herds and is in the Ancients battle rules. It usually results in a compromise between skirmish and closed order. Better movement through terrain but only getting a +1 or +2 max rank bonus.
The big thing I saw was counter charge as an optional reaction to being charged. This also was in Ancient battles and quite an interesting change for the game. I would like for all troops to be able to counter charge unless the enemy was several inches faster. I think in Ancients it allowed for cavalry to counter charge only. Many other ancients rules sets allow for infantry to charge each other, although there is little incentive unless they add infantry charge bonuses. In 3rd edition charging units added +1 to the "to hit" roll. So both sides doing this would make for a bloody first round. 2 units of cavalry armed with lances charging would make for a pretty nasty first turn of combat also even without the to hit bonus.
Keep an eye on the combat rules and see if they change "rank bonus" to "infantry rank bonus". That is something really needed.
Movement trays are not a big deal. Put your unit on 2-3 smaller trays to allow for different formations.
The lance formation was called wedge in 3rd edition and usable by any troops. It allowed a unit to attempt to pass through the enemy and emerge from the other side. Very handy if faced with a single rank of enemy troops. I doubt they will bring back that gloriously epic rule from 3rd but one can only hope.
While they are at it perhaps they can bring back the square formation. A hollow block with troops facing in all directions. It can not move but can not be pushed back.
As a true oldhammer fan and player of many years this is getting me interested again.
Johanxp wrote: So when we give certain orders we have to change the shape of units by moving the necessary miniatures, one by one? So movement trays become useless?
If so... It sounds tedious.
Changing formation was always a thing in fb. You expected aos like rules?
Please, do not provoke. I play Kow and Conquest, two great ruleset, modern and streamlined but not as silly as Aos. This ruleset smell old.
Mind you that it's been known for quite a while that GW's stated goal was to make The Old World a mashup of 3rd to 8th ed Fantasy. There may be some streamlining where you may glimpse more modern sensibilities, but the mission statement was to make a game with recognizable, existing mechanics to play on people's nostalgia.
Provided you didn't somehow miss this, there was precious little doubt that The Old World would be based on individual models moving in formation, rather than unchanging blocks.
RustyNumber wrote: I took the implication to be you could do it with multiple tiny units, a "homing missile" system against war machines and small ranged units
Which is exactly what light cav should be doing - harressing missiles and war machines.
And getting all hacked and mangled by a Cheeky Chariot!
Though the range of the charge for the Wolf Riders above is off. Max charge reach is 15”.
And five of them flanking a unit unsupported probably isn’t going to achieve a great deal. I’ll still have a static res of +2 from Banner and (presumably until further notice) Outnumber. And that’s assuming enough of the fleabags survive to strip my ranks
The overall point still stands though. Anyone not reacting to such a fast moving flanking unit is asking for a kicking, and shouldn’t complain when they get on.
Though I think I’d use such raw speed to start tackling enemy artillery nice and quickly.
Also, am I going bonkers or did Fast Cavalry used to have a special rule to aid with reforming the unit swiftly? I no longer have any WHFB rulebooks so can only stick to my crap memory. I think it involved a Musician and passing a Ld test.
I'm cautiously optimistic here, this reads as if movement and formations are going to matter, however there is one possible speed bump - the scenarios.
Specifically game length, if we are on a five turn, or worse a four turn, game then the time taken to change formations its perhaps a large penalty (assuming it is a time to change, if could be something you do at the end of movement - as in can deploy in a march column, move, then reform, maybe with Ld check - don't know as yet)
bringing in the ability to reform on an Ld check and move, or if failed you reform but cannot move could be interesting.
also reduced charge ranges is good as it gives space to move and hopefully removes the "terror bomb" charges, or at least kerbs it.
Will be interested in seeing the price and contents, in theory I have Bretonnia ready to go now and don't really need more, depending on what the skellies side gets they could be good though
I do get where you’re coming from. But stuff like Marching Order strikes me as an opportunity to take the overall shape of your battle line away from “well, it’s setup or nuffink”
It’ll take a bit of getting used to, and more to get really good with it. But a wily opponent may end up with the opportunity to setup up with false weakness, using Marching Order etc to spring their trap?
I’m not describing this well, but hopefully you can get the gist of my wibblings.
It’s not been part of the game for yonks, but up until at least…I wanna say 5th Ed? A unit that could Fly could be removed from the board one turn, and charge *anything* the turn after.
Suffice to say this was incredibly powerful, and if I had say, a couple of units of Harpies, I could reliably be destroying your artillery from no later than turn two. And if I’d gone first, I guess enjoy your single solitary barrage before I’ve minced or otherwise tied up your crew.
Oh, and if incredibly hazy memory serves, there was a single Magic Arrow which could target stuff Flying High. Might’ve been a spell or two as well?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oh, and if incredibly hazy memory serves, there was a single Magic Arrow which could target stuff Flying High.
Yeah, Sky Arrow of Naloer. Or Naoler. Something like that. Was perhaps a bit of a gotcha card, but quite funny.
I wouldn't expect Fly High to come back though.
On the whole light cav thing - from memory the issue was better units. Dark Riders were incredibly annoying due to running around shooting things - and then representing a reasonable flank attack (elf+spear+horse) in a way that a goblin kind of wasn't. Kill 2 goblins, and they are facing a LD6 break test. Unsurprisingly failed a lot and ran off the board.
Dire Wolves were annoying because they had to be wiped to the last wolf. Flesh Hounds could eat lighter units.
Johanxp wrote: Please, do not provoke. I play Kow and Conquest, two great ruleset, modern and streamlined but not as silly as Aos. This ruleset smell old.
Well, folks who want top tier streamlined rulesets already moved on to those two long ago. It's best for everyone if TOW does not try to copy those two but services folks who want a GW styled ruleset.
Mr_Rose wrote: I missed lapping round a bunch when it disappeared from 7th edition – I hope it’s back.
That’s something I never used myself. But then, playing Chaos I rarely had the infantry to spare, so would rather keep my rank bonus than spend a couple of turns trying to negate yours.
Plus there wasn’t a great deal of stuff that could stand against Chaos Warriors on the charge!
Two simple things to make Fly High less broken: restrict the maximum armour save to 5+ (too heavy for liftoff) and require a leadership test to return.
The first one locks out true combat monster characters and the second means you have to be careful with throw-away skirmishing flyer units like harpies.
Mr_Rose wrote: I missed lapping round a bunch when it disappeared from 7th edition – I hope it’s back.
That’s something I never used myself. But then, playing Chaos I rarely had the infantry to spare, so would rather keep my rank bonus than spend a couple of turns trying to negate yours.
Plus there wasn’t a great deal of stuff that could stand against Chaos Warriors on the charge!
But that’s why it was great for goblins; you always had an extra rank or two to pull the flankers from so you didn’t have to lose static CR.
I do miss when Zombies lapped round more or less regardless. Of course, I think that was the same time that if they lost the combat, the whole unit was removed?
kodos wrote: So using the movement phase to get an advantage is WAAC I can see now why people don't like certain games/Editions
Waac and That Guy are abused a lot as terms. I was called a waac guy for playing a completely normal MH warband at 1000gc last year, and That Guy in a 40k game where I didnt dispute a single rule but let the other chump get away with a ton of gak, especially the ghost inch in movement. They used to call players like me This Guy. Can only imagine people havent run into people on the spectrum with no socialization at the games tables, but have plenty of vocabulary about it, eager to use.
The random charge, not so random with 2d6 pick highest, is chefs kiss perfect in my eyes. Couldnt ask for a better solution.
Btw. What type of battlefield has fixed charges irl? Mechanisms should come from the irl situation, not just be 8 inches fixed for every unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Lapping around is probably the most pointlessly fiddly concept since killing individual horses from chariots.
I remember buying the 6th rulebook in 2001 and reading those rules over and over again hoping to use it and believing it to be a very decisive mechanic. Haha.
Does the current system mean I can use a 3 front swordsman group with 2 ranks, in TOW? For a total for 6 swordsmen?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: 5 'man' unit goblin wolf riders in column 1 model wide and 5 ranks deep moving 27 inches up the table edge, reforming and turning 90 degrees turn 2, to be ready for a turn 3 rear or flank charge of 18 inches to the enemy.... glorious.
I love it. Like the cavalry in Braveheart when they ride round and gets the archers in that early battle. Arrive mid game, be decisive in mid game
The Phazer wrote: So the charge model is more or less the same as WAP?
That strikes me as the best way to keep everyone happy personally.
Edit: It won't work, obviously, but it seems like a reasonable compromise between the two positions - the randomness is significantly reduced without going back to "charges will always succeed if you're good at eying distances."
Agreed. It allows enough randomness to prevent the ol' quarter-inch shuffle that plagued so many of my games in the past.
Exactly. My stomach hurts when I think of the hours wasted looking at some fellow grognard wheezing over the table shuffling shuffling shuffling.
kodos wrote: So using the movement phase to get an advantage is WAAC I can see now why people don't like certain games/Editions
Waac and That Guy are abused a lot as terms. I was called a waac guy for playing a completely normal MH warband at 1000gc last year, and That Guy in a 40k game where I didnt dispute a single rule but let the other chump get away with a ton of gak, especially the ghost inch in movement. They used to call players like me This Guy. Can only imagine people havent run into people on the spectrum with no socialization at the games tables, but have plenty of vocabulary about it, eager to use.
I find that when very casual players play against those who are a bit more experienced/serious then you can get a bit of a divide. The super casual/less experienced player can sometimes miss-interpret the other player playing really well as them trying to "Win at all costs" because they are playing it "seriously" as opposed to "just having fun".
What it often just boils down to is different attitudes but also just different levels of game experience and skill. Novice vs intermediate/experienced skill is always a tricky matchup because either the novice is going to lose a lot; or the more experienced has to handicap themselves (eg in a wargame take less points) or "play badly". It's different to "seal clubbing" because that is intentional and deliberate targeting of less experienced players. However in smaller social groups or such you can easily end up with so few choices that the novice is playing the experienced more and more times and it can "feel like" seal clubbing if the pro isn't handicapping or if the novice is refusing to learn etc....
IT can also reflect different attitudes; some people really do just want to push models forward; roll dice and see something cool happen without learning the ins and outs of the game at a greater level.
Btw. What type of battlefield has fixed charges irl? Mechanisms should come from the irl situation, not just be 8 inches fixed for every unit.
.
This thread is interesting as it shows how some fallacious ideas never die, despite being debunked a thousand times... I don't really have to write again, just copy-paste...
Ah, the old "but in real life!" fallacy, one would think it's been properly put to sleep by now.
Do you think ever regular march was done at exactly the same range every time? Always in a direction exactly like the one planned? Was every shooting attack at exactly the same range regardless of minor variations in the wind?
You can find a real life excuse to make everything in such a game random. Life is pretty random after all. But for some reason designers don't. Why? Because just sitting there watching the dice being rolled and consulting random tables is a miserable experience that hardly deserves the name "game". Thus certain things are abstracted to offer an interesting intellectual challenge instead of randomapalooza that hardly shows who is the better player and makes better moves.
Do you complain about units in HoMM 3 always going a set number of spaces? What about armies in Imperial 2030 or A Game of Thrones? What about prices of properties in Monopoly? Why doesn't Great Western Trail properly represent the mechanisms of supply and demand if Power Grid or Brass do it?
Exactly as Overread mentions this abstraction can be applied to a different level in different titles. Randomness serves many important purposes in design - for example it evens the playing field between players of varying skill or experience or muddies the perception of imbalance and hides the differences between sloppily playtested options. Randomness is certainly to stay, but to varying degrees in different titles directed at different audiences (for example families who play with kids need heavy randomness not to make the kids lose every time).
Not happy with Brass or Arkwright being decided solely by players' decisions? You can play Monopoly. A Game of Thrones or Imperial too deterministic and player-driven for your taste? You can play Risk.
If using the movement rules correctly and cunningly makes one WAAC or That Guy? Then…erm…surely everyone that’s ever won a game of WHFB ever has been WAAC or That Guy?
Because knowing your onions in the movement phase is how you go about Glorious Victory. That’s when you angle yourself right, setup traps, get on their flank or rear and generally give them a hard time by correctly stacking combat in your favour.
My favourite? My old 2,000 point Dark Elf monster army. Two characters. One a Lord on a Dragon, one a Beastmaster on Manticore. Push one up each flank, and land threatening a unit each.
Turn to face me? And it’s the old switcheroo, as they took advantage of Large Target (can draw LoS over intervening units) and Fly (can move and charge over intervening units) to hit you in the rear. Don’t turn to face, and depending what’s what, each one takes a unit in the flank, or if it looks like a tougher fight, both jump the same unit, one per flank and give it a horrendously one sided kicking.
Some might say “two flying monster am the WAAC”, but keep in mind they gobbled up all my character slots, so I had zero magic whatsoever. An inherent list weakness i offset by….cunning moves and playing to my strengths. And hoping to heck your Cannons weren’t accurate or doing an exist, because those could ruin my day quick.
Random charge distance adds risk management to gameplay, to a risk management game, that is fun, because of risk management. None of this nonesense of so-called "modern game design" has been proven to add to actual enjoyment of game, it serves only to streamline for the sake of streamline, to dumb-down for the sole purpose of dumbing down. A disgusting practice that should have been discarded long ago if not pushed by college graduates filled with impractical ideas they have been taught by those who chose to lock themselves in ivory towers.
