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.

How do?

So GW are bringing the old world back to the field. Hurrah!

But given it’s been what, four or five years since End Time, one wonders if they’ve kept any feedback from previous eras. I suspect not, as it was a different age of GW. Where they at least appear to listen to us nerds these days, they definitely didn’t back then.

So this thread is an attempt to cast minds back, and gather our collective thoughts. And I’ll kick off with some low hanging fruit.

Issue - the scale of battles grew too large

This of course made it expensive to get into. For long time players, it wasn’t too bad, as we were just adding units. But for newcomers, or people getting back in, it was too much of a buy in to get a decently sized army raised.

Various ways to mitigate. One would be dedicated ‘rank’ sets of models, similar in price and composition to ‘Easy to Build’ kits. That could allow the game to retain a grand scale potential, without stretching pockets.

But it’s also important to have better scaling within the rules. I shouldn’t feel the need to play at 2,000 to properly experience the mechanics.

Issue - Gobbos and cheap stuff didn’t work that well

Linked to the issue above. Some armies had a lower price ceiling, and also didn’t feel like I was spending money on bulking agents. Ogres, for instance.

Potential solution? Well, I’m sure there’ll be varied opinions and suggestions here. For me, I’d suggest the Horde rule be dedicated to weedy troops in some way. Let there be a reason to field loads of cheap guys, who normally just get slaughtered.

Issue - Magic Spells

Again, an issue of scaling. Some armies could field a Lvl 4 wizard cheaper than others, and have various supporting casters for similarly cheap points. Lvl 1 casters rarely saw use. I’d suggest diversifying casters somewhat. Lower levels could be more about buff bubbles and similar support roles. Higher level casters more on the offensive side of things? Would need considerable work to get right.

OK. There’s some to start you off. Feel free to critique, and add more.

And if something strikes a chord, why not contact GW with the same? Let them know what their potential player base wants to see.

* Scale/points values should be roughly in line with 6th edition rather than 8th.
* Lore should be closer to 6th than 8th. Less fantastical and over the top (...although compared to AOS it's nothing) and more gritty dark and low fantasy.
* Plenty of special characters - one of the few things I disliked about 6th was the few special characters.
* Different ways to play factions - AOS has done this well with the various subfactions - 6th edition did it well with things like Vampire Bloodlines and Southlands Lizardmen and then WHFB kinda lost it's way. Bring back that variability. Especially the bloodlines!
* Slightly simplified playstyle - not sure how to go about this while maintaining the 'feel' but I think it's necessary. I don't mean AOS style nonsense but something a bit more refined than in the past.
* Drop the forcing of large centrepiece models (Arachnarok, Bloodwrack etc) into the game, although cool, they're more suited to Warmaster scale and change the feel too much for my liking. Focus on a variety of well thought out diverse regiment types, let Forgeworld create things like Monstrous Arcanum for that type of unit with the rules optional.
* Don't go for a beat by beat recreation of past WHFB. Change things if necessary, introduce new lore, introduce new characters (missing Bloodlines you say?). Down the line, when the classics are out, introduce new factions if the popularity is there - Cathay and Araby are the obvious ones, some kind of Idoneth Deepkin analogue could also easily work although risks brand confusion and the wrath of grognards.

A polished 6th with bells and whistles and new units/factions and proper support for the game such as campaigns, a mildly changing storyline etc would be enough to get me back in the game. The latter point is perhaps the most contentious. Set it in the previous timeline and you've basically got a static timeline that can go nowhere because of AOS. Set it a hundred/few hundred years beforehand and about half your special charaters would change, undermining nostalgia and potentially annoying people (Lizards, Elves, Dwarves, Tomb Kings could get by with the same characters) but it does give you the option of a mildly dynamic storyline like 40k 8th.

Of course all of the above is based upon it being broadly in line with WHFB and not some kind of Warmaster 2.0/AOS skirmish mash up as the News & Rumours forum seems to be obsessing on.

On ‘big centre piece’ units? I’m in partial agreement. But the partial is that I feel a centre piece should be just that. Something that points wise, you can only afford the one of.

And rules wise, it should be something that requires a bit of cunning and strategy to pull off.

One the things I particularly liked about the later editions was that Infantry blocks weren’t a total walk over for big gribblies.

There is of course a middle ground. Big scary stuff should be able to go toe to toe with infantry - and possibly do so from an upper hand. Against a well organised battle line, they should struggle, without being put off by a single ranked regiment.

Hope this makes some kind of sense!

Londinium wrote:
* Scale/points values should be roughly in line with 6th edition rather than 8th.
* Lore should be closer to 6th than 8th. Less fantastical and over the top (...although compared to AOS it's nothing) and more gritty dark and low fantasy.
* Plenty of special characters - one of the few things I disliked about 6th was the few special characters.
* Different ways to play factions - AOS has done this well with the various subfactions - 6th edition did it well with things like Vampire Bloodlines and Southlands Lizardmen and then WHFB kinda lost it's way. Bring back that variability. Especially the bloodlines!
* Slightly simplified playstyle - not sure how to go about this while maintaining the 'feel' but I think it's necessary. I don't mean AOS style nonsense but something a bit more refined than in the past.
* Drop the forcing of large centrepiece models (Arachnarok, Bloodwrack etc) into the game, although cool, they're more suited to Warmaster scale and change the feel too much for my liking. Focus on a variety of well thought out diverse regiment types, let Forgeworld create things like Monstrous Arcanum for that type of unit with the rules optional.
* Don't go for a beat by beat recreation of past WHFB. Change things if necessary, introduce new lore, introduce new characters (missing Bloodlines you say?). Down the line, when the classics are out, introduce new factions if the popularity is there - Cathay and Araby are the obvious ones, some kind of Idoneth Deepkin analogue could also easily work although risks brand confusion and the wrath of grognards.

A polished 6th with bells and whistles and new units/factions and proper support for the game such as campaigns, a mildly changing storyline etc would be enough to get me back in the game. The latter point is perhaps the most contentious, set it in the previous timeline and you've basically got a static timeline that can go nowhere because of AOS. Set it a hundred/few hundred years beforehand and about half your special charaters would change, undermining nostalgia and potentially annoying people (Lizards, Elves, Dwarves, Tomb Kings could get by with the same characters) but it does give you the option of a mildly dynamic storyline like 40k 8th.

Of course all of the above is based upon it being broadly in line with WHFB and not some kind of Warmaster 2.0/AOS skirmish mash up as the News & Rumours forum seems to be obsessing on.

I agree with your points regarding ruleset and gameplay, with the addition that I think elements of the 7th Ed magic system are a good idea - "battery wizards" were too much of a thing during 6th.

I couldn't disagree more with your view on the setting though. Because for me, that's always been the key word - setting. The Warhammer World(and, IMO, 40K) always work best as a frame to tell stories within, not a story in and of itself. It should feature a "present day" that is always, officially, in Current Year of the IP, with a basic setup that permits both conflict and cooperation between the various states and races. Novels, campaigns, and army book backstories should all be "historical", with the static present-day serving as a backdrop for players' stories and games. I'm aware some people lose all enthusiasm without a constantly changing and evolving soap opera to follow along with, but I wager they're a tiny fraction of the people who want a constant stream of content to play with, who would be entirely satisfied with "historical" material and the ever-widening-window approach to expansion.

To tie the two streams together - I think their initial release should mirror 6th even more closely than you suggest. I think they should begin with a Ravening Hordes situation featuring basic army lists for all the core factions, and they should abandon the Army Book concept entirely when it comes to ongoing support. Instead, they should produce Imperial Armour-style campaign books, each featuring a historical conflict with two or more races involved, and use those to provide new missions, new units, new styles of play, and new variant/subfaction army lists.

For myself though, I have one actual wish for the new system - I want to see more of the world explored and detailed, even if it doesn't initially lead to new models & armies. Cathay, Nippon, Ind, Araby, the Southlands, Kuresh, the Isles of Elithis, the western coast of Lustria, there's so much more there to see, and I think they'll have to do something with at least some of it in order to avoid this new version of WHF being labelled as nothing more than a nostalgiabucks cashgrab.

EDIT: Oh, and no End Times pish.

- Nippon, Cathay, The Border Princes, The Southlands and Araby expanded upon

- A focus on mobility and flanking charges to damage morale instead of "hur durr, my murder block of 40 infantry with a murder lord charges your army and face feths them into a oblivion, I win"

- Toned down magic. I don't want to see Purple Sun deleting regiments of Saurus again

- Guess Ranges for charges and artillery. That was a skill to learn, imo. Random chance is a poor substitute.

- Artillery dice. Its a tool that was unique to WHFB, and I would like to see its return.

- More accurate cavalry mechanics. Cavalry did not stay in combat after they charged. That's how you get dead knights and horsemen. They charged, slapped some foot soldiers around, and buggered off before they can get overwhelmed and forcibly dismounted by a bunch of furious peasants who didn't break and run like they should have after the charge.

- Archaon on his horse instead of his big ugly Manticore thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

EDIT: Oh, and no End Times pish.

It would be cool if the setting was a "what if" scenario about what it would be like if Archaon didn't blow up the world.
Kind of like the end of every Total Warhammer game, really.

Naaah, nothing to do with ET at all. The year is 2520 in the reign of Karl Franz, there are rumblings in the north of a new Dark Champion gathering his armies, blah blah blah.

