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.

with a 2" pushback and a "flee but not destroyed" option, you are able to get out of combat with a moral test and use corkscrew tactics also with non-square units as long as they have enough movement range

like a cavalry attacking a unit, causes a orderly retreat, and charge a another unit in the flank that was next to the other unit before is possible and with a good swiftstride roll you can also charge a unit behind.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is honestly looking like the most exciting set of rules that GW has released since the Adeptus Titanicus relaunch. I am increasingly hyped.

I would tend to agree, but remember that a lot of snippets of 10th also looked swell...

The devil's in the details. They can nail the rules and then botch the army lists.

the devil is in the detail and we have not seen a lot of actual rule text for now
just marketing text explaining what is written in the rules, so the actual rules as written can still be different and add another layer of details
like now 2 different articles are already slightly off, with one saying you can chose to pursue or not while the other says you always pursue unless you pass a test (which is something very different than simply choosing not to do it)
and such minor details can change a lot

"All the classic psychological effects are back – Fear, Terror, Stupidity, Animosity, Frenzy, Unbreakable, Stubborn and Hatred."

But no Panic. Interesting.

 Graphite wrote:
"All the classic psychological effects are back – Fear, Terror, Stupidity, Animosity, Frenzy, Unbreakable, Stubborn and Hatred."

But no Panic. Interesting.

and apparently the stats for Cool, Willpower and Intelligence are also sadly missing it seems

 kodos wrote:
with a 2" pushback and a "flee but not destroyed" option, you are able to get out of combat with a moral test and use corkscrew tactics also with non-square units as long as they have enough movement range

IIR corkscrewing worked in KoW as units always pivoted about the centre of the unit. So you could spin on the spot. With the Old World following the WHFB method of wheeling from the front, along with needing LoS and being in the front arc I can’t see this being a thing.

it works in KoW for square units because they pivot on the spot
it does not work for rectangular units because there is no space between units to finish the pivot out of contact (which was a reason why certain units got a rectangular base in the first place)

for the TOW Information we have now, depending on the unit size there will be enough space between units (as they are always moved out of contact, just the minimum distance is different) to change facing or wheel around the previous opponent

This is why many games have some sort of "Zone of control" concept

leopard wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
"All the classic psychological effects are back – Fear, Terror, Stupidity, Animosity, Frenzy, Unbreakable, Stubborn and Hatred."

But no Panic. Interesting.

and apparently the stats for Cool, Willpower and Intelligence are also sadly missing it seems

I liked them but they went at the end of 3rd ed.

Yeah, panic hung around a lot longer than those stats. And breaking units panicking your entire goblin army was very much A Thing

If memory serves, Panic played a reducing role over editions.

When I started in 4th, Panic occurred when your General was bumped off, or a friendly unit within a fixed distance fled (maybe 6”?).

Overtime, you had to flee through a friendly unit to trigger a Panic test, and I think a General being jobbed was reduced to a ranged bubble, maybe 12”?


Can’t remember if it was reduced further from there though.

 Mr Morden wrote:

leopard wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
"All the classic psychological effects are back – Fear, Terror, Stupidity, Animosity, Frenzy, Unbreakable, Stubborn and Hatred."

But no Panic. Interesting.

and apparently the stats for Cool, Willpower and Intelligence are also sadly missing it seems

I liked them but they went at the end of 3rd ed.

I know, to be replaced with a whole slew of special rules when the designers realised that you know what? just because basic humans had the same number in each stat, other factions didn't

It did reduce, but I'd argue that army morale as well as unit morale should be important.

Maybe not to the point where one Gobbo unit fleeing wipes out your army, though!

leopard wrote:
This is why many games have some sort of "Zone of control" concept

Very true, while WFB has always been a bit lite on that, it has had the rule where a unit can not come within 1" of the enemynunless it was charging a unit.

While not the best, it is at the very least something.

Panic has changed a lot over the editions, I do hope it is retained to some degree as it helps reflect that units don’t always act as we would like them to when things get a bit hairy.

Have to say I find games where the commander is not entirely in full control of the army get a lot more interesting.

when that "perfect charge" can be mucked up by something outside the commanders control adds a requirement to have a back up plan

I think it's interesting the way in which they seem to be making stats more meaningful in the core rules.

Someone mentioned way back in this thread, when ASF elves were the topic of the day, about how they could use WS to make elves more worth their points without having to resort to discussing rules. The new table does this wrt 8th edition at least.

