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.

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.