I'm glade random charge distance is back, it's called risk management, in a risk management game; things shouldn't be predictable, nothing is, nor should all games be. More dice, for I all care.
Btw. What type of battlefield has fixed charges irl? Mechanisms should come from the irl situation, not just be 8 inches fixed for every unit.
well, the same that allows for fixed march distance
if you want IRL situation, you can but than you have to do it for everything
and random movement is not the place were such rules are added but if you want more "realism" you need more detailed terrain and weather rules and not having 1 thing in the game being random and the others not
otherwise having M+D6 charge but 2xM marching makes no sense because IRL the uneven ground would hinder both
the rule has nothing to do with reality but is there to help newer players against veterans by adding randomness so a veteran cannot run over another player if the dice are not with him
and this is something GW added to all their games one way or anther, not because of reality but to even out player skill
You can call it risk management or weighted decisions, but with high-variance, high-impact rolls like charge range (especially when you want a combined charge to do something) at the end of the day it's just dice arbitrarily punishing one player and rewarding the other for nothing.
And of course +1 to what Mad Doc Grotsnik and Kodos are saying.
The idea that random helps level the playing field is a false impression.
It doesn't.
Levelling the playing skill field would be a random element with a weighted element so that it had a bias to favour the weaker/less experienced/losing player in a situation.
Because there's no weighting attached its a simply neutral element to the game that is neither helping the weaker player win nor hobbling the better player.
Instead what it does is introduce a layer of risk management and random to the game which a better player will account for in their tactics. Indeed random in the right places can even be a hindrance to a newer player because they don't yet know how to judge situations to account for the random.
Eg to stick with charges. An experienced player will know that whilst they can roll 2D6 to get a charge distance and it MIGHT give them 12inches; they know that statistically that is very unlikely to happen.
So they might well not charge until they are within 6 inches because that's a value that they are more likely to get or beat and thus be able to make the charge.
The less experienced player might well declare charges from much further away and put more hope in the dice rolling well for them in a given situation. Because they've not yet learned how to play with probabilities.
Indeed I'd argue that having random makes the game harder for newbies compared to having fixed values. Fixed values give 100% known outcomes each time, every time. So you can quickly and easily learn from them.
Random means that a newbie can shoot a non-anti-tank unit at a tank and kill it on one occasion because of dice rolls on both sides going to the extremes. This might make them then use that unit as an anti-tank unit in the future and it might take many failed situations for them to realise that its not a good anti-tank unit and that they are using them incorrectly .
Minimizing player skill disparity might not be an important consideration. Infinity is set up in a similar way, where the randomness absolutely favours the more experienced player that has most encounter success chances already mapped out, and yet it's not a feature that worsens the game. In practice, cooperation is encouraged to the point that the more experienced player will often advise a new player, treating those underlying maths as open information.
I don't agree with Overread. Randomness has been applied to games on purpose to level the playing field for quite some time. Including things like introducing random critical shot in an FPS game to make newbies win head-on encounters at least sometimes which directly affected the ratings of player experience in said game.
Whether GW does that for this reason, or just to obfuscate the fact that they can't come up with interesting player driven interplay that, for example, makes charges a good idea only sometimes, depending on other factors, is hard to determine.
I also disagree with his example of an experienced player only attempting charges with a high % of success. They will still fail sometimes and it will still feel arbitrary and random and unfair (because it is). But I think the worst thing about it is how it devastates the idea of coordinated attacks. Even with 80% chance of a successful charge if you want/need to perform a multicharge on a target, the probability of two units making it is just 2/3, for three units it's a straight coin toss whether you get what you need into combat and win or you get only some of units into combat and they get slaughtered by a superior enemy that needs to be attacked with coordination from different sides.
The result - nobody bothers with seting up interesting multicharges, bacause even with very good positioning the chances are awful. You give up on challenging positioning to encircle and just build units that can smash into each other head on, because good positioning for a multicharge will get your units killed half of the time for no fault of your own.
Overread wrote: Instead what it does is introduce a layer of risk management and random to the game which a better player will account for in their tactics.
Disagree when it's done to the extremes of a flat 2d6 roll. Example, Deep Strike. The old system with scatter was high skill, requiring weighing your placement options vs odds of scatter distance and directions that might make the unit useless or even DOA. Now you plonk the unit down and then you either roll a 9 or you don't.
Mostly some randomness might favor the weaker player in one off games. But most often over multiple games, especially if in a tournament format, the stronger players will usually be able to take advantage even there since they know how to play around it much better. When they are unlucky they have already prepared for it and when they are lucky they can capitalize on it better.
If the game have enough randomness that can't really be played around much then it might favor the newer players and giving them the off chance that they sometimes can get a win they shouldn't have gotten. Sometimes they will be crushed extra hard though since the more experienced players will be able to take advantage of when the dice are in their favor even better.
If the randomness is off the charts and can have too much of an impact then it doesn't really favor newer players vs experienced players but rather players who don't want to actually play but rather watch random stuff happen. What is the point of playing against someone if the game is just a bunch of random dice rolls you have no control over? Could just as well play solo then.
It is a balancing act. If you have too little randomness in the game it might lead to stand offs or making it so the better players might never lose (depending on game mechanics but the more like chess it is the more favor it is for skilled players) but if it is too much it might not be worth playing. You can have quite a lot of randomness and still have a huge skill factor as long as their are tools to mitigate the bad luck or in some way smooth out the probability curves. Warmachine did have a lot of random rolls that could have a massive impact but it was still a game that massively favored the experienced player over the new one way more than any GW game I have ever played. But there you also had a lot of tools to help you set up favorable situations.
MESBG can look quite random at times but the more you play it the more you see how to mitigate what looks like randomness and set up favorable situations. You might not have much say over who has priority or winning move/combat/duel roll offs but luckily each individual roll is usually not that impactful so you can still play around it and come out on top in the end.
Until I have all the rules and see how they interact I will try to not assume too much on how random certain things in TOW is. It might be way more random than what we think or it might have so many things to mitigate it that they could just as well have used fixed values for charges after all the buffs/spells/abilities have been accounted for.
that is the other problem, the more experienced players are, the better are those by searching ways to midgate randomness and if the faction rules are written in the usual GW style, certain armies will be better at working around them than others and those will be the armies played by veterans because the less random the game is, the better
Overread wrote: The idea that random helps level the playing field is a false impression.
It doesn't.
Depends on the rules, fully random 2D6 charge let players blame the dice if it does not work and not "I did not get the charge because I played wrong"
and I don't think this new, not-so-random, mechanic helps at at all, neither have you fully random stuff that infantry can charge cavalry on a lucky roll if they are not staying outside 12" but you also don't have the security as a double one can still screw you
double 1 is a gimmick, it is there in Kings of War as well and not many people like it but it adds a level of uncertainty that even the perfect plan can fail
yet TOW has that on more than one part of the game, which means more possibilities for the perfect plan to fail which is simply there for people blaming the dice (instead of themselves)
Klickor wrote: Mostly some randomness might favor the weaker player in one off games. But most often over multiple games, especially if in a tournament format, the stronger players will usually be able to take advantage even there since they know how to play around it much better. When they are unlucky they have already prepared for it and when they are lucky they can capitalize on it better.
If the game have enough randomness that can't really be played around much then it might favor the newer players and giving them the off chance that they sometimes can get a win they shouldn't have gotten. Sometimes they will be crushed extra hard though since the more experienced players will be able to take advantage of when the dice are in their favor even better.
If the randomness is off the charts and can have too much of an impact then it doesn't really favor newer players vs experienced players but rather players who don't want to actually play but rather watch random stuff happen. What is the point of playing against someone if the game is just a bunch of random dice rolls you have no control over? Could just as well play solo then.
It is a balancing act. If you have too little randomness in the game it might lead to stand offs or making it so the better players might never lose (depending on game mechanics but the more like chess it is the more favor it is for skilled players) but if it is too much it might not be worth playing. You can have quite a lot of randomness and still have a huge skill factor as long as their are tools to mitigate the bad luck or in some way smooth out the probability curves. Warmachine did have a lot of random rolls that could have a massive impact but it was still a game that massively favored the experienced player over the new one way more than any GW game I have ever played. But there you also had a lot of tools to help you set up favorable situations.
FWIW, 2D6-pick-highest-plus-Move is really not all that random to begin with. For Move 4", the chances of success are:
5"- Auto
6"- 97%
7"- 89%
8"- 75%
9"- 56%
10"- 31%
So the difference between your absolute maximum charge range and a 75% chance of success is all of two inches. Get one inch closer than that and the odds are better than rolling a 2+ on one die. This is largely mitigable randomness, which cannot be said for any of the random mechanics where the player has no ability to improve the roll, like leadership tests or rolls to-hit.
Every once in a while you're still going to flub it- but a decent player doesn't plan their wargame strategy around the assumption that all their 2+ rolls will succeed. And if there are any mechanisms to re-roll the dice, that will certainly take the sting out of the occasional snake eyes.
2d6, pick highest + Movement for charge is…fine for me. Genuinely.
It not only causes me to consider how close I want to get to enemy lines, but if I’m the aggressor, what’s my plan in case I whiff the roll. So for me, it adds to the overall considerations in play.
I really don't think GW designers sully themselves by thinking about "skill".
The issue with randomness is less about stronger/weaker players - its about stopping the scenario of "this always happens".
My Elves/Skaven/all Cav army *always* getting to charge your Humans/Orcs/Skeletons is kind of dull. Especially if the charge is a major-deciding factor of who wins or loses.
Now you can say "as the Elf/Skaven/all Cav army" that its very skillful on my part that I can deploy to always ensure I get to charge and don't get charged. But the point is my opponent - due to inferior M" - has no choice. They can only hope that I can't judge a few inches. (In reality, the solution is to ditch M4" infantry units).
Its like this from Grotsnik above:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Turn to face me? And it’s the old switcheroo, as they took advantage of Large Target (can draw LoS over intervening units) and Fly (can move and charge over intervening units) to hit you in the rear. Don’t turn to face, and depending what’s what, each one takes a unit in the flank, or if it looks like a tougher fight, both jump the same unit, one per flank and give it a horrendously one sided kicking.
This isn't "WAAC" in my view - but fly monsters jumping around units is exploiting kind of awful rules, that have been awful a long time. You are getting to do something - and your opponent can't really do anything about it. Its often I think been argued that the solution should have been allowing reforms and "short charges" - possibly by a musician or something - to avoid this dancing out of charge arcs while being theoretically just meters away. But I don't think that's happening - or at least not from the rules we've seen.
In my experience, the biggest downside in fixed charge ranges is that it puts off new players. Unless they're savants as distance judgement, they'll fail charges left and right while their opponent miraculously closes every single time. It's feel-bad, and there's no real way to advise someone on how to better judge distances other than get better eyes.
With random distances and pre-measuring, an opponent can at least advise a newbie by telling them the chances of each success, and the odd fail on the part of the veteran can makes things not seem so stacked against the newcomer.
M+2D6 discard lowest for infantry does not change much and there is no real benefit from having it
M+D6+2D6 discard lowest, is on the level of 8th and means units with this rule have large advantage
so my general problem is that there is no real gain in doing it other than trying to please the fans of 8th Edition without being too much for fans of older Editions
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shakalooloo wrote: In my experience, the biggest downside in fixed charge ranges is that it puts off new players. Unless they're savants as distance judgement, they'll fail charges left and right while their opponent miraculously closes every single time. It's feel-bad, and there's no real way to advise someone on how to better judge distances other than get better eyes.
With random distances and pre-measuring, an opponent can at least advise a newbie by telling them the chances of each success, and the odd fail on the part of the veteran can makes things not seem so stacked against the newcomer.
why is it that the only possibility is fixed ranges and no measurements or random ranges + measurement
not like any other game has fixed ranges+measurement and it works fine
My Elves/Skaven/all Cav army *always* getting to charge your Humans/Orcs/Skeletons is kind of dull. Especially if the charge is a major-deciding factor of who wins or loses.
.
The thing is, in a more player-driven game, factors such as use of skirmishers or fast cav or magic or terrain or scenario or special rules etc can absolutely mean that faster units *not always* get to charge - for example because they would abandon the objective or because they are cavalry and opposing infantry uses defensive positions in a forest where cavalry is crap or because they risk being stranded by enemy fleeing as a charge reaction or because a mage put a LOS blocking cloud or a patch of difficult terrain in their way etc etc. Options are infinite and infinitely more interesting than "let's roll and let the game play itself".
My Elves/Skaven/all Cav army *always* getting to charge your Humans/Orcs/Skeletons is kind of dull. Especially if the charge is a major-deciding factor of who wins or loses.
.
The thing is, in a more player-driven game, factors such as use of skirmishers or fast cav or magic or terrain or scenario or special rules etc can absolutely mean that faster units *not always* get to charge - for example because they would abandon the objective or because they are cavalry and opposing infantry uses defensive positions in a forest where cavalry is crap or because they risk being stranded by enemy fleeing as a charge reaction or because a mage put a LOS blocking cloud or a patch of difficult terrain in their way etc etc. Options are infinite and infinitely more interesting than "let's roll and let the game play itself".
Stop with your sound arguments of good game design.
That‘s not something most players of GW games are used to and only confuses them.
Btw, why are we still talking about random vs fixed charge ranges?
The desicion for TOW was made and we will have to live with it if we want to play by its rules.
Much more interesting is how important getting the charge will be, how this ability is accounted for in the unit‘s price and what options for counterplay there is outside of rolling better than your opponent.
