Switch Theme:

Warhammer The Old World : Cathay trailer, page 128  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

As long as they fixed the small units used to redirect the proper units of the rival, I cannot care about anything else, I'll play it.

The moment a play group understood that "trick", then the game basically died. It was a ballerina's dance of fething 5 undead wolves or cheap outriders or whatever baiting your 2-3 proper units into charging a rock or some woods.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Galas wrote:
As long as they fixed the small units used to redirect the proper units of the rival, I cannot care about anything else, I'll play it.

The moment a play group understood that "trick", then the game basically died. It was a ballerina's dance of fething 5 undead wolves or cheap outriders or whatever baiting your 2-3 proper units into charging a rock or some woods.

Yeah that was gamey. All GW had to do was allow a pivot after an overrun.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






A garden grove on Citadel Station

 Irbis wrote:
On a side note, GW really should have gone with round bases in unit trays like in pic above, not bring back dumb square ones to appease a few ancient whiners who bought nothing in ages anyway. Rounds look so much better and they are going to lose a lot of appeal of multi system armies (especially seeing I can already see TOW gatekeepers screeching at new players who want to try their AOS ogre or demon army in TOW because of round bases, see HH grognard obsession with SM knees since they have nothing else to latch on to)...
My only concern is, how do you do a unit of empire halberdiers or night goblins? The smallest round base is 25mm wide, and the smallest square base is 20mm. Chaos warriors are now on 32mm width rather than 25mm width.

The change from 4-wide minimum to 5-wide minimum increased unit widths by 25% for not much gameplay significance. Round bases slotting into movement trays would again increase unit widths by 25% for no value gained.

EDIT: To answer my own question, I guess they could make movement trays that accepted round bases, and movement trays that accepted square bases with spacing in between to make it the same dimensions as the round-slot movement trays. If they at the same time dropped the 5-wide to 4-wide your units would be wider than 6th edition and previous for no gain, but they would be just as wide as 5-wide in 8th edition and not worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/29 00:27:32


ph34r's forgeworld Phobos blog
+From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






5-wide is absolutely necessary. With 4-wide the classic three man command group is off center and that is an abomination.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Irbis wrote:

On a side note, GW really should have gone with round bases in unit trays like in pic above, not bring back dumb square ones to appease a few ancient whiners who bought nothing in ages anyway. Rounds look so much better and they are going to lose a lot of appeal of multi system armies (especially seeing I can already see TOW gatekeepers screeching at new players who want to try their AOS ogre or demon army in TOW because of round bases, see HH grognard obsession with SM knees since they have nothing else to latch on to)...

It's nothing to do with 'appeasing ancient whiners'. Round bases look better for individual models, but when they need to rank up having them on square bases makes much more sense. Using round bases in trays would force people to use trays, and looks far worse than ranked up square bases do. Having round bases on models that are intended to be used in rectangular formations is silly.

 
   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






A garden grove on Citadel Station

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
5-wide is absolutely necessary. With 4-wide the classic three man command group is off center and that is an abomination.
Yeah, you're probably right. The off center command bugged the heck out of me too. Just don't push people to hop from 5 wide to 10 wide and it would be just fine.

ph34r's forgeworld Phobos blog
+From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Galas wrote:
As long as they fixed the small units used to redirect the proper units of the rival, I cannot care about anything else, I'll play it.

The moment a play group understood that "trick", then the game basically died. It was a ballerina's dance of fething 5 undead wolves or cheap outriders or whatever baiting your 2-3 proper units into charging a rock or some woods.


Its funny how much attitudes vary. The groups I played with always felt the onus was on them to eliminate the potential enemy charge blockers with shooting, magic and/or morale.
Maybe even a charge of their own light cav while the infantry blocks were still advancing.

Five wolves or outriders stood up to jack and squat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/29 00:45:19


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





 insaniak wrote:
 Irbis wrote:

On a side note, GW really should have gone with round bases in unit trays like in pic above, not bring back dumb square ones to appease a few ancient whiners who bought nothing in ages anyway. Rounds look so much better and they are going to lose a lot of appeal of multi system armies (especially seeing I can already see TOW gatekeepers screeching at new players who want to try their AOS ogre or demon army in TOW because of round bases, see HH grognard obsession with SM knees since they have nothing else to latch on to)...

