Mozzamanx wrote:
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 tried looking for some pictures related to TOW and orcs but I could find none

I decided to paint some orcs to kill some TOW hype but I'm fought between just sticking to 25mm (which however we know almost certainly won't be the base size for orcs) or take a gamble with a "new size" base. If you guys had to bet what do you think is gonna be the size for regular orc troops? 30mm? maybe even 32mm square?

artu87 wrote:

I tried looking for some pictures related to TOW and orcs but I could find none

From this article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/24/old-world-development-diary-the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/

It’s so beautiful

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Show me the battle where this happened.

I'm not talking about troops falling out on a grueling road march, nor am I talking about heavy fire breaking up the advance, I mean troopers who sing the pean, lower spears and then just slow down 40 yards short of the Athenians, or Romans who hurl their spears and then realize they guessed wrong and sit there, waiting for the Gauls to take their turn.

Confederates give the rebel yell, surge forward and then, whew, that field is longer than we thought!

It's a game mechanic that only exists in the GW universe.

A failed charge in a turn based game is reflective of time and nothing more.

It says that the regiment in the abstract subjective time increment they are being measured in, couldn't get to the target in time.

This doesn't matter if it's a fixed charge mechanic or a random one and in fact neither mechanic is better in reflecting it.

Well there have been plenty of battles throughout the ages where one side timed a charge right and caught the other unaware

a fair few where the victims got ready in time

and a few where the victims buggered off in time

if you think of a "failed charge" as didn't make contact quick enough for the otherside not to make contact you have that

you then also have the "Agincourt" type situation where one side was trying to make contact but was exhausted by the time they did

it happened, however most stuff, cavalry especially, generally had a pretty good idea of at what point to break into the full pelt to be at full speed at the time they needed to be.

Largely because it wasn't the army commander some distance away giving the order, but a local commander who, in general, more or less knew what they were doing

in the same way "guess range" is rubbish as its not the general doing it, but the various war machine crews who when told to fire on a target got on with the job.

what oftne happened with charges was a unit arrived slightly before, or slightly after the optimum time so wasn't as effective when they got there as they either didn't have the momentum, or were starting to lose it.

its likely best modelled by a slight mix of random distances for the "optimum", but then a unit going past that at hitting for less effect, plus targets getting to react but only when more than say the basic distance away as they need some time to react.

and then having a minimum charge distance for a charge to get any bonuses..

comes down to "how complicated v how abstract?"

It seems the new rule where you move the full distance of your Charge Roll for a failed charge does a good job of reflecting those times when a charge is begun far enough away for the enemy to get far more reaction time than desired. The Charge Roll itself reflects a combination of ground conditions and how efficiently the unit gets their charge moving in a timely and organized manner.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Show me the battle where this happened.

I'm not talking about troops falling out on a grueling road march, nor am I talking about heavy fire breaking up the advance, I mean troopers who sing the pean, lower spears and then just slow down 40 yards short of the Athenians, or Romans who hurl their spears and then realize they guessed wrong and sit there, waiting for the Gauls to take their turn.

Confederates give the rebel yell, surge forward and then, whew, that field is longer than we thought!

It's a game mechanic that only exists in the GW universe.

Seriously you are going to get this thread locked we have been told MUTILPLE times to stay on topic

I assume the almanac tonight will be the shooting phase? They seem to be going in phase order.

 alextroy wrote:
It seems the new rule where you move the full distance of your Charge Roll for a failed charge does a good job of reflecting those times when a charge is begun far enough away for the enemy to get far more reaction time than desired. The Charge Roll itself reflects a combination of ground conditions and how efficiently the unit gets their charge moving in a timely and organized manner.

I agree, also means there is no long zero risk to maximum distance charges where even if you fail you are outside the enemies charge range, now fall short and inch and it may hurt a bit

 Hellebore wrote:
A failed charge in a turn based game is reflective of time and nothing more.

It says that the regiment in the abstract subjective time increment they are being measured in, couldn't get to the target in time.

This doesn't matter if it's a fixed charge mechanic or a random one and in fact neither mechanic is better in reflecting it.

Right, but we don't do random movement, just random charges, or the weird guessing thing.

It's a mechanic no other system uses for good reason. Animosity is flavorful and give the orcs their unique character. Including rules for an otherwise successful charge to fail due to dice is a waste of rulebook space.

 Hellebore wrote:
I assume the almanac tonight will be the shooting phase? They seem to be going in phase order.

WarCom wrote:
Here at Warhammer Community, we’re gearing up for a spectacular double-header of live events as the World Championships of Warhammer and the Grand Narrative Finale begin on Thursday 16th November. We’ll have live coverage of the weekend’s action to go with four days of livestreams from the Warhammer Twitch channel, including another exciting Preview Online packed with reveals.

That’s not all – the Old World Almanack returns with a look at the Shooting Phase, we dig into more of the rules from Warhammer: The Horus Heresy – Legions Imperialis, and a very special reveal makes this an unbeatable week for Warhammer fans. We’ll see you there!

Yup, shooting is next

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Show me the battle where this happened.

I'm not talking about troops falling out on a grueling road march, nor am I talking about heavy fire breaking up the advance, I mean troopers who sing the pean, lower spears and then just slow down 40 yards short of the Athenians, or Romans who hurl their spears and then realize they guessed wrong and sit there, waiting for the Gauls to take their turn.

Confederates give the rebel yell, surge forward and then, whew, that field is longer than we thought!

It's a game mechanic that only exists in the GW universe.

While the GW rule is an abstraction, this is almost literally what happened in ancient and medieval combat. Indeed, it was probably the defining feature of pre-1870 combat: one group musters the courage to charge and they move forward, yelling and throwing things. If they enemy lose their nerve and flees, the attackers pursue. If the enemy holds the attacker may press the charge, or, more likely, they'll slow down and regroup, throwing missiles and curses while one side builds up the nerve to charge again (or flees in panic).

The clearest example of one side pausing to regroup mid-charge is Caesar's assault on Pompey at Pharsalus. See also the retreat of the Swiss at Cerignola, the Roman's counter-charge against Boudica, or the assault of the French II corps at Bussaco.

Troops consistently lose their nerve, or lose the intiative to the enemy. I'm not completely sold on random charges as a game mechanic, but it does a decent job at modeling battelfield confusion and the fog of war.

 Saber wrote:
While the GW rule is an abstraction, this is almost literally what happened in ancient and medieval combat. Indeed, it was probably the defining feature of pre-1870 combat: one group musters the courage to charge and they move forward, yelling and throwing things. If they enemy lose their nerve and flees, the attackers pursue. If the enemy holds the attacker may press the charge, or, more likely, they'll slow down and regroup, throwing missiles and curses while one side builds up the nerve to charge again (or flees in panic).

What you are talking about is a function of morale, not guessing distance or a random die roll. If it was pegged to morale, I'd be fine with it, but it's not.

There are lots of ways to handle charges, from testing to make them to testing to receive them. No one but GW does a "flip a coin and see if the troops can cover the requisite amount of ground before the shot clock expires."

its ironic that he gave confederates as an example too, as they have one of the most notable examples of a charge faltering during the ACW - Picketts Charge. Less than a third of the men who charged ever actually reached Union lines, several thousand men reached a depression along Emmitsburg road which offered them shelter for the incoming fire, just 300-400 yards from Union lines, and refused to advance any further and remained in the ditch for the rest of the battle, eventually surrendering to Union forces.

Charges fail sometimes, period, it's a complex movement of involving a mass of men, end of story. Now move on and don't feed the troll.

As for actual TOW-related topics, I'm surprised that they haven't even gone into the new base sizes yet. Infantry got moved up to 25mm minimum base size but Cavalry, juding from the photos, remains the same 25x50mm. So now Cavalry units won't be in base contact with as many infantry models as in WHFB. Honestly seems like buff to cavs to me.

Wonder if there will be a new 30/35mm square base for CW sized miniatures -- I made a 20-to-25 mm square base extender (well rather in 2 parts, files on cults 3D: https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/20mm-to-25mm-base-extender-in-two-pieces) in blender and 3D printed them. So far working decently well and I've finished most of my Empire infantry. 25mm bases IIRC are of the same height as the 20MM ones, but 40mm is slightly taller, so I can't just scale up and have to redo the mesh -- not a lot of work but wanna get started nonetheless.

chaos0xomega wrote:
its ironic that he gave confederates as an example too, as they have one of the most notable examples of a charge faltering during the ACW - Picketts Charge. Less than a third of the men who charged ever actually reached Union lines, several thousand men reached a depression along Emmitsburg road which offered them shelter for the incoming fire, just 300-400 yards from Union lines, and refused to advance any further and remained in the ditch for the rest of the battle, eventually surrendering to Union forces.

That wasn't a random die roll, that was the result of deadly converging fire. In Warhammer terms, they charged and got hammered in the resulting "Stand and Shoot." It wasn't because Pickett's regimental commanders started running too soon and ran out of Gatorade.

IIRC Stand & Shoot mechanics in WHFB didn't cause the charge to fail (unless you killed everyone), they only caused casualties prior to the charging unit making contact with its target. You would still need a random charge roll to represent the charge faltering as it advanced under fire.

chaos0xomega wrote:
IIRC Stand & Shoot mechanics in WHFB didn't cause the charge to fail (unless you killed everyone), they only caused casualties prior to the charging unit making contact with its target. You would still need a random charge roll to represent the charge faltering as it advanced under fire.

A unit that took 25% casualties had to make a morale test.

Of course, WHFB didn't feature muzzle-loading rifles, so it's not a great example.

And a panic test resulting from stand and shoot would result in them fleeing, correct? Because thats a different outcome than faltering or hunkering down and holding instead of completing the maneuver. Ergo, the random dice roll still would serve a purpose in terms of delineating an outcome other than "success" or "abysmal failure and rout".

chaos0xomega wrote:
And a panic test resulting from stand and shoot would result in them fleeing, correct? Because thats a different outcome than faltering or hunkering down and holding instead of completing the maneuver. Ergo, the random dice roll still would serve a purpose in terms of delineating an outcome other than "success" or "abysmal failure and rout".

It depends on the version. WHFB had troops flee off the field, but the contemporaneous version of 40k had them flee into cover.

Either way, the failed charge is the result of positive action by the defender, not a random die roll that exists independent of the morale, leadership and troop quality of the attacker. It's a silly mechanic and no other system uses anything like it.

edit: This post was originally written with what I now believe to be a misinterpretation of what was meant by the word 'system'. Ignore.

Ultimately I didn't like random charge distances because of how it made the game play. Too many times it was just frustrating rather than characterful when a typically slow moving unit teleported across the battlefield with a high charge roll, or a typically fast and reliable unit tripped over their shoelaces and failed an easy charge.

It just wasn't fun for me or the people I played with.

I think a system where "getting the charge" isn't the be all and end all of the game, and the rules are written so offensive type melee units want to move towards the enemy regardless of whether they get the charge in their turn or not and defensive type units get benefits for bracing a charge rather than charging themselves, etc.

 lcmiracle wrote:
Charges fail sometimes, period, it's a complex movement of involving a mass of men, end of story. Now move on and don't feed the troll.

As for actual TOW-related topics, I'm surprised that they haven't even gone into the new base sizes yet. Infantry got moved up to 25mm minimum base size but Cavalry, juding from the photos, remains the same 25x50mm. So now Cavalry units won't be in base contact with as many infantry models as in WHFB. Honestly seems like buff to cavs to me.

Wonder if there will be a new 30/35mm square base for CW sized miniatures -- I made a 20-to-25 mm square base extender (well rather in 2 parts, files on cults 3D: https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/20mm-to-25mm-base-extender-in-two-pieces) in blender and 3D printed them. So far working decently well and I've finished most of my Empire infantry. 25mm bases IIRC are of the same height as the 20MM ones, but 40mm is slightly taller, so I can't just scale up and have to redo the mesh -- not a lot of work but wanna get started nonetheless.

Check this article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

I don’t think those Calvary units are on their old base sizes.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Saber wrote:
While the GW rule is an abstraction, this is almost literally what happened in ancient and medieval combat. Indeed, it was probably the defining feature of pre-1870 combat: one group musters the courage to charge and they move forward, yelling and throwing things. If they enemy lose their nerve and flees, the attackers pursue. If the enemy holds the attacker may press the charge, or, more likely, they'll slow down and regroup, throwing missiles and curses while one side builds up the nerve to charge again (or flees in panic).

What you are talking about is a function of morale, not guessing distance or a random die roll. If it was pegged to morale, I'd be fine with it, but it's not.

There are lots of ways to handle charges, from testing to make them to testing to receive them. No one but GW does a "flip a coin and see if the troops can cover the requisite amount of ground before the shot clock expires."

Yes, I understand what you're saying but I wanted to be pedantic. What you describe is literally what happened at Pharsalus: Caesar's troops started to charge. When they saw Pompey's troops weren't advancing to meet them, they halted to redress their ranks and save their breath. Then they charged again.

And other games I play have random charges; A Song of Ice and Fire, for one. Still others have fixed charge distances. I think both systems work.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
IIRC Stand & Shoot mechanics in WHFB didn't cause the charge to fail (unless you killed everyone), they only caused casualties prior to the charging unit making contact with its target. You would still need a random charge roll to represent the charge faltering as it advanced under fire.

A unit that took 25% casualties had to make a morale test.

Of course, WHFB didn't feature muzzle-loading rifles, so it's not a great example.

Empire Handgunners* would like to have a word with you

* While technically muzzle-loaded muskets, it doesn't make that much difference to you when under fire from them.

I don’t think those Calvary units are on their old base sizes.

All of the Images they have shown look like 25x50 to me.

Justyn wrote:

I don’t think those Calvary units are on their old base sizes.

All of the Images they have shown look like 25x50 to me.

All of the cavalry shown so far comes on bases larger than 25x50 though. Check this article for general comments on bases in TOW. Comparing the Bretonnian Knights on those bases to older images the base size increase is obvious. In articles like this you can also see cavalry on bigger bases than infantry (which is no smaller than 25mm).

