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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
quick reaction:

I dislike the weapon skill chart. Both the weapon skill and wound charts were made in a way which is basically unapproachable in terms of easy memorization. Whoever was responsible for them should be ashamed.

More than double/less than havf hard to memorize? It's consistent simple formula. Very easy to memorize. Not that you need to memorize it...

Overkill likevy related to challenges. General causes 10w to 1w champion killing 1 model 10 times.

chaos0xomega wrote:
quick reaction:

I dislike the weapon skill chart. Both the weapon skill and wound charts were made in a way which is basically unapproachable in terms of easy memorization. Whoever was responsible for them should be ashamed.

Weapon chart looks like more than double = 2+ to hit, more = 3+ to hit, equal or worse = 4+, more than half = 5+. Considering 95% of combats will probably be in the 3+/4+ range I think it’s easy enough to remember

Wound chart is just a +1/-1 modifier as you go up and down S/T, again in WHFB extremes of both fighting each other were rare


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Overkill likevy related to challenges. General causes 10w to 1w champion killing 1 model 10 times.

It used to be capped at +5 IIR but yeah

that combat... actually looks quite good, a bit more to it than before with the loser no longer being "stand" or "run" but now with the fall back step added - high Ld troops who get unlucky much less likely to be run down than rabble

nice supporting models are one attack, and it being wounds caused no models killed for the score (was it always this way?)

casualties from the back which I actually like

initiative in place of ASF/ASL I really like, especially with the tactical modifiers

Wow.

These rules seems both good, fun, strategic and even wargamy.

I like the charts, the combat resolution, the fall back in good order, push, wrap around logic and more.

Seems like another chef's kiss rules preview to my eyes. I was very pessimistic but this seems so good.

Is there any limit to the rank CR bonus I wonder?

Used to be 3 max but with new rules for formation less needed as each rank becomes more and more expensive. Assuming no cap:

16 models needed for +3, 25 for 4, 36 for 5, 49 for 6, 64 for 7...

To get +10 you would need 121 models.

Don't take lack of cap mention as proof there isn't one but wouldn't be surprised(nor worried) if there isn't.

Until 121 skaven slaves rule the world

Step up is still there for those worried about low Initiative armies. They mentioned it in the article when talking about removing models from the back ranks. Like 8th. I like these rules, looking forward to February

Unless it's just justification why you remove models fvom vear.

Not much benefit from strike 1st unless you one shot enemy. Which means either initiave fairly useless or lethality goes up big time in tow

tneva82 wrote:
Unless it's just justification why you remove models fvom vear.

Not much benefit from strike 1st unless you one shot enemy. Which means either initiave fairly useless or lethality goes up big time in tow

I'm wondering if the expectation is going back towards smaller units, plus better trained units being able to push back or break cruddy ones without needing to plug through 100+ goblins

We still don't have the full picture but sounds like a lot is based on 8th from what they previewed so likely step up is still there IMO. From the article:
"Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt. Set every death in each unit aside – you’ll need to tot them up for the next step…"

Whomever thought to mix 3rd-8th rules was brilliant, I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. Almost wish 40k would take this approach with it's next edition.

Also, anyone else getting the feel that magic is intended to supplement your combats/units rather than create game breaking moments like in 8th?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Unless it's just justification why you remove models fvom vear.

Not much benefit from strike 1st unless you one shot enemy. Which means either initiave fairly useless or lethality goes up big time in tow

I'm wondering if the expectation is going back towards smaller units, plus better trained units being able to push back or break cruddy ones without needing to plug through 100+ goblins

This is actually a very very good point, I hadn't thought of it.

Break tests are now taken with results modifying the roll rather than Leadership value? So if you lose by three points, you have to add three to your dice? It's effectively the same, but a teensy extra wonky step of having to translate a loss of -3 to a +3 dice modifier.

Free reform if you hold pursuit, not sure if that was in 8th but it wasn't in 6th, you just stood there if you hold off pursuit. I like it. Gives a meanignful choice between running down the opponent and setting up for later.

The 1" pushback is almost certainly the "pass LD: Give Ground" result. Most interesting will be the difference between "Fall back in good order" and "Break and flee"

 nathan2004 wrote:
We still don't have the full picture but sounds like a lot is based on 8th from what they previewed so likely step up is still there IMO. From the article:
"Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt. Set every death in each unit aside – you’ll need to tot them up for the next step…"

That bit of fluff has always been used to justify removing models from the back rank, it's not an indication of anything. I can dig out an older edition rule book for you and find a line to that effect.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Step up is still there for those worried about low Initiative armies. They mentioned it in the article when talking about removing models from the back ranks. Like 8th. I like these rules, looking forward to February

It’s the preceding paragraph’s wording that my concern creeps in.

You roll as many dice as your engaged models have Attacks and, with the higher Initiative models striking first, a charging unit has the opportunity to overwhelm its enemies before they have the wit to swing back. Next, you roll to wound and make armour saves as normal.

Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt. Set every death in each unit aside – you’ll need to tot them up for the next step…

I think you’re probably right, but I’m keeping an open mind for now.

 nathan2004 wrote:
We still don't have the full picture but sounds like a lot is based on 8th from what they previewed so likely step up is still there IMO. From the article:
"Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt. Set every death in each unit aside – you’ll need to tot them up for the next step…".

Don't see anything about other unit still getting to strike back. More of explanation why models are removed from REAR and not from FRONT that would be more logical from the face of it(those are the ones fighting)

Suitably impressed with these rules. Overrun could be great fun, especially if you have your Chaos Knights on the trot..

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Break tests are now taken with results modifying the roll rather than Leadership value? So if you lose by three points, you have to add three to your dice? It's effectively the same, but a teensy extra wonky step of having to translate a loss of -3 to a +3 dice modifier.

