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.

 triplegrim wrote:
Can somepne explain what a grand army list is to me? Like I'm 10 or smt.

a balanced list of options from which you can pick a wide variety of units

As opposed to a skewed list of options from which you can pick a slimmer variety of units. A Grand Army is the generic "this is general X faction" list. An Army of Infamy is "this is a specific sub-type of an army of faction X".

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yes it will be great, they will achieve perfect balance right out of the gate as always, no need for updates, guaranteed no power creep and no mandatory keeping up with campaign supplements to stay viable. In fact I heard that this is the most playtested edition of all time.

I don't think anyone is saying that. Just that it won't be a total fly by night toss aside for the non-main factions out the gate. As far as I know HH doesn't require constant keeping up with supplements to function.

Also I think honestly in general the WFB engine is easier to balance than 40k/AoS simply by dint of so many things being so similar and having a limited amount of unit types. GW managed to have it be mostly balanced for 1.5 editions when they weren't trying which is saying something when they haven't managed to get 40k or AoS balanced for more than a few months at a time here and there in the last 4 years

Cautiously optimistic. Looks like a combination of all three systems which is interesting.

Core/Special/Rare as per 8th. Tbh I think that works quite well for units, particularly for min Core.

Characters somewhat more like 4th/5th (1 big group, but restrictions on the more powerful ones). Will be interesting to see though if the 50% is just a Bret thing or across the board (iirc in 5th they had 50% vs 25% for everyone else). 50% for everyone could really encourage unbalanced characters (what would have been lords) in small games (or even Undead with 2x L4 in 1500 pts if they’re all 0-1 big Lord and 0-1/1k lesser Lord). I did prefer Lord/Hero slots for characters and L4s restricted below 2k tbh.
Also allies and mercs like in 4th/5th which is interesting.

Then layered on top, scaling minima and maxima like in 6th/7th, but on a per unit basis not per category. I’m intrigued to see how that plays out in practice, but may work quite well.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 bong264 wrote:
I got excited at the "up to 0-50% can be spent on characters" but then saw magic items were limited. Was hoping for a return to herohammer

Hmm... let's see how poweful a Duke with T 5 and 7 wounds + 100 points in magic items + vows + virtues is...

It’s the save of the Hippogryph which caught my attention.

Griffonic Pelt is a nice addition, giving Mr Tweetyflapdeath protection. And we can add Barding for presumably a 4+ save.

And as the beastie itself adds to its owner’s stats? I have to assume, in the absence of further information, the saves add together.

Heavy Armour + Shield = 4+ save on its own. So…does being mounted on that beast now grant a 1+ save?

Maybe you get the best of rider or mount, plus bonus for barding? E.g. if a Prophetess can ride one (or an Empire/HE wizard or gryphon) then they can still get a respectable 4+ armour if they make themselves such a big target?

Some observations:
1. You can take two lv4 wizards in a 2000pt list
2. You cannot make a pure peasant or pure cavarly list due to 1+ for knights and peasant units.
3. 1000pts in Pegasus knights anyone? Remember the cheesy "Flying circus" lists?
4.Wierd limit on battle pilgrims. Only 4 units can be taken in 2000pt list?
5. Squires new Special unit? Are these Foot knight dual kit?
6. Sergeant at Arms new Hero?
7. Has Grail monk model always been in the Men at arms box?
8. Combined stats for rider and mount fully confirmed now.
9. Hyppogryph has no AP. Seems weak.
10. Fly (9) rule has a different stat than Movement
11. "(counts as heavy armor)" must be an error. No way a bird has heavy armor that you can combine with a character heavy armor. They probably meant "(counts as hand weapon)" like on Bretonnian warhorse and Unicorn.
12. Stubborn is very weak. Works only on the first break test (anoying to remember if you already used stubborn) and forces you to Fall back instead of trying to only give ground. This looks so bad that I suspect there is another typo there.

I think one thing people forget is that a lot of people really liked Fantasy and a fair few of those people are now at GW and really want to do right by it.

I'm really looking forward to it, the army comp looks great. Interested to see how other armies look.

Massive thing for me is seeing Mercenaries appearing. If we get new DoW minis I'll pap me kegs.

Something else from there, potentially a hint at what they’re doing with Empire given there’s 4 variations with separate stuff:

Presumably they’ve got a big Grand Army with all the common stuff, then each of the 4 factions will have an Army of Infamy with some restrictions (like no wizards for Reikland), bonuses, and possibly some unique units?

