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.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 CMLR wrote:

I still have to wonder why they left Savage Orcs in AoS, not like you can't use them but I'd like to buy them and square bases in the same box.

i suspect it might be because savage orcs are finally going away for good in aos4th, and GW would rather they be gone completely than just move them to a different game

While I personally have no use for savage orcs, I do like them in the Warhammer setting, especially ole Wurzzag. I hope GW moves them back to The Old World.

 Stormonu wrote:
Are there any cavalry units for WH dwarves? I don't see any in the Forces of Fantasy and was wondering if Forgeworld had any that I wasn't aware of.

I was looking at the Sons of Ymir line and really liked the cavalry units I saw there and wondering if there was any hope of rules for such in WHFB.

They could always hire dogs of war cavalry

Yeah having Dogs of War back in the game introduces a whole other element to the game (or back to the game).

 JB wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 CMLR wrote:

I still have to wonder why they left Savage Orcs in AoS, not like you can't use them but I'd like to buy them and square bases in the same box.

i suspect it might be because savage orcs are finally going away for good in aos4th, and GW would rather they be gone completely than just move them to a different game

While I personally have no use for savage orcs, I do like them in the Warhammer setting, especially ole Wurzzag. I hope GW moves them back to The Old World.

I thought it was obvious that savage orcs are orc boys with "frenzied" options, as frenzied boys can take warpaint and the two-orc spear option.
And they dont include savage orcs in the old world release because they are already available in the webstore for AoS (including the savage boar boys). I can go to my FLGS and pick up a box of 20 savage orcs today.
So, the savage orcs are in ToW, and also highly available to buy from GW. Actually, more available than most ToW units.

 Stormonu wrote:
Are there any cavalry units for WH dwarves? I don't see any in the Forces of Fantasy and was wondering if Forgeworld had any that I wasn't aware of.

I was looking at the Sons of Ymir line and really liked the cavalry units I saw there and wondering if there was any hope of rules for such in WHFB.

Dwarfs don't ride

 Stormonu wrote:
Are there any cavalry units for WH dwarves? I don't see any in the Forces of Fantasy and was wondering if Forgeworld had any that I wasn't aware of.

I was looking at the Sons of Ymir line and really liked the cavalry units I saw there and wondering if there was any hope of rules for such in WHFB.

I've just happened upon these, and they are so cool! https://youtu.be/lhoAvh5uhwY?si=9GsViceu6XqMTyn9 But I guess they would really require some heavy house ruling which would limit their use. Unfortunately Dwarfs in WH have always been boring like that, with options limited to very static, passive gameplay which made me wonder even those 25 years ago why anyone would want to play them :(

because the static and passive gameplay was part of 8th Edition comp (because some people did not like play against aggressive dwarfs) and ETC "draw" lists

that TOW used this as base and made them passive by default outside of copter spam is one big negative about the game (in addition of not making Empire infantry lists viable)

I never played 8th edition*, I base my opinion on 5-6-7 ed games against Dwarfs.




*-well, I did once, when kids at my school's wargaming club asked me to play with them. I grudgingly agreed.

and in 5th dwarfs were not really slower than other armies (and even things like the anvil could move) and 6th/7th, specially 6th with the 2nd army book was not passive at all

I know people who played list based on Team Tournament lists were dwarfs were used to prevent a loss against stronger armies to play the corner fortress, same as avoiding wood elves, in regular games and never tried to do something different

but playing dwarfs passive was a player choice, same as playing Empire gunlines or avoidance elves, and not the default option of the army book

I used to play against quite a few fighting infantry centered Dwarf armies in 6th and 7th at local tournaments and the scenario was always the same - encircle them, multicharge, eventually break. Once again, very passive gameplay from the Dwarfs, apart from moving forward on the first few turns, as they just didn't have tools nor speed to set up charges, countercharges, bait traps etc. Just taking charges from multiple sides and rolling dice and losing combat every turn until they eventually failed their Ld test and broke.

Maybe i ToW they can do better at surviving this, as break tests are not as much of an all or nothing affair, but it doesn't make it any less passive and uninteresting.

Cyel wrote:
I used to play against quite a few fighting infantry centered Dwarf armies in 6th and 7th at local tournaments and the scenario was always the same - encircle them, multicharge, eventually break. Once again, very passive gameplay from the Dwarfs, apart from moving forward on the first few turns, as they just didn't have tools nor speed to set up charges, countercharges, bait traps etc. Just taking charges from multiple sides and rolling dice and losing combat every turn until they eventually failed their Ld test and broke.