It's nothing to do with 'appeasing ancient whiners'. Round bases look better for individual models, but when they need to rank up having them on square bases makes much more sense. Using round bases in trays would force people to use trays, and looks far worse than ranked up square bases do. Having round bases on models that are intended to be used in rectangular formations is silly.

The problem with ranked squares is that it severely limits possibility and even as a grog who hates the 'leaping off Tactical Rock' and 'DYNAMIC posing' nonsense, even models stood at attention can be a real nightmare to properly rank up without them clipping, sometimes even on rounds-on-tray bases which have more space by default.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Arbitrator wrote:
The problem with ranked squares is that it severely limits possibility and even as a grog who hates the 'leaping off Tactical Rock' and 'DYNAMIC posing' nonsense, even models stood at attention can be a real nightmare to properly rank up without them clipping, sometimes even on rounds-on-tray bases which have more space by default.

That's not an inherent problem with square bases, it's a problem of the base (whatever shape it is) being too small, or the models not being sculpted correctly for ranking up on that base.

 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Irbis wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Therefore, we can suppose that units will be between 30 and 120 models in TOW.

You know this is literally unit size in every TW game, starting with Shogun from 2000?

Well then, that's EXTRA scientific. Historical precedence and consistency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
5-wide is absolutely necessary. With 4-wide the classic three man command group is off center and that is an abomination.


But! Full command + joined hero looks better with 4 than 5. But if your unit has 2 heroes, 5 looks better again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/29 01:36:00


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






A unit with a hero clearly deserves to be 6-wide anyways!

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
Really what is the playerbase here? I can't imagine there being a lot of grognards left who haven't either rebased their army or set it on fire.


Lots of 9th Age folks


Just to chime in, old grognard here, still have my fantasy armies and never changed the bases to play AoS. I doubt I'm alone in that either.


I have been adding to my army’s, I am ready for anything at this point the game goes.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Pious Warrior Priest





My happy place.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
5-wide is absolutely necessary. With 4-wide the classic three man command group is off center and that is an abomination.


on this I am agreed

I play: AOS Death, AOS Cities of Sigmar, 40K imperial soup.

Co-owner of Two Idiots Printing Service, a 3D printing service. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

To be fair, that was true of 8th ed, where it was encouraged to take a single massive block of your most cost effective infantry, a caster and a couple of supporting units.


Encouraged right up to the point where you played a halfway competent balanced, MSU, or avoidance army that killed the supporting units and led the Deathstar around as if on a leash.

Or they lost the Command Point scenario due to lack of banners.

Or the general deploys clear across the field from the One Big Unit and gets picked off trying to get to them in a meeting engagement.

Or they lose Watchtower because the only infantry unit they have is the One Big Unit and it runs out of time trying to get through my army to get at my unit in the tower...

So many ways to win against the One Big Unit; I always loved seeing them deploy.


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

no one ever played the different scenarios

there was only one, with no special deployment on killing the most points at the end of the game wins

because GW in 5th gave that as example for tournament play and never again made a tournament pack/rules, this was the only one allowed

it was hard work to get people to play different scenarios in mid 7th, mostly with the need of houserules anyway

but this was gone the day 8th hit the shelf because GW now listens, the solved all the problems and made the perfect game, so all achievements from the past were removed and we got back to armies have to stick to the old army books without Errata/FAQ, no scenarios and must play 2500-3000 points because with the change to 50% heroes people need to points to put some units on the table (instead of making the decision for either heros or units)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kodos wrote:
no one ever played the different scenarios

there was only one, with no special deployment on killing the most points at the end of the game wins

because GW in 5th gave that as example for tournament play and never again made a tournament pack/rules, this was the only one allowed

it was hard work to get people to play different scenarios in mid 7th, mostly with the need of houserules anyway

but this was gone the day 8th hit the shelf because GW now listens, the solved all the problems and made the perfect game, so all achievements from the past were removed and we got back to armies have to stick to the old army books without Errata/FAQ, no scenarios and must play 2500-3000 points because with the change to 50% heroes people need to points to put some units on the table (instead of making the decision for either heros or units)


Gee, I guess I'm no one then. Our group random rolled scenarios because we understood the whole POINT of having the scenarios was to help balance the game. If you didn't use the scenarios, you weren't playing the full game and OF COUSE the game devolves into "Who's got the nastiest deathstar?"