This is not to say that there might not be (cavalry) units remaining on their previous 25x50 bases, but we have seen none of them so far.

chaos0xomega wrote:IIRC Stand & Shoot mechanics in WHFB didn't cause the charge to fail (unless you killed everyone), they only caused casualties prior to the charging unit making contact with its target. You would still need a random charge roll to represent the charge faltering as it advanced under fire.

Or that's the reason for a poor combat roll. It's already simulated without the frustration of having to roll for a basic move.
Troops hiding in a ditch for the rest of the battle are effectively casualties and removing those models simulates that.

Saber wrote:Yes, I understand what you're saying but I wanted to be pedantic. What you describe is literally what happened at Pharsalus: Caesar's troops started to charge. When they saw Pompey's troops weren't advancing to meet them, they halted to redress their ranks and save their breath. Then they charged again.

Would that not be an advance in game terms? Perhaps moving into charge range and then deciding not to?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
There are lots of ways to handle charges, from testing to make them to testing to receive them. No one but GW does a "flip a coin and see if the troops can cover the requisite amount of ground before the shot clock expires."

Set movement plus random movement with a reasonably good chance of doubling your movement plus prior opportunity to maneuver into a favorable position is not a coin flip. A little less hyperbole, please.

M + 2d6 pick highest adds a little variance to charge distance. It prevents the larger variance of 8th ed charges and allows cavalry, beasts and other fast movers to retain a large part of their ability to dictate charges.

What it doesn't do is let you line up your M5 elves and charge the humans with their pitiful M4 every single time. An inch of extra movement is still an advantage, but with this charge rule you no longer have binary outcomes between infantry of different races. It's an equalizing factor that makes infantry on infantry clashes a less one-sided affair (and different kinds of other units as well that happen to have similar but not identical movement values). You are now forced to either keep your elves at 10" or 11" to stay safe from being charged by dwarfs and accept that your charge only has a 50% chance to succeed or whatever, or you accept the risk of moving into their threat radius and get charged before you can make the charge. Conversely, by retaining a better charge probability you can try to set up your elf regiments to bait the dwarfs into a low success charge that leaves some units stranded and others isolated in combat and open to counter-charge in the flanks. You can no longer make sure that your entire infantry line is lined up correctly just outside enemy charge range for an all out devastating charge, so if you are inclined to try that, you can but accept the risk that the exact same thing happens to you.

You can throw around questions of realism all you want, and you are of course free to dislike random charges to your heart's content, but the game mechanic itself has tangible value. Small variance and blurring the exact movement capability of units allows for more dynamism during the game and opens a number of tactical considerations that are not present with fixed charges. It isn't the only way to write charge rules, but no less valid than other solutions.

Honestly, it's not the movement that primarily concerns me with infantry vs infantry clashes, it's the implementation of Initiative, WS, weapontypes and the corresponding statblocks aswell potential USR's.

If elves once again always go first, and tactically speaking what toolsets will the armies have, will there finally be a deep enough system and certain overly large gaps be filled for some factions or not.

Then there's also the problems of certain matchups turn times: Ogrekingdoms vs Skaven. Which ammounts on one side to basically a 10 minute turn and on the other on a 30 minute turn.
Since we are not getting an AA system or an order system it'd be nice to know if there atleast was a reaction system, beyond stand and shoot.

Yeah, I sure hope we get a good melee article next week that answers some of those questions.

I might get lucky with today's article. Early on, a couple of years back, I mentioned my dislike for the ubiquity of armor save modifiers and how they made armor upgrades basically pointless. I don't have much hope for GW to see the light and take it easy on armor save modifiers. They really don't have a great track record in that regard. But it sure would be nice if troops could actually take the odd armor save instead of basically playing a game where 5+ armor gets circumvented so often that it might as well not exist.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Show me the battle where this happened.

It's a game mechanic that only exists in the GW universe.

Has happened multiple times during multiple battles in 18th and 19th century European warfare - we know that because there are numerous firsthand accounts written by the eye witnesses of this era. I currently have Zhmodikov's book on infantry tactics of Russian Imperial Army during the Napoleonic wars, open and right in front of me, and there are examples of infantry starting their rushing sequence way too early, breaking formation or becoming exhausted in the process and being forced to stop, regroup or even retreat back to their initial positions before trying again, and there are also examples of infantry charges being hindered by broken terrain, officers losing sight of their soldiers or vice versa and forcing the rest of the formation to, once again, fall back or at least stop in their tracks, waiting for stragglers. I can even pull quotes out if you need, but since the book is not in English, my translation will have to suffice. There are even examples of charging infantry seeing the enemy ranks sitting still and not wavering before being confronted by frontal assault, and that was enough for troopers to lose their courage and literally under-charge or, in turn, start moving backwards. So actually it did happen exactly like you describe it here:

Confederates give the rebel yell, surge forward and then, whew, that field is longer than we thought!

If the field is, indeed, way too long, people will become exhausted under stress early and will be forced to stop before pressing on later or even retreat in confusion, even if the enemy's defensive fire is minimal or absent entirely. Whether you want this mechanic to be present in-game or how punishing it should be is up for debate, but you can't just say "This never happened in real life" if it did, in fact, happen.

It's a mechanic no other system uses for good reason.

But that is plainly incorrect. Conquest is a mass battle game similar to WHFB and has random charge distance. Mortal Gods is a skirmish game, but still has random charge distance.

Think Elves need a complete re-think in how they work, as indeed does anything meant to be elite. the game framework will likely allow this, its if GW will try.

specifically forget the always strikes first, have an initiative system so they often strike first. And then have probably a sensible WS v WS table such that if they have a decent skill they survive not through wiping their enemy first but by being better fighters

you can then stick in various stat modifiers for tactical situations, e.g. engaged on multiple fronts, up/down hill, defended positions etc such that even highly skilled fighters can be at a disadvantage, but its going to take player skill to put them there

the method of letting them strike first was basically a patch for them being very squishy and expensive to make them work, better to actually address how elite units should probably work - they will get swamped by weight of numbers unless you have a halfway decent morale mechanic such that a side that is defeated falls back in some way

one can hope they maybe look at how Warmaster does it, maybe bonus attacks (for the unit, not for individuals so the output doesn't double etc) or something.

 Geifer wrote:
Yeah, I sure hope we get a good melee article next week that answers some of those questions.

I might get lucky with today's article. Early on, a couple of years back, I mentioned my dislike for the ubiquity of armor save modifiers and how they made armor upgrades basically pointless. I don't have much hope for GW to see the light and take it easy on armor save modifiers. They really don't have a great track record in that regard. But it sure would be nice if troops could actually take the odd armor save instead of basically playing a game where 5+ armor gets circumvented so often that it might as well not exist.

What was it 13 pts I 6 greatweapons white lions meaning -2 on your armor, whilest a chaos warrior was where in points (?)... And people wonder why tzeentch or nurgle were basically the single most prevalent marks.... on supposedly baseline tough as nails infantry...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
Think Elves need a complete re-think in how they work, as indeed does anything meant to be elite. the game framework will likely allow this, its if GW will try.

specifically forget the always strikes first, have an initiative system so they often strike first. And then have probably a sensible WS v WS table such that if they have a decent skill they survive not through wiping their enemy first but by being better fighters

you can then stick in various stat modifiers for tactical situations, e.g. engaged on multiple fronts, up/down hill, defended positions etc such that even highly skilled fighters can be at a disadvantage, but its going to take player skill to put them there

the method of letting them strike first was basically a patch for them being very squishy and expensive to make them work, better to actually address how elite units should probably work - they will get swamped by weight of numbers unless you have a halfway decent morale mechanic such that a side that is defeated falls back in some way

one can hope they maybe look at how Warmaster does it, maybe bonus attacks (for the unit, not for individuals so the output doesn't double etc) or something.

honestly i hope they pull an HH in regards to morale, and basically remove fearlessness etc on the vast majority of armies outright, even the eye of the gods for chaos warriors.

Its time for the shooting phase
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/13/old-world-almanack-darken-the-skies-with-volleys-of-arrows-quarrels-shot-bolts-balls-and-screaming-skulls/

Shooting!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/13/old-world-almanack-darken-the-skies-with-volleys-of-arrows-quarrels-shot-bolts-balls-and-screaming-skulls/



Volley Fire allows a second rank to shoot

Nice to see there is no "a 6 wounds anything!", do wonder though why BS is still a lookup, shifting that so the stat becomes "3+" or "6/4+" would seem to make sense at this point

volley fire is sensible

guessing "Armourbane (1)" is a fancy way of saying -1 to your save? would adding an Armour Penetration stat not be easier?

otherwise though nothing too outlandish and seems reasonable

leopard wrote:

guessing "Armourbane (1)" is a fancy way of saying -1 to your save? would adding an Armour Penetration stat not be easier?

There literally is an Armour Penetration stat

Return of Battle Magic and Daemonology.
Wonder if we'll see Necromancy, Elementalism and Illusion as well

Vortex of Chaos is... interesting. Damage-wise its pretty naff (d6+1 S3 IF the _moving_ template touches or moves over units) But the template hangs about as dangerous terrain, which has a lot more potential to cause problems.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:

guessing "Armourbane (1)" is a fancy way of saying -1 to your save? would adding an Armour Penetration stat not be easier?

There literally is an Armour Penetration stat

one wonders what the purpose of adding a USR that does basically the same thing will be?

What are the chances that the screaming skull catapult will be Fw resin?

 GaroRobe wrote:
What are the chances that the screaming skull catapult will be Fw resin?

probably quite high, I think we will get some new plastic characters, maybe a unit or two (e.g. the foot knights already shown, and hopefully new skellingtons) but otherwise if it was metal, it will be resin

Have to say I like the shooting rules.

A tiny bit tweaked with those old house rules for rolling a 7 or 8.

Getting optimisitc about this edition. I have to say it.

leopard wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:

guessing "Armourbane (1)" is a fancy way of saying -1 to your save? would adding an Armour Penetration stat not be easier?

There literally is an Armour Penetration stat

one wonders what the purpose of adding a USR that does basically the same thing will be?

To counteract stacking modifiers and making things like shields more valuable.

If Armourbane(1) gives you the ability to always reduce a save by 1, then those optional shields for some units become waaay more important.

Personally, I prefer using weapon strength and then a USR if something is different (ie, a Str 3 longbow with Armorbane [1]) to having every weapon having a unique AP value.

I can't explain why that's easier to get through my thick skull; I just prefer it I guess?

leopard wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:

guessing "Armourbane (1)" is a fancy way of saying -1 to your save? would adding an Armour Penetration stat not be easier?

There literally is an Armour Penetration stat

one wonders what the purpose of adding a USR that does basically the same thing will be?

Maybe Armour Bane is something more fiddly like "ignore 1 armour but can't ignore a Shield" or "ignore 1 armour on a hit roll of 6" etc

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:

guessing "Armourbane (1)" is a fancy way of saying -1 to your save? would adding an Armour Penetration stat not be easier?

There literally is an Armour Penetration stat

one wonders what the purpose of adding a USR that does basically the same thing will be?

Maybe Armour Bane is something more fiddly like "ignore 1 armour but can't ignore a Shield" or "ignore 1 armour on a hit roll of 6" etc

will see when it all comes out, I'm sure there is some logic to it, somewhere, hopefully it all flows nicely

leopard wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:

guessing "Armourbane (1)" is a fancy way of saying -1 to your save? would adding an Armour Penetration stat not be easier?

There literally is an Armour Penetration stat

one wonders what the purpose of adding a USR that does basically the same thing will be?

I would dare to make prediction it isn't just ap added. By very least some condition like be in half range or to wound roll 6 or something.,

Also confirmation some models can be used both aos and tow.

Why not phoenix guard...

Maybe my bonesplitters and spiderfang won't become paperweights.

Line of sight is checked for each model within a unit
with the added line that not always everyone can shoot

not sure of that thing will see play or just be ignored by everyone

 KidCthulhu wrote:
Personally, I prefer using weapon strength and then a USR if something is different (ie, a Str 3 longbow with Armorbane [1]) to having every weapon having a unique AP value.

I can't explain why that's easier to get through my thick skull; I just prefer it I guess?

Right, but this does both. Every weapon has a unique AP value and armorbane (X) also exists.

 kodos wrote:
Line of sight is checked for each model within a unit
with the added line that not always everyone can shoot

not sure of that thing will see play or just be ignored by everyone

So just like always been in fb. And also in 40k/aos...

I need more caffeine, Voss. I glanced and saw the - for AP and went, "well, that's because it's Str 3" without even realizing I was even looking at an AP stat!

I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

leopard wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:
What are the chances that the screaming skull catapult will be Fw resin?

probably quite high, I think we will get some new plastic characters, maybe a unit or two (e.g. the foot knights already shown, and hopefully new skellingtons) but otherwise if it was metal, it will be resin

Not necessarily as they've already suggested that there will be old metal models on offer (if so, probably those that never made it to Finecast).

Wouldve preferred a wound table with more consistent logic, its not the worst in the world (S=T is always 4+, +1S gets you a 3+, +2S or more gets you a 2+, -1S gets you a 5+, -2S gets you a 6+, but then transitioning to '-' from the 6 basically seems totally random? I guess technically its +6S), but could be better.

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Yeah it’s probably something like “Armourbane [X] - when firing at a target within half maximum range, this weapon gains additional save modifier equal to -X.”

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wouldve preferred a wound table with more consistent logic, its not the worst in the world (S=T is always 4+, +1S gets you a 3+, +2S or more gets you a 2+, -1S gets you a 5+, -2S gets you a 6+, but then transitioning to '-' from the 6 basically seems totally random? I guess technically its +6S), but could be better.

4 times 6, then impossible to wound.

S+6(or more)=impossible to wound.

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Ding ding! Very probably that it gets AP -1 (using the number in bracket) at half range.