Cyel wrote: Options are infinite and infinitely more interesting than "let's roll and let the game play itself".
This hyperbole is silly. Rolling to hit, rolling for damage, rolling for leadership, rolling for magic, rolling for anything else in the game- those are all taken for granted, it's a dice-based wargame. But rolling for charge distance? Suddenly your player agency evaporates in a puff of smoke, helpless to influence anything occurring on the board, a mere spectator to a game that plays itself. All because one more mechanic is (somewhat) randomized too.
Even some of the options you listed, like the enemy fleeing as a charge reaction or a mage casting a spell to place a LOS blocking cloud, are player decisions that have uncertain outcomes determined by dice. Why not complain about how you have no options and the game plays itself because you have to roll for those? It's fundamentally no different from the decision of where to position your troops and the ensuing dice rolls that will determine if they successfully make it into combat or not. You have options. You don't have guarantees.
A wargame doesn't have to be purely deterministic for your choices to matter. There are some out there, but GW doesn't make them and never has. Neither is randomness automatically a good thing. It all depends on the implementation, as with anything else.
the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"
as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"
It's very cool to see some deep and respectful debate on the movement question for a change, and it's even pertinent to the thread now thanks to the news article!
I'm glad my Dumb Uneducated Opinion also spawned some talk. I'm only an 8th ed player with only two dozen games under my belt (a long time ago) so any theoryhammer from me is talking out my arse. Fast cav being able to yeet directly into back lines easily just *sounds* unbalanced, when my recollection of moving units to intercept anything other than "in your front arc" always felt clumsy/slow.
leopard wrote: the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"
as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"
If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.
leopard wrote: the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"
as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"
If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.
decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged
leopard wrote: the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"
as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"
If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.
decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged
That would need to be a special 'square' formation rather than an inherent feature of pikes - attacking a pike block in the flank while they're facing forward is pretty effective otherwise.
leopard wrote: the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"
as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"
If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.
decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged
Why on earth would a pike unit treat flanks same as front? Historically, pike blocks were even MORE vulnerable to flanking attacks than other infantry, simply because it was impossible for the 16' pikes to all raise, turn, and lower - and it has to be done nearly simultaneously or pikes get dropped and people DIE - in time to threaten a flanker.
That's why most early modern battles were decided by whose cavalry won the flank battle, and restrained from pursuing fleeing cavalry so they could turn and flank the pike blocks.
there was a reason pike units got attachments of swordsman to protect the flanks or counter charge into flanks of other pike units in melee (for the big blocks, some other nations came up with the idea of using multiple small blocks instead)
leopard wrote: the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"
as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"
If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.
decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged
Why on earth would a pike unit treat flanks same as front? Historically, pike blocks were even MORE vulnerable to flanking attacks than other infantry, simply because it was impossible for the 16' pikes to all raise, turn, and lower - and it has to be done nearly simultaneously or pikes get dropped and people DIE - in time to threaten a flanker.
That's why most early modern battles were decided by whose cavalry won the flank battle, and restrained from pursuing fleeing cavalry so they could turn and flank the pike blocks.
Meanwhile the swiss gwalthufe without either arty or cav.
But if gw implements pikes and estalia, alows squares and makes them decent ob the mechanical front then i'd drop my chaos warriors in an instant and join estalia. The urge to poke is strong.
All this flanking talk brings me back very very old memories when you had to guess distances charges and I destroyed my opponent army with an extremely accurate flank charge guess with my chaos knights... massacre! Not sure what edition it was.
NAVARRO wrote: All this flanking talk brings me back very very old memories when you had to guess distances charges and I destroyed my opponent army with an extremely accurate flank charge guess with my chaos knights... massacre! Not sure what edition it was.
Chaos knights were often a class for themselves, especially with lances.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
There is another very easy partial solution to that: like in Warmaster and many other wargames, LoS is 180º full frontal (i.e. not 45º degree to each side from the front).
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
There is another very easy partial solution to that: like in Warmaster and many other wargames, LoS is 180º full frontal (i.e. not 45º degree to each side from the front).
Oh man, thats such a simple solution. Chefs kiss again.
I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.
LOS is 360. Someone in the rear is going to spot an enemy moving past and shout about it.
In 3rd edition, a unit could conduct maneuvers as part of the charge.
There were penalties and restrictions within 4" of the enemy. but you could do a right face, redress ranks, and charge.
If you failed a maneuver test or attempted one in close proximity during a charge your charging unit was unformed in the first round.
Being unformed meant a loss of all charge bonuses and if you lost the first round of combat you auto-break. Not a really good situation to be in but a risk worth taking in some situations.
There was no pre-measuring and the result of a failed charge was the unit making a double move and being unformed. Usually just short of the intended target.
3rd edition was my favorite in spite of the odd bits. I listened to an interview with Rick Priestly and he commented about that version and how he thought it was too complex. He seemed to have less of a roll in making 3rd edition than he did in later versions.
Darkial wrote: I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.
Ooooh no! Nope nope nope!
The whole point of turning your flank is the reward given by the game mechanics. If I’ve manoeuvred cleverly, then you should be punished for not seeing it coming. Being deft with large, ponderous blocks of infantry is a huge part of the skill required for the game.
It would also make Fast Cavalry pretty crap. Typically you don’t see them in large units. They’re there to harass and distract, and if you’re lucky run over Artillery, Lone characters, or come in with a rear charge assist to really swing a combat. And of course, chase down already fleeing units if you’d prefer to maintain your overall battle line (pursing in isolation can lead to the victorious unit out of position with its own flanks exposed). Allowing big blocks to easily counter Fast Cavalry entirely defeats the point of Fast Cavalry.
Darkial wrote: I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.
You had to overcharge, then move. Then you lost ground in the wheel, and by then you were trapped, if it was an infantry unit. In Cav charges, it was a tactic to overshoot the charge, then wheel into the enemy unit's flank. Two or more ranks it was a good deal. One, it was suicide.
Once again I agree with MDGrotsnik. I don't like such "solutions on a stick" like proposed sideward/backward charges. You got outflanked, suffer the consequences!
Good moves should be rewarded, bad moves should be punished with no artificially created "out of jail" cards to compensate for mistakes (that's why I really hated the Insane Courage rule when it was introduced in 7th)
I actually think that the more opportunities for making mistakes (and exploiting opponent's mistakes) the better the game (any game), as there are more instances when the difference between someone playing better and the one playing worse can manifest.
but steep learning curves are bad and cause new players to quit the game in frustration because experienced players take advantage of their mistakes and grind them into sand. /s
Darkial wrote: I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.
Ooooh no! Nope nope nope!
The whole point of turning your flank is the reward given by the game mechanics. If I’ve manoeuvred cleverly, then you should be punished for not seeing it coming. Being deft with large, ponderous blocks of infantry is a huge part of the skill required for the game.
It would also make Fast Cavalry pretty crap. Typically you don’t see them in large units. They’re there to harass and distract, and if you’re lucky run over Artillery, Lone characters, or come in with a rear charge assist to really swing a combat. And of course, chase down already fleeing units if you’d prefer to maintain your overall battle line (pursing in isolation can lead to the victorious unit out of position with its own flanks exposed). Allowing big blocks to easily counter Fast Cavalry entirely defeats the point of Fast Cavalry.
I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.
What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.
chaos0xomega wrote: but steep learning curves are bad and cause new players to quit the game in frustration because experienced players take advantage of their mistakes and grind them into sand. /s
Honestly a huge huge amount of this depends not on the game but on the players and their attitudes. It also depends on the company too. If the rules are well presented and easily read and there are lots of official guides and tactical tips and such then even a complex game can be very popular.
The issues come when you've local player groups that are hyper competitive and not friendly; when there's a big generational gap between newbies and experienced (ergo no to little intermediate group) and when the parent company hasn't formatted the rules well and/or doesn't produce much guide material in addition.
GW gets around a few of them even if their writing isn't top rate. They could still fall down ,but the bonus is it would more likely be one game not many. Plus as they are targeting more experienced old-school players with this game they can likely accept that the players have played a wargame before and do know at least the basics.
leopard wrote: the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"
as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.
point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight
likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"
If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.
decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged
Why on earth would a pike unit treat flanks same as front? Historically, pike blocks were even MORE vulnerable to flanking attacks than other infantry, simply because it was impossible for the 16' pikes to all raise, turn, and lower - and it has to be done nearly simultaneously or pikes get dropped and people DIE - in time to threaten a flanker.
That's why most early modern battles were decided by whose cavalry won the flank battle, and restrained from pursuing fleeing cavalry so they could turn and flank the pike blocks.
there certainly were pike units (think Swiss and a few others) who were trained to be able to present spikes to the flanks if required - wasn't the full force for a push of pike, but it was enough to keep cavalry away
there certainly were pike units (think Swiss and a few others) who were trained to be able to present spikes to the flanks if required - wasn't the full force for a push of pike, but it was enough to keep cavalry away
It's called 'form square', and yes, two or three ranks of pike face every direction. Not changing front to back or side at a moment's notice.
There would probably have to be a fairly high minimum unit size to make it useful. No point in having 'fight in three ranks' and you only have one or two facing that direction. It's an immobile formation as well, as there's no practical way to march sideways. Good for sitting on and defending an objective, not so good for advancing to take one.
Still, I wouldn't be upset if some sort of 'form square' mechanic was introduced into the game. The trick is doing it without making Dwarf Oathstone players feel they've been gypped out of something special.
and the 360° pike formation was not very mobile, hence it was countered by light cavalry with guns doing hit and run attacks
which again was countered by using gun formations as main weapons and the pikes were just there to protect the flanks
forming squares came up with the bajonett, when gun and spear were combined and the gun formation was their own flank protection against cavalry
yet the point is, the units never did those things on their own or was it ever possible to do it as an emergency solution
if the opponent was in charge range, it was too late to start changing formation and it was always ordered from the commanders and never done by the soldiers on their own
hence it is on the player to change the formation to face the biggest threat and not on the game to add fail safe mechanics for not getting outplayed
decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged
Sorry, what?
That's not how pike formations worked at all.
Historical pike formations were very strong to the front, but had exceptionally vulnerable on the flanks.
and the 360° pike formation was not very mobile, hence it was countered by light cavalry with guns doing hit and run attacks
which again was countered by using gun formations as main weapons and the pikes were just there to protect the flanks
forming squares came up with the bajonett, when gun and spear were combined and the gun formation was their own flank protection against cavalry
yet the point is, the units never did those things on their own or was it ever possible to do it as an emergency solution
if the opponent was in charge range, it was too late to start changing formation and it was always ordered from the commanders and never done by the soldiers on their own
hence it is on the player to change the formation to face the biggest threat and not on the game to add fail safe mechanics for not getting outplayed
but should at least be possible. make positioning matter, make protecting flanks matter. in effect make "I six dice this!" no longer the key to winning and make a lot of the nastier cavalry a bit harder to control once it starts moving - there are a lot of historical games that get all this sort of thing right that could quite easily be drawn from here
Geifer wrote: I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.
What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.
This would be my issue. I'm not sure how anyone can be under the illusion that this is skilful.
Geifer wrote: I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.
What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.
This would be my issue. I'm not sure how anyone can be under the illusion that this is skilful.
I dont disagree here but I think you identify the problematic thing wrong. The problem is the fast and maneuverable single character having too much freedom of movement coupled with disproportionate impact on a unit, not the unit being unable to charge backwards.
I think the rule of thumb in such asymmetric game design should be that the ease of use of a game element should be in inverse proportion to its power.
But should at least be possible. make positioning matter, make protecting flanks matter. in effect make "I six dice this!" no longer the key to winning and make a lot of the nastier cavalry a bit harder to control once it starts moving - there are a lot of historical games that get all this sort of thing right that could quite easily be drawn from here
I would also prefer that, but it's not the aim here.
The main take away from (especially) the most recent article, for me, is:
Warhammer the Old World will be like playing WHFB as it had been. It can't be exactly like all the editions at once, but it looks like it will have the same general feel and mindset.
GW looks to be playing it safe and giving the fans of Warhammer what they want.
How well they're doing that is another matter that I am not in a position to comment on because I am not a nostalgic Warhammer veteran or fan.
These movement rules (and hero phase rules) look like a lot of rules, fussing about and keeping track of details with questionable impact on the game or the experience of playing it.
It put me off Warhammer back in the day and it will put me off The Old World.
That doesn't make The Old World bad or wrong though just not the game for me (again), which makes my preferences irrelevant.
I will be playing other games with less fussing about (the names of which are off topic) while the people who actually want this thing and will (hopefully) enjoy it.
I think from what they have published so far its a bit like Horus Heresy, take an older version of the rules and evolve them a bit while keeping the same feeling. I'm hopeful that as with HH they get the mix about right
blocks moving and wheeling was always a key part of how the rank & file stuff worked, it worked better with four models wide than five models wide.
the new march column I think also is a good idea so long as changing formation doesn't take an entire turn except for garbage quality troops when frankly it should as they really should not be as flexible as well drilled troops.
if they fix the worst of 8th, while taking the best of earlier I think it could be a worthwhile game, the signs so far is at least those behind it appear to actually want it to be a good game
Darkial wrote: I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.
Ooooh no! Nope nope nope!
The whole point of turning your flank is the reward given by the game mechanics. If I’ve manoeuvred cleverly, then you should be punished for not seeing it coming. Being deft with large, ponderous blocks of infantry is a huge part of the skill required for the game.