At which point several armies become basically unplayable because their best deathstar was hamburger in front of a ChosenStar or BlenderStar.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

which was a reason why I left the game behind before the first army book hit

the community already took a hit with the bad army books of 7th, but the attitude of the people that stayed (and run the events/club nights) killed 8th for me and some friends right at the start

no house rules are allowed because we only play the official rules, but only those rules "we" like and the others are ingored (like scenarios, or FW units, so no Chaos Dwarfs here)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in fi
Dakka Veteran





I don't even care what the recommended unit sizes are in Old World as long as the models are sold in unit sizes that are usable straigth from the box. Rank bonus from 5 models that were sold in boxes of 16 or combat bonuses for large units that were sold in boxes of 10 didn't make a very good customer experience.

I wouldn't mind if Old World took a similar approach to army building than AoS 3rd edition. A default unit size is the number of models in box, you pay points per unit instead of model and if you want to double or triple the size of a unit you need to Reinforce it. You can only Reinforce a limited amount of units depending on game size.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/29 08:12:31


That place is the harsh dark future far left with only war left. 
   
Made in gb
Sister Oh-So Repentia




United Kingdom

Voss wrote:
 Galas wrote:
As long as they fixed the small units used to redirect the proper units of the rival, I cannot care about anything else, I'll play it.

The moment a play group understood that "trick", then the game basically died. It was a ballerina's dance of fething 5 undead wolves or cheap outriders or whatever baiting your 2-3 proper units into charging a rock or some woods.


Its funny how much attitudes vary. The groups I played with always felt the onus was on them to eliminate the potential enemy charge blockers with shooting, magic and/or morale.
Maybe even a charge of their own light cav while the infantry blocks were still advancing.

Five wolves or outriders stood up to jack and squat.


Well, a lot of people complain about games they don't actually know how to play (not necessarily the ones complaining here) and some will complain even if they've never tried the game, basing their opinion on a strawman of someone else's experience. There were countless games I experienced where people forgot important rules i.e. rolling for terrain, broken concentration on wizards, 1 or 2 on the total of a spell meaning it was auto fail regardless of bonuses from wizard level or other source, bounce of a cannonball stopping if it doesn't kill something with multiple wounds, if a unit has most of its footprint in a forest (most common terrain type to have access to) it loses that hated steadfast etc...

Those same people would also complain about interactions that were the direct cause of not playing those rules properly. I remember people complaining about hordes/large formations covering a deployment zone end to end..and then they would be playing on a board with a couple of hills and a very small forest, which they hadn't rolled for and they wouldn't remember the rules that removed steadfast (note: this was at a club that has free access to a large amount of terrain). The average terrain roll was around 7, I think, so some or a lot of those hordes are getting clogged up and/or having their precious steadfast removed.

Having said that 8th has/had plenty of issues and a lot of those were logistical, the size and cost of the units/armies (though not for all armies), not everyone has or wants to provide terrain either (although that's a cost in a lot of games) and also rules based: e.g. the imbalance of the core ultimate spells for most of the lores, some of the lores were just plain better than most (looking at you life and shadow), deathstars and army book power-creep. The end times also introduced some ridiculous things, particularly the magic in the Khaine book.

It certainly wasn't without issues, but some of the complaints I've heard would suggest it was an unmitigated disaster and maybe for some groups it was. I can only go off my own experience where we saw record numbers of people at our club (30+) playing in escalation leagues (which were competitive) and even narrative events (less competitive), throughout the entirety of 8th and it only died down after they killed off the system. There were quite a few who were even starting new armies when that suddenly hit, although they were warned, in fairness.