Maybe i ToW they can do better at surviving this, as break tests are not as much of an all or nothing affair, but it doesn't make it any less passive and uninteresting.

I typically describe fighting Dwarves as like fighting a mountain, but the mountain fights back. In WHFB Dwarves had so much Leadership and Stubborn that expecting to break them (even with flank charges) was a fool's errand. One must be prepared to grind them down over several turns.

Not really. Even considering equal Wounds inflicted (unlikely as Darfs rarely fought first and weren't particularly killy) the advantage of 3 ranks, flank and outnumber meant Dwarfs take break tests on 4 or 5. Even with a BSB re-roll this is bad probability and note that it means never winning, only hoping (against probability) you don't break when repeatedly losing.

StubboreN means testing on ld and no secret they have higher ld than 4-5.

Yeah, I guess they had a stubborn unit or rune in 6th/7th + Unbreakable (but easy to kill) Slayers.

Still it was this exact situation, never win combats, lose non-stubborn ones easily, lose battle. That's how I remember these games, whether I played orcs or chaos against them.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I used to play against quite a few fighting infantry centered Dwarf armies in 6th and 7th at local tournaments and the scenario was always the same - encircle them, multicharge, eventually break. Once again, very passive gameplay from the Dwarfs, apart from moving forward on the first few turns, as they just didn't have tools nor speed to set up charges, countercharges, bait traps etc. Just taking charges from multiple sides and rolling dice and losing combat every turn until they eventually failed their Ld test and broke.

Maybe i ToW they can do better at surviving this, as break tests are not as much of an all or nothing affair, but it doesn't make it any less passive and uninteresting.

I typically describe fighting Dwarves as like fighting a mountain, but the mountain fights back. In WHFB Dwarves had so much Leadership and Stubborn that expecting to break them (even with flank charges) was a fool's errand. One must be prepared to grind them down over several turns.

I rarely enjoyed playing against Dwarfs. Guys in my local scene always did the gun line of numbing inevitability. My entire strategy as an opponent reduced to “get across the board as fast as I can, and pray I’ve enough oomph left to take them in combat”. Oh, and don’t forget they can Rune up to make their dice rolls as safe and favourable as possible. And forget your magic phase, because unless you really spec into it? They’ll just shut you down. Which means just to get spells off, I need to sacrifice hitty characters.

The supposed downside? Slow, with typically low Initiative. Except I can’t march block them, so when manoeuvring really counts they’re not at a disadvantage. And given even their Crossbows can have Great Weapons? Who cares about I2. Just strike last with a bonus.

Boooooooooooooooooooring.

I think the key is they need good terrain placement and objective/reasons to move up into the board.

I got this as a hard lesson playing a Knight army recently in 40K. In a straight kill game any gun-line army can just stand back, move back and keep shooting. You've got to make sure the board breaks up the lines of fire (for both sides) and also forces both to move into the middle.

Otherwise the gunline army is just going to gun-line and stand there shooting. With no reason to push into the board and expose themselves to close combat risk. Even if the terrain is well setup, if they've no reason to close toward oyu they won't.

I was absolutely expecting to see some scenario/objective play being default in ToW. I was surprised it's still purely kill Vps and preserve Vps. I guess the dragons wouldn't be so dominating if they couldn't hold objectives and get Vps.

ASOIAF scenarios could be a nice example of how scenarios can be used in a regimented wargame - destroyed units still give some Vps, but you can't ignore the scenario.

I’m not sure WHFB has ever really lent itself to Objectives. With blocks of infantry and limited manoeuvres taking and holding becomes…really odd.

Though specific scenarios with different victory conditions can shake it up. Forlorn Hope, line breaking etc.

For instance, one could involve needing to get units off the opposite side of the board, representing a break out or break through before a larger battle, where the attacker’s forces are key reinforcements the defender is trying to delay. But “get there and just stand there” doesn’t really work.

True, I'd momentarily forgotten that its much harder to do dense terrain and objectives with rank and file. You have to leave room for things to wheel and move about the board otherwise it becomes impossible to achieve anything.