It would also make Fast Cavalry pretty crap. Typically you don’t see them in large units. They’re there to harass and distract, and if you’re lucky run over Artillery, Lone characters, or come in with a rear charge assist to really swing a combat. And of course, chase down already fleeing units if you’d prefer to maintain your overall battle line (pursing in isolation can lead to the victorious unit out of position with its own flanks exposed). Allowing big blocks to easily counter Fast Cavalry entirely defeats the point of Fast Cavalry.
I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.
What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.
Yet with Fly, he’d have been able to do that from…pretty much any position, range of his Magic Missile allowing. At least if memory serves, him being there wouldn’t have prevented that unit from Marching. And being on his Jack Jones, he’s not exactly in a particularly safe position. Against my Dark Elves? I can send Harpies after him, maybe a unit of Shades or Dark Riders. Or just pick him off with ranged units, because a lone character, especially a squishy caster is a nice wee target, regardless of the additional -1 to hit. Just two wounds and that’s him dealt with, and a decent slice of VP’s in my piggy bank.
It’s also a super niche occurrence, given single infantry models that could Fly were rare, and indeed required a Magic Item. Unless they were a Vampire. And you’re still paying points for that character model, more so if they’re a caster, with all the risks of me deciding “okay dokey skip, 20 Repeater Crossbow Bolts coming right up!”
And that’s been Warhammer ever since I’ve been playing (4th Ed). You let enemies get behind your lines, and they’ve outplayed you. If I’ve not allowed for any countermeasure to units marauding behind my lines? That’s entirely on me. If I have? Thanks for the VPs and sacrificing one of your precious character slots. Both treats are much appreciated.
ingtaer wrote: The next person who drags this thread off topic is getting a month off from the site, I am sick to the back teeth of it. Seriously, Stop it.
If you're going to bring out the big red font and start threatening time-out, can you actually tell us which of the like five distinct topics on the past two pages is/are considered off-topic?
Otherwise I don't know what you really expect here.
Who thinks the charging strikes first rule will be there?
Also, I would love to see the 5th ed era of dragon profiles. As much as I liked the 6th ed design philosophy, they were really conservative on profiles.
Pretty much nothing was greater than T6 - war machines excepted of course.
Having the 6/4+ etc to wound capability would allow for greater Toughness values.
So you don't have carnosaurs with T5, the same as the oldblood riding it...
Hellebore wrote: Who thinks the charging strikes first rule will be there?
Also, I would love to see the 5th ed era of dragon profiles. As much as I liked the 6th ed design philosophy, they were really conservative on profiles.
Pretty much nothing was greater than T6 - war machines excepted of course.
Having the 6/4+ etc to wound capability would allow for greater Toughness values.
So you don't have carnosaurs with T5, the same as the oldblood riding it...
I'm okay with a somewhat conservative approach, depending on what else is going on. The friend who got me into Warhammer used to tell stories about when his Wood Elves could shoot into combat involving a T7 Treeman risk-free as their arrows couldn't hurt it.
Hellebore wrote: Who thinks the charging strikes first rule will be there?
Also, I would love to see the 5th ed era of dragon profiles. As much as I liked the 6th ed design philosophy, they were really conservative on profiles.
Pretty much nothing was greater than T6 - war machines excepted of course.
Having the 6/4+ etc to wound capability would allow for greater Toughness values.
So you don't have carnosaurs with T5, the same as the oldblood riding it...
8th sort of went back to the 5th edition profile so I think they'll keep doing that in TOW, ofc depends if it's gonna be 6/7/8 or 5/6/7 or something compeletly different, but if you paid attention in 8th, the also brought he Emperor Dragon type back to the game via the Storm of Magic supplement, bringing the profile up to 9/9. IMO too many dragons though... Personally I was pretty ok with the 8th Dragon Profiles, didn't like them adding the Emperor type as a separate profile, they could have just given the Star Dragons the upgrade option for wizard levels instead. They sorta did this with the War of the Beard campaign scenario in one of the latter White Dwarf issues, with just 1 optional wizard level.
Also for the roll-after-roll for significantly higher WS/BS/T thing... at least for the to-wound rolls, I think it's fine as-it since Dragons will probably keep their scaly skin (+X) rule anyway, so lower strength attacks will be covered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nathan2004 wrote: Any guesses on what the next reveal will
Show? Entire tomb kings lineup?
TK is most likely, but I doubt the entire lineup since BRT had a long build-up to its reveal. We had already seem several Paladins on foot teases, as well as the Prophetess before their full reveal.
I will LMAO if they are revealing some piece of terrain next Sat tho...
Depending on the level of their scaly skin, but previous damage tables cut out after 3 pts higher than your strength.
So T7-10 would have been invulnerable. Certainly moving to everything can always be wounded on a 6+ would change that, but then you need to give big things stronger armour to offset that.
Hellebore wrote: Who thinks the charging strikes first rule will be there?
Also, I would love to see the 5th ed era of dragon profiles. As much as I liked the 6th ed design philosophy, they were really conservative on profiles.
Pretty much nothing was greater than T6 - war machines excepted of course.
Having the 6/4+ etc to wound capability would allow for greater Toughness values.
So you don't have carnosaurs with T5, the same as the oldblood riding it...
Honestly? I'm not confident they'll keep much of 6th ANYTHING at this point.
that is a tricky one, the more random charges are, the less they should matter
yet so far we have a wider spread of reliable charges for infantry and 8th Edition randomness for cavalry
so strike first on charge might be too much depending what else is there
like strike first in charge could be countered by "everyone can fight back" to take out the importance of the random dice roll, yet if damage scales too high charges are devastating either way (you strike back but your unit is still gone)
Do we know anything yet on the way the rules and army lists will be released?
Are we back to a huge core rulebook with extra army books? Or will GW do the old fashioned thing and put all the army lists in the back of the core rulebook?
Gimgamgoo wrote: Do we know anything yet on the way the rules and army lists will be released?
Are we back to a huge core rulebook with extra army books? Or will GW do the old fashioned thing and put all the army lists in the back of the core rulebook?
They said in previous previews they will release "core lists" for all existing armies similar to indexes at the release, then release books for various armies / campaigns in details. It's pretty clear we'll have a big rulebook at the start. They didn't seem to say the core lists will be in it (it would make the book too big anyway IMHO).
Hellebore wrote: Who thinks the charging strikes first rule will be there?
Also, I would love to see the 5th ed era of dragon profiles. As much as I liked the 6th ed design philosophy, they were really conservative on profiles.
Pretty much nothing was greater than T6 - war machines excepted of course.
Having the 6/4+ etc to wound capability would allow for greater Toughness values.
So you don't have carnosaurs with T5, the same as the oldblood riding it...
I’m expecting Charging Units Strike First, as that’s been WHFB since I can remember. Indeed, High Elves trumping that with Always Strikes First were the exception.
In terms of models? I think I may prefer the combined profiles first seen in End Times. Even the nastiest flying monster had a weak point of its rider. Of course that wasn’t itself an oversight but a design intent. Farting around atop a Dragon whilst not wearing much armour is risky, and I’m genuinely not bitter about the times my Dragon buggered off when its rider was killed (stupid Way Watchers. Stupid Killing Blow Arrows. Stupid Monster Reaction Test!). But I think the combined profiles might be a neater solution.
lcmiracle wrote: Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?
Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...
Pretty much makes Seer Council the most viable build. Certainly doesn't discourage it...
Geifer wrote: I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.
What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.
This would be my issue. I'm not sure how anyone can be under the illusion that this is skilful.
I dont disagree here but I think you identify the problematic thing wrong. The problem is the fast and maneuverable single character having too much freedom of movement coupled with disproportionate impact on a unit, not the unit being unable to charge backwards.
I think the rule of thumb in such asymmetric game design should be that the ease of use of a game element should be in inverse proportion to its power.
You're not wrong about what the problem is, but since GW wants fantastic elements in its fantasy game and heroes to feel impactful, it's a problem we should expect to persist.
It's specifically ranged flying characters that can exploit their small base size because of the unwieldy nature of regimental movement, as well as LOS and limitations of missile troops. Short of denying these characters the ability to fly, which would at least in the case of a Tzeentch sorcerer on disc be super unfluffy (probably others as well), you'll have to find mitigating elements elsewhere.
That doesn't mean you should abandon all restrictions for regimental blocks, but just off the top of my head you could for instance let a handful of soldiers walk into combat with a character that strays too close. They don't get a charge bonus, and leaving formation loses you some rank bonus on the main unit, but you could at least deter such characters from exploiting LOS restrictions unchallenged and possibly tie them up for a turn or two. Actually make dancing around an enemy unit a tactical option rather than the obvious correct choice it's been for as long as I played Fantasy.
kodos wrote: that is a tricky one, the more random charges are, the less they should matter
yet so far we have a wider spread of reliable charges for infantry and 8th Edition randomness for cavalry
so strike first on charge might be too much depending what else is there
like strike first in charge could be countered by "everyone can fight back" to take out the importance of the random dice roll, yet if damage scales too high charges are devastating either way (you strike back but your unit is still gone)
The article mentions counter charge as a (conditional) charge reaction, with no explanation what exactly it does. I could see a charge letting you strike first against units standing their ground, while losing that bonus against units that opt to counter charge.
Would be a bit of a trade-off. You guarantee that both units enter combat even if the charger rolls badly, but you dampen to blow to the charged unit (provided initiative doesn't still favor the charging unit).
the whole "strikes first" thing could easily be mitigated by going back to 3rd, you fought at the initiative step - but initiative was modified.
IIRC charging was a positive, a spear or a lance was a positive and there were a few other modifiers
in general higher initiative models would go first, but this could be altered tactically so squishy elven archers could be run down by lance equipped cavalry on the charge, but elven spearmen were much harder (as IIRC spears got an extra bonus v cavalry)
many of these bonuses were negated by going in from the side or rear so even elite troops could find themselves in trouble.
the game also had the "free hack", as a unit broke from combat (or chose to withdraw) the enemy got an extra round of combat where all hits hit automatically, but damage was rolled as usual.
heavy army elite troops caught by goblins? meah, withdraw and go do something else they likely won't hurt you. vice versa and the gobbos are in trouble - meant pinning a unit in combat required more than the cheapest unit you could find who would have a model or two left after the fight
also meant that good troops who got unlucky were very seldom cut down as they pulled back
The article mentions counter charge as a (conditional) charge reaction, with no explanation what exactly it does. I could see a charge letting you strike first against units standing their ground, while losing that bonus against units that opt to counter charge.
Would be a bit of a trade-off. You guarantee that both units enter combat even if the charger rolls badly, but you dampen to blow to the charged unit (provided initiative doesn't still favor the charging unit).
I think it'd be largely based on the Empire's detachment's Counter Charge special rule, in which, the counter-charging unit makes a out-of-sequence move against the charging unit after the charging unit successfully charged the regimental unit. The charging unit does not get to make a charge reaction against the counter-charge. Both the charging and the counter charging units have the same rules and bonuses of charged applied -- in 8th that means in this engagement both sides gets +1 to having charged this turn.
lcmiracle wrote: Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?
Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...
I think the problem is that it feels unfair when certain armies have these potentially very negative special rules - while others operate like clockwork.
Its also potentially hard to balance effects that may happen in some games - but won't in others. Should for example say High Elves be somehow cheaper (either collectively, or just the characters) because they may be stuck with a LD8 Mage as their general? But what about the times when they get the LD10 Noble?
To a degree you can say "its a dice game, random stuff happens" - but still.
I had an O&G army (mainly goblins) and by picking these units, had a huge number of such rules. Animosity, Stupidity, terrible leadership in general, fanatics doing random movement, squig hoppers going a random distance, war machines and wizards who were all happy to blow up etc. The complete inverse of "animosity sucks, I'm instantly taking a Black Orc as my general."
This army was very fun to play in a relatively soft setting. Sometimes things worked well - and sometimes I managed to kill significant more of my own army than my opponent. Which was fine because we could both laugh about it. Going to a more competitive game against someone who's thinking "this isn't funny, I'm just going to destroy you" would tend to be frustrating.
I'm not sure how you'd resolve those contradictions.
Had, indeed still have and hope to use again, an O&G army that played that way. and yes got frustrating when it was up against yet another min/max Empire gunline with someone who considered "Battleline" to be the only scenario possible and invariably wanted some "comp" pack rules that were never well explained to be in full force
Once upon a time, I had a full, pre-plastic Savage Orc army.
It was bonkers, and a lot of fun. An exercise in vaguely organised anarchy and the fine art of herding cats.
I don’t want the anarchy to be removed. And I don’t want to see a Charge not allow me to strike first. So much of the skill of the game is organising combats to your own advantage. And that includes doing what I can to ensure I’m charging you, and not the other way around.
Remove that? Undead and Orc face an uphill struggle, as their diabolical Initiative value will see them striking last most of the time anyway, giving me precious little incentive to, y’know, bother charging you in the first place.
Darkial wrote: I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.
Ooooh no! Nope nope nope!
The whole point of turning your flank is the reward given by the game mechanics. If I’ve manoeuvred cleverly, then you should be punished for not seeing it coming. Being deft with large, ponderous blocks of infantry is a huge part of the skill required for the game.
It would also make Fast Cavalry pretty crap. Typically you don’t see them in large units. They’re there to harass and distract, and if you’re lucky run over Artillery, Lone characters, or come in with a rear charge assist to really swing a combat. And of course, chase down already fleeing units if you’d prefer to maintain your overall battle line (pursing in isolation can lead to the victorious unit out of position with its own flanks exposed). Allowing big blocks to easily counter Fast Cavalry entirely defeats the point of Fast Cavalry.