We also see this with M + highest d6 in the charges, I forming the basis for who gets to hit first (then modified) and how Ld is more important around holding your lines together.

It gives them more room to make meaningful differentiation between troops just by using the stat line.

leopard wrote:
Have to say I find games where the commander is not entirely in full control of the army get a lot more interesting.

when that "perfect charge" can be mucked up by something outside the commanders control adds a requirement to have a back up plan

Yeah if you're playing for the narrative and to have fun, your high powered wizard exploding on turn one can be thematic and create a fun scenario - can I survive against the odds?

If your high powered wizard never gets to do anything because he always dies turn 1 or 2 through being underpowered or a simple exploit, that's bad game design.

Appreciate if you are only playing competitively, and winning is all you care about, then randomness can be frustrating, but if that's the case you can always go and play chess!

The 1" rule for enemies (and we played allies too) where you couldn't go within 1" unless you were in combat helped distinguish units from each other especially if you had multiples of the same or didn't keep a tidy board. I always found it useful in keeping track of what was where.

So unit strength...someone that played 7th (and maybe before not sure when it was introduced), can someone explain that? Is it just number of models in a unit = unit strength?

 Graphite wrote:
It did reduce, but I'd argue that army morale as well as unit morale should be important.

Maybe not to the point where one Gobbo unit fleeing wipes out your army, though!

Don't play an army full of cowards? I remember hearing a story about Skaven versus Night Goblins, and the whole Night Goblin army ran off the board top of turn one when the Skaven rolled a 13 on the Screaming Bell.

Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

 Graphite wrote:
Maybe not to the point where one Gobbo unit fleeing wipes out your army, though!

Could make it an army special rule thing, so it would be something Greenskins get for Gobbos, Skaven for Skaven Slaves/Clanrats, and maybe even Brets for Peasant units.

Ahh, back in the days of yore:

Units that cause Terror automatically also cause Fear.

Causing Fear makes you immune to units that cause Fear, but you Fear units that cause Terror.

Units that cause Terror are not impressed by Fear or Terror.

My greatest fear was losing a unit to Magic or Missile fire and then getting a bad set of Panic Test that decimate my army. I especially loved how units fled the source of panic, which meant the dead unit that caused the Panic test rather than the unit that destroyed it. Let's flee across the army, causing more Panic test as you go, rather than off the board.

 nathan2004 wrote:
The 1" rule for enemies (and we played allies too) where you couldn't go within 1" unless you were in combat helped distinguish units from each other especially if you had multiples of the same or didn't keep a tidy board. I always found it useful in keeping track of what was where.

So unit strength...someone that played 7th (and maybe before not sure when it was introduced), can someone explain that? Is it just number of models in a unit = unit strength?

Unit Strength is based upon number of models, some models have a unit Strength more than 1 however. Cavalry have 2, characters on Monsters have the starting number of wounds on their mount +1, etc.

In the 6th edition army books, it states what their Init Strength is, if it is greater than the standard 1.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Don't play an army full of cowards? I remember hearing a story about Skaven versus Night Goblins, and the whole Night Goblin army ran off the board top of turn one when the Skaven rolled a 13 on the Screaming Bell.

Dogs of War had to make a Panic check if the Paymaster bought it. Played a game where supremely lucky magic took the guy out on turn 1. Whole army routed. "Well, that was fun."

 alextroy wrote:
Ahh, back in the days of yore:

Units that cause Terror automatically also cause Fear.

Causing Fear makes you immune to units that cause Fear, but you Fear units that cause Terror.

Units that cause Terror are not impressed by Fear or Terror.

My greatest fear was losing a unit to Magic or Missile fire and then getting a bad set of Panic Test that decimate my army. I especially loved how units fled the source of panic, which meant the dead unit that caused the Panic test rather than the unit that destroyed it. Let's flee across the army, causing more Panic test as you go, rather than off the board.

Panic has changed with each edition, in 6th the ranges for the various causes were not standardised m, so some things would be 6", while others were 4". It did however remove the death if the general dying causing a panic test in every friendly unit on the gable. That one was very pivotal against some armies.

7th standardised the ranges, and removed the needing a Panic for being charged in the flank/rare while engaged in combat.