Loving what I'm seeing there for the shooting. Using higher BS and getting a re-roll it quite a neat bonus, it will be mostly for characters so very few shot will benefit, but I like it a lot to make it worthwhile having some BS 6-7+ for your heros and lords and having a little bonus to show for it without breaking the bank. Good job on that.

Also great to see that hitting on 7+ remain (or came back, 8th edition is too far back for me to remember if it was in there or not ).

The S/T chart is interesting, a bit different but great to see that 6+ is not an auto wound for all range. Now we just need to see if anything will have a high enough toughness to benefit from it. Sphinxes for the TK were at T8 in the last book and amongst the highest T you could get if I remember right, curious to see if any stats will change.

The Screaming Skull probably have the most special rules of anything, love it

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Yeah it’s probably something like “Armourbane [X] - when firing at a target within half maximum range, this weapon gains additional save modifier equal to -X.”

15 " -1 armor... yikes.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Yeah it’s probably something like “Armourbane [X] - when firing at a target within half maximum range, this weapon gains additional save modifier equal to -X.”

15 " -1 armor... yikes.

Can't be much worse than Woof Elves getting 30" Arcane Bodkins (at -3!)

Again, very happy with all of this, feels like a slight refinement of 5th/6th ed and what I wanted.

Lots of good stuff - hope the WS chart is also old school with high WS hitting on 2+ on even auto hitting.

Can't be much worse than Woof Elves getting 30" Arcane Bodkins (at -3!)

Was there anything about the WE that was fun to play against ever

Well looks like shooting is nerfed given shooting are allowed supporting attacks in 8th; wonder if supporting attack is flat out removed?

Putting AP as a separate stat is good for clarity, IMO, that is assuming the AP table from strength is translated into the state directly. Also not sure if Armourbane is some kind of separate rule given Handguns in past editions has S4 as well as AP, thus giving in a combined armour modifier of -2. If they opt to keep the AP stat directly tied to weapon strength it can explain why "Armourbane" is needed. Though I would prefer if it does something different from AP.

Liking the blast template with warmachines, seems hopeful that cannons will behave the same as they always have been; I'm actually quite hoping bolt throwers getting the same rules as cannons, just with reduced strength per model killed, just for consistency’s sake.

Though I do worry that, with the new to-wound table, and given a long enough lifespan of the system leading to a possible over-proliferation of giant monsters, as is FW's want, that will lead to an abundance of monsters that needs specialized lists to take out.

It outright says that longbows have volley fire which means shoot in ranks. I don’t think giving the commonest weapon in the game is “nerfing” it exactly. Restraining it a little, sure.

Besides, very few people actually want 8th edition - the director’s cut anyway so I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing either.

Wonder if with Volley, and standing on a hill, in the dark, with an Owl, will grant a third rank of shooting, or if it just caps out at the two?

Well, if what little we have been told of the game is accurate, your ranged units (like archers) will likely be fielded in wide formations rather than deep ones. I.E. a regiment of 20 models will be fielded in 2 ranks of 10, rather than 4 ranks of 5, that way you are getting the full effect of volley fire.

 The Phazer wrote:
Again, very happy with all of this, feels like a slight refinement of 5th/6th ed and what I wanted.

Yep agreed, still not sure about the magic phase being split up but I don't have any negatives about that it's just something new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, if what little we have been told of the game is accurate, your ranged units (like archers) will likely be fielded in wide formations rather than deep ones. I.E. a regiment of 20 models will be fielded in 2 ranks of 10, rather than 4 ranks of 5, that way you are getting the full effect of volley fire.

That's not a new thing though, I don't think anybody fielded their ranged regiments in a block.

 Rihgu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Yeah it’s probably something like “Armourbane [X] - when firing at a target within half maximum range, this weapon gains additional save modifier equal to -X.”

15 " -1 armor... yikes.

Can't be much worse than Woof Elves getting 30" Arcane Bodkins (at -3!)

my chaos warrior army already is colecting dust, didn't need another reason to remain that way.

 Olthannon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, if what little we have been told of the game is accurate, your ranged units (like archers) will likely be fielded in wide formations rather than deep ones. I.E. a regiment of 20 models will be fielded in 2 ranks of 10, rather than 4 ranks of 5, that way you are getting the full effect of volley fire.

That's not a new thing though, I don't think anybody fielded their ranged regiments in a block.

Thats what I thought, but Im sure I have seen a recent TOW-article with a picture of a huge block och bretonnian archers that made me react despite my limited experience with Fantasy Battle.
Edit: at the lower part of this article https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/ four by four blocks of archers, or perhaps eight by four. But then again, it might just be a wonky way of dislpaying units, like having characters running around by them self.

Seeing the fireball with S4 but AP- has me cautiously optimistic. Unless that's something exclusive to magic, they decoupled armor save modifiers from strength. If true, that's a good move in my book.

I'm not sure what the point of that to-wound table is. Unless a whole lot of things get a toughness boost, effectively sixes still wound in the overwhelming number of cases. I would have preferred if they hadn't been so liberal as to give a range of four toughness values a 6+ to wound.

I hope the restriction to only the first rank firing without special rules is indicative of smaller unit size caps.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Yeah it’s probably something like “Armourbane [X] - when firing at a target within half maximum range, this weapon gains additional save modifier equal to -X.”

15 " -1 armor... yikes.

Can't be much worse than Woof Elves getting 30" Arcane Bodkins (at -3!)

my chaos warrior army already is colecting dust, didn't need another reason to remain that way.

This AP1 may sound scary until you realise that without that on average you need 9 BS3 archers to kill a single Orc Boy with light armour and shield at close range...and this AP1 doesn't really change this math too much.

S3 shooting used to be anti- fast cavalry/ lone mages/ maybe skirmish tool and with the same math as in 6th it's not going to be different here. A very important tool, sure, as who wins the battle of support units, wins the game, but hardly a scary prospect for Chaos Warriors

 Fayric wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, if what little we have been told of the game is accurate, your ranged units (like archers) will likely be fielded in wide formations rather than deep ones. I.E. a regiment of 20 models will be fielded in 2 ranks of 10, rather than 4 ranks of 5, that way you are getting the full effect of volley fire.

That's not a new thing though, I don't think anybody fielded their ranged regiments in a block.

Thats what I thought, but Im sure I have seen a recent TOW-article with a picture of a huge block och bretonnian archers that made me react despite my limited experience with Fantasy Battle.
Edit: at the lower part of this article https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/ four by four blocks of archers, or perhaps eight by four. But then again, it might just be a wonky way of dislpaying units, like having characters running around by them self.

That too continues good old tradition of fb era white dwarf pics gw goes retro hard here

Next they return goblin green paint...

I would like to also point out that templates are coming back! I understand why some people get competitive and bitter over then but I'm my gaming circles it has always been pretty fair and I like how they introduce a visual factor for the big rocks and explosions.

tneva82 wrote:

That too continues good old tradition of fb era white dwarf pics gw goes retro hard here

Next they return goblin green paint...

They do occasionally release new paints to go with new armies. Releasing a new Goblin Green base paint to tie into the nostalgia would be a great idea. I’d grab a pot; mine is running low.

Coat'd'arms(or whatever it's called exactly) sells same colours(literally) as that era gw so if you need it you can get it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wonder if with Volley, and standing on a hill, in the dark, with an Owl, will grant a third rank of shooting, or if it just caps out at the two?

From the article:

Models can (almost always) shoot only once, no matter how many Attacks they have in their profile, and unless they have the Volley Fire special rule or are stationed on a hill, only the front rank may fire.

The "or" seems to indicate that you can only benefit from one such factor. Depending on how exactly those two rules are phrased ("an additional rank may shoot" or "the second rank may shoot") it might allow three (or more?) ranks to shoot under certain conditions. Right now it feels like they are going for "one rank, and maybe a second one but no more".

That’s what I’m wondering exactly. Hill + Volley = 3 Ranks shooting works for me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Yeah it’s probably something like “Armourbane [X] - when firing at a target within half maximum range, this weapon gains additional save modifier equal to -X.”

15 " -1 armor... yikes.

Can't be much worse than Woof Elves getting 30" Arcane Bodkins (at -3!)

my chaos warrior army already is colecting dust, didn't need another reason to remain that way.

This AP1 may sound scary until you realise that without that on average you need 9 BS3 archers to kill a single Orc Boy with light armour and shield at close range...and this AP1 doesn't really change this math too much.

S3 shooting used to be anti- fast cavalry/ lone mages/ maybe skirmish tool and with the same math as in 6th it's not going to be different here. A very important tool, sure, as who wins the battle of support units, wins the game, but hardly a scary prospect for Chaos Warriors

Except….when I shoot you? I’m not aiming for a wipe out, and unless I’m very lucky I’m not even expecting a panic test. What I am trying to achieve is to start eroding your rank bonus, so when combat comes, you’re hopefully on the back foot.

tneva82 wrote:
Coat'd'arms(or whatever it's called exactly) sells same colours(literally) as that era gw so if you need it you can get it.

I know, but it would be a great little bit of retro marketing.

People have already decided that volley fire is just shooting from the second rank, but wouldn't it be more logical that it's the same rule from the 8th edition? (half the models in the rear ranks can shoot)

Well, they told us what Volley means

Where?

Santtu wrote:People have already decided that volley fire is just shooting from the second rank, but wouldn't it be more logical that it's the same rule from the 8th edition? (half the models in the rear ranks can shoot)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, they told us what Volley means

Yes, that only the front rank may fire unless you have Volley or are on a hill. So to the letter of that statement any number of ranks can fire with volley or on a hill, until they expand further, people are nostalgia glasses-ing the rules.

Cyel wrote:



This AP1 may sound scary until you realise that without that on average you need 9 BS3 archers to kill a single Orc Boy with light armour and shield at close range...and this AP1 doesn't really change this math too much.

S3 shooting used to be anti- fast cavalry/ lone mages/ maybe skirmish tool and with the same math as in 6th it's not going to be different here. A very important tool, sure, as who wins the battle of support units, wins the game, but hardly a scary prospect for Chaos Warriors

Well, it certainly shreds barbarian cav and it still trades very likely well into points against even "hard" targets like that. I'd rather avoid being forced into tzeentch or nurgle again permanently on my chaos warriors to not get attritioned to death. But that will be a debate for when we see the points GW gives.

I hope good scenarios requiring players to take the middle of the table, like in Warmachine, will be the death of static gunlines. May they rot in hell.

I can sort of agree that the last thing the game needs to do is buff elves - but equally its hard to believe AP-1 in half range is going to make much difference.

stand and shoot is within half range so I imagine it will keep their units alive longer.

armourbane in 40k/HH is half range bonus to vehicle penetration, so one assumes it's just -1AP within half range.

For the elves, there are a range of options to help them.

For example, they could just get a flat -1 to hit an elf, in melee or shooting. Being T3 won't matter if they get hit less.

Or they could inflict a -1 to hit when being charged.

You could have a '2s count as 1s for hitting' rule, where 2s are auto misses whether people could or not.

basically, IMO they should just be harder to hit and use that as their defence. This is what the eldar in 40k should have, but they keep degrading those rules into nothing but pro-marine mechanics.

You achieve that with high ws and better shield/weapon types.

Not by just once again letting elves get away with not playing the same game.

Dudeface wrote:

Santtu wrote:People have already decided that volley fire is just shooting from the second rank, but wouldn't it be more logical that it's the same rule from the 8th edition? (half the models in the rear ranks can shoot)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, they told us what Volley means

Yes, that only the front rank may fire unless you have Volley or are on a hill. So to the letter of that statement any number of ranks can fire with volley or on a hill, until they expand further, people are nostalgia glasses-ing the rules.

Accurate point is accurate!

Not Online!!! wrote:
You achieve that with high ws and better shield/weapon types.

Not by just once again letting elves get away with not playing the same game.

That's spurious reasoning. Orcs don't play the same game as everyone else because no one else has animosity. Dwarfs don't play the same game because no one else can ignore march blocking like they did. Lizardmen and morale tests on 3D6 etc ad nauseum.

Army wide special rules automatically make an army 'not play the same game' as other people. That's their point. And the elves are no different. I am an ardent disliker of the elf army getting ASF and was since it was introduced in 8th, but that's not the same thing as saying 'elves can't get any special rule that affects their ability to fight or be struck in combat'.

High WS only works if the hit table reflects it - now that's a potentially good bet given the similarities between WFB and HH mechanics and rule names so far shown - the BS hit table is the same in HH. In which case their melee defence won't be bad assuming they're going to be WS4 or higher and no one else's WS has changed. They will be very vulnerable to shooting however, and their bowman plastics don't get shields so counterfire will decimate them.

Darkial wrote:
I would like to also point out that templates are coming back! I understand why some people get competitive and bitter over then but I'm my gaming circles it has always been pretty fair and I like how they introduce a visual factor for the big rocks and explosions.

Agreed. Im not looking for a good tournament set of rules. Just something wirkable for friendly competative.

Being squishy is kind of part and parcel of being an Elf.

I’d advocate them getting rules to allow more of their models to fight. Not just higher than average WS, but represent their martial discipline by allowing an extra rank of attacks.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Being squishy is kind of part and parcel of being an Elf.

I’d advocate them getting rules to allow more of their models to fight. Not just higher than average WS, but represent their martial discipline by allowing an extra rank of attacks.

Lorewise Elves are no more squishy than humans, just faster and almost always far more exprienced. They are almost always arrogant and overconfident, not sure how to relect that in rules?

 Hellebore wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You achieve that with high ws and better shield/weapon types.

Not by just once again letting elves get away with not playing the same game.

That's spurious reasoning. Orcs don't play the same game as everyone else because no one else has animosity. Dwarfs don't play the same game because no one else can ignore march blocking like they did. Lizardmen and morale tests on 3D6 etc ad nauseum.

Army wide special rules automatically make an army 'not play the same game' as other people. That's their point. And the elves are no different. I am an ardent disliker of the elf army getting ASF and was since it was introduced in 8th, but that's not the same thing as saying 'elves can't get any special rule that affects their ability to fight or be struck in combat'.

High WS only works if the hit table reflects it - now that's a potentially good bet given the similarities between WFB and HH mechanics and rule names so far shown - the BS hit table is the same in HH. In which case their melee defence won't be bad assuming they're going to be WS4 or higher and no one else's WS has changed. They will be very vulnerable to shooting however, and their bowman plastics don't get shields so counterfire will decimate them.

There is a massive difference between ASF/asf light and just basically ignoring 1/6th of a result, which btw good luck playing a low stat army into elves because then you imported one of the worst problems 8th edition 40k had with negative hit modifiers halfing some armies output whilest others just get mildly inconvenienced.
No high ws and something showing their skill in formation warfare or skirmishing in the case of WE is far better.

WRT Armourbane, doesn’t HH have a USR where you get extra AP on a 6 to wound?

Could be something like that?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Being squishy is kind of part and parcel of being an Elf.

I’d advocate them getting rules to allow more of their models to fight. Not just higher than average WS, but represent their martial discipline by allowing an extra rank of attacks.

Didn’t they always get the extra ranks with archers and spears? Or was that just a special unit? Last time I played against high elves was 5th.

Extra initiative and WS, plus good magic and some nice special rules always seemed to make them feel good and elite on the table, at least from the other side of the battlefield.

Erm…possibly?

They had Sea Guard on and off, a combined arms unit with Bows and Spears. And importantly, Shields.

Yeah high elves have had army wide "fight in additional ranks" in some form since at least 6th

 Mr_Rose wrote:
It outright says that longbows have volley fire which means shoot in ranks. I don’t think giving the commonest weapon in the game is “nerfing” it exactly. Restraining it a little, sure.

Besides, very few people actually want 8th edition - the director’s cut anyway so I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing either.

Longbows won't be the "most common" weapons in the game, if past editions are anything to go by, AFAIK only Bretonnian peasant archers and some HE archers gets this (WE also gets this but they had to make their even more special in 8th I guess). Turns out Empire archers in 6th have Longbows but lost it since 7th.

But more to the point all bows gained the volley fire USR in 8th edition, where every unit also gained supporting attacks when attacking with the front rank too. So compared to 8th, TOW bows gets 1 + 1/2 * Ceiling(n-1) ranks, assuming the same Volley Fire rule, whereas in 8th it'd be 2 + 1/2 * Ceiling(n-2) ranks, where n is the number of complete ranks in the unit.

Sure if there are fewer than 3 ranks the USR won't make a difference, but at 3 ranks that's one extra rank in 8th vs. the previous edition that are allowed to shoot.

What's interesting to me is that the longbow entry appears to be directly above the entry for the Screaming Skull Catapult. The latter is something used exclusively by the Tomb Kings. The former is something that the Tomb Kings don't have (or haven't so far, and it wouldn't be fluffy for them to get it). That suggests to me that all of the weapons (so far) are going to be in the main rulebook - even army exclusive stuff like the SSC.

Nevelon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

That too continues good old tradition of fb era white dwarf pics gw goes retro hard here

Next they return goblin green paint...

They do occasionally release new paints to go with new armies. Releasing a new Goblin Green base paint to tie into the nostalgia would be a great idea. I’d grab a pot; mine is running low.

With the absolute lack of simple green flock at any of the FLGS's in my area I'm hoping this will facilitate a nostalgia push for restocking THAT.

Hellebore wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You achieve that with high ws and better shield/weapon types.

Not by just once again letting elves get away with not playing the same game.

That's spurious reasoning. Orcs don't play the same game as everyone else because no one else has animosity. Dwarfs don't play the same game because no one else can ignore march blocking like they did. Lizardmen and morale tests on 3D6 etc ad nauseum.

Army wide special rules automatically make an army 'not play the same game' as other people. That's their point. And the elves are no different. I am an ardent disliker of the elf army getting ASF and was since it was introduced in 8th, but that's not the same thing as saying 'elves can't get any special rule that affects their ability to fight or be struck in combat'.

High WS only works if the hit table reflects it - now that's a potentially good bet given the similarities between WFB and HH mechanics and rule names so far shown - the BS hit table is the same in HH. In which case their melee defence won't be bad assuming they're going to be WS4 or higher and no one else's WS has changed. They will be very vulnerable to shooting however, and their bowman plastics don't get shields so counterfire will decimate them.

Agree with all you've said with the exception that ASF/Speed Of Asuryan was introduced in the 7th Ed. rulebook and was basically the start of the Armywide Special Rules War that gave us the 7th Ed Dark Elves book and all the trash that followed.

Nevelon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Being squishy is kind of part and parcel of being an Elf.

I’d advocate them getting rules to allow more of their models to fight. Not just higher than average WS, but represent their martial discipline by allowing an extra rank of attacks.

Didn’t they always get the extra ranks with archers and spears? Or was that just a special unit? Last time I played against high elves was 5th.

Extra initiative and WS, plus good magic and some nice special rules always seemed to make them feel good and elite on the table, at least from the other side of the battlefield.

The two ranks of Archers firing for High Elves last appeared in Ravening Hordes in 6th. It was removed in the 6th Army Book and without checking (I'm at work) wasn't brought back for the 7th or 8th books.

Three ranks of Spearmen fighting never went away unless it got killed in 8th.



Armor Piercing being a separate stat with weapons is going to open up the exact awful issues we had with 40K weapons, in my mind.

 Just Tony wrote:

The two ranks of Archers firing for High Elves last appeared in Ravening Hordes in 6th. It was removed in the 6th Army Book and without checking (I'm at work) wasn't brought back for the 7th or 8th books.

Three ranks of Spearmen fighting never went away unless it got killed in 8th.

8th gave all Elves in the HE army list the Martial Prowess special rule:
https://8th.whfb.app/special-rules/martial-prowess

Which flat out gave them an extra rank to supporting attacks. So, 3 ranks with spears to the front and 3 ranks of shooting with bows even without the volley fire ranks.

P.S.: didn't see the AP value on the SSC, just noticed the S8 hit only gave -3 AP, which would have been -5 if the older strength-to-AP rules are kept; so yeah, AP seems to have been completely decoupled from S.

 DarkBlack wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 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.

So... instead of your unit failing to make it into combat, you'd rather see it successfully charge, and take some hefty penalty like being reduced to WS1 or some such?

 lcmiracle wrote:
Which flat out gave them an extra rank to supporting attacks. So, 3 ranks with spears to the front and 3 ranks of shooting with bows even without the volley fire ranks.

What this says is that the stats reflecting quality were simply not sufficient to create the desire outcome. Put simply, ten elf models should dust ten goblin models, and it shouldn't be close. The extra ranks were an admission that the core combat factors (specifically WS) was not all that important. Skill didn't count for more than mass.

This was a major catalyst for my design philosophy. I wanted elf units to have enough of a qualitative superiority that they didn't need extra ranks of spear or archer to win against horde armies.

I'm very interested to see how GW approaches this in the new edition. Will they fix the core mechanics, or continue their longstanding practice of using special rules to fix the design deficiency?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 lcmiracle wrote:
Which flat out gave them an extra rank to supporting attacks. So, 3 ranks with spears to the front and 3 ranks of shooting with bows even without the volley fire ranks.

What this says is that the stats reflecting quality were simply not sufficient to create the desire outcome. Put simply, ten elf models should dust ten goblin models, and it shouldn't be close. The extra ranks were an admission that the core combat factors (specifically WS) was not all that important. Skill didn't count for more than mass.

This was a major catalyst for my design philosophy. I wanted elf units to have enough of a qualitative superiority that they didn't need extra ranks of spear or archer to win against horde armies.

I'm very interested to see how GW approaches this in the new edition. Will they fix the core mechanics, or continue their longstanding practice of using special rules to fix the design deficiency?

Disagree, the Elves WS4 would have dusted the Goblins but some of the defining quality of Goblins is superior numericality. The Elves shouldn't have some kind of army wide ASF precisely because they already have all the tools to help them be qualitatively better, objectively, with above average weapons skills, above average leadership, above average initiative, above average fighting capacities demonstrated in long-standing rules to represent their ability to fight in extra ranks.

They should be overwhelmed by numbers, they should be killed against numerically superior foes, they shouldn't have some rule to overcome that deficiency as that's one of the Elves' defining deficiencies. They have a strength, and they have a weakness. Good. Army wide ASF? Not so good.

 Just Tony wrote:

With the absolute lack of simple green flock at any of the FLGS's in my area I'm hoping this will facilitate a nostalgia push for restocking THAT.

I’ve always picked up my flock from model train stores. Better selection and volume/price then what you will find at most FLGS.

I wonder how many TOW armies are going to lean into retro paint/bases?

Interesting history on bows and ranks. The ranked firing was always the HE thing in my eyes. DE had shorter range, but better RoF, WE had better range and AP, but HE didn’t need to be all strung out in a line to shoot, and the rank bonus was nice if light harassment units came over to mess with you.

I realise I'm not a fantasy player, but I've never understood the limitations of ranged units being unable to fire in ranks.

Why even have ranks then?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I realise I'm not a fantasy player, but I've never understood the limitations of ranged units being unable to fire in ranks.

Why even have ranks then?

When your front rank models gets killed/removed, the back ranks models fill up the holes so you don't lose firing power.

Ofc ranks also affect combat resolution so more ranks gets advantage in melee to represent numeral superiority and psychological impact of being outnumbered. But if you are shooting, and have just one single rank of models, every model killed is at least one fewer attack.

Two points there:

1. If I have 20 guys, and only 10 of them can fire because 10 of them are standing behind, why wouldn't I just put them in a line of 20 and fire all 20 at once? Who cares about "losing firepower" if I'm already at 50% theoretical firepower because of ranks.

2. Something tells me if my weakling archers are in melee, having two ranks ain't going to help very much.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two points there:

1. If I have 20 guys, and only 10 of them can fire because 10 of them are standing behind, why wouldn't I just put them in a line of 20 and fire all 20 at once? Who cares about "losing firepower" if I'm already at 50% theoretical firepower because of ranks.

2. Something tells me if my weakling archers are in melee, having two ranks ain't going to help very much.

The battlefield isn't infinitely wide, nor infinitely flat. In practice, in WHFB you tended to take your archers in smaller units exactly for this reason; having a deep unit of archers doesn't help much and it's much easier to maneuver a five-wide unit to get line of sight on whatever you're shooting without other units getting in the way.

(There are, of course, exceptions; Sea Guard could volley fire three or four ranks deep in some editions.)

Vulcan wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 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.

So... instead of your unit failing to make it into combat, you'd rather see it successfully charge, and take some hefty penalty like being reduced to WS1 or some such?

You don't need everything spelled out. Have a charge/threat range. When troops charge in they roll dice, which represent how well charging in went.
If they roll poorly then you can say they exhausted themselves while charging.

Same effect for half the rules, rolls and moving units.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two points there:
1. If I have 20 guys, and only 10 of them can fire because 10 of them are standing behind, why wouldn't I just put them in a line of 20 and fire all 20 at once? Who cares about "losing firepower" if I'm already at 50% theoretical firepower because of ranks.
2. Something tells me if my weakling archers are in melee, having two ranks ain't going to help very much.

that is why people put them in line (put instead of 1 unit of 20 you used 4 units of 5)

there was no reason not doing it except for old Edition units with reload that needed to pause a turn and could shoot every turn in 2 ranks (which actually was never a rule but a fluff text suggestion as many other "rules" of that time)

this is also why things like volley fire can tip the balance because you only get 3 of the 20 model lines on the table and not everyone can see everything
firing from 2 ranks means you get 6 of those on the table as you don't need to stand in line of 20 but lines of 10

if volley fire simply means everyone can shoot we are going to see Archer blocks with 5x4 for 20 models

A downside to have small 5 or 10 man archer units is that you only need 2 or 3 casualties from shooting to force a panic test on them while if you had a 20 man unit they would need to kill 5 or more models to force a panic test. Still wasn't worth having large units just for that if the models in the back couldn't shoot but at least it was one small reason to have larger unit sizes.

Would also help a bit if they were charged by a smaller skirmish/light cav unit. A 5/10 man unit were likely to get destroyed but a 20 man unit would have some rank and outnumber bonuses and be able to stave those small annoying units off.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two points there:

1. If I have 20 guys, and only 10 of them can fire because 10 of them are standing behind, why wouldn't I just put them in a line of 20 and fire all 20 at once? Who cares about "losing firepower" if I'm already at 50% theoretical firepower because of ranks

You stick them on a hill (if one is available), which allows the second rank to fire.

Also, a unit that's twenty models wide is going to be in the way of a good-sized chunk of your troops, and the massive amount of frontage that it has will give your opponent the ability to charge it with multiple units at the same time. The worst situation would be your missile troops getting smashed into by multiple melee formations, which will rout the missile unit, causing it to rout through friendly troops directly behind it (forcing leadership checks), and the enemy will simultaneously pursue (read: Charge) into the units directly behind where the missile troops were located.

If you could keep the unit out on the flank, it might work. Maybe. Assuming that it would fit. But otherwise, no.

Maybe not so bad for Tomb Kings, who don't route (assuming that the unit doesn't evaporate from instability). But otherwise not a good idea. And even Tomb Kings would have to deal with a huge frontage friendly unit that's blocking the rest of the army.

My standard dwarf army in 6th had a Thane leading a quarreler regiment that I always deployed in a line 21 wide, only reforming into a block when the enemy got closer.

The thane carried an axe with the master rune of swiftness and rune of cleaving and a crossbow.

They'd deliberately stay in a line for as long as possible and then reform with the thane smashing whoever charges them first.

Sometimes I'd leave them in a line if the enemy wasnt too tough

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Two points there:

1. If I have 20 guys, and only 10 of them can fire because 10 of them are standing behind, why wouldn't I just put them in a line of 20 and fire all 20 at once? Who cares about "losing firepower" if I'm already at 50% theoretical firepower because of ranks.

2. Something tells me if my weakling archers are in melee, having two ranks ain't going to help very much.

The battlefield isn't infinitely wide, nor infinitely flat. In practice, in WHFB you tended to take your archers in smaller units exactly for this reason; having a deep unit of archers doesn't help much and it's much easier to maneuver a five-wide unit to get line of sight on whatever you're shooting without other units getting in the way.

(There are, of course, exceptions; Sea Guard could volley fire three or four ranks deep in some editions.)

With larger bases and template stonethrowers back in business I worry about the size of the board. Hoping for 6 footx4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One thing I wonder is if anyone sees themselves fielding infantry 4x4? For example Longbeards or Hammerers?or will the lack of frontage hurt their attack output?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I realise I'm not a fantasy player, but I've never understood the limitations of ranged units being unable to fire in ranks.

Why even have ranks then?

This has been answered already, but I'll throw something else in.

One reason why I always liked 40k better than Fantasy was that a large part of your models in Fantasy were nothing more than wound counters, there to contribute to an abstract combat resolution system and to be removed as casualties. Skeleton 23 never gets to have his heroic moment of taking the last wound off a Bloodthirster after his buddies got massacred because Skeleton 23 is always the third guy to die and never gets to step up and do any fighting.

I don't think you can have a good time with a rank and file game if you can't get into that mentality. You kind of have to let go of the idea that the contribution of a model is primarily defined by its value as a fighter (or even just a supporter with tangible abilities).

Also, the limitation to ranged combat is a fairly decent idea in a game that is meant to focus on maneuver and close combat. Some of the bigger issues of later editions of Fantasy was ranged lethality, even though magic stood out more than shooting. But even so, gunlines aren't much fun to play, not the least because only some factions can actually create such armies while others are entirely reliant on close combat (and magic). Giving only a part of the armies the necessary tools to dominate their enemies and then buffing those tools hasn't worked out in Fantasy any better than increased ranged lethality has in 40k.

It's why I'm a fan of the idea of decreasing armor penetration and ranged attacks (and nuke spells) compared to 8th ed. GW is terrible at this, generally speaking, but their games would benefit a lot from getting reined in so you actually have five or six meaningful turns in you six turn game.

Which is why the ranged article has me cautiously hopeful. This might actually happen to The Old World.

Eumerin wrote:
Maybe not so bad for Tomb Kings, who don't route (assuming that the unit doesn't evaporate from instability). But otherwise not a good idea. And even Tomb Kings would have to deal with a huge frontage friendly unit that's blocking the rest of the army.

Skeleton archers had a minimum size of ten. I never saw any reason to take more than that. Ten models wide takes up a lot of space and wasting points on extra ranks or even a banner was pointless due to the skeletons' abysmal melee performance. Add instability and it doesn't matter much if you have ten or twenty models in the unit. If they're charged by just about any actual combat unit, they're just gone.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I realise I'm not a fantasy player, but I've never understood the limitations of ranged units being unable to fire in ranks.

Why even have ranks then?

To reduce/mitigate the power of ranged units.

Combat units tended to be quite compact to maximise rank bonus, and minimise its footprint to make wheeling and that more manageable, and not get in each other’s way.

If ranged units could rank up four or five deep with no loss of firepower? They gain rank bonus for no loss of efficiency at their main job.

Do that? And High Elves might as well take nothing but Longbows, because those units whilst not great in combat, are going to have a say in every game turn thanks to a 30” range, making them disproportionately powerful compared to combat infantry who may only see a couple of rounds of combat.

It also limited your deployment options. A single 20 wide rank? That has to be deployed behind your combat units, otherwise it’ll block them from doing anything. Let them rank up and still get their 20 shots? You’re back to them having disproportionate power compared to combat units.

This gets more pronounced across different armies. Dark Elf Repeater crossbows for instance could be upgraded to shields, which in the end gave me WS4, S3, 4+ Save infantry, who could also kick out a disgusting number of shots, hitting on between a 5+ and a 4+ depending on range. If those could deploy 5 wide, 4 deep? There’s absolutely no good reason for me to take Spears, as their extra rank of attacks simply doesn’t offset 20 Repeater Crossbows farting out 40 shots a turn, and being able to stand and fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, let’s say I took 4 units of 20 Longbows.

Unless there’s a hill, to maximise shots that’s 4 wide ranks of 20 - which sooner or later are going to block each other’s LoS.

If I could shoot with every rank regardless? All four in 5x4 occupies slightly more real estate than a single wide rank of 20.

It does make sense when you’ve played!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It does make sense when you’ve played!

I know this can be an "8th edition was another country" thread - but is this a bad time to point out that a High Elf Archer 5*4 brick got to shoot 18 shots?
And while this may have been just another way 8th edition High Elves were comically overpowered, I feel it was quite a way down the list of problems.

I guess bricks of Repeater Crossbows would have been interesting - but again, typically you did 2 times 2*5 (as two ranks could shoot) and then 3*5 dark riders. I think that would get you to your requirements.

Going back to only the first rank being able to fire is actually quite a nerf. I'm intrigued if we see the same for close combat.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Lots of good stuff - hope the WS chart is also old school with high WS hitting on 2+ on even auto hitting.

Can't be much worse than Woof Elves getting 30" Arcane Bodkins (at -3!)

Was there anything about the WE that was fun to play against ever

Nop. I love drink my opponents tears with my full shooting avoidance hahahh

8th is very much the exception.

It’s overall to do with, well I guess the “shape” of the game.

With friendly units blocking LoS, and needing that for most ranged attacks, you needed to have an idea of how to best deploy your units to make LoS work for you.

Hence, hills were value commodities. One of those in your deployment zone with two tiers? Nice place for your artillery and a wide unit of ranged troops.

This meant ranged troops were typically taken in smaller units, certainly as small as your Army Book allowed. Those allowed you to spread your ranged attacks out, with different unit deployments neatly filling gaps (so, 7x3, 6x4 or whatever) whilst minimising wastage.

And as covered before? Deployment could very much lose you the game. Which sounds less fun than it was!

 Rihgu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I'm guessing Armour Bane (1) plays into the fluff mention of being "even deadlier at short range". So extra AP at close range.

Yeah it’s probably something like “Armourbane [X] - when firing at a target within half maximum range, this weapon gains additional save modifier equal to -X.”

15 " -1 armor... yikes.

Can't be much worse than Woof Elves getting 30" Arcane Bodkins (at -3!)

Arcane bodkins sucks. Real lethal arrow was Hagbane tips

Everyone's a badass until a Fireball kills 200pts of Waywatchers.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Everyone's a badass until a Fireball kills 200pts of Waywatchers.

It's been awhile, but what was the spell that jacked up all shooting and flying?

Tempest something?

 TalonZahn wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
Everyone's a badass until a Fireball kills 200pts of Waywatchers.

It's been awhile, but what was the spell that jacked up all shooting and flying?

Tempest something?

Was there a spell? Skaven Storm Banner and maybe Orb of Thunder? (Editions blur together for me as far as magic items go).

Mozzamanx wrote:
Everyone's a badass until a Fireball kills 200pts of Waywatchers.

I laughed hard at that

Tyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It does make sense when you’ve played!

I know this can be an "8th edition was another country" thread - but is this a bad time to point out that a High Elf Archer 5*4 brick got to shoot 18 shots?
And while this may have been just another way 8th edition High Elves were comically overpowered, I feel it was quite a way down the list of problems.

I guess bricks of Repeater Crossbows would have been interesting - but again, typically you did 2 times 2*5 (as two ranks could shoot) and then 3*5 dark riders. I think that would get you to your requirements.

Going back to only the first rank being able to fire is actually quite a nerf. I'm intrigued if we see the same for close combat.

I was always fond of DE Crossbow dudes. Give them shields and they're swordsmen who ALSO get to shoot two S3 AP shots a turn. More than once I've used my opponent's dismissing them as 'just a ranged unit' to get in surprise flank charges with them. Reforming them 5x4 on turn 3 or so may cost you some firepower, but it's only S3 and wasn't going to be wiping out melee units anyway. What they ARE good at wiping out are chaff units - fast cav, scouts, skirmishers, and detachments - which allows your chaff units to do their job ensuring you get the melee matches YOU want.

Dwarf quarrellers can be even worse, as they can take great weapons and hit like a ton of bricks in melee.

Long and short: dismiss blocks of range troops with shields at your peril...

 TalonZahn wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
Everyone's a badass until a Fireball kills 200pts of Waywatchers.

It's been awhile, but what was the spell that jacked up all shooting and flying?

Tempest something?

Howler Wind stopped any shooting St. 4 or lower targeting anything 12" from the caster. I'd have to look to see if it affected flying as I'm at my work kiosk right now.

 Vulcan wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It does make sense when you’ve played!

I know this can be an "8th edition was another country" thread - but is this a bad time to point out that a High Elf Archer 5*4 brick got to shoot 18 shots?
And while this may have been just another way 8th edition High Elves were comically overpowered, I feel it was quite a way down the list of problems.

I guess bricks of Repeater Crossbows would have been interesting - but again, typically you did 2 times 2*5 (as two ranks could shoot) and then 3*5 dark riders. I think that would get you to your requirements.

Going back to only the first rank being able to fire is actually quite a nerf. I'm intrigued if we see the same for close combat.

I was always fond of DE Crossbow dudes. Give them shields and they're swordsmen who ALSO get to shoot two S3 AP shots a turn. More than once I've used my opponent's dismissing them as 'just a ranged unit' to get in surprise flank charges with them. Reforming them 5x4 on turn 3 or so may cost you some firepower, but it's only S3 and wasn't going to be wiping out melee units anyway. What they ARE good at wiping out are chaff units - fast cav, scouts, skirmishers, and detachments - which allows your chaff units to do their job ensuring you get the melee matches YOU want.

Dwarf quarrellers can be even worse, as they can take great weapons and hit like a ton of bricks in melee.

Long and short: dismiss blocks of range troops with shields at your peril...

Even without great weapons. WS4 is nothing to sneeze at, and they could take shields, so T4 and good armour made them pretty tanky.

20 quarrelers and a thane was the core of my army.

I rarely used GWs, or rangers.

I found it, lol

The Tempest - High Magic

48" in all directions from the mage.

All enemy units in range must pass Ld on 2d6 to move.

All Flyers forced to the ground.

All missile fire -2 to hit.

War Engines and Buildings take D6 S7 hits each magic phase until spell ends.

Remains in play.


Ahhhh, the good old days.

Which Edition was that in? Feels like one from Battle Magic!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which Edition was that in? Feels like one from Battle Magic!

Arcane Magic expansion (4th Ed.)

https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warhammer_Arcane_Magic

Old-Four-Arms wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which Edition was that in? Feels like one from Battle Magic!

Arcane Magic expansion (4th Ed.)

https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warhammer_Arcane_Magic

Used to have these cards. I really hope they bring back something similar. Great opportunity for some good art styles and easy little cash grab to boot.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Everyone's a badass until a Fireball kills 200pts of Waywatchers.

If the wizard survives almost 100 poisoned shots, divided into 10 units of 10 archers each. That's a lot of targets for your single 1d6 F4 fireball! xD

My main issue sofar is, that units like the trebuchet are FW resin, that already will put off a lot of potential new blood.
WHFB already had often availabilty issues for a lot of units, often army defining ones and the trebuchet f.e. being already FW resin imo doesn't bode well.

Oh people aren't going to buy the treb from FW, they are going to 3d print or get one from one of the numerous competitor kits.

 Vulcan wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It does make sense when you’ve played!

I know this can be an "8th edition was another country" thread - but is this a bad time to point out that a High Elf Archer 5*4 brick got to shoot 18 shots?
And while this may have been just another way 8th edition High Elves were comically overpowered, I feel it was quite a way down the list of problems.

I guess bricks of Repeater Crossbows would have been interesting - but again, typically you did 2 times 2*5 (as two ranks could shoot) and then 3*5 dark riders. I think that would get you to your requirements.

Going back to only the first rank being able to fire is actually quite a nerf. I'm intrigued if we see the same for close combat.

I was always fond of DE Crossbow dudes. Give them shields and they're swordsmen who ALSO get to shoot two S3 AP shots a turn. More than once I've used my opponent's dismissing them as 'just a ranged unit' to get in surprise flank charges with them. Reforming them 5x4 on turn 3 or so may cost you some firepower, but it's only S3 and wasn't going to be wiping out melee units anyway. What they ARE good at wiping out are chaff units - fast cav, scouts, skirmishers, and detachments - which allows your chaff units to do their job ensuring you get the melee matches YOU want.

Dwarf quarrellers can be even worse, as they can take great weapons and hit like a ton of bricks in melee.

Long and short: dismiss blocks of range troops with shields at your peril...

That just proves how bloody good shields where in 6th and 7th edition. Seriously under costed piece of equipment.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh people aren't going to buy the treb from FW, they are going to 3d print or get one from one of the numerous competitor kits.

Well, it's merely the Trebuchet for Bretonia (even if it from a tactical toolset position is the only thing in a very specific and important niche) but what about Bestigors, HQ like butchers and breakers(?) , what does that mean for Tombkings? Or forbid more prevalent the gaping tactical tool lack in certain armies like chaos warriors which only have the chaos dwarf daemoncannon thingy for ranged.

Also i know a lot of people not thrilled about the fact that it is IGOUGO and we haven't seen a reaction system to break up the monotomy.

 Vulcan wrote:
I was always fond of DE Crossbow dudes. Give them shields and they're swordsmen who ALSO get to shoot two S3 AP shots a turn. More than once I've used my opponent's dismissing them as 'just a ranged unit' to get in surprise flank charges with them. Reforming them 5x4 on turn 3 or so may cost you some firepower, but it's only S3 and wasn't going to be wiping out melee units anyway. What they ARE good at wiping out are chaff units - fast cav, scouts, skirmishers, and detachments - which allows your chaff units to do their job ensuring you get the melee matches YOU want.

Dwarf quarrellers can be even worse, as they can take great weapons and hit like a ton of bricks in melee.

Long and short: dismiss blocks of range troops with shields at your peril...

You certainly could - and I'm sure it worked on people who underestimated them.
I think the counter-argument is that this is getting kind of costly. I mean weren't DE Crossbow guys with shields 13 points a model in 8th? So 20 of them is 260 points. At the point I feel they are a prime target for all sorts of hammer units, rather than something that can be thrown away. (Although, admittedly, some 8th lists tended to be "death star and redirectors", rather than multiple hammer units.)

To add context on points, Black Guard were only 15. And that seemed a lot given Executioners were 12, Witch Elves 11 etc.

Never regretted a single point spent on Dark Elf Repeater Crossbows.

Giving them shields felt like an auto-upgrade.

Sure, they weren’t great in combat. But the sheer volume of shots they could vomit at the opponent was disgusting.

Keep them to units of 10, and even reforming into 5x2 to receive a charge? They could see off Fast Cavalry, Skirmishers, and/or provide a handy dandy “should’ve seen that coming” flank supporting charge.

And as said, WHFB range stuff to me was rarely about deleting enemy units. Rather, you were looking to erode enemy rank bonus, pick off smaller units and foolish lone characters who wandered into range and view.

If I could reduce your rank bonus it just +1 (easier than it sounds, needing to kill as few as 6 models!) then my ranged stuff had done its work, as even Fast Cavalry and Skirmishers (hi Dark Riders!) were now looking at a fight they could win through a decent kill count.

I’d take Repeater Crossbows on anything I could. The number of folk who didn’t realise my Chariots carried them, and wound up taking some shock losses is daft! Heck, sometimes I even *just* squeaked a 25% loss Panic Test on an enemy unit, having left my Chariots to last. Granted that was passed more often than failed, but when they did fail? Glorious.

Not Online!!! wrote:
My main issue sofar is, that units like the trebuchet are FW resin, that already will put off a lot of potential new blood.
WHFB already had often availabilty issues for a lot of units, often army defining ones and the trebuchet f.e. being already FW resin imo doesn't bode well.

The game had entire units made of lead for most of it's lifespan, it will be fine.

FW's resin is perfectly okay for models that aren't tanks.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh people aren't going to buy the treb from FW, they are going to 3d print or get one from one of the numerous competitor kits.

Well, it's merely the Trebuchet for Bretonia (even if it from a tactical toolset position is the only thing in a very specific and important niche) but what about Bestigors, HQ like butchers and breakers(?) , what does that mean for Tombkings? Or forbid more prevalent the gaping tactical tool lack in certain armies like chaos warriors which only have the chaos dwarf daemoncannon thingy for ranged.

Also i know a lot of people not thrilled about the fact that it is IGOUGO and we haven't seen a reaction system to break up the monotomy.

Have they played any Warhammer ever?

Because it’s always been IGOUGO. So it’s like biting into a McDonalds Quarter Pounder and hoping it tastes of Chicken.

And there are reactions. Charge reactions. Stand, Stand and Shoot, Flee. Sometimes Fire and Flee if your Fast Cavalry.

As for the claim “people are just going to 3d print”? Folk have been saying that about Heresy since it started. Guess what? Some do. Many don’t.

because there is a general "need to own the original for the shelf" vibe with those games rather than "I need an army to play the game"
I expect not seeing much newly bought original models with those who want to play, while on social media it will be contest on who owns what for display only

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also i know a lot of people not thrilled about the fact that it is IGOUGO and we haven't seen a reaction system to break up the monotomy.

isn't waiting 5 minutes for your opponent to roll his saves enough to break the monotony?

That IGOUGO "discussion" surely will lead to GW implementing changes at the last minute. So very useful having it in this N&R thread, since it most definitely will be a thing!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh people aren't going to buy the treb from FW, they are going to 3d print or get one from one of the numerous competitor kits.

Actually curious: can you please point me to some of those "numerous competitor kits"? I am aware of some nice 3D print alternatives for "not Bret trebuchet", but I know of nothing else in terms of actual kits.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh people aren't going to buy the treb from FW, they are going to 3d print or get one from one of the numerous competitor kits.

Well, it's merely the Trebuchet for Bretonia (even if it from a tactical toolset position is the only thing in a very specific and important niche) but what about Bestigors, HQ like butchers and breakers(?) , what does that mean for Tombkings? Or forbid more prevalent the gaping tactical tool lack in certain armies like chaos warriors which only have the chaos dwarf daemoncannon thingy for ranged.

Also i know a lot of people not thrilled about the fact that it is IGOUGO and we haven't seen a reaction system to break up the monotomy.

Have they played any Warhammer ever?

Because it’s always been IGOUGO. So it’s like biting into a McDonalds Quarter Pounder and hoping it tastes of Chicken.

And there are reactions. Charge reactions. Stand, Stand and Shoot, Flee. Sometimes Fire and Flee if your Fast Cavalry.

As for the claim “people are just going to 3d print”? Folk have been saying that about Heresy since it started. Guess what? Some do. Many don’t.

The fact that they played is preciscly why they are not thrilled that whfb with its somewhat large size especially for certain factions still remains igougo.

 Darnok wrote:
Actually curious: can you please point me to some of those "numerous competitor kits"? I am aware of some nice 3D print alternatives for "not Bret trebuchet", but I know of nothing else in terms of actual kits.

z.B.:
https://en.momminiatures.com/product-page/honda-of-god

https://www.amazon.de/ZVEZDA-Modellbausatz-Plastikbausatz-Zusammenbauen-detaillierte/dp/B000J3Y59A

https://www.norbaminiatures.com/gb/miniatures/470-trebuchet.html

https://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/trebuchet/latest

If anyone is looking for 3rd party minis they should just stalk the 9th age forums. Each race has a thread where users list all the options for miniatures and they are quite extensive.

Here is a link to the latest page for Bretonnia:

https://www.the-ninth-age.com/community/index.php?thread/352-models-for-the-kingdom-of-equitaine/&pageNo=331

Rules and cost will determine the success of this game...so far I like the rules previewed but we still are out on costs. If it's reasonably priced compared to competitors namely mantic, I think it has a real shot of being successful.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which Edition was that in? Feels like one from Battle Magic!

I found it in the 5th Edition spell list also.

I believe that was referred to as Hero Hammer, but I mean... that was like 20(?) years ago?

As it's High Magic, I recall being into High Elves and Lizardmen really hard, lol

 lord_blackfang wrote:
https://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/trebuchet/latest

This is the one we plan on getting for our army.

Of all things in any army to proxy, war machines can mostly all be made out of balsa wood, toothpicks and paddle pop sticks. The trebuchet especially is just a bunch of rectangular prisms.

Honestly, I'll probably buy the Forgeworld mini. It looks pretty nice.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Rules and cost will determine the success of this game...so far I like the rules previewed but we still are out on costs. If it's reasonably priced compared to competitors namely mantic, I think it has a real shot of being successful.

Not to be negative or anything, but it's very unlikely that we'll get anything but GW prices from GW. That doesn't mean we can already predict an exact price, but we have some basis for a guess. Horus Heresy just got a twenty man box of Marines that sells for 60€. AoS zombies, a kit that's just over two years old and also comes with twenty models, costs 45€. The Reapers Mantic released this year are 32.50€ for twenty models.

Now I have a good feeling about the rules as well, so far anyway. But I can't imagine that GW is going to ask 2004 prices for 2004 models. Most likely it'll be 2024 prices and already include the annual price hike coming at the start of March.

In my opinion the hope here should be that the rules are designed to favor pre-7th ed regiment sizes to at least keep the cost of an army down, even if the individual units are still expensive.

 Hellebore wrote:
Of all things in any army to proxy, war machines can mostly all be made out of balsa wood, toothpicks and paddle pop sticks. The trebuchet especially is just a bunch of rectangular prisms.

Why would you build your war machines out of wood instead of bone? You're not making any sense at all.

These plastics will still be occupying (very scarce) production capacity.

The prices will be at a similar level to everything else they are releasing now, otherwise they simply wouldn't bother releasing it.

GW's bottleneck is production capacity, it is not demand. They don't need to release a cheap option.

If you're expecting anything different you're setting yourself up for inevitable disappointment.

Vorian wrote:
These plastics will still be occupying (very scarce) production capacity.

The prices will be at a similar level to everything else they are releasing now, otherwise they simply wouldn't bother releasing it.

GW's bottleneck is production capacity, it is not demand. They don't need to release a cheap option.

If you're expecting anything different you're setting yourself up for inevitable disappointment.

And GW is setting themselves up for some VERY disappointing sales numbers. Which means TOW will be a very short-lived game.

I want those foot knights kit enough to stomach current GW price. Older kits are a very different matter though.

I think the bigger risk is they are conservative on what they can sell and we hear endless complaints about the starter set selling out.

Its will have required minimal investment for sculpting and tooling, so the only way it can really go wrong for them is overproducing things.

How bad was the production for the first plastic horus heresy box. Was it obtainable by regular people or did they all go to scalpers?

I don't recall there ever being a shortage of that one.

I think its reasonable to expect a similar amount of quantity. Half Brets, half Tomb Kings.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I don't recall there ever being a shortage of that one.

It's been a year, but I seem to remember this is about what happened. I think I always saw it in stock at GW and the two online stores I frequently check ran out but usually got restocks within a week or two.

We don't yet know what format any starter product for The Old World will be. Hopefully we'll have a better idea after tonight's preview.

That said, in the case of a Bretonnian versus Tomb Kings starter set. I'm not sure I'd express my confidence in seeing as much stock as for Horus Heresy. GW knows Marines sell. They know their fantasy games sell less. I reckon it comes down more to how successful the hype machine is and how much extra interest that drums up compared to GW's projections.

which box do you define as the "first plastic horus heresy box"?

Betrayal at Calth? like 6-8 years ago? There was enough available, it sold out but not frighteningly fast to the point that you couldn't get it.

The Age of Darkness box with the spartan and everything in it when they launched the new edition? Thats a stock item, still available everywhere, is being reprinted to maintain supply, etc.

The Legiones Astartes Battle Group with the Mk3 armor? That was a limited edition, but not so limited you couldn't get it. Theres still plenty available.

The rumors for whats coming for TOW are a bit all over the place. Some people are saying a Tomb Kings vs Bretonnia box, others are saying separate starter boxes for each faction. Regardless what happens, I am increasingly of the opinion that it will not be a limited quantity launch product. They didn't do it for Legiones Imperialis, they didn't do it for Horus Heresy, I see no reason why they would suddenly do it for TOW, especially given the history and potential for bad blood with the community there.

Got to say there is a bit of tonal whiplash between "GW are going to charge £££ for 6th edition sculpts, who are they kidding?" and "the box is going to disappear in half an hour, with Scalpers making loads of money (by securing perhaps 1% of stock and sticking it on Ebay etc).

I think the issue with say Horus Heresy - and Legiones Imperialis - is that "this is it". The box is going to be relevant for the vast majority of the playerbase and continue to be relevant for anyone interested in starting.

By contrast, I think its unlikely most TOW players are going to be playing Tomb Kings or Brets. Now maybe that would change if this was a permanent cheap box to act as a gateway. But I'm not really convinced.

Apparently, there's a new TOW page on Facebook (source : TGA) - here's the official TOW logo :

https://i.redd.it/old-world-new-logo-plus-official-fb-page-v0-nsmtt8vyfw0c1.jpg?s=18ca4fcbb3e31b5d7b656a79b0add1cb98d53361

Noteworthy is the 2276 inscription (date ?) at the top..

Old-Four-Arms wrote:


Noteworthy is the 2276 inscription (date ?) at the top..

Ah. So we finally have a year for the games release.

Tyel wrote:
Got to say there is a bit of tonal whiplash between "GW are going to charge £££ for 6th edition sculpts, who are they kidding?" and "the box is going to disappear in half an hour, with Scalpers making loads of money (by securing perhaps 1% of stock and sticking it on Ebay etc).

I think the issue with say Horus Heresy - and Legiones Imperialis - is that "this is it". The box is going to be relevant for the vast majority of the playerbase and continue to be relevant for anyone interested in starting.

By contrast, I think its unlikely most TOW players are going to be playing Tomb Kings or Brets. Now maybe that would change if this was a permanent cheap box to act as a gateway. But I'm not really convinced.

keep in mind that there are 2 very different kind of people interested in that game, the collectors who want to own an original Warhammer Fantasy army to put it on the shelf (or finish their collection for non-ebay prices)
and the players who just want to have 100 people tournaments each weekend withing an hour driving time

of course this is an extreme and the majority will be something in between, but this is the loud minority you find on social medias, and for the one everything GW will put on sale will sell out in seconds ands their biggest fear is that they again need to pay ebay prices to finish the collection
while for the players, anything that makes the entry into the game not cheap and easy means it is doomed as the expected events won't happen

Despite the following nitpicking: thanks a bunch for the suggestions given. They are all appreciated!

kodos wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Actually curious: can you please point me to some of those "numerous competitor kits"? I am aware of some nice 3D print alternatives for "not Bret trebuchet", but I know of nothing else in terms of actual kits.

z.B.:
https://en.momminiatures.com/product-page/honda-of-god

https://www.amazon.de/ZVEZDA-Modellbausatz-Plastikbausatz-Zusammenbauen-detaillierte/dp/B000J3Y59A

https://www.norbaminiatures.com/gb/miniatures/470-trebuchet.html

Thanks! I was aware of the Norba one, just as "one of those 3D print options" - did not know they sell them printed. The MOM one is also pretty nice.

The Zvezda one is an option for people who want to go down the more historically accurate road I guess. Nothing on that model speaks to me in terms of Warhammer visuals though.

lord_blackfang wrote:https://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/trebuchet/latest

Thanks, another one I was not aware of. Not my taste in terms of Bretonnia, but quite fitting for O&G.

Hellebore wrote:Of all things in any army to proxy, war machines can mostly all be made out of balsa wood, toothpicks and paddle pop sticks. The trebuchet especially is just a bunch of rectangular prisms.

Possibly, but it will more likely than not look like crap.

Wow, plastic hero kit for a change for TK, and glorious one even!

Not Online!!! wrote:
My main issue sofar is, that units like the trebuchet are FW resin, that already will put off a lot of potential new blood.
WHFB already had often availabilty issues for a lot of units, often army defining ones and the trebuchet f.e. being already FW resin imo doesn't bode well.

Pfft. It's not like there's no other sources of trebuchet minis.

 Vulcan wrote:

Vorian wrote:
These plastics will still be occupying (very scarce) production capacity.

The prices will be at a similar level to everything else they are releasing now, otherwise they simply wouldn't bother releasing it.

GW's bottleneck is production capacity, it is not demand. They don't need to release a cheap option.

If you're expecting anything different you're setting yourself up for inevitable disappointment.

And GW is setting themselves up for some VERY disappointing sales numbers. Which means TOW will be a very short-lived game.

I'm betting they can't keep up with demand.

I see lots of armchair ceo's claiming gw sucks but none who actually puts his money where his mouth is and run company that outsells gw. Only reason not to do is because armchair ceo is actually worse than gw

Gw meanwhile rakes millions while trying to cope with overdemand laughing at armchair ceo's bad predictions.

But go ahead and outperform gw. If you　have got the skill you can do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Old-Four-Arms wrote:


Noteworthy is the 2276 inscription (date ?) at the top..

Ah. So we finally have a year for the games release.

Oh we had already. Early 2024.

 Darnok wrote:
That IGOUGO "discussion" surely will lead to GW implementing changes at the last minute. So very useful having it in this N&R thread, since it most definitely will be a thing!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh people aren't going to buy the treb from FW, they are going to 3d print or get one from one of the numerous competitor kits.

Actually curious: can you please point me to some of those "numerous competitor kits"? I am aware of some nice 3D print alternatives for "not Bret trebuchet", but I know of nothing else in terms of actual kits.

Sure. You just do a Google search. They pop right up.
Here's one to get you started: https://www.walmart.com/ip/WizKids-WZK90340-WZK-DC-Trebuchet-W15-Miniatures/332600895?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=5331&adid=22222222222000000000&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=e&wl1=o&wl2=c&wl3=10352200394&wl4=pla-1103028060075&wl5=&wl6=&wl7=&wl10=Walmart&wl11=Online&wl12=332600895_10000005515&wl14=trebuchet%20miniature&veh=sem&gclid=10bf065be9de15cc8fe16303b3c6cc11&gclsrc=3p.ds&msclkid=10bf065be9de15cc8fe16303b3c6cc11

Pretty nice bone dragon, I love the crocodile head, very unique. Downside, it's very spindly and overhangs the base by a lot, so breakages ahoy. Honestly kinda looks like it was engineered for the 16cm round.

So basically it's only bretonia that got fethed over with a lack of plastics for heros and lords and the trebuchet.

The more things change the more they stay the same

I like the fact that regardless how you build the dragon you got a foot hero ontop.

Not Online!!! wrote:
So basically it's only bretonia that got fethed over with a lack of plastics for heros and lords and the trebuchet.

Besides the two plastic mounted heroes?

I like the crocodile head.

But lots of stuff will break on that model. Amusingly cartoonish mummy faces...

Undead cat is a funny addition.

I didn't notice it the first time but I've just realised they did a riff on the Mummy sand face in the tattered cloth above the palanquin which is bloody hilarious

The crocodile dragon with unstable howdah and giganto banner looks super janky.

So Valrak correct, Hastings and the other guy saying Chariot wrong.

So does the tomb king with 0 wrappings on his body.

Yeah, it's a nice kit.

I still think the plastic budget should have been spent on basic skellies.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Yeah, it's a nice kit.

I still think the plastic budget should have been spent on basic skellies.

Are we sure we didn't get new ones?

Valrak said only the Dragon was new in the box. I think you see the old skeletons in the video too?

Vorian wrote:
Valrak said only the Dragon was new in the box. I think you see the old skeletons in the video too?

Ah... bit of a shame then, but then again skellies are easy to substitute in from other sources. I do hope tho for the sake of sanity that we get a 10 man tomb guard unit in plastic, if only to make TK players field them more.

Tomb Guard were already plastic, it was just that the 10 model box was a little bit expensive for what you needed (32€ on release)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Yeah, it's a nice kit.
I still think the plastic budget should have been spent on basic skellies.

Are we sure we didn't get new ones?

not by the models shown in the video along the Dragon
still nothing for the "maybe plastic mummy infantry" but everything else is exactly is it was in 8th, so Skellis from 1999

 kodos wrote:
Tomb Guard were already plastic, it was just that the 10 model box was a little bit expensive for what you needed (32€ on release)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Yeah, it's a nice kit.
I still think the plastic budget should have been spent on basic skellies.

Are we sure we didn't get new ones?

not by the models shown in the video along the Dragon
still nothing for the "maybe plastic mummy infantry" but everything else is exactly is it was in 8th, so Skellis from 1999

OOF, i guess my memory has completely eroded, but tbf the last years of WHFB were a bit of a haze.

Yeah, i guess then it's mostly a question of price.

for me they were already overpriced back in the days and I don't expect that they will be cheaper

but I am a gamer first, those who are collectors first might see things differently

The dragon looks nice enough, but the rickety tower is just stupid.

It's a good thing we're getting something that has 99% functional overlap with the sphinx. It's so much better than putting all that plastic towards new skeletons. How dreadful that would have been.

To be fair, you can see the tomb guard in the video which were some of the nicest skeletons GW has ever made. Plus they were part of the last TK wave and so it makes some sense GW decided to give the Brets a new plastic unit instead

I just don’t see the point of the dragon. We have the warsphinx, that also gives the option for a plastic tomb king on foot. It could be the paint job but the howdah on his back doesn’t look like it fits in the rest of the range very well

Crikey they must be pretty serious about TOW to release such large new models for it? Or is it just a case of "we're a miniatures company, here's a new $150USD mini to buy"

The "dragon" looks schizophrenic even by construct standards.

more about the last one, hence a shiny new thing no one already has

Whoa, when did the new pics pop up?

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
The "dragon" looks schizophrenic even by construct standards.

The designer of the howdah (stevepaintsandsculpts on Insta) said even he doesn't believe the model fits the range and that it was difficult designing something he doesn't agree with, and I completely get it.

Moreover, his words make it seem like the howdah was designed separately (and even then had random gak slapped on it) -and I get that too.



Th howdah and characters I find beautiful, but it definitely feels simply tacked on what is otherwise an uninspired and forced checking of the "centerpiece model" box (that GW seems fixated on for some reason)

It's really, really bad and does not bode well for the underlying design direction of ToW. What a disappointment.

 BertBert wrote:
It's really, really bad and does not bode well for the underlying design principles of ToW. What a disappointment.

I feel ya. I would've *loved* to see what the person capable of designing such a beautiful thing as the howdah would do with an entire model.

If there ever was a project where GW should've given knowledgeable and passionate creatives complete free right and restrain themselves from corporate decisions in designing models, then it's ToW, given how low cost and niche it is.

I'm all the more disappointed because I was amazed by every single Bret mini shown beforehand, and I love TK more than Brets.

I'll still buy and play it, especially since rules look promising, but yeah, that confession was super disheartening to read.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The crocodile dragon with unstable howdah and giganto banner looks super janky.

I can't imagine using that in a game. Ever.

Shouldn't form be even tangentially related to function?

It doesn't look like the dragon skeleton is at all similar to the traditional style of Warhammer Fantasy dragons.

Nor is there any evidence of mummification on the dragon (or riders...), which you'd probably expect from such a high status mount.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The crocodile dragon with unstable howdah and giganto banner looks super janky.

I can't imagine using that in a game. Ever.

Shouldn't form be even tangentially related to function?

What if the sculptors don't know enough about the game to consider function? It sounds insane, but we know well enough that sculpts come before fluff and rules, and that GW is compartmentalized to a degree that has in the past left some departments unaware of developments they should have been told about. I find it completely plausible that sculptors who've only ever worked on AoS or 40k models might lack the awareness of what exactly it means for a Old World model to extend past its base.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It doesn't look like the dragon skeleton is at all similar to the traditional style of Warhammer Fantasy dragons.

Nor is there any evidence of mummification on the dragon (or riders...), which you'd probably expect from such a high status mount.

This might be a case where the sculptors sculpted a construct made from suitably large bones sourced from all manner of critters to make something dragon shaped, and when the fluff writers got it in their hands they decided it's a real dragon's skeleton.

That said, I always liked the old metal zombie dragon because it specifically didn't look like the serpentine dragons most other armies got. Seeing the way AoS dragons are sculpted, serpentine dragons may have simply fallen out of favor at this point and GW thinks they'll sell more of a dragon model if it actually looks cool.

The complete lack of mummification on the king is undoubtedly silly, though. You can make a case for a liche priest, but not for the actual mummy part of the army.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I like the fact that regardless how you build the dragon you got a foot hero ontop.

As long as you don't mind the Liche sitting in a chair the entire battle, that is. Like the current Zombie Dragon/Terrorgheist, only one of the options (the King) is actually designed to be used as a second model if you do the other build.

Maybe its contrarianism, but I like the dragon.

I'd agree with others though that transporting it would surely be a nightmare.

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its contrarianism, but I like the dragon.

I'd agree with others though that transporting it would surely be a nightmare.

I like the dragon too, looks good - especially in the video

Yeah, the video part should be highlighted. I wasn't sure about the dragon based on the pictures in the article, but the extra perspectives in the video make it look better. Pretty cool, actually.

The saving grace for me, provided better pictures don't change this, is that the howdah seems easy to remove. I've removed the seat of the zombie dragon when AoS allowed a riderless dragon and that was a lot of work and entailed resculpting bits if I remember correctly. The Tomb Kings dragon seems like you can get away with just cutting the thing off with minimal impact on the actual dragon.

 Geifer wrote:
I've removed the seat of the zombie dragon when AoS allowed a riderless dragon and that was a lot of work and entailed resculpting bits if I remember correctly. The Tomb Kings dragon seems like you can get away with just cutting the thing off with minimal impact on the actual dragon.

Are you talking about an older version of the zombie dragon? The current Zombiedragon/Terrorgheist can be build without rider or seat right from the box, no cutting or resculpting required at all.

 Darnok wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I've removed the seat of the zombie dragon when AoS allowed a riderless dragon and that was a lot of work and entailed resculpting bits if I remember correctly. The Tomb Kings dragon seems like you can get away with just cutting the thing off with minimal impact on the actual dragon.

Are you talking about an older version of the zombie dragon? The current Zombiedragon/Terrorgheist can be build without rider or seat right from the box, no cutting or resculpting required at all.

I'm talking about this one. Hmm, maybe I just converted it to look cooler. Like I said, it's been a while. I might be misremembering the details.

 Geifer wrote:
I'm talking about this one. Hmm, maybe I just converted it to look cooler. Like I said, it's been a while. I might be misremembering the details.

Yeah that's the new/current one. All parts to build the rider(s), including the seat, are completely optional.

Nice reposing there!

Thanks.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It doesn't look like the dragon skeleton is at all similar to the traditional style of Warhammer Fantasy dragons.

Nor is there any evidence of mummification on the dragon (or riders...), which you'd probably expect from such a high status mount.

Warhammer Dragons are extremely varible in size and appearance - the lore piece also specifically states the bones were sand blasted over the millenia and recovered later to be reanimated by the Mortuary Cult

IMO its better than most Warhammer Dragons - really dislike the Elf ones -

They should just have made gigantic crocodile skeleton. Would fit the theme better. Lich king could have been standing like a DUNE wormrider holding some reins. No howdah.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It doesn't look like the dragon skeleton is at all similar to the traditional style of Warhammer Fantasy dragons.

Nor is there any evidence of mummification on the dragon (or riders...), which you'd probably expect from such a high status mount.

It might have fallen by the wayside since back when they were introduced, but iirc the Liche-Priests were specifically not mummified, and not even typically undead, instead doing some sort of life-prolonging alchemy and such, which probably accounts for the "pale smurf" complexion of this particular example.

There are 2 kind of undead in Khemri, those who achieved immortality via magic which are mainly the last generation of priests

And those reanimated by the curse of Nagash

... What if I just cut its wings and play it as crocodile?

 Sotahullu wrote:
... What if I just cut its wings and play it as crocodile?

No flying for you then!

 Sotahullu wrote:
... What if I just cut its wings and play it as crocodile?

Sounds like a Warsphinx with extra steps.

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its contrarianism, but I like the dragon.

I'd agree with others though that transporting it would surely be a nightmare.

Those wings looks super tacked on. Would have been a great crocodile.

The king said "I wanna ride a dragon!" and rather than dare displease him by telling him they don't have one, the liche priests cobbled together something close enough out of bits they had lying around and passed it along.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
The king said "I wanna ride a dragon!" and rather than dare displease him by telling him they don't have one, the liche priests cobbled together something close enough out of bits they had lying around and passed it along.

They had one in Warmaster.

JSG wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:
The king said "I wanna ride a dragon!" and rather than dare displease him by telling him they don't have one, the liche priests cobbled together something close enough out of bits they had lying around and passed it along.

They had one in Warmaster.

Did it have a crocodile head?

I feel we'd get just as many people complaining about TK being one dimensional if it was a stone construct. Makes sense that a powerful empire with snobby kings and priests would also obsess with dragons.

 RustyNumber wrote:
I feel we'd get just as many people complaining about TK being one dimensional if it was a stone construct. Makes sense that a powerful empire with snobby kings and priests would also obsess with dragons.

The complaints aren't that it's a dragon...

the complain is that this model looks like a bad combination of good ideas
and given that several different designers worked on the individual parts without the "big picture" in mind and some parts even just being a test model as proof that one is good enough to work for GW, the model does look exactly like that

and here the main problem is not the model itself but simply how much effort GW put into the TOW release as just combining stuff they had around to make a new centerpiece model (despite Khemri already having one) does not add much confidence and just makes it look much more that GW want quick nostalgie cash and nothing else

Not Online!!! wrote:
So basically it's only bretonia that got fethed over with a lack of plastics for heros and lords and the trebuchet.