I understand what you say and I partially agree. But I don't think it's fun that a small unit that moves double than your big infant block can block in one direction your big infantry black because they're are 1 inch from your flank. Imagine an army saying hey I can't turn because we have someone on the side but we can't charge him because it's on my side and not on my front.
Maybe the half distance is too much but maybe a couple of inches side charge without any bonus at all?
From what I've seen, most WHFB players like that games are decided through maneuvering and not through who can build an omnipotent deathstar that takes no skill to drive tho.
Problem of strike first in charges is that it made initiative stat kinda irrelevant, since most of the crucial battles depend on the charges in older editions. Battles that last on more than one round weren't that many (usually involving unbreakable / stubborn units...well at least, if heavy weapons that always strike last aren't involved), and fight by iniative was thus not really happening that often. That's why in V8, they use initiative as the main rule to know who strike first. Sure put a lot of troops in disappointing situations, especially compared to stupidly high initiative fighters (elves even without their strike first special rule), but at least the stat felt like it mattered more than in older editions.
That's also why they removed initiative completely from the stats in AoS and use a system of alternating choosing which unit to fight in the battle phase. There was simply no need to use a separate stat for that.
key is you allow and use initiative, but provide modifiers to it when charging, when using long reach weapons on the charge etc so that in general a unit charging in a prepared way will strike prior to the unit it has charged, but such that a well drilled, prepared and suitably equipped enemy may manage to stand
also when multiple units charge provide a bonus to both, if a unit is hit in the flanks remove many of its bonuses - you hit nasty elite units hard, after stripping flank protection
lord_blackfang wrote: From what I've seen, most WHFB players like that games are decided through maneuvering and not through who can build an omnipotent deathstar that takes no skill to drive tho.
Pretty much this. Indeed, Deathstars actively harmed the game, because they so dramatically shifted how you played. Especially with 8th Ed introducing “if I have more ranks, I don’t suffer break test modifiers”.
That lead to utterly ridiculous situations, like a huge blob of Skaven Slaves being all but unbreakable, because a low cost champion could lead from the back (preventing me singling him out), boosting the base leadership, for it to be further boosted by the Skaven adding their rank bonus to said Ld. Have the BSB handy and your re-rolling.
It was cheap, it was nasty. Didn’t matter I could run over a dozen or more with Chariots, or attacked with a fairly chunky regiment. Skaven Slaves were so dirt cheap, they came in ridiculous ranks.
But Doc, why do it a charge? Well. I wouldn’t. Not if I could reasonably avoid it. Except, my opponent has this pesky thing called a movement phase too. And Skaven were faster moving than most.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: Problem of strike first in charges is that it made initiative stat kinda irrelevant, since most of the crucial battles depend on the charges in older editions. Battles that last on more than one round weren't that many (usually involving unbreakable / stubborn units...well at least, if heavy weapons that always strike last aren't involved), and fight by iniative was thus not really happening that often. That's why in V8, they use initiative as the main rule to know who strike first. Sure put a lot of troops in disappointing situations, especially compared to stupidly high initiative fighters (elves even without their strike first special rule), but at least the stat felt like it mattered more than in older editions.
That's also why they removed initiative completely from the stats in AoS and use a system of alternating choosing which unit to fight in the battle phase. There was simply no need to use a separate stat for that.
As for TOW, we'll see what GW decides to choose.
I disagree. Chargers Strike First is incentive to be making, not receiving, the charge. Which in turn incentivises good play and clever manouvering.
Especially for slow I troops (Zombies, Skellingtons, Orcs, Stunties), take that away and….why ever bother charging? For high I stuff (Elves and upwards) the same applies. If I’m going first anyway, where’s my incentive for controlling the flow of the battle?
leopard wrote: key is you allow and use initiative, but provide modifiers to it when charging, when using long reach weapons on the charge etc so that in general a unit charging in a prepared way will strike prior to the unit it has charged, but such that a well drilled, prepared and suitably equipped enemy may manage to stand
also when multiple units charge provide a bonus to both, if a unit is hit in the flanks remove many of its bonuses - you hit nasty elite units hard, after stripping flank protection
The problem is, in the world of random charges such interesting maneuvers as a multiple charge are too much of a gamble. Even with 2 charging units having 80% chance of connecting, one third of the time only one will make it would into combat and probably die without the support of the other.
I expect good players who are not going to count on lucky 2/3 chances to lean more into dependable anvil death stars than (un)coordinated assaults. And, as MadDok is saying, it's not going to make the game any better.
Tyel wrote: I think charging letting you strike first is reasonable - but it has to be tamed by rules like step up.
This I agree with.
In earlier editions of WHFB, combat casualties reduced the number of models eligible to fight.
So, if two units of equal frontage are in combat? We’d be say, 5 on 5. I strike first, and I cause 4 casualties. Those are removed from your rearmost rank(s) reducing your rank bonus. But, it also meant you counted as having 4 fewer models eligible to fight. The exceptions being unit champions and attached Characters.
But, and for the life of me I can’t remember when, “Step Up” was introduced, which meant whilst I still reduced your overall rank bonus, I could no longer deny you your full attacks, as it’s presumed those in the following ranks stepped forward, and so could fight.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I disagree. Chargers Strike First is incentive to be making, not receiving, the charge. Which in turn incentivises good play and clever manouvering.
Especially for slow I troops (Zombies, Skellingtons, Orcs, Stunties), take that away and….why ever bother charging? For high I stuff (Elves and upwards) the same applies. If I’m going first anyway, where’s my incentive for controlling the flow of the battle?
Charge Strikes First is essential to the game.
Because the combination of WS being a low value/influence stat and negating the value of Initiative isn't compatible with Elves being a high cost army, which is why GW had such huge issues trying to write good/balanced army books (particularly for the High variety).
Tyel wrote: I think charging letting you strike first is reasonable - but it has to be tamed by rules like step up.
This I agree with.
In earlier editions of WHFB, combat casualties reduced the number of models eligible to fight.
So, if two units of equal frontage are in combat? We’d be say, 5 on 5. I strike first, and I cause 4 casualties. Those are removed from your rearmost rank(s) reducing your rank bonus. But, it also meant you counted as having 4 fewer models eligible to fight. The exceptions being unit champions and attached Characters.
But, and for the life of me I can’t remember when, “Step Up” was introduced, which meant whilst I still reduced your overall rank bonus, I could no longer deny you your full attacks, as it’s presumed those in the following ranks stepped forward, and so could fight.
Casualties removing the ability to fight back was there in 7th ed. 8th ed fixed that problem and I hope The Old World doesn't bring it back. It's one of the dumber rules that plagued Fantasy.
It's an exception to the rules that creates more exceptions and isn't even a particularly good representation of the benefits of charging.
A bonus to Strength, a modifier to combat resolution, even a flat Initiative bump would all be better than completely invalidating a whole statistic during the most important part of an engagement.
I disagree. Chargers Strike First is incentive to be making, not receiving, the charge. Which in turn incentivises good play and clever manouvering.
Especially for slow I troops (Zombies, Skellingtons, Orcs, Stunties), take that away and….why ever bother charging? For high I stuff (Elves and upwards) the same applies. If I’m going first anyway, where’s my incentive for controlling the flow of the battle?
Charge Strikes First is essential to the game.
We actually agree on the importance of an advantage in charges. I was just saying that strike first in charges made the Initiative stat in Warhammer Battle profiles a bit useless before V8.
Honestly, I can see a TOW game with strike first in charges. I just think the Initiative stat in such a game may be deemed unimportant and simply be removed for simplicity sake.
Only if a combat went beyond the first round, which was never guaranteed. And against some forces (Undead, Stunties) very much the exception than the norm, thanks to either really solid Ld and a Tough Unit, or how they took break tests.
For stuff like High Elves? Give them perks in army rules. Exceptions etc. Don’t factor it into the basic rules, because chances are you’re gonna end up with Another Oddity, which in turn would need another fix.
I disagree. Chargers Strike First is incentive to be making, not receiving, the charge. Which in turn incentivises good play and clever manouvering.
Especially for slow I troops (Zombies, Skellingtons, Orcs, Stunties), take that away and….why ever bother charging? For high I stuff (Elves and upwards) the same applies. If I’m going first anyway, where’s my incentive for controlling the flow of the battle?
Charge Strikes First is essential to the game.
We actually agree on the importance of an advantage in charges. I was just saying that strike first in charges made the Initiative stat in Warhammer Battle profiles a bit useless before V8.
Honestly, I can see a TOW game with strike first in charges. I just think the Initiative stat in such a game may be deemed unimportant and simply be removed for simplicity sake.
What I would do:
- Remove Initiative stat from the game & Remove Strike first from the game
- Everyone strikes simultaneously
- Charging bonus: +1 to hit/+1 to S/bonus to combat resolution/whatever...
This is how many other good modern wargames deal with it.
3rd edition once again handled charging a bit better.
A charging unit added +1 to hit in the first round and added +1 to the combat resolution. This was a massive bonus with D6 rolls. Initiative determined striking order with bonuses for weapons.
A 2 handed weapon decreased your initiative while a long weapon increased it in the 1st round.
I am a very ancient Warhammer player but I am starting to feel sorry for those who missed out on 2nd and 3rd editions.
The army list took the time to determine min and max per unit, not a generic 10+ which allowed for gigantic regiments. There are still a few armies that could take such units but they are quite limited. They gave a maximum model count per army also. Units ignored break tests until they had taken 25% losses from starting strength.
Those version are not perfect and really relied on someone to create a scenario and act as game master.
I am hoping this new version is usable and the more they lean on very old versions the more I will like it.
Main problem with elves is they're elves. They never needed to have strike 1st as a general rule in V8, their initiative was already high enough from the start.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Only if a combat went beyond the first round, which was never guaranteed. And against some forces (Undead, Stunties) very much the exception than the norm, thanks to either really solid Ld and a Tough Unit, or how they took break tests.
For stuff like High Elves? Give them perks in army rules. Exceptions etc. Don’t factor it into the basic rules, because chances are you’re gonna end up with Another Oddity, which in turn would need another fix.
No.
The game requires initiative to function and there are and should be unit types that should not want to always charge spearmen f.e. vs twohanded weapons, the real differentiation could come in with the weaponry which could also benefit from added subtype effects.
Charging could give itself a bonus to initative and attacks. But Always first always last needs to go. Granularising WS difference as was brought up in combination with deeper weapon attributes would be a better solution.
Spears +1 ini +1 S against charging units +2 against cav that charges them, Pikes + 2 ini and bonus ranks, etc. etc. You could even tie in potential orders to form specific formations to weapon type. Like a square formation of spears that don't loses ranks when flanked but is more vulnerable to enemy ranged attacks and can't move.
Player moves should beat stats every time, because players should be rewarded for making good moves nor for their units being given good stats by the whims of the designers.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Only if a combat went beyond the first round, which was never guaranteed. And against some forces (Undead, Stunties) very much the exception than the norm, thanks to either really solid Ld and a Tough Unit, or how they took break tests.
For stuff like High Elves? Give them perks in army rules. Exceptions etc. Don’t factor it into the basic rules, because chances are you’re gonna end up with Another Oddity, which in turn would need another fix.
No.
The game requires initiative to function and there are and should be unit types that should not want to always charge spearmen f.e. vs twohanded weapons, the real differentiation could come in with the weaponry which could also benefit from added subtype effects.
Charging could give itself a bonus to initative and attacks. But Always first always last needs to go. Granularising WS difference as was brought up in combination with deeper weapon attributes would be a better solution.
Spears +1 ini +1 S against charging units +2 against cav that charges them, Pikes + 2 ini and bonus ranks, etc. etc. You could even tie in potential orders to form specific formations to weapon type. Like a square formation of spears that don't loses ranks when flanked but is more vulnerable to enemy ranged attacks and can't move.
But Spears allow you to fight in more ranks, bringing more oomph to your battle line. That is their advantage. Or the +1 S on the charge instead if you were mounted. You could also make use of your shield in combat.
Sword and Board gave +2 armour on top of whatever else (so 3+ with Heavy, 4+ with light, 5+ with your undies and good intentions)
Halberds gave +1 S, but required two hands, so no shield in combat.
Great Weapons have +2 S, required two hands and Struck Last.
So there are already weapon perks and drawbacks. Each suited to a different task.
Player moves should beat stats every time, because players should be rewarded for making good moves nor for their units being given good stats by the whims of the designers.
Pretty much this. WHFB has always been won in deployment and the movement phase. Always. That’s when you sort your battle line. Do I castle? Maybe Refused Flank. Am I packing Scout type units to harry your flankers and potentially block marching?
Once I see how my deployment measures up to my opponent, that’s when I develop strategies on the fly. Which unit gets a face full of artillery? Who gets to play Traffic Accident with my Chariots? Which unit are my Cavalry most likely to break on the charge?
Botch that? And the game punished you - if your opponent knew what they were doing.
Now it wasn’t perfect. Skirmish Heavy armies were a drag to play against. Static Gunlines, like the Dwarf Gunline of Numbing Inevitability reduced my entire strategy to “get across the board as quick as I can, and hope to heck I’ve enough stuff left to mulch his infantry”.
But I genuinely don’t recall anyone complaining that Chargers Struck First. Indeed, High Elves gaining ASF was quite the controversy at the time.