You can modify the leadership in your head if you want. If it's larger than modified leadership the shakedown happens.

Breaking on a natural roll higher than LD means that you just need to win by 1 on a flanking charge (no rank) and a roll above average to break a block in a single charge

which also means, a high LD hero each block is kind of mandatory and with the higher amount of attacks (full rank + supporting models) unless one goes for the full block with extra ranks, the bonus is not that important either

Not a fan. The opponent being unlucky with his unmodified Ld roll seems to have more impact than carefully setting up an overwhelming CR advantage. Flat randomness shouldn't be more effective than a well executed solid plan.

Cyel wrote:
Flat randomness shouldn't be more effective than a well executed solid plan.

One of the most famous quotes in the history of literature begs to differ.

Cyel wrote:
Not a fan. The opponent being unlucky with his unmodified Ld roll seems to have more impact than carefully setting up an overwhelming CR advantage. Flat randomness shouldn't be more effective than a well executed solid plan.

But that worst case result is the original WHFB mechanic, it's all the other, less debilitating outcomes that are new. Losing combat has never been this forgiving in 40 years of Warhams.

I certainly like the changes to a break test. You can lose combat but you still have a chance to regroup with a high enough leadership character keeps the troops in line.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Not a fan. The opponent being unlucky with his unmodified Ld roll seems to have more impact than carefully setting up an overwhelming CR advantage. Flat randomness shouldn't be more effective than a well executed solid plan.

But that worst case result is the original WHFB mechanic, it's all the other, less debilitating outcomes that are new. Losing combat has never been this forgiving in 40 years of Warhams.

worst case scenario is like before, but now the one who wins the combat gets additional benefits for high comat results but a bad dice roll

the idea is ghat you when overwhelming but cannot break it because you rolled badly, you stell get something
but it also works the other way around, you win by 1 and a lucky roll later the unit is gone

which means buffing by heroes is more important

Loving the new Break Test result mechanic, i wonder if a unit follows up a win when a opponent falls back in good order, they fight again in the same turn?

It seems Step Up has been retained from 8th, which makes Initiative (and thus the reason to charge, to get the bonus) pointless unless fighting single ranked units.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Not a fan. The opponent being unlucky with his unmodified Ld roll seems to have more impact than carefully setting up an overwhelming CR advantage. Flat randomness shouldn't be more effective than a well executed solid plan.

But that worst case result is the original WHFB mechanic, it's all the other, less debilitating outcomes that are new. Losing combat has never been this forgiving in 40 years of Warhams.

Yes, but this worst case scenario for the defender doesn't originate from being dominated by the attacker (high CR difference) but from blind chance, regardless of whether the attacker won by 1 or 10. So it's better to be lucky than good and I don't particularly like such solutions in games.

Cyel wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Not a fan. The opponent being unlucky with his unmodified Ld roll seems to have more impact than carefully setting up an overwhelming CR advantage. Flat randomness shouldn't be more effective than a well executed solid plan.

But that worst case result is the original WHFB mechanic, it's all the other, less debilitating outcomes that are new. Losing combat has never been this forgiving in 40 years of Warhams.

Yes, but this worst case scenario for the defender doesn't originate from being dominated by the attacker (high CR difference) but from blind chance, regardless of whether the attacker won by 1 or 10. So it's better to be lucky than good and I don't particularly like such solutions in games.

Ohh I see what you mean now, CR increases odds of Fall Back but not of Flee.

Yup, that's it. My personal preference would be for the defender's situation to become more dire, the more CR they have stacked against them to reward good play on the part of the attacker (setting up the biggest CR advantage they can).

 mindrobber wrote:
Loving the new Break Test result mechanic, i wonder if a unit follows up a win when a opponent falls back in good order, they fight again in the same turn?

That seems to be implied and is the way it works in Warmaster, but if that’s the case I hope there’s a cap on the number of times you can do that in one turn with one unit.

 mindrobber wrote:
It seems Step Up has been retained from 8th, which makes Initiative (and thus the reason to charge, to get the bonus) pointless unless fighting single ranked units.

Unless there’s some other subtlety like only one rank can step up and such.

Wonder how that will work with Chariots? They’re by their nature “alpha strike” living or dying on the charge.

If they’re at constant risk of being bogged down even with a decisive running over of the enemy unit, who in their right mind is going to use them? Especially if as speculated above, following up into a pushed back unit sparks another combat round, as if you don’t count as charging, it’ll be in, run off a few folks, then get tipped in the follow up, or sit there like a lemon and get counter charged anyway.


Another one for my list of “frustratingly vague” news.

 kodos wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Not a fan. The opponent being unlucky with his unmodified Ld roll seems to have more impact than carefully setting up an overwhelming CR advantage. Flat randomness shouldn't be more effective than a well executed solid plan.

But that worst case result is the original WHFB mechanic, it's all the other, less debilitating outcomes that are new. Losing combat has never been this forgiving in 40 years of Warhams.

worst case scenario is like before, but now the one who wins the combat gets additional benefits for high comat results but a bad dice roll

the idea is ghat you when overwhelming but cannot break it because you rolled badly, you stell get something
but it also works the other way around, you win by 1 and a lucky roll later the unit is gone

which means buffing by heroes is more important

Eh. When unit backs off little here before in same roll it would be same now as worst roll.

The roll is less punishng. Ld8, you lose by 3.

Old rules: 2-5, fine, 6+, unit runs away.
New rules. 2-5 fine, 6-8 unit backs off, 9+ unit runs away.

Note how 6-8 result is better for losing than before.

Finally back to a decent WS chart - Hurah