But I'm one person and maybe I am the exception that proves the rule; after all my experience is just my own and if a majority feels differently it ultimately beats my individual preference.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/29 08:30:44


   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kodos wrote:
which was a reason why I left the game behind before the first army book hit

the community already took a hit with the bad army books of 7th, but the attitude of the people that stayed (and run the events/club nights) killed 8th for me and some friends right at the start

no house rules are allowed because we only play the official rules, but only those rules "we" like and the others are ingored (like scenarios, or FW units, so no Chaos Dwarfs here)


Yes, but honestly that was a community problem. At that time, the more vocal voices on the Warhammer Battle scene was mostly competitive (I'll even say hardcore competitive) and thus only one scenario was played. So of course all lists turned about making death stars and killing stuff.

Saw this a bit when some of the WB community briefly shifted to Kings of War...a lot of competitive players came at that time and tried to do the same. The rest went on 9th Age, and you can clearly see the game system was shaped from the same mindset.

I don't miss them a single bit, to be frank.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

which is kind of funny

here most of them went to T9A and some of the more vocal ones became the core part of the project.
they mostly skipped KoW because it was too friendly to competitive play

while it would have helped the popularity of KoW in the beginning, in the long run I am very glad the ETC went with T9A as their Fantasy game

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kodos wrote:

while it would have helped the popularity of KoW in the beginning, in the long run I am very glad the ETC went with T9A as their Fantasy game


I totally agree. I still think it helped KoW to be known and more popular in some areas where previously it wasn't even a dream to hope so, but I'm also glad most of the...let's say "problematic people" went to join 9th Age instead.

With some luck, they'll stick with it once Old World is released.
   
Made in gb
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Scotland, but nowhere near my rulebook

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
5-wide is absolutely necessary. With 4-wide the classic three man command group is off center and that is an abomination.


This is correct.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Sarouan wrote:
With some luck, they'll stick with it once Old World is released.

I am pretty sure they will, as the game was designed around their needs and they will do everything to keep it as a main game (while in some regions, the game tied pretty fast as soon as those people stopped playing)

 Graphite wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
5-wide is absolutely necessary. With 4-wide the classic three man command group is off center and that is an abomination.

This is correct.

but with the "best of" of 3-8th, it is not said the the 3 man command will be back and not the classic 2 man command

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/29 11:21:28


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

Who was the one missing from the 2-man command? Because it better not be the musician! Nothing says ranked combat quite like a person marching to war armed only with a drum.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/29 11:50:22


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

champion, as in the older rules it was a character not a unit upgrade

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





OKC, OK USA

 kodos wrote:

I am very glad the ETC went with T9A as their Fantasy game


Of course they did, 9th Age was designed from the beginning to be "ETC: The Game".

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Who was the one missing from the 2-man command? Because it better not be the musician! Nothing says ranked combat quite like a person marching to war armed only with a drum.

It was also a tie breaker and had some effect on movement. Free reform, wasn't it?

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Platuan4th wrote:
 kodos wrote:

I am very glad the ETC went with T9A as their Fantasy game

Of course they did, 9th Age was designed from the beginning to be "ETC: The Game".

but after they decided to go with that game (which was more or less a promise only by that time)

there was a captains vote in the beginning between KoW, Warhammer Armies, keeping 8th and "future proof game made by the players and will the best game ever (based on 8th because this is the game the people behind it like and there is not enough time to make something new)"

Mantic offered support for the ETC if KoW is played, yet people voted for the "new game" because: don' like Mantic miniatures, Warhammer Armies has too many factions so the pairing will be too complicated, it is boring to play with the same rules twice (so no 8th)

than we got a different version of 8th so that people have something to play in the upcoming ETC, than they started to flesh the game out with their first Edition, which was how 8th should have been from the beginning
and now they focused on making their own game, with their own fluff and rules with 2nd Edition

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/29 13:40:19


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 kodos wrote:
champion, as in the older rules it was a character not a unit upgrade


Wow, you clearly didn't model your unit leaders as special in third edition even though there was no statistical difference between any other member of the unit and it shows. Shame on you.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: