Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Funnily enough that's also why rocks (and stones) drop/sink! And they hope they can hit a pointy ear goblin or elf on the way down too.

Well, I was saved from the harebrained idea of starting a High Elf army by sticker shock. If I do such an army, most if not all of it is going to be third party models (3d printer go brrr). Maybe I didn't realize how crazy Old World prices are because I got most of my Tomb Kings for cheap from a friend, although I did buy a few small things for them later. If all the models were brand new sculpts, the prices would be a little less nuts, but for such old models? Highway robbery even by GW standards.

Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.

Yeah, I can complain about a few things for old world but generally the pricing is the same or cheaper than it was before WFB went down. With the odd exception of the damn TK chariots that should have been 6 chariots for the cost but someone forgot to tell packers......

 Olthannon wrote:
Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.

Indeed, most of them are pretty substantially cheaper in real terms than they were at the end of WFB...

Each box is expensive individually, but the contents is usually a good extra quarter or half what you'd have got for the same price back in the day. Bulk discount. Plus those transfers are expensive when GW sells them individually, so there's that as well.

 Olthannon wrote:
Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.

The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....

 GaroRobe wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
It is a shame that the Skycutter is coming back - even for Elves, that's a stupid design.

Hey, I'll have you know that the wood from these boats is found on the top of Ulthuan's mountains and because of that, it naturally wants to float back up there.

That's the lore. And I still remember it more than a decade later, despite being a dwarf player

Where did you come upon this lore you remember? The 8th edition army book only describe them as "sleek, airborn chariots that rest upon a cushion of magic and are drawn into battle by Swiftfeather Rocs that nest along the Glittering Coast".

Wayniac wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.

The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....

Huh? With game sizes coming in at 2k from what I see...you don't need the large bricks like before unless you're playing in a tourney and doing point denial. My friend who I just got back into Warhammer after 10 years away plays dwarves and bought a box of hammerers. There is 20 of them and unlikely he needs more unless he wants royal clan warriors or longbeards. $85 for the box. Back in 8th, you would need 40 and they came in a box of 10 I think for like $60. For $240 you'd have a unit versus $85 for just 1 box and that's really all you need. Not to mention the cost per model dropped from $6/model to $4.25/model.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Well, I was saved from the harebrained idea of starting a High Elf army by sticker shock. If I do such an army, most if not all of it is going to be third party models (3d printer go brrr). Maybe I didn't realize how crazy Old World prices are because I got most of my Tomb Kings for cheap from a friend, although I did buy a few small things for them later. If all the models were brand new sculpts, the prices would be a little less nuts, but for such old models? Highway robbery even by GW standards.

By GW standards (a somewhat skewed standard admittedly), the Old World prices are generally considered outright reasonable for the most part from what I've seen. A far cry from highway robbery (relative to their other products at least).

Personally, as someone who would much rather get hold of those older Fantasy ranges than any potential new models, having the option to get them consistently, in decent numbers, unbuilt and much, much cheaper than from places like eBay is a win.

 nathan2004 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.

The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....

Huh? With game sizes coming in at 2k from what I see...you don't need the large bricks like before unless you're playing in a tourney and doing point denial. My friend who I just got back into Warhammer after 10 years away plays dwarves and bought a box of hammerers. There is 20 of them and unlikely he needs more unless he wants royal clan warriors or longbeards. $85 for the box. Back in 8th, you would need 40 and they came in a box of 10 I think for like $60. For $240 you'd have a unit versus $85 for just 1 box and that's really all you need. Not to mention the cost per model dropped from $6/model to $4.25/model.

From what I saw you still need a pretty big number of units compared to 5th or 6th edition, so while they are a bit discounted it's still not "cheap", just "good" by GW standards (which aren't very high). The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).

Wayniac wrote:
The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).

It helps to discourage the old-style of narrow frontage, very deep units, which looked like a lot of guys trying to hide behind their mates.

Wayniac wrote:
The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).

In practice this isn't really that big of a problem, as beyond a certain width units become too unwieldy. You can go really wide, but just try wheeling on the charge and you'll find it's a bad idea. In practice, combat units don't tend to get much wider than 6 or 7 models, otherwise they're too hard to manoeuvre. It's also worth noting that rank bonuses are capped at 2 for standard units and 3 for things with the Horde keyword, so you might have a unit of 24-25 infantry, but you're more likely to deploy them in 4 ranks of 6 rather than 5 ranks of 5, and there's really no need for the huge blocks that were common in 8th.