I can't recall if 8th removed any. It had heavy casualties, nearby friends annihilated, nearby friends breaks, and fled through as causes of Panic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Don't play an army full of cowards? I remember hearing a story about Skaven versus Night Goblins, and the whole Night Goblin army ran off the board top of turn one when the Skaven rolled a 13 on the Screaming Bell.

Dogs of War had to make a Panic check if the Paymaster bought it. Played a game where supremely lucky magic took the guy out on turn 1. Whole army routed. "Well, that was fun."

True, but those that passed had hatred. It was one if the few things that gave DoW their unique character, the other being Pikes.

 nathan2004 wrote:
The 1" rule for enemies (and we played allies too) where you couldn't go within 1" unless you were in combat helped distinguish units from each other especially if you had multiples of the same or didn't keep a tidy board. I always found it useful in keeping track of what was where.

So unit strength...someone that played 7th (and maybe before not sure when it was introduced), can someone explain that? Is it just number of models in a unit = unit strength?

IIRC, it generally tracked with the total wounds of the unit, with an odd exception for cavalry. Basic infantry, the number of models is the unit strength. Cavalry models counted double. Monsters and Monstrous units, total wounds of the unit.

Of course, TOW might be doing things differently...

 Vulcan wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
The 1" rule for enemies (and we played allies too) where you couldn't go within 1" unless you were in combat helped distinguish units from each other especially if you had multiples of the same or didn't keep a tidy board. I always found it useful in keeping track of what was where.

So unit strength...someone that played 7th (and maybe before not sure when it was introduced), can someone explain that? Is it just number of models in a unit = unit strength?

IIRC, it generally tracked with the total wounds of the unit, with an odd exception for cavalry. Basic infantry, the number of models is the unit strength. Cavalry models counted double. Monsters and Monstrous units, total wounds of the unit.

Of course, TOW might be doing things differently...

Cavalry have the attack strength of two but the death vulnerability of 1 - both attack but kill one and they both become useless

 Hellebore wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
The 1" rule for enemies (and we played allies too) where you couldn't go within 1" unless you were in combat helped distinguish units from each other especially if you had multiples of the same or didn't keep a tidy board. I always found it useful in keeping track of what was where.

So unit strength...someone that played 7th (and maybe before not sure when it was introduced), can someone explain that? Is it just number of models in a unit = unit strength?

IIRC, it generally tracked with the total wounds of the unit, with an odd exception for cavalry. Basic infantry, the number of models is the unit strength. Cavalry models counted double. Monsters and Monstrous units, total wounds of the unit.

Of course, TOW might be doing things differently...

Cavalry have the attack strength of two but the death vulnerability of 1 - both attack but kill one and they both become useless

It was just for Unit Strength. It didn't change their wounds.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
The 1" rule for enemies (and we played allies too) where you couldn't go within 1" unless you were in combat helped distinguish units from each other especially if you had multiples of the same or didn't keep a tidy board. I always found it useful in keeping track of what was where.

So unit strength...someone that played 7th (and maybe before not sure when it was introduced), can someone explain that? Is it just number of models in a unit = unit strength?

IIRC, it generally tracked with the total wounds of the unit, with an odd exception for cavalry. Basic infantry, the number of models is the unit strength. Cavalry models counted double. Monsters and Monstrous units, total wounds of the unit.

Of course, TOW might be doing things differently...

Cavalry have the attack strength of two but the death vulnerability of 1 - both attack but kill one and they both become useless

It was just for Unit Strength. It didn't change their wounds.

yes, as I said, you kill one of the rider or horse and the both are useless, but they are combined double attack value. Unit Strength is reflective of their threat, not really their wounds

 Hellebore wrote:
Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

Cheap. Outnumber enemy. Charge enemy front and rear.

AOS players will have a field day in TOW tournaments TOW players just moving death star elite units front to front while AOS players learned how to attack weak side of units and outflanking enemy with multiple units years ago.

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

Cheap. Outnumber enemy. Charge enemy front and rear.

AOS players will have a field day in TOW tournaments TOW players just moving death star elite units front to front while AOS players learned how to attack weak side of units and outflanking enemy with multiple units years ago.

It's funny that 6th Ed. players had that tactic down pat over 20 years ago.

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

Cheap. Outnumber enemy. Charge enemy front and rear.

AOS players will have a field day in TOW tournaments TOW players just moving death star elite units front to front while AOS players learned how to attack weak side of units and outflanking enemy with multiple units years ago.

Do units in AoS have flanks? rear? or any type of LoS limitation? so those tactics matter at all.