The more things change the more they stay the same

I like the fact that regardless how you build the dragon you got a foot hero ontop.

Bretonnia gets old plastic, metal and resin and new plastic and resin.


Tomb kings gets old plastic, metal and resin and new plastic and resin.

Problem? Beside selective memory conveniently forgeting stuff that dont fit your claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RustyNumber wrote:
I feel we'd get just as many people complaining about TK being one dimensional if it was a stone construct. Makes sense that a powerful empire with snobby kings and priests would also obsess with dragons.

We get complains regardless of what

Gw could design and give for free army for everybody exactly how people want and dakkadakka would still be filled with complains. This is dakkadakka. It lives by complaining. Don't have enough complaining and servers shut down from lack of energy

Just 2 pages late with the passive-agressiveness Tneva. Slacking?

And as an aside, compared to the TK range bretonia even with new foot knights has still more higher quality plastics.

But GW aren't about making equal factions in terms of plastic.

I would imagine the calculus was Brets and TK have the most pent up old world demand because they were completely cut and Ebay has long been stripped of affordable alternatives.

Then each faction get a certain amount of frames.

The amount of frames for each faction won't allow all the basic units to be redone - and if, for example, you only did Archers for TK the cavalry and spearmen would look more ridiculous in the same army.

So you're left with completely new units that match existing aesthetic and centrepiece characters that do too.

The "dragon" sure come with mixed emotions.
Cut the wings and I would robably really like it as a thematically sensible and cool mega aligator.
Now its just a bad sculpt that dont fit the theme, and that makes me also question the throne bit balancing on the spine. I mean, is it supposed to fly with a lord balancing on that throne?

In my opinion GW is concerned that if they give Bretonnians, which did not get an update after their 6th ed army book and have therefore been more starved of new models than any other faction (bar Chaos Dwarfs ), a big, shiny lord on flying horsey, they have to match that with an equally impressive character kit on the Tomb Kings side. I have a hard time believing that any reason other than parity in the draw the few new plastic models a faction gets should possess would lead to an army that did get an 8th ed update complete with the requisite centerpiece monster to get another centerpiece monster with its Old World release.

I'm not terribly happy with that idea. I think it sends the wrong message. Something that plagued Fantasy was that the updates armies got back in the day were few and far between, and then often enough instead of necessary range maintenance a big part of the update was a huge centerpiece model for an army whose core models, the things without which no army can be built, could not hope to match the style and quality of the new, shiny centerpiece. What we're seeing with Tomb Kings is a perpetuation of that problem. The army gets a very limited plastic budget and has specific needs, and whoever is in charge of greenlighting stuff at GW is either not aware of those needs or simply ignores them. It's not encouraging.

 Geifer wrote:
I'm not terribly happy with that idea. I think it sends the wrong message. Something that plagued Fantasy was that the updates armies got back in the day were few and far between, and then often enough instead of necessary range maintenance a big part of the update was a huge centerpiece model for an army whose core models, the things without which no army can be built, could not hope to match the style and quality of the new, shiny centerpiece. What we're seeing with Tomb Kings is a perpetuation of that problem. The army gets a very limited plastic budget and has specific needs, and whoever is in charge of greenlighting stuff at GW is either not aware of those needs or simply ignores them. It's not encouraging.

The Skeleton Warrior kit was originally released in 1998. The TK sprue was added in 2002. Just let that sink in for a moment, and then laugh or weep knowing that TK will be using a 25 year old kit in 2023, as part of their range to launch a new game.

They looked dated when the plastic Tomb Guard released in 2011, and they look extremely dated next to the new dragon. I fear we won't see updated kits, because why bother? Spend that plastic budget on a new centre piece, one new unit, job done.

 Geifer wrote:
In my opinion GW is concerned that if they give Bretonnians, which did not get an update after their 6th ed army book and have therefore been more starved of new models than any other faction (bar Chaos Dwarfs ), a big, shiny lord on flying horsey, they have to match that with an equally impressive character kit on the Tomb Kings side. I have a hard time believing that any reason other than parity in the draw the few new plastic models a faction gets should possess would lead to an army that did get an 8th ed update complete with the requisite centerpiece monster to get another centerpiece monster with its Old World release.

I'm not terribly happy with that idea. I think it sends the wrong message. Something that plagued Fantasy was that the updates armies got back in the day were few and far between, and then often enough instead of necessary range maintenance a big part of the update was a huge centerpiece model for an army whose core models, the things without which no army can be built, could not hope to match the style and quality of the new, shiny centerpiece. What we're seeing with Tomb Kings is a perpetuation of that problem. The army gets a very limited plastic budget and has specific needs, and whoever is in charge of greenlighting stuff at GW is either not aware of those needs or simply ignores them. It's not encouraging.

Or it's what sculptors like to sculpt. Whoever decided what tk gets liked idea of dragon. That gets thrown to fluff writers and then to ruleguys. Bretonnia leader wanted foot knights.

They don't look at army list and decide what army needs. It's what miniature department wants to do. Maybe they don't want to do bog standard skeletons.

Odds are bret & tk teams dont even know much of what other is doing to even let it influence what to do...

but it is not what sculpture like to sculpt, but just a model merged of different single parts to get a large centerpiece model

like the palanquin was designed with a dragon in mind
and it is a Dragon instead of a Crocodile because someone was sculpting a bone Dragon and not a TK monster

and another person merged those 2 and the 4th edited some small details in

Sathrut wrote:The Skeleton Warrior kit was originally released in 1998. The TK sprue was added in 2002. Just let that sink in for a moment, and then laugh or weep knowing that TK will be using a 25 year old kit in 2023, as part of their range to launch a new game.

They looked dated when the plastic Tomb Guard released in 2011, and they look extremely dated next to the new dragon. I fear we won't see updated kits, because why bother? Spend that plastic budget on a new centre piece, one new unit, job done.

Is it really that new? I think we can further emphasize your point by adding at least 4 years. The basic design is very similar (identical?) to this kit:



Which in turn is very similar to this old kit:

tneva82 wrote:Or it's what sculptors like to sculpt. Whoever decided what tk gets liked idea of dragon. That gets thrown to fluff writers and then to ruleguys. Bretonnia leader wanted foot knights.

They don't look at army list and decide what army needs. It's what miniature department wants to do. Maybe they don't want to do bog standard skeletons.

Odds are bret & tk teams dont even know much of what other is doing to even let it influence what to do...

Surely potential sales must be a deciding factor? GW is pretty business savvy and I'm sure they'll sell lots of crocodile-dragons but I'm really struggling to see how it's going to outsell a new skeleton warriors kit.

The weird think with skeletons is that they are one of the most common fantasy models out there. I think a big part of GW's early success was that their generic fantasy figures were some of the best values out there. I was buying GW figures long before I bought any of the rules.

That dragon is one of the most impractical designs I've ever seen. Maybe the markup on it makes it worthwhile and the run will be modest, further enhancing its perceived value.

Sathrut wrote:


The Skeleton Warrior kit was originally released in 1998. The TK sprue was added in 2002. Just let that sink in for a moment, and then laugh or weep knowing that TK will be using a 25 year old kit in 2023, as part of their range to launch a new game.

They looked dated when the plastic Tomb Guard released in 2011, and they look extremely dated next to the new dragon. I fear we won't see updated kits, because why bother? Spend that plastic budget on a new centre piece, one new unit, job done.

Maybe it's a deliberate nod to the Tomb Kings being the army of antiquity?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


Maybe it's a deliberate nod to the Tomb Kings being the army of antiquity?

Made me laugh

 Ohman wrote:

I would say these are actually better kits than the "new" TK skellies.

Build it without the wings, and declare that the Liche Priests found a Deinosuchus fossil (it might actually be about the right size; anyone care to estimate how long this thing would be in "real life"?) and animated it. If your opponent complains about the fact that it's flying with no wings, point to the skeletal wings on the original, ask your opponent if he or she *really* thinks that those "wings" are capable of supporting anything, and then recite the magic incantation: "A liche priest did it."

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/19/sunday-preview-machine-vs-machine/?utm_source=CUSTOMERS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WH_19th_November_Preview_&utm_content=&utm_term=

And on Warhammer Community we’ll be taking closer looks at the Necrons and Adeptus Mechanicus, investigating the Combat Phase in Warhammer: The Old World, and continuing the Christmas competition.

 Fayric wrote:

Now its just a bad sculpt that dont fit the theme, and that makes me also question the throne bit balancing on the spine. I mean, is it supposed to fly with a lord balancing on that throne?

Is it supposed to fly? The wings have no membrane.

As per Liber Necris, the magic involved in animating a Skeleton effectively replaces the soft tissue. So it does have membranes, of a sort.

The old skelly's did break at the waist alot. the newer ons didnt have manny weapon options as the old ones. And the upgrade tk spreu did have the bows, quivers heads and shields and if i remember right did have some scimitars and ofcourse the command stuff.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Now its just a bad sculpt that dont fit the theme, and that makes me also question the throne bit balancing on the spine. I mean, is it supposed to fly with a lord balancing on that throne?

Is it supposed to fly? The wings have no membrane.

It's also got no tissue to hold it together and move; nor skin nor organs - its a magical undead dragon. If it want's to fly are you going to be the one to refuse it?

Heck the Zombie dragon and Terrorgast have wings in utter tatters and torn open segments of their bodies.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Now its just a bad sculpt that dont fit the theme, and that makes me also question the throne bit balancing on the spine. I mean, is it supposed to fly with a lord balancing on that throne?

Is it supposed to fly? The wings have no membrane.

How does it smell with no nose?

 SgtEeveell wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Now its just a bad sculpt that dont fit the theme, and that makes me also question the throne bit balancing on the spine. I mean, is it supposed to fly with a lord balancing on that throne?

Is it supposed to fly? The wings have no membrane.

How does it smell with no nose?

actually quite nice, so there

 skeleton wrote:
The old skelly's did break at the waist alot. the newer ons didnt have manny weapon options as the old ones. And the upgrade tk spreu did have the bows, quivers heads and shields and if i remember right did have some scimitars and ofcourse the command stuff.

The 6th edition TK skelly weapon sprue had a straight sword, a scimitar, an axe, and a spiked ball and chain (a light flail, but often incorrectly called a morningstar). There was one of each for every four skeletons in the box. Alternately, there was also a set of bows for all of the models.

IIRC, 8th edition added spears as a possible weapon option. But since I didn't buy any new infantry for 8th edition, I don't know whether they changed up the weapons in the box..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Now its just a bad sculpt that dont fit the theme, and that makes me also question the throne bit balancing on the spine. I mean, is it supposed to fly with a lord balancing on that throne?

Is it supposed to fly? The wings have no membrane.

Repeat after me - "A liche priest did it!"

Eumerin wrote:

 skeleton wrote:
The old skelly's did break at the waist alot. the newer ons didnt have manny weapon options as the old ones. And the upgrade tk spreu did have the bows, quivers heads and shields and if i remember right did have some scimitars and ofcourse the command stuff.

The 6th edition TK skelly weapon sprue had a straight sword, a scimitar, an axe, and a spiked ball and chain (a light flail, but often incorrectly called a morningstar). There was one of each for every four skeletons in the box. Alternately, there was also a set of bows for all of the models.

IIRC, 8th edition added spears as a possible weapon option. But since I didn't buy any new infantry for 8th edition, I don't know whether they changed up the weapons in the box..

These are the 6th skelly sprues (taken from an ebay listing, spoilered because of image size):



The only TK additions were x2 bow, x2 shield sprues. You could build one spear, archer or hand weapon unit with command. The shields/banners still hold up today (in my eyes), but the rest is sorely dated.

Quite timely for Wargames Atlantic to be producing a box of skele horses and chariots, even if they're more Achaean themed. Anyone who has assembled the WA skele infantry knows that "realistic" proportioned skeles aren't exactly much fun for assembly/durability.

 RustyNumber wrote:
Quite timely for Wargames Atlantic to be producing a box of skele horses and chariots, even if they're more Achaean themed. Anyone who has assembled the WA skele infantry knows that "realistic" proportioned skeles aren't exactly much fun for assembly/durability.

At least it should give ToW fans some pause when a better kit costs like 1/3 of GW's 25 year old skellies ... nah probably not.

The 1998 Skeletons felt dated the day they were released, replacing the much better Skeletons Horde models before them. I was quite shocked when I bought them when they came out. The good thing they had for them tho was that they came in box of 20, better than the box of 8 from before.

Adding the TK sprue to them did little to the skeleton frame itself, the extra heads were a nice touch but the main body (and the horrible poses) were still bad. Plus the weak waist joint. And they came only 16 to a box due to the extra TK sprue.

If all we get in the new rumored box for TK is the "dragon" thing, I think I'm gonna pass. I already have a great converted King on Warsphinx with a huge throne on it (that look infinitely more stable than that thing on the dragon's back) that will be perfect as a centerpiece. My army is already quite immense so I'm not looking at adding any of the old stuff, thanks GW, but no thanks. Any other kit refresh would have been a sale for me and that dragon isn't really what I was looking for in a RK army. A Bone Giant/Hierotitan kit would have been massively more welcomed I think, creating the only missing unit in the old book (that probably gonna get deleted now if they don't have one planned).

Seeing all the cool stuff from AoS in the past few years (especially most of the big monsters/centerpiece), that dragon is a swing and a miss for me. I really want to like it because it's a new TK model, but I only like individual parts of it (just like it was designed). Most parts I love, but together it's quite incoherent.

The Bone Giant should be safe. GW can still sell the old, dancing model. Might even be a good candidate for getting cast in resin now. The armored torso was a pretty heavy lump of metal.

Given that we won't get a lot of new models, it stands to reason that the Hierotitan part won't make it to the rules unless GW does switch materials and also adds a few conversion bits to the model to turn the Bone Giant Necrolith Colossus™ into a Hierotitan. Might as well throw in the bow option the Bone Giant model never had.