Overall, I think that TOW is relatively affordable by GW standards - the main exceptions being some of the new resin characters, and some of the MTO stuff. Returning plastic and metal is generally good value.

pgmason wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).

In practice this isn't really that big of a problem, as beyond a certain width units become too unwieldy. You can go really wide, but just try wheeling on the charge and you'll find it's a bad idea. In practice, combat units don't tend to get much wider than 6 or 7 models, otherwise they're too hard to manoeuvre. It's also worth noting that rank bonuses are capped at 2 for standard units and 3 for things with the Horde keyword, so you might have a unit of 24-25 infantry, but you're more likely to deploy them in 4 ranks of 6 rather than 5 ranks of 5, and there's really no need for the huge blocks that were common in 8th.

Overall, I think that TOW is relatively affordable by GW standards - the main exceptions being some of the new resin characters, and some of the MTO stuff. Returning plastic and metal is generally good value.

Yeah, the only unit I think I'd go super-wide on would be Night Goblins. They're cheap, and their job is mostly to deliver Fanatics.

Wayniac wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.

The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....

Huh? With game sizes coming in at 2k from what I see...you don't need the large bricks like before unless you're playing in a tourney and doing point denial. My friend who I just got back into Warhammer after 10 years away plays dwarves and bought a box of hammerers. There is 20 of them and unlikely he needs more unless he wants royal clan warriors or longbeards. $85 for the box. Back in 8th, you would need 40 and they came in a box of 10 I think for like $60. For $240 you'd have a unit versus $85 for just 1 box and that's really all you need. Not to mention the cost per model dropped from $6/model to $4.25/model.

From what I saw you still need a pretty big number of units compared to 5th or 6th edition, so while they are a bit discounted it's still not "cheap", just "good" by GW standards (which aren't very high). The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).

You should play the game man...max wide I see is 7 and even then that's unwieldy bc wheels aren't free. And infantry only charge M + highest of 2D6.

That is why you change formation between moving and fighting
And infantry you either play in blocks or not at all. You can have the small units of regular infantry but they are of no real use in the game for now

 kodos wrote:
That is why you change formation between moving and fighting
And infantry you either play in blocks or not at all. You can have the small units of regular infantry but they are of no real use in the game for now

So is that better or worse than 8th? Because I recall 8th ruined WHFB to where it was killed off by having that ridiculous need 40-man blocks rule.

Block is now (outside of like goblins) 18-24 max.

Wayniac wrote:

 kodos wrote:
That is why you change formation between moving and fighting
And infantry you either play in blocks or not at all. You can have the small units of regular infantry but they are of no real use in the game for now

So is that better or worse than 8th? Because I recall 8th ruined WHFB to where it was killed off by having that ridiculous need 40-man blocks rule.

Fantasy was killed off with 7th Edition, 8th was just there to milk those what were still there as best as possible

And I would say it is a more like 5th than 8th, if there is good infantry it is 20-30 models per unit, if it is not good not worth playing in blocks of 40 either (while in 8th it was always good if played in large blocks)

My dwarves are generally 6-7 wide and 3-4 deep depending on the army I'm facing. Same with Black Orcs. I'm in agreement with Kodos on how it tends to go.

Some infantry works (insofar as infantry works currently) in even smaller units, like Chaos Chosen who get really expensive quite quickly, might be better taken as a 10.

Not sure what the fix is for infantry either….perhaps the return of step up but only for regular and heavy infantry.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Not sure what the fix is for infantry either….perhaps the return of step up but only for regular and heavy infantry.

I understand that step up is AN answer that GW published, but it is (as close as it is possible to get) the WRONG answer for the game system that is WFB.

If they rewrote the mechanics around step up then sure, but the current system and unit design uses the initiative stat and points costs out units with that in mind. A rule that makes initiative irrelevant until there are only 4 models left changes the stat profile value proposition considerably.