Sarouan wrote: Main problem with elves is they're elves. They never needed to have strike 1st as a general rule in V8, their initiative was already high enough from the start.
Initiative works well once elves aren't involved.
Does it though?
Looking from an 8th edition perspective, I'd say the issue was less an "elf problem" - and more a "great weapon problem". Great weapons theoretically trade off the higher S and armour penetration for striking last.
But if you have poor initiative, you are striking last anyway. So its not really a trade off.
Player moves should beat stats every time, because players should be rewarded for making good moves nor for their units being given good stats by the whims of the designers.
Then what's the point of having stats at all. Just say the charging unit wins.
Player moves should beat stats every time, because players should be rewarded for making good moves nor for their units being given good stats by the whims of the designers.
Then what's the point of having stats at all. Just say the charging unit wins.
The art is in learning how to best stack prospective combats in your favour.
Enemy got better stars? Hit harder, tougher, more attacks per model? Might want to go in with a flanking unit in support. Or maybe a Chariot for those delicious Impact Hits to really ramp up your Combat Res.
If they’re harder hitting? Sword and Board seems wise, as they’re more likely to have, let alone make, a saving throw.
If that unit can charge sideways? It makes it hard to flank them. If they’re gonna strike first regardless, my manoeuvres go without reward, as I’m on the hook for a Full Unit Kicking regardless.
That has been the traditional weakness of Elite Infantry, like Chaos Warriors or Ogres. Both can give and take a lot of punishment, but tend to be points intensive, leading to a smaller army overall. The trick to besting them is…control the flow of combat. Flank them. Rear charge if you’re lucky. Get as many bodies into that combat as you can.
Heck, even use ranged weapons to plink off ranks, tipping things further in my favour. I think the only time I’ve ever obliterated an enemy unit was landing an Empire Rocket Barrage slap bang in the middle of a Dwarf Regiment, and exceptionally jammy wound/save rolls.
That’s….that’s WHFB. That’s what the game is famous and well regarded for. Another game does it more to your tastes? Maybe that’s the game for you then?
I don’t want another war game with the Warhammer name applied as a sticker. I want Warhammer, The Game Of Fantasy Battles.
The art is in learning how to best stack prospective combats in your favour.
Enemy got better stars? Hit harder, tougher, more attacks per model? Might want to go in with a flanking unit in support. Or maybe a Chariot for those delicious Impact Hits to really ramp up your Combat Res.
If they’re harder hitting? Sword and Board seems wise, as they’re more likely to have, let alone make, a saving throw.
If that unit can charge sideways? It makes it hard to flank them. If they’re gonna strike first regardless, my manoeuvres go without reward, as I’m on the hook for a Full Unit Kicking regardless.
You can have mechanics like spears interact with Initiative on a contingent basis; eg if you charge a ranked up spear unit they're going to hit you first, but if you flank them or disorder the unit before charging they lose the benefit. That incentivizes maneuver, disruption, and other forms of counterplay, which can translate into emphasizing player decisions more than a system where the charger has such an advantage that being the one to charge first is all that matters.
Again. It all depends on the implementation. Taking fairly minor mechanics in isolation and making axiomatic statements about them is not how good designers approach things. Having an initiative system does not automatically mean player decisions are subordinate to paper stats, it's just different.
lcmiracle wrote: Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?
Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...
Oh, wow. I forgot all about that rule. What a weird choice for that book.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Only if a combat went beyond the first round, which was never guaranteed. And against some forces (Undead, Stunties) very much the exception than the norm, thanks to either really solid Ld and a Tough Unit, or how they took break tests.
For stuff like High Elves? Give them perks in army rules. Exceptions etc. Don’t factor it into the basic rules, because chances are you’re gonna end up with Another Oddity, which in turn would need another fix.
No.
The game requires initiative to function and there are and should be unit types that should not want to always charge spearmen f.e. vs twohanded weapons, the real differentiation could come in with the weaponry which could also benefit from added subtype effects.
Charging could give itself a bonus to initative and attacks. But Always first always last needs to go. Granularising WS difference as was brought up in combination with deeper weapon attributes would be a better solution.
Spears +1 ini +1 S against charging units +2 against cav that charges them, Pikes + 2 ini and bonus ranks, etc. etc. You could even tie in potential orders to form specific formations to weapon type. Like a square formation of spears that don't loses ranks when flanked but is more vulnerable to enemy ranged attacks and can't move.
But Spears allow you to fight in more ranks, bringing more oomph to your battle line. That is their advantage. Or the +1 S on the charge instead if you were mounted. You could also make use of your shield in combat.
Sword and Board gave +2 armour on top of whatever else (so 3+ with Heavy, 4+ with light, 5+ with your undies and good intentions)
Halberds gave +1 S, but required two hands, so no shield in combat.
Great Weapons have +2 S, required two hands and Struck Last.
So there are already weapon perks and drawbacks. Each suited to a different task.
Which i know, but isn't the point. The point is that fight first last is not a good mechanic. You shouldn't just get rewarded for charging a defensive unit, like a hedge of spears or even pikes, just as you should not get rewarded for charging with pikes especially or foot spearmen.
It’s like saying because Lager has bubbles, so should Ales.
If it happens, it happens and I’ll still play it. But I’m not a fan of people portraying it as some glaring flaw of the game’s overall design.
Saying that it isn't WHFB if it doesn't have fights-first/fights-last mechanics is every bit as arbitrary and nitpicky as saying that it isn't WHFB if it does have fights-first/fights-last in lieu of Initiative bonuses a la 3rd Ed. Those mechanics changed a lot over the editions, and are no more fundamental to WHFB's identity as a rank-and-flank fantasy game than the presence or absence of random charges or whatever other specific mechanics grognards want to gatekeep as True Warhammer.
It's also a red herring either way since this isn't WHFB. It's TOW, a new game in the old setting. It's banking on your nostalgia, but they're going in a new direction, and we've already seen new mechanics that have no direct corollaries to WHFB and may be in response to perceived flaws in WHFB's rules. And if Horus Heresy and Legions Imperialis are any indication, players expecting TOW to essentially be WHFB 9th Ed will likely be disappointed.
Focus less on the trees and more on the forest. It will be the sum of things and the overall feel of the end result that matters, not picking out individual mechanics as purity tests.
lcmiracle wrote: Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?
Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...
Oh, wow. I forgot all about that rule. What a weird choice for that book.
That was one of the best rules GW ever wrote. Watching people seeth over it was often times the only fun to be had when playing a High elves player.
As someone with a fortress, siege tower, battering rams, etc. I would say that I won't adopt this system unless there are siege rules. I don't want to play a siege every time I play Warhammer, but every once in a while is a lot of fun!
catbarf wrote: And as discussed before, the Elf Infantry Problem can be addressed by adjusting the to-hit table to make high WS more valuable as a defensive stat.
I wouldn't put money on it happening, but given that GW just did exactly that for HH2.0, it would not surprise me at all if they do the same for TOW.
^^^^ this, or you go the sort of route MESBG has with the "duel" role and have a stat whereby the blasted pointy ears win draws via a higher stat and when there is still a draw win more often
you need a way for training to matter, but also a way its not "I have five elves, you lose sucker"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its actually interesting to think about what actually makes Warhammer, well Warhammer? and not something else
- the way movement and positioning matters, for better and for worse
- "herohammer" to some level
- "he who throws the most dice wins" mechanics
- the "to hit-to wound - to save" dice ordering system
- individual model removal
- lack of any real command and control system
- psychology system that half the armies can ignore
and then usually some sort of magic system that seriously unbalances the game in some way
the Fisrt/last or initiative thing has changed often enough it hardly matters, its for "TOW" about getting the flavour of the game
and so far we have seen how units are organised and how they move and it more or less fits, the new march column (which seems a more or less direct read in from Black Powder and similar) makes sense and may perhaps lead into longer games to allow movement to matter
there are certainly signs so far that some of the older edition flavour is coming back, but also some more modern solutions to some of the problems of earlier editions with the changes to charge distances so they are not 100% sure things but also not something you are going to usually be doing on the second turn.
it feels like this should be more than "pile forward and six dice a super spell" (ala 8th) and more than "who gets the charge roll on turn 2" (8th again) while removing the "I can stop you ever charging me while I can always charge you" (7th and earlier) stuff
dare I say it but the game may actually be decided by movement and combat at a more tactical level and not who can better judge a quarter of an inch visually or is best able to gimp the no pre-measure stuff
lcmiracle wrote: Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?
Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...
Oh, wow. I forgot all about that rule. What a weird choice for that book.
That was one of the best rules GW ever wrote. Watching people seeth over it was often times the only fun to be had when playing a High elves player.
All I saw was a shrug and pretty much every High Elf list becoming 4 Mages, 3 10-man Archers, 4 Bolt Throwers, and fill the rest to taste, usually cav or chariots. I think I was the only HE player in either of my groups running a Prince and a BSB during that time. I was certainly the only person running 3 20-man Spearmen blocks at every game...
kenofyork wrote: A 2 handed weapon decreased your initiative while a long weapon increased it in the 1st round.
Which is odd, because most 2-handed weapons are quite long. A longsword is longer than an arming sword of the type typically used with a shield. A pollaxe is longer than a battle axe. And then you get to pike....
kenofyork wrote: A 2 handed weapon decreased your initiative while a long weapon increased it in the 1st round.
Which is odd, because most 2-handed weapons are quite long. A longsword is longer than an arming sword of the type typically used with a shield. A pollaxe is longer than a battle axe. And then you get to pike....
The 2-handed weapons in fantasy include: giant two-handed axes, giant two-handed hammers, giant two-handed clubs, giant two-handed swords etc. They were envisioned as being heavy and unwieldy (questionable on the zweihandler part but the point stands). The mental imagine is someone raising the weapon over and back the head, before forcefully overcoming the sheer downward weight of the weapon to swing it up and then downwards. Think of it as having a wind-up motion before attacking. Hell, even IRL historical two-handed sword techniques involves a lot of whirling of the blades due to their length.
Spoiler:
Poleaxes, halberds, bills, etc., in comparison, are generally longer than Zweihandlers and uses simpler swinging motions most of the time, so one can envision their reach gives them advantage to hitting first against heavier two-handed weapons. The "heavier" image is also the reason why they get the +1 strength and therefore -1 to armour saves.
Long swords, arming swords, hand-and-a-half swords, on the other hands, are used in one hand and their wind-ups are much faster (since compared to the Zweihander, swinging them can be as quick as the twisting of the wrist, whereas the other has to raise both arms), but due to length they must get into hitting range of both two-handers and pole weapons' range to in order to attack.
Then you have spears, usually significantly longer than even polearms, and their attacks are majority quick thrusting attacks, capable of out-ranging all other weapons except even longer spears (Pikes) or missile weapons. Everyone else will get the poke long before their own weapons can touch the opponent's flesh.
Thus it makes sense the order should be quick-long-pokes > slower-shorter-swings > quick-short-pokey-swings > slow shorter swings.
Compare this to 3rd edition, two-handers gets -1 to initiative due to being "cumbersome", -1 to saving throw, +1 to strength, whereas Halberds got +1 strength, in addition, +1 initiative against cavalry. spears +2 I and an addition +1 I against cavalry. Pikes gets +3 I and additional +3 I against cavalry.
those are things the game defined it in a way to work withing the game
it has nothing to do with reality, same as horses give +1 armour
making 2 handed weapons "realistic" they would not have strike last or less Initiative but rather impossible to be used in close order and units with such weapons would be skirmish formation only
(so the downside of doing more damage would be never getting any passive bonus)
leopard wrote:
and so far we have seen how units are organised and how they move and it more or less fits, the new march column (which seems a more or less direct read in from Black Powder and similar) makes sense and may perhaps lead into longer games to allow movement to matter
It does look like something out of a Napoleonic wargame.
I can see where that comes from considering Jervis' involvement in Napoleonic wargames as well as the influence of the Napoleonic period on wargaming in general (it's the period wargaming started with).
It seems very strange in a quasi-late medieval to Renaissance period wargame and even stranger for goblins to be worrying about.
there are certainly signs so far that some of the older edition flavour is coming back, but also some more modern solutions to some of the problems of earlier editions with the changes to charge distances so they are not 100% sure things but also not something you are going to usually be doing on the second turn.
it feels like this should be more than "pile forward and six dice a super spell" (ala 8th) and more than "who gets the charge roll on turn 2" (8th again) while removing the "I can stop you ever charging me while I can always charge you" (7th and earlier) stuff
It does look like GW is taking a sensible approach IMO.
A game that captures "the feel" of Warhammer, but benefits from improved game design is the way to go. We'll see how well they do it.
GW seem to be cautious with how much they are investing. Reusing old kits where possible and the like.
That's less than Warhammer deserves, but sensible buisness practice.
leopard wrote:
and so far we have seen how units are organised and how they move and it more or less fits, the new march column (which seems a more or less direct read in from Black Powder and similar) makes sense and may perhaps lead into longer games to allow movement to matter
It does look like
GW seem to be cautious with how much they are investing. Reusing old kits where possible and the like.
That's less than Warhammer deserves, but sensible buisness practice.
Old kits released initially as the foam coming out of the champagne bottle when popped is part of the initial appeal I feel.
I'll buy some old stuff probably.
I also like the few rules we've seen so far.
Hope army comp is fairly structured for predictable matchups in tournaments, not just 'take 1 hero and max 3 duplicates of whatever'.
lcmiracle wrote: Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?
Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...