I think objectives still work even if its a generic area based one like holding the middle ground. At the very least I think it forces armies to come together rather than sit back and shoot for ranged focused ones.

Especially as Old World doesn't have a lot of those movement tricks that 40K has for drop pods; reinforcements; teleporting and so forth which can let you jump things around or onto the board to break up a static gunline.

Have you played ASOIAF? It actually works pretty well there. Scenarios are quite varied and most are about taking and holding (or sometimes carrying) objectives.

ASOIAF is also more of a skirmish game with large models than it is a rank and flank. Maneuvering is much easier (mostly just pivots and marching directly forward, with set unit sizes that never change).

You don't have to deal with large wheels and formation changes and such and often milk out extra maneuvers/movement with the NCU board and tactics cards.

most R&F games focus on objectives, kill as a scenario option is mainly a GW thing and that TOW only has kill scenarios is an exception, even for Warhammer Fantasy

and TOW is more of a skirmish games, as a lot of rules are single model mechanics and not unit mechanics
just that a game uses the unit as the smallest tactical model on the board does not make it a skirmish game (and most R&F games do this, again GW is the exception here)

I'm sure GW are already working on books like "Campaign Battles of the War of Four Emperors" with plenty of special rules and scenarios and special characters.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I used to play against quite a few fighting infantry centered Dwarf armies in 6th and 7th at local tournaments and the scenario was always the same - encircle them, multicharge, eventually break. Once again, very passive gameplay from the Dwarfs, apart from moving forward on the first few turns, as they just didn't have tools nor speed to set up charges, countercharges, bait traps etc. Just taking charges from multiple sides and rolling dice and losing combat every turn until they eventually failed their Ld test and broke.

Maybe i ToW they can do better at surviving this, as break tests are not as much of an all or nothing affair, but it doesn't make it any less passive and uninteresting.

I typically describe fighting Dwarves as like fighting a mountain, but the mountain fights back. In WHFB Dwarves had so much Leadership and Stubborn that expecting to break them (even with flank charges) was a fool's errand. One must be prepared to grind them down over several turns.

I rarely enjoyed playing against Dwarfs. Guys in my local scene always did the gun line of numbing inevitability. My entire strategy as an opponent reduced to “get across the board as fast as I can, and pray I’ve enough oomph left to take them in combat”. Oh, and don’t forget they can Rune up to make their dice rolls as safe and favourable as possible. And forget your magic phase, because unless you really spec into it? They’ll just shut you down. Which means just to get spells off, I need to sacrifice hitty characters.

The supposed downside? Slow, with typically low Initiative. Except I can’t march block them, so when manoeuvring really counts they’re not at a disadvantage. And given even their Crossbows can have Great Weapons? Who cares about I2. Just strike last with a bonus.

Boooooooooooooooooooring.

I've run into some of those. Though, one poor sap with a Dwarven Gun Line ran into my Dark Elf Menagerie. I went first, and he conceded top of 2 once the vast majority of my army was in his flanks and eating his war machines.

I, unfortunately, played dozens of "games" against dwarven gunlines in my time. Boring as hell, terrible experience and winning these most of the time didn't help much.

I prefer melee infantry in my Dwarfs, but I acknowledge the gunline is un-interactive.

You win battles against Dwarf gunlines in terrain placement.

He takes a hill and puts it in his deployment area? You grab a forest and put it in front of the hill. Keep the sightlines on his half of the table short or pointing nowhere near where you're going to deploy, and gunlne dwarves are boned.

Artillery is not nearly as effective in TOW as 8th imo. Yeah still laser guided cannons but partials being a thing again and some artillery being nerfed along with damage reduction, doesn’t make it quite as bad. And that’s coming from a chaos dwarf player that used to run like 6-7 war machines a game.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not sure WHFB has ever really lent itself to Objectives. With blocks of infantry and limited manoeuvres taking and holding becomes…really odd.

Though specific scenarios with different victory conditions can shake it up. Forlorn Hope, line breaking etc.

For instance, one could involve needing to get units off the opposite side of the board, representing a break out or break through before a larger battle, where the attacker’s forces are key reinforcements the defender is trying to delay. But “get there and just stand there” doesn’t really work.

KoW has like a dozen scenarios, although none like that because of Dwarves. The nearest is Invade which requires being in the opposite half of the table and therefore still gives the unit a lot of freedom to contribute.

30x60 mm are in stock on the US website