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.

FAQ is out .

https://news.warhammer.com/optiext/optiextension.dll?ID=PMDTT0AVBwPt52Ay1iG4_H7bl4T2qJNHAfuvTN0juVz0bRv_peRS9JDy5Vo7WSkhjfbOi1Ry9zMHyE7sHo4

Parry is back.

2 fighting ranks when not charging. I assume spears get 3 then
Free swapping of weapons between rounds
Revised weapon profiles - halberds flails morning stars


Revised casting because the current system is turds and the 6th ed version will always be superior...

Lots of army list errata too, very happy to see all the Empire infantry getting a buff (in addition to the infantry improvements) and Leadership 10 on Generals is great.

Might be able to put up a decent fight with the army now without being limited to knights and cannons.

 Hellebore wrote:
2 fighting ranks when not charging. I assume spears get 3 then

Spears do, yeah.

Supporting Attacks (page 145) wrote:To make a supporting attack, a model must be directly behind a friendly model that is itself in a fighting rank.

The new rule for Infantry was written in such a way to not require Supporting Attacks to also need an erratum
EDIT: They of course did so anyway to nerf linehammer, but the core part remains unchanged.

I just like that you can now transmogrify a Casket of Souls into a bone-and-gold frog that does nothing until it remembers how to be a box again.

Finally, sense has been seen and Impetuous is a Ld check. Lots of units just graduated from the trash tier.

 Hellebore wrote:
Parry is back.

2 fighting ranks when not charging. I assume spears get 3 then
Free swapping of weapons between rounds
Revised weapon profiles - halberds flails morning stars


Revised casting because the current system is turds and the 6th ed version will always be superior...

I didn’t play 6th is the new system similar to that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I just like that you can now transmogrify a Casket of Souls into a bone-and-gold frog that does nothing until it remembers how to be a box again.

Reason to buy the frogs and be the ultimate troll in game

From a flavor standpoint i love stupidity now makes units just stand around, but WOW is that something I absolutely detest for my Troll Horde, especially against heavy shooting armies.

I’m really liking the update to Halberds.

Haven’t read the current rulebook for this edition, but as Sad Old Fart, the old Halberd never seemed to pay off unless in the hands of an Elf (WS and I), or a Chaos Warrior (WS, I and T).

In the hands of an Empire Soldier? Far better off with Spears or Sword and Board for their benefits.

I mean, with the changes to Empire overall in this and how big their starting CR can be now, you're still way better of with the Sword and Board with their 4+ armor to keep that static CR around longer vs a Halberdier's 6+.

Linehammer could have been fixed with something very simple - it's basically reflecting the old wrap around concept.

So just say that a number of models on either side of the enemy unit equal to its rank depth can attack in addition to the btb models. ie you charge an enemy unit with 4 ranks and 5 models wide, your unit can attack with 5 models in btb and 4 on either side, so the widest the unit can be is 13 models wide.

It's just wrap around and you can compare it without needing to do any measuring. This new rule will overly advantage fast moving units and disadvantage dwarfs, who will lose a big bonus from the game. As an inch is close to a single base, the dwarfs can now only get 6 extra frontal attacks while elves get 10! That is pretty bad.

I mean to me it makes sense an elf closes faster in melee then a dwarf but I understand what you mean. A dwarf is more durable than an elf so maybe that’s the trade off.

It's more that its a stat advantage that never used to exist, so now the movement value provides an additional benefit it never used to, while every unit still has their points as if that wasn't a factor.

There is a potential for it to make the value of high movement relatively higher than each army's currently been balanced against.

Especially when you have M3 vs M5 armies.

What it means basically is that elf units get to be 15" wide at full effect, but dwarf units can only be 11" at full effect.

I'm not sure elves being the line army is a look they were going for.

Perhaps but I think the intention is blocks not line hammer. Comp play aside, ideally you’re playing in a group that adheres to the spirit of the game and more infantry show up and less hero hammer / monster mash.

I don't think that this achieves that really, it just means the faster you are the more line hammery you can be.

But the core issue for me, is that the original rule was identical for all armies, everyone could use equally wide lines. The new rule doesn't apply evenly. I am sceptical that changing a rule from equal implementation to a sliding scale of advantage implementation without any other points/rules changes won't map equally. Dwarfs aren't currently broken because they get more line attacks than elves, so punishing them to 'fix' linehammer is unnecessary.

Hence my suggestion of opposing rank depth as it's equal to all armies while still imposing a line limit.

So for infantry, if the front 2 ranks are wiped out, no one gets to fight back?

A common occurrence for my for O&G infantry units under the pre-FAQ rules with the cav and elite chaos forces I get to face.

Tomb Kings are going to love being able to take Regeneration saves vs. wounds caused by Unstable

The impetious change is very welcome, especially for Dragon Princes.