Oh, wow. I forgot all about that rule. What a weird choice for that book.
That was one of the best rules GW ever wrote. Watching people seeth over it was often times the only fun to be had when playing a High elves player.
All I saw was a shrug and pretty much every High Elf list becoming 4 Mages, 3 10-man Archers, 4 Bolt Throwers, and fill the rest to taste, usually cav or chariots. I think I was the only HE player in either of my groups running a Prince and a BSB during that time. I was certainly the only person running 3 20-man Spearmen blocks at every game...
I remember our main HE player ranting about being forced into those types of magic heavy, ranged heavy lists due to Intrigue at Court. He was playing in some rather high end regional leagues against some of the top competative players and you either went all-in on magic or magic heavy+cavalry heavy. My retro-6th ed HE army is a nice mix of magic, shooting, cavalry and infantry that I feel is effective, but I don't think it would have held up at the high level they played at.
The 7th ed book dropped Intrigue at Court, I highly doubt we'll see it return for ToW
Manfred von Drakken wrote: Like many rules of its era, Intrigue at Court was a fun and fluffy rule. It just wasn't balanced.
Here's hoping Orcs and Goblins don't have to deal with animosity.
I want animosity to go back to 3rd edition, not the latter day "this unit now does nothing" or taking whatever they end up calling "Mortal Wounds" in this (you know that gak is coming). have the units actually fight each other
If you're throwing out something like intrigue at court, a relatively minor army affect (outside the general's aura bubble it doesn't matter), but claiming that animosity should stay which is a whole army affect, then I'm not sure what logic is being applied.
It is much harder to balance animosity than it is to balance intrigue at court.
So either the game is not using rules with deliberate downsides for armies or it is. But protecting one army from a downside and enforcing them on another doesn't seem particularly fair.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: Like many rules of its era, Intrigue at Court was a fun and fluffy rule. It just wasn't balanced.
Here's hoping Orcs and Goblins don't have to deal with animosity.
Balance is not meant to be fun. It's only meant to be balanced.
That's why when GW stopped doing these "unbalanced rules" in the corresponding armies, they felt dull to the players who knew them.
I'm indeed interested to see GW's take on orcs and goblins armies in TOW. Animosity in Battle could be frustrating for sure, but boy was it always giving results that made someone laugh in every of my games with them at some point.
Oh I don’t disagree at all a balance needs to be struck but some of the most fun I had playing warhammer was against O&G players and the wonky things their armies would do. Very good memories those games.
what my cousins and I found with orcs in six edition was that the balance for animosity was there points cost, your average orc boy or savage orc boy unit is way cheaper then thier stats and as such you can take multiple units of them to make up for the fact that some are not doing anything on a given turn.
nathan2004 wrote: Oh I don’t disagree at all a balance needs to be struck but some of the most fun I had playing warhammer was against O&G players and the wonky things their armies would do. Very good memories those games.
Well yea, you would would have fun when your opponent's army is (mostly) hindering itself, wouldn't you? Wonder how much fun the O&G players were having? (based on 99% of the ones I've seen discuss the topic, not a whole lot)
kenofyork wrote: A 2 handed weapon decreased your initiative while a long weapon increased it in the 1st round.
Which is odd, because most 2-handed weapons are quite long. A longsword is longer than an arming sword of the type typically used with a shield. A pollaxe is longer than a battle axe. And then you get to pike....
The 2-handed weapons in fantasy include: giant two-handed axes, giant two-handed hammers, giant two-handed clubs, giant two-handed swords etc. They were envisioned as being heavy and unwieldy (questionable on the zweihandler part but the point stands). The mental imagine is someone raising the weapon over and back the head, before forcefully overcoming the sheer downward weight of the weapon to swing it up and then downwards. Think of it as having a wind-up motion before attacking. Hell, even IRL historical two-handed sword techniques involves a lot of whirling of the blades due to their length.
Spoiler:
Poleaxes, halberds, bills, etc., in comparison, are generally longer than Zweihandlers and uses simpler swinging motions most of the time, so one can envision their reach gives them advantage to hitting first against heavier two-handed weapons. The "heavier" image is also the reason why they get the +1 strength and therefore -1 to armour saves.
Long swords, arming swords, hand-and-a-half swords, on the other hands, are used in one hand and their wind-ups are much faster (since compared to the Zweihander, swinging them can be as quick as the twisting of the wrist, whereas the other has to raise both arms), but due to length they must get into hitting range of both two-handers and pole weapons' range to in order to attack.
Then you have spears, usually significantly longer than even polearms, and their attacks are majority quick thrusting attacks, capable of out-ranging all other weapons except even longer spears (Pikes) or missile weapons. Everyone else will get the poke long before their own weapons can touch the opponent's flesh.
Thus it makes sense the order should be quick-long-pokes > slower-shorter-swings > quick-short-pokey-swings > slow shorter swings.
Compare this to 3rd edition, two-handers gets -1 to initiative due to being "cumbersome", -1 to saving throw, +1 to strength, whereas Halberds got +1 strength, in addition, +1 initiative against cavalry. spears +2 I and an addition +1 I against cavalry. Pikes gets +3 I and additional +3 I against cavalry.
Not my experience in HEMA, but I suppose for game balance purposes we have to accept some... silliness.
Okay, who is deleting my posts? I've seen two go so far that didn't come close to violating board rules. What is going on here?!?!?!
leopard wrote:
Manfred von Drakken wrote: Like many rules of its era, Intrigue at Court was a fun and fluffy rule. It just wasn't balanced.
Here's hoping Orcs and Goblins don't have to deal with animosity.
I want animosity to go back to 3rd edition, not the latter day "this unit now does nothing" or taking whatever they end up calling "Mortal Wounds" in this (you know that gak is coming). have the units actually fight each other
Ugh. Mortal Wounds. You've given me another nonstarter strike to look out for if I ever get addled enough for someone to convince me to suddenly like random charges...
Some people hate dice in dice games. Ideally for them everything works always so they can numbei crunch game before it's even started.
Do you hate literally EVERYTHING about gaming? I ask because all you do is complain. NONSTOP.
And maybe the issue is that there CAN be such a thing as too much random.
Rihgu wrote:
nathan2004 wrote: Oh I don’t disagree at all a balance needs to be struck but some of the most fun I had playing warhammer was against O&G players and the wonky things their armies would do. Very good memories those games.
Well yea, you would would have fun when your opponent's army is (mostly) hindering itself, wouldn't you? Wonder how much fun the O&G players were having? (based on 99% of the ones I've seen discuss the topic, not a whole lot)
Hello. I'm a long time Orc and Goblin player, and I've had fun with the animosity rules ever since I started using the army in 6th. Please don't attempt to speak for everyone.
I play O&G too. Animosity is hilarious. Removing it would be a bad move. If anything I want more results on the animosity chart and I'd like to have the orc and goblin specific miscast table and the "size matters" chart too
Wayniac wrote: Animosity was a classic rule. I hope they don't get rid of it.
People really like it. When I was making the rules for orcs in my system, I assumed people didn't like it but boy was I wrong!
Apparently an integral element of the army list, to be left out at one's peril.
The thing GW used to be really good at back in the day and that has largely evaporated from the main games now is that you got tangible variety between armies, both in play style and the presence or absence of random effects to reflect the faction's background. The great thing about it, verisimilitude aside which I found to be an important aspect for drawing players into their chosen army, is that with enough variety you offer something for everyone. If you want to math out your game before it even starts, you get your predictable armies. Other armies provide something to those who bought into the wackiness of a faction's fluff. In my opinion it's to the games' detriment that 10th ed 40k (and its more recent predecessors, too) and AoS gave dropped such flavorful rules in pursuit of balance at the cost of any other consideration. It cuts out a part of the customer base who is simply no longer catered to.
It's understandable why this happens. This stuff is really hard to balance and you'll see the crowd who is into predictability become very vocal when they lose a perfectly planned game to a random effect. They don't want it in their army for obvious reasons, but not in the enemy army either because it still has an effect on them during the game. It's a shame to see as far as I'm concerned, but hardly surprising. Which is why I really hope that GW goes hard after the nostalgia money with The Old World. The game might actually retain all these fun little rules if the designers have enough incentive to stay away from mindlessly modernizing the game for the competitive crowd.
I will say I'm a little wary after GW revealed the absence of the magic phase. The magic phase was where wizards went kablooey and you'd better believe that I want my fireworks. There's no strict need for catastrophic failure to be tied to a specific phase, but traditionally making magic and psychic powers an ability used in other phases hasn't resulted in particularly interesting or meaningful perils rules. Remains to be seen how it all shapes out, of course.
lurch wrote: what my cousins and I found with orcs in six edition was that the balance for animosity was there points cost, your average orc boy or savage orc boy unit is way cheaper then thier stats and as such you can take multiple units of them to make up for the fact that some are not doing anything on a given turn.
Exactly this; without Animosity, O&G were far too cheap and it was a core balancing feature of the list.
I will say that I hope they find a middle ground with streamlining it. The two roll system (roll once to see if you’re affected then another to see how) was cumbersome and the one-die system (one D6 roll says if you’re affected and how) was too swingy. Maybe a single 2D6 table?
Animosity was a rule for O&G armies for as long as I can remember, it is pretty much a staple of the faction. I very much doubt it will be gone - but probably changed in some way.
As it was, I remember people having mostly two issues with it. One being the only faction rule with no real benefit, the other that it really screwed with the factions balance. Both of them are valid in my opinion, but Animosity was still integral to the armies character. You could mitigate it by army composition, or embrace it - but you could not ignore it. I just wish we get an update that every now and then gives an affected unit a tangible boost.
Geifer wrote: I will say I'm a little wary after GW revealed the absence of the magic phase. The magic phase was where wizards went kablooey and you'd better believe that I want my fireworks. There's no strict need for catastrophic failure to be tied to a specific phase, but traditionally making magic and psychic powers an ability used in other phases hasn't resulted in particularly interesting or meaningful perils rules. Remains to be seen how it all shapes out, of course.
You could be right, but the point at which perils happen is not necessarily tied to magic being restricted to its own phase.
O&G players had fun with Animosity (and other stuff like Fanatics wiping out their own battle line) because O&G attracted players who were only in it for the fun and spectacle of the game*. I have also always had fun facing them because they were jovial people, but the army was gak. It was the sole army book always excluded from codex creep and the exception to the rule that tourney top 10s always without fail consisted entirely of the most recent 3-4 books.
lord_blackfang wrote: O&G players had fun with Animosity (and other stuff like Fanatics wiping out their own battle line) because O&G attracted players who were only in it for the fun and spectacle of the game*. I have also always had fun facing them because they were jovial people, but the army was gak. It was the sole army book always excluded from codex creep and the exception to the rule that tourney top 10s always without fail consisted entirely of the most recent 3-4 books.
(*contrast with HE crying over Intrigue)
For one this.
Otoh, i think there should be ways to migitate it and there were, cue blackorks? NVM that black orks also were cool models.
Far more annoying even though thematic was the whole" must always challange" chaos champion rules since it didn't stipulate a level at which such challanges could be accepted downwards on your opponent.
Animosity was a key part of O&G for years. Intrigue at Court was introduced in 6th out of nowhere and removed in 7th. I'm all for rules defining and informing playstyle, but Intrigue was at best a random fluke that made no sense at the time, and makes even less sense in hindsight. It's a relic best buried, point in fact because it WAS buried. In 7th.
Animosity was a key part of O&G for years. Intrigue at Court was introduced in 6th out of nowhere and removed in 7th. I'm all for rules defining and informing playstyle, but Intrigue was at best a random fluke that made no sense at the time, and makes even less sense in hindsight. It's a relic best buried, point in fact because it WAS buried. In 7th.
It was perfectly fine in representing the lore it wanted to represent, but yes, it was forced out of nowhere on players who didn't get into their army for the fun of watching it randomly hobble itself. Hence O&G players being a breed apart, but their acceptance of their rules doesn't mean the rules were good.
Kalamadea wrote: Animosity was a key part of O&G for years. Intrigue at Court was introduced in 6th out of nowhere and removed in 7th. I'm all for rules defining and informing playstyle, but Intrigue was at best a random fluke that made no sense at the time, and makes even less sense in hindsight. It's a relic best buried, point in fact because it WAS buried. In 7th.
Yeah. I mean if High Elves were defined as this extremely political faction - and this was somehow represented all the way through the list - that might make some sense.
Off the top of my head, say every regiment had to have a champion, and you rolled on table to determine they were a martial paragon (more WS and A or something) - or some fresh noble who'd never been in battle before (less WS and A etc). Tracking it might be a bit tedious and some would hate the randomness of it - but it would feel like more of a thing. I'm sure there could be other mechanics somehow.
People would know what they were getting into.
Instead of "roll at the start, if you roll badly, your little mage may be your general, sucks to be you I guess?" There's no upside or roleplay to it. You can't really embrace it.
Animosity, troll stupidity, fanatics, doomdivers. Its all fun stuff that put some fluffy spice in the games. But ofcourse, it should also be balanced in points or possible advantage as well.
Like potent magic miscasts or cannons having misfire. Dont remember how chaos worked back then, but I know GW have been fond of doing "gain bonus or turn into a spawn" rules.
yeah, iirc intrigue was introduced in an era where GW seemed to understand "balance" to mean "if you give them a special rule that gives them a benefit, you also need to give them another special rule that gives them some penalty". The idea that they could account for the benefit by increasing points or reducing stats, etc. didnt seem to register with them.
lurch wrote: what my cousins and I found with orcs in six edition was that the balance for animosity was there points cost, your average orc boy or savage orc boy unit is way cheaper then thier stats and as such you can take multiple units of them to make up for the fact that some are not doing anything on a given turn.
Exactly this; without Animosity, O&G were far too cheap and it was a core balancing feature of the list.
I will say that I hope they find a middle ground with streamlining it. The two roll system (roll once to see if you’re affected then another to see how) was cumbersome and the one-die system (one D6 roll says if you’re affected and how) was too swingy. Maybe a single 2D6 table?
IMHO the best way to do it would be:
1. Have a 2D6 table, possibly one for Orks and one for Goblins.
2. Have characters and some conditions give bonuses in the +1 or +2 range (i.e. shift the bell curve upwards) or maluses in the same range.
3. Have the table give benefits in the upper third, and don't cap at 12 but at something like 16, so that under the right circumstances you can trigger something very beneficial from animosity, but you need to think about setting that up.
Beneficial stuff in the upper range could be something like "devastating charge" on your units, getting some slain models back, spawning a new unit champion/minor hero, rallying nearby units, a free casting of a random spell from the relevant lore or something like that.
Yes, setting up smartly to limit the negatives and possibly getting benefits from Animosity sounds much more interesting than an extra Boredom Phase when you sit and watch dice decide with which of your toys you can't play.
Geifer wrote: I will say I'm a little wary after GW revealed the absence of the magic phase. The magic phase was where wizards went kablooey and you'd better believe that I want my fireworks. There's no strict need for catastrophic failure to be tied to a specific phase, but traditionally making magic and psychic powers an ability used in other phases hasn't resulted in particularly interesting or meaningful perils rules. Remains to be seen how it all shapes out, of course.
You could be right, but the point at which perils happen is not necessarily tied to magic being restricted to its own phase.
Yeah. My concern stems from the idea that if you have a full phase for magic, you'll be inclined to furnish it with more than the act of casting to justify the phase's existence. So you get rules like dice pools and miscasts, a (hopefully) tactical game of assigning your casting and dispel dice, and make it feel as engaged and fleshed out as any other phase of the game. Whereas the temptation to keep magic rules slim if it happens in another phase so as not to interrupt the expected flow. Magic missiles over mundane weapons already adds a step to the resolution of the attack. Keeping failure simple might appeal to the designers.
Like I said, we'll have to see how it goes. It's just something that came to mind immediately when I read that article. Overall I feel positive about the Old World rules we've seen so far, so hopefully that's just paranoia.
Certainly if you called it the waaagh table and one of the lower 2d6 options was animosity where X units stopped to squabble for the turn, but upper outcomes were things like 3d6 pick the highest for charges this turn, +1s in melee, gain +1 armour saves etc, you get a better outcome.
Then it becomes a reflection of the orc psyche in total rather than a focus specifically on one negative aspect.
Something like
All effects last until the next turn
2d6 2 - every Greenskin regiment suffers 1 wound
3-4 - 1d3 Greenskin units of your choice are affected by animosity this turn and may not do anything
5-6 - 1 unit suffers animosity
7-8 - army functions normally
9 - all greenskins roll 3d6 choose highest for charges
10 -all greenskins gain +1 strength
11 - all greenskins gain +1 armour
12+ - waaaaagh! All greenskins receive the effects of 9-11 this turn.
Ugh. Mortal Wounds. You've given me another nonstarter strike to look out for if I ever get addled enough for someone to convince me to suddenly like random charges...
Since you have already made a big show of claiming to be out. What happens if there are mortal wounds? Do you declare to be out 'for realsies'?
Hellebore wrote: Certainly if you called it the waaagh table and one of the lower 2d6 options was animosity where X units stopped to squabble for the turn, but upper outcomes were things like 3d6 pick the highest for charges this turn, +1s in melee, gain +1 armour saves etc, you get a better outcome.
Then it becomes a reflection of the orc psyche in total rather than a focus specifically on one negative aspect.
Something like
All effects last until the next turn
2d6 2 - every Greenskin regiment suffers 1 wound
3-4 - 1d3 Greenskin units of your choice are affected by animosity this turn and may not do anything
5-6 - 1 unit suffers animosity
7-8 - army functions normally
9 - all greenskins roll 3d6 choose highest for charges
10 -all greenskins gain +1 strength
11 - all greenskins gain +1 armour
12+ - waaaaagh! All greenskins receive the effects of 9-11 this turn.
I see a problem with this system. The animosity is between units of rival orcs. It is hard for me to imagine a fight breaking out in one corner of the battle and another unit in the other corner getting a bonus. Also fights amongst members of the same unit should have been worked out somewhere along the march, not held simmering to break out just in time to ruin a battle against dangerous foes.
I sound like a broken record, but since 3rd is my go to version I will post the animosity rules here and how I dealt with them as an orc and goblin player.
A unit subject to animosity must test if a friendly unit is within 12" that it holds ill will towards. This is most of the army.
This test is not taken if there are enemies within 12" OR charge range; If there is a hated foes in sight; or if they are already fighting another friendly unit.
To take the test roll a D6 and add or subtract modifiers. You get to subtract any leadership bonus, but must add in +1 if there are no enemies in sight, +1 if the friendly unit pissing you off is directly in front, and +1 if it is from a different race.
On a roll of 5 or less, the unit is good. On a 6 it will shoot missiles or hurl insults at the friendly unit, and on a 7+ it will charge them.
As an orc player from the 3rd edition era I could safely deploy most units within range of my general's leadership bonus. Once out side of that range I had to avoid stacking units in front of one another and never put goblins behind orcs without a very good leader. Try to get within 12" ASAP to stop all the nonsense and just cross your fingers when you had to take the tough rolls.
If you had units ranging far on the flank really try to keep them apart. It was better to have one unit of 12 wolf riders doing a flank move instead of 2 units of 6. Most likely they would end up taking pot shots back and forth before they managed to get very far. Although the long charge range meant they got to skip the test earlier than the infantry.
It was a complex system that would really punish an orc player who did not factor it in to deployment and army composition. I often wished I could screen my orcs with goblin skirmishers but that always ended badly.
There was one really gamey move you could take that took advantage of the animosity rules. Give a hero a vampiric blade that boosted a stat for every kill. Then place that unit directly behind a unit likely to cause a failed test in an out of the way place. Usually lowly goblins with no upgrades in front of orcs. The hero mows the goblins down for a couple turns and by the time he meets the enemy he has a massively boosted stat line.
It was a good trade off. Some cheap dead goblins in exchange for an orc that could kill a dragon.
This is the sort of gimmick I now dislike 1988 was a different time and I had not grown weary of such tricks in my gaming.
I am hoping they build a decent system that lets me move forward in time a bit and not stay stuck in the past.
On the topic of O&G and animosity. With all the infantry going to 25mm bases it will finally be practical to put Orc bosses in Goblin units! I wanted to try this a couple of times but never liked to squeeze a 25mm base in with the 20mm ones, alway looked wrong.
I'm pretty sure we've already seen a photo proving that they they are. The article with some gameplay photos still has Orcs and Goblins on visibly different bases, even of they haven't said what size the Orcs are getting.
I’m really keen to learn the mechanics behind Push Back, as if I recall the article correctly it’s being included alongside, not replacing, Break Tests and Routing as we currently know them.
Others have mentioned that mechanic existed in at least 3rd Ed, which is before my time, and of course Warmaster, where I simply can’t remember it.
Can anyone weigh in with potted versions of how it worked? I dimly remember Warmaster Combats were sustained affairs?
From a Warmaster perspective:
The first round of combat is the usual affair, +1 Attack for the charger and lots of dice rolled. Add in bonuses for ranks/flanks (Support) to determine the winner.
The loser will then Retreat, moving back 1cm for every point they lost by.
After the Retreat, the winner has several options for what to do. The fun one is a Pursuit, in which they are placed back in contact and immediately fight a second round. There are different bonuses in this Pursuit round and its very easy to turn into an absolute meatgrinder.
Results are then determined as normal. In the (pretty likely) chance that the enemy has been wiped out, the winner can elect to Advance into a second fight and even Pursue again if they keep winning. The Revolution ruleset limits units to a maximum of one Advance per turn however.
At the end of the turn, anyone not in combat is healed back to full hits so there's a definite reason not to go full-ham on Pursuit spam, but when it'll bag you a couple more stands then it's worthwhile to keep the momentum up.
I’m really keen to learn the mechanics behind Push Back, as if I recall the article correctly it’s being included alongside, not replacing, Break Tests and Routing as we currently know them.
Others have mentioned that mechanic existed in at least 3rd Ed, which is before my time, and of course Warmaster, where I simply can’t remember it.
Can anyone weigh in with potted versions of how it worked? I dimly remember Warmaster Combats were sustained affairs?
Push back was the one thing I was anxiously awaiting clarification on. If it is a thing of beauty I may nab it as a house rule.
Tsagualsa wrote:1. Have a 2D6 table, possibly one for Orks and one for Goblins.
2. Have characters and some conditions give bonuses in the +1 or +2 range (i.e. shift the bell curve upwards) or maluses in the same range.
3. Have the table give benefits in the upper third, and don't cap at 12 but at something like 16, so that under the right circumstances you can trigger something very beneficial from animosity, but you need to think about setting that up.
Beneficial stuff in the upper range could be something like "devastating charge" on your units, getting some slain models back, spawning a new unit champion/minor hero, rallying nearby units, a free casting of a random spell from the relevant lore or something like that.
Or make it "1D6 + leadership + rare extra modifier" and then compare the result to a table of potential effects that fit the range. That way leadership becomes a bit more useful and those units that get their Ld from the Lord (around the core of the army) are less unruly and more motivated as they know what happens if they don't behave. Due to the wider range of Ld in an O&G army it would have a somewhat similar spread as 2D6 but also depend on how much of a misfit the unity type is. At the lower end there could be results for the more feral types and further up for the more Waaagh motivated ones.
When it comes to the table then I'd not just put all the bad stuff at the bottom and good stuff on the top but mix it up a bit. Give them potential for small upside somewhere in the lower numbers between a bunch of bad results and on the opposite maybe add a high risk/reward (with potential for a negative) result among all the somewhat beneficial ones. Give them a bit of fun random ness and not just "low = bad, high = good". It should add a fun type of randomness that gives the army flavour.
Normally my lists weigh heavily on “knock out” charges. For instance, I love Chariots. My old Dark List featured four, and I’d usually have them buddied up for high speed “think on, think twice, think don’t drive on the pavement” fun. But when I really, really wanted to collapse your centre? Send in three. And it usually worked pretty well.
But, if Breaking an enemy unit becomes tougher, I will of course have to adapt. Which is fine. I appreciate not everyone particularly enjoys their centre unit being run over and smooshed.
I’m not adverse to having to plan a given combat a couple of turns in advance. Indeed, if the rule works? I welcome that change in strategic consideration. Especially as I’ll need to weigh up “what if I’m the one simply pushed back”.
And maybe the issue is that there CAN be such a thing as too much random.
(Snip...)
Hello. I'm a long time Orc and Goblin player, and I've had fun with the animosity rules ever since I started using the army in 6th. Please don't attempt to speak for everyone.
You hate random charges, but you're fine with 1/6 your army taking a turn off every turn?
The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?
No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.
I think yes because there were no hero slots, just percentile limits? I didn't play but have some recollections of complaints about gobbo death stars where the entire front rank was minor heroes that just spammed challenges to neutralize enemy DPS heroes forever.
nathan2004 wrote: Push back is a rule that interests me greatly. Along with psychology. Hopefully these get revealed (more or less) in upcoming previews.
Am I going Mad, or did Fear causing troops eventually lose “auto fail break tests against Fear causing enemies which outnumber you”?
Because that was kind of a staple of Undead tactics.
nathan2004 wrote: Push back is a rule that interests me greatly. Along with psychology. Hopefully these get revealed (more or less) in upcoming previews.
Am I going Mad, or did Fear causing troops eventually lose “auto fail break tests against Fear causing enemies which outnumber you”?
Because that was kind of a staple of Undead tactics.
I believe 8E actually removed outnumbering entirely, and so this effect was also removed.
And maybe the issue is that there CAN be such a thing as too much random.
(Snip...)
Hello. I'm a long time Orc and Goblin player, and I've had fun with the animosity rules ever since I started using the army in 6th. Please don't attempt to speak for everyone.
You hate random charges, but you're fine with 1/6 your army taking a turn off every turn?
The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?
No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.
Black orcs to key units and redundancy compensates. When you have multiple units that can do the work 1 missing out isn't big deal.
Just don't build death stars. And any rule discouraging death stars good.
Vulcan wrote: The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?
No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.
I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.
A charge can also fail using fixed distances if the player declaring a charge has misjudged by 1/2" or whatever, and therefore move only half their full distance. Like, they didn't know they were out of range when they started, realised halfway through and then just gave up on trying.
Vulcan wrote: The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?
No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.
I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.
Yea. Troops always start the charge run precisely at right distance. Never ever too early. Humans are infallible after all carrying laser pointers in middle ages after all.
Vulcan wrote: The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?
No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.
I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.
Yea. Troops always start the charge run precisely at right distance. Never ever too early. Humans are infallible after all carrying laser pointers in middle ages after all.
There is not such thing as a set distance that someone can charge. You keep running until you get there.
The danger is if troops ran too far, then they would get exhausted and be ineffective when they got to the enemy.