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
Some observations:
1. You can take two lv4 wizards in a 2000pt list
2. You cannot make a pure peasant or pure cavarly list due to 1+ for knights and peasant units.
3. 1000pts in Pegasus knights anyone? Remember the cheesy "Flying circus" lists?
4.Wierd limit on battle pilgrims. Only 4 units can be taken in 2000pt list?
5. Squires new Special unit? Are these Foot knight dual kit?
6. Sergeant at Arms new Hero?
7. Has Grail monk model always been in the Men at arms box?
8. Combined stats for rider and mount fully confirmed now.
9. Hyppogryph has no AP. Seems weak.
10. Fly (9) rule has a different stat than Movement
11. "(counts as heavy armor)" must be an error. No way a bird has heavy armor that you can combine with a character heavy armor. They probably meant "(counts as hand weapon)" like on Bretonnian warhorse and Unicorn.
12. Stubborn is very weak. Works only on the first break test (anoying to remember if you already used stubborn) and forces you to Fall back instead of trying to only give ground. This looks so bad that I suspect there is another typo there.

1) yeah, potentially a bit OP. And 3 maybe for VC if they can take a Vampire Lord plus 2 Necro Lords.
2) Sort of makes sense for the Grand Army (and IIRC KotR have always been 1+), presumably this is different in a
Armies of Infamy?
3) heavy limits your characters though. Also, same as 8th.
4) yeah, that’s a bit odd.
5) TWW had squires as elite infantry, but super weird if they’re that and more elite than KotR on foot. Maybe they’re an equivalent of Empire Huntsmen?
6) looks like it.
7) yes - there’s a separate command sprue that goes with both M@A and Archers and that’s the 4th model on the sprue.
8) definitely for the win there!
9) unless wicked claws and serrated maw are a defined weapon? Could be something common to lots of similar creatures.
10) interesting. Fly was always separate from ground MV, but interesting they’re making it vary between units rather than a flat 20”. Probably a good idea. Also aligns with HH fwiw.
11)maybe it’s an instead of? So if the character has no armour you still get a 5+?
12) yeah that does seem both annoying to track and pretty weak.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I figure the "surprise" on the 26this an Orc announcement.

On the Bretonnian note, what do we think the Sergeant at Arms will be?

Forgive the ignorance but did the old 6th ed Bret book have Sergeant at Arms? I only played against Brets a few times in 8th and don't remember.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
It seems very well thought for a GW product haha.

But it seems odd a Duke is that powerful (that's close to a former Chaos Lord profile...).

The Duke does have the Grail Vow, so that implies he has supped from the Grail and gained some divine power. Not too far away from Chaos gifts...

That's a really really good catch, I completely missed that and found it odd initially too. Until your point connected those dots.

It did not. Not as a hero, anyway.

I don't think Stubborn is useless and in my eyes it can be handy as it does guarantee you don't get wiped out by combat result but to me it is rather the rule interaction they meant and I think it works like this:

You lose combat big time and you would probaply flee if you roll normally (with LD6 this happens likely) so you opt to declare to be Stubborn which makes them just Break Off instead of risking fleeing. However, unit has Shieldwall which instead makes the Break Off into Give Ground.

I am not sure how Shieldwall exactly works (there is probaply a condition to it work) but my example seems quite likely.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yes it will be great, they will achieve perfect balance right out of the gate as always, no need for updates, guaranteed no power creep and no mandatory keeping up with campaign supplements to stay viable. In fact I heard that this is the most playtested edition of all time.

Lol!

My current tentative plan is to play all factions at the initial release which I expect will be relatively balanced, and ignore army books.

We'll see how well that plan survives actual contact with reality....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
Some observations:
10. Fly (9) rule has a different stat than Movement

This has been a thing in a number of different editions - with the classic Great Eagle moving far when flying, but only hopping along at something like 4" if grounded for some reason.

Opting to declare to be stubborn is stupid. Are you stubborn or not? Choosing to be stubborn makes as much sense as choosing to cause fear.

Also I just realized the average distance of 2d6 discard the lowest for Fall back is 4.5". Compared to 2" for Give ground, the difference is so small why even bother having two options. Give ground should have been Hold ground with no moving backwards.

 Dreamchild wrote:


If every faction (even not the main factions) get a Grand Army list with a similar number of special rules/magic items, that's literally the same as every previous edition of WHFB & the one thing that non-main faction players (from my experience) were asking for.

Well. It might start about equal, then gets left behind.

And heaven forbid if something is bad(as likely), too bad. No updates.

tneva82 wrote:

 Dreamchild wrote:


If every faction (even not the main factions) get a Grand Army list with a similar number of special rules/magic items, that's literally the same as every previous edition of WHFB & the one thing that non-main faction players (from my experience) were asking for.

Well. It might start about equal, then gets left behind.

And heaven forbid if something is bad(as likely), too bad. No updates.

To be fair the article doesn't say they won't be touched up. It just says they won't be getting new releases. People are leaning pretty hard into they won't fix an obvious issue with a non-main faction that doesn't quite feel justified to me after the strides they've made to consistently try for balance in all their games. They won't get new minis or be a focus of an expansion but they don't not exist.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
Also I just realized the average distance of 2d6 discard the lowest for Fall back is 4.5". Compared to 2" for Give ground, the difference is so small why even bother having two options. Give ground should have been Hold ground with no moving backwards.

so far it looks like with one you are destroyed if the opponent rolls higher, with the other it is just another charge

For the men at arms, the grail dude is the one that gives stubborn so just turn him around backwards after you use his stubborn rule.

Other units, I guess I'll get tokens for Stubborn and just remove them after that rule gets used I guess.

Sergeant at Arms is probably just a peasant hero that can join peasant units. You know, instead of having a dismounted Paladin with that Vow that lets them join peasant units.

Overall army composition looks fine. Loooove that Mercenaries are back! I have a box of Knights of the Realm I was going to paint up as Mercenary Knights for my Dogs of War army that I finally have an excuse to crack open.

 Rihgu wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Can somepne explain what a grand army list is to me? Like I'm 10 or smt.

a balanced list of options from which you can pick a wide variety of units

As opposed to a skewed list of options from which you can pick a slimmer variety of units. A Grand Army is the generic "this is general X faction" list. An Army of Infamy is "this is a specific sub-type of an army of faction X".

Nice.

Like Skaven Horde vs Clan Skryre, Clan Eshin, Middenheim Siege defenders etc.

My favorite part of 6th was the extra sunfaction army lists at the end of the army book. Take these specials as core, those core as rare and no access to some other units.

 triplegrim wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Can somepne explain what a grand army list is to me? Like I'm 10 or smt.

a balanced list of options from which you can pick a wide variety of units

As opposed to a skewed list of options from which you can pick a slimmer variety of units. A Grand Army is the generic "this is general X faction" list. An Army of Infamy is "this is a specific sub-type of an army of faction X".

Nice.

Like Skaven Horde vs Clan Skryre, Clan Eshin, Middenheim Siege defenders etc.

My favorite part of 6th was the extra sunfaction army lists at the end of the army book. Take these specials as core, those core as rare and no access to some other units.

Yep - the bloodline lists etc - all the great stuff

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

5. Squires new Special unit? Are these Foot knight dual kit?

New? they have been around for 20+ years.

I used them in 5th ed

Wow, it's like taking a time machine back to before the collective brains of the entire GW design team melted out of their ears.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

9. Hyppogryph has no AP. Seems weak.

I don't know if the new edition will change this, but worth remembering that you used to get -1AP for every point of strength above 3. So the Hyppogryph could potentially get AP-2 by virtue of its strength alone.

New edition will change this, things have AP now, strength doesn't determine that anymore.

Think we have seen it hinted that strength no longer gives AP just for being strong, its now down to weapons and likely individual unit rules

the may be aiming beaky at dealing with unarmoured chaff

 Kanluwen wrote:
I figure the "surprise" on the 26this an Orc announcement.

Orcs? Orcs???

"There’s no Old World Almanack next Monday – it’s Christmas Day after all, but check in on the 26th for something of an off-white Christmas…"

Off white. As in bone coloured. How do you not see that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I figure the "surprise" on the 26this an Orc announcement.

Orcs? Orcs???

"There’s no Old World Almanack next Monday – it’s Christmas Day after all, but check in on the 26th for something of an off-white Christmas…"

Off white. As in bone coloured. How do you not see that?

and likely GW showing the TK box, now the box contents and art work have been leaked

Yep. Gw isn't exactly subtle about these.

It's tomb kings. Simples. Now bretonnia, next week bone coloured tomb kings. Gw cant be clearer without saying it flat out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure I agree.

Having to spend 25% on Core prevents “I’ll just take minimal Gobbos lololololol tactical genius” type shenanigans.

But, I do prefer better defined Core, Special, Rare.

This for now seems like a pleasing blend of the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though if memory serves, Bretonnians have long had a great percentage cap on characters?

I may be entirely misremembering that. In which case, I do wonder where that memory came from.

In 5th edition, I believe the general limit on characters was 25%, but Bretonnians could take up to 50%.

Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure I agree.

Having to spend 25% on Core prevents “I’ll just take minimal Gobbos lololololol tactical genius” type shenanigans.

But, I do prefer better defined Core, Special, Rare.

This for now seems like a pleasing blend of the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though if memory serves, Bretonnians have long had a great percentage cap on characters?

I may be entirely misremembering that. In which case, I do wonder where that memory came from.

In 5th edition, I believe the general limit on characters was 25%, but Bretonnians could take up to 50%.

Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

Pretty sure it was a general limit of 50% and 75% for Bretonnians the first time they got an army book. You could ride an Emperor Dragon in a 1500 point list and the dragon was 700+ points.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.

I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.

I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.

It was also a rule in the 6th edition book and in their rpg book. Dukes got around the laws banning mercenaries by hiring sheep herders who were heavily armed and just so happened to send them to heard near an orc incursion.

I mean, it’s whatever. But definitely a retcon.

Well it could be, but equally there's a several hundred year gap too from the prior era. No reason that the "we don't work with Mercs" law wasn't put in place until after the old world era.

More likely tho it was just missed lol