So the new rules for "Massed Infantry" is worded intrestingly. It says you can basically have just 1 infantry model to claim the bonus, even of the rest of your models in the melee is not infantry.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I feel like when April 1 rolls around, GW will get around to announcing a Classic Cathay MTO

I know you're joking, but they had some Cathay and Nippon figures back around the mid 80s, which I believe was just 10 years ago.

Some classic Samurai, Ninjas and Monks would be cool.

Oh, they 100% did. And not just monks, ninja, and samurai. I have one of the old dark elf on temple dog figures. REALLY wish I still had the Temple Dog. Sadly, it’s lost to the mists of time. But I do still have the rider although she’s mounted on an oop Marauder miniatures Cold Ones (MM71) now…

Valete,

JohnS

 Astmeister wrote:
So the new rules for "Massed Infantry" is worded intrestingly. It says you can basically have just 1 infantry model to claim the bonus, even of the rest of your models in the melee is not infantry.

Units don't have a rule unless the unit has the rule. One model in a unit does not confer the rule to the unit unless the rule says so.

Just read the rule text. Imho it clearly sound like you should get it, even if not all units in a melee have the rule.

Massed infantry of 1?

There is nowhere a mention on how the minimal size of an infantry unit should be to get this. So a single regular or heavy infantry character on foot could grant this imho.

For example the new Cathay Dragon Lady in human form (heavy infantry).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidenote:

I checked the epub from Warhammerdigital yesterday and they are apparently not updated (and never were?).

This is worth mentioning since the epubs were updated in 40k 8th edition with new rules from Errata.

Also 40k only updates with the paid subscription now, so an update to the digital books wasn't really expected

You mean if you have Warhammer + you get an update for your epubs for 40k?

I even have Warhammer + but for ToW it seems to not update.

Whilst I think most of the changes are great and are worded well enough so as not to cause more confusion (I'm sure there will be more exceptions later) I not convinced I understand how regeneration works. I've seen people state that you roll for regen after you apply damage with multiple wounds (x) rule. I agree that's clear enough, as is the ability to roll regeneration when a model loses a wound to crumble (whether intended or not, they've reworded the rule to allow this and removed the previous answer that disallowed it). So far so good. However I'm not sure how many dice to roll. I've seen lots of people state that you would roll one die for each damage caused. So, if you hit a 1 wound skeleton with a cannon, causing 4 damage. You would roll 4 dice and only if the skeleton rolled a success on all 4 dice, would it stand back up. I'm not so sure.

The regeneration rule states that a model recovers wounds already lost, but how many wounds does a model actually suffer? Under the rules "Hits that Inflict Multiple Wounds" it states that "For each unsaved wound, determine how many wounds are caused and apply those to the model hit. A model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile. Should a model do so, it dies instantly and any excess wounds are wasted." So, to me it appears that a model can only suffer sufficient wounds to reduce it to zero.

The "Regeneration (X+)" rule as stated in the FAQ says, "Immediately after a Wound is lost, but before models with zero Wounds remaining are removed from play, a model with this special rule may make a ‘Regeneration save’ roll by rolling a D6 and comparing the result to its ‘Regeneration value’,
shown in brackets after the name of this special rule (shown here as ‘X+’). If the Regeneration save roll equals or exceeds the model’s Regeneration value, the lost Wound is recovered, but is still counted for the purposes of calculating the combat result." This indicates to me that the procedure for smacking that skeleton with a cannon ball would instead be to roll the damage, discard the excess wounds, then roll a regeneration save for the single wound that was actually lost and if successful the skeleton survives. If the same damage was instead dealt in a challenge the skeleton (champion) would survive if the single regen roll was successful, but you would not roll for regeneration for the 3 damage of overkill, which would count towards your combat resolution.

If the skeleton's unit then lost combat you would roll for regeneration for each wound lost because of the combat result outcome. Though in the case that you inflicted more damage than the unit had, I'm not sure how many dice you'd roll at this stage. I'd argue that they are a series of individual wounds and not applied at the same time, so you'd mass roll the regen saves and the outcome would essentially be that for each failed regen save you cause a single point of damage to the unit. This is the same way it would also work for standard attacks into a unit that only cause a single point of damage. Attacks are made in sequence, fast rolling is just a convention which is generally applied to all dice rolls, as suggested in the rule book.

Is my reading of the rule wrong, if so, why?

I think you might be correct.

It is unclear if this was intended by GW so we will have to wait for the next Faq for clarification. In the meantime it is probably as you said.

Have they added the faq to the digital rulebook? Wonder if they plan to print a small new rulebook no fluff but with all the changes?

Regeneration looks like a Magic style replacements effect, so I'd argue a skeleton hit by a cannonball suffers 4 wounds, the first one is removed, the Regeneration roll is made and succeeds in restoring the wound, the next wound is removed, Regeneration roll is made and so on, until a roll fails or you run out of wounds to allocate.

For convenience sake, you'd probably roll all Regeneration checks at the same time.