I think the answer is more that cavalry are too lazy and good than infantry are bad. By lazy i mean that cavalry should really be advantaged by their speed to manoeuvre around the sides of regiments, not just mindlessly charging into the front of them. Frontal cavalry charges should be desperation moves with big downsides, whether the target has pikes/spears or not.

If you play infantry vs infantry then the game is relatively fine.

Were the points not just largely brought over from an edition where step up was a thing?

The points in old world are not exactly scientifically worked out

Vorian wrote:
Were the points not just largely brought over from an edition where step up was a thing?

The points in old world are not exactly scientifically worked out

The points in that edition were brought forward from editions where step up wasn't a thing.

The points are basically random anyway and ued for internal balance in the army but not across factions
Changing rules and points at the same time just causes more trouble without solving anything

The problem is that TOW misses the basic Rock/Paper/Scissors (oversimplified) that the combat between different unit types should be

Throughout history, well trained infantry was superior to cavalry, hence why Romans used Infantry Legions with cavalry support, while medieval armies focused on cavalry (because if there is no trained infantry force the cavalry rules)

Warhammer tries to get different historical settings into a single game, from elite infantry phalanx, over medieval cavalry up to early modern times mercenary armies
Not that it cannot work, but a unit of heavy cavalry facing very different kinds of infantry cannot always have the same outcome.
It should kill "bad" infantry on a frontal charge and be killed by good infantry

Yet with the game being only built around killing, there is no reason for bad infantry to be taken at all.

So the basic problem is that all scenarios are "kill" and winning the game without killing the most isn't an option
So infantry in general will always be either too good or too bad in that context

Medieval armies focussed on cavalry because they got heavier, more elite and effective, and infantry were trained (not to mention knights in some areas also fought on foot a lot depending on circumstances). Ancients used cavalry mostly as a supporting element.

 kodos wrote:

Yet with the game being only built around killing, there is no reason for bad infantry to be taken at all.

Interesting, actually got me thinking that yeah, in-game there's no negative for a unit to have enemies nearby on both flanks. You're either in combat and providing combat res or not. In real life anything other than an elite unit would crumble due to knowing they're surrounded even if not in contact. (which then blends into always letting the enemy have somewhere to escape, as you don't really want them to decide they need to fight to the last man/make a breakout and kill more of your own soldiers)

 Hellebore wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Not sure what the fix is for infantry either….perhaps the return of step up but only for regular and heavy infantry.

I understand that step up is AN answer that GW published, but it is (as close as it is possible to get) the WRONG answer for the game system that is WFB.

If they rewrote the mechanics around step up then sure, but the current system and unit design uses the initiative stat and points costs out units with that in mind. A rule that makes initiative irrelevant until there are only 4 models left changes the stat profile value proposition considerably.


I think the answer is more that cavalry are too lazy and good than infantry are bad. By lazy i mean that cavalry should really be advantaged by their speed to manoeuvre around the sides of regiments, not just mindlessly charging into the front of them. Frontal cavalry charges should be desperation moves with big downsides, whether the target has pikes/spears or not.

If you play infantry vs infantry then the game is relatively fine.

The trick being, is there time in the game, and space on the board, for flanking to occur?

You know, a second movement phase might help that, there's no reason you can't have two movement phases in the same round. It could be incorporated into the combat phase.

Strategy
Movement
Shooting
Combat/manoeuvre*

Any unit that is not in combat may make a normal move, so long as it doesn't end in engagement with an enemy unit.


Give the army more movement and dynamism rather than grinding to a halt when they crash into each other. Use the movement phase for charges, but allow additional movement.


I think that part of the challenge is that regimental games work best in the abstract, rather than the WFB/40k paradigm of every model having a profile and being treated separately.

Regiments with allies within a certain distance will have a morale advantage over enemy's that don't, each regiment's morale will be affected by how close enemy regiments are to its flanks or rear, not just in contact.

A small cavalry regiment outnumbered by infantry will be at a severe morale disadvantage even if they have a great charge - a 5 man cav unit frontal charging 20 goblins is going to be swarmed by survivors, it doesn't matter how effective they are. Hence flank charging being preferred.

The rules allow cav to approach a disadvantageous situation and win. Their force multiplier abilities are supposed to offset their size, not to make them unbeatable. Cav should probably cause fear to infantry, but infantry should be able to swarm them with return attacks if they outnumber them too much.