I don't want to see, hear, or think about auric bastions or "...and then they died off screen", or any of it. Not even as a "what if". Just give me the Warhammer World as-was and I'll be happy.

Yeah, true, the End Times lore is pretty crap. A lot of it comes across as melodrama and big twists for the sake of big twists. Like they wanted to ruin the setting before blowing it up.

Nice facebook page for starters. We should ask for one people! So we can tell GW what do we want. If they dont do it we should start our own. This would also give GW a estimate how popular this idea is.

No End Times - I am a new comer, but restart a game at the last minute feels kind of awkward for me

Dont mind centerpiece units as long as there is way to to deal with them ( like Slayer at the Dwarfs )

Keep as many old minis as possible and re-release some that are still good ( like.: Necropolis Knights and Khemrian Warsphinx )

Bring as many old characters to life as possible with uniqe gameplay option. ( Like troll as core, if Throgg is in the army )

I don't have high expectations about the rules part so won't get there but I absolutely would love new sculpts for TK old plastics.

Skellies, chariots and cavalry.

Okay I went out and did GW`s job. Here behold:

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-The-Old-World-103564831113848/

Like, share, comment and follow lets show GW that we would like that this project be succesful..

I'm not great with the bookfacery - am I missing something or is that not a group?

I don't FacePage. At all. Someone add something for me, I suppose.




My viewpoint is that from a balance and completion perspective, 6th stands head and shoulders above the rest. With it being "complete" for lack of a better term, it's easier to look at it and say "Yeah, we borked that."

What I'd like is for them to fix the few issues in the rulebook, which for me would be to kill "lapping", add in Insane Courage, and put in the Power Dice limits from 7th.

As for book? Chaos shouldn't be able to run literally everything in the game because "feth YEAH CHAOS!!!" while listening to the most emo of emo metal. Limit each book, Beasts, Daemons, and Warriors, to its own thing. Make Allies rules that accommodate for the whole mixed book thing, but make it make sense and not fly against established animosity/allegiances. Make Brets more like the Annual version and kill the grimderp morally bankrupt army book fluff.

It really isn't much, and it would take minimal effort to get it dialed in. Oh, and fit in rules for the newer stuff (Skycutter, Bastiladon, the like) that was introduced later so as to not nullify collections. Oh, and give me Ungor Archers again in 6th.

Issue - Steadfast

On the face of it, a welcome addition. Provided I had more ranks after losing a fight phase, my break test was unmodified.

So far, so good. But in practice, it was quite easily abused, leading to boring and unfun situations - especially as a flank or rear charge didn’t disrupt your ranks for that purpose. It also meant certain armies were at a disadvantage, as they either relied on first round breaks, or just couldn’t gather enough attacks to grind down hordes of chaff.

The fix seems fairly simple - if I negate your rank bonus with a flank charge, you cannot be steadfast.

However, I’m wondering if that’s perhaps overly simplistic? I mean the best fixes are, but I feel like it should also require you to be fighting another unit?

Alternatives would be wound count, or some kind of scaling. After all, when a sodding great Dragon swoops down and scoffs a bunch of your mates, and your weapons just bounce off it’s thick scaly hide, surely you’d be wanting to run away?

How I would do old World.

1. Take 8th as the baseline as its the most recent rules edition.
2. Add means of denying steadfast by flank manoeuver. Terror also mitigates steadfast.
3. Rework the magic system entirely. Have three tiers of spells in each lore. Hero level wizards choose one spell form tier 2 and get all spells from tier 1, lord wizards get one spell from tier 3 and all spells from tier 1 & 2. Loremaster is an upgrade for lord level wizard which grants everything. Nobody rolls for spells, so you can predetermine the function of a wizard in an army. Note that the above system means that any wizard needs only record one spell, or the word 'Loremaster' on the army roster.
No spell attributes or zero spells, all magic lores will include a number of minor spells castable on one dice. There is no loss of focus penalty from failing to cast a tier one spell.
Magic resistance should offer a ward save against magic effects not just damage, so Magic Resistance 3 means a 4++ vs Dwellers/Purple Sun etc.
4. Scalable points balance, not just tiered as army and grand army. set the tiers as a table with an entry at every 500pts from 500 to 4000 points. armies larger than this add tier totals together using the highest available denominations. This places army size in the hands of the player but workable on a small and large scale. Maximum sizes for units included in the tier, to stop deathstars and other things getting out of hand in games too small to handle them. All in all a 1500pt game should feel like 6th, a 2000-2500pt game feel more like 8th.
5. Steal back a lot of the character rules from early edition 9th age, characters and mounts should be amalgamated according to a formula.
6. Remove the laser targeters from cannon, if they are used as AAA tracking weapons expect them to miss. Meanwhile give every faction a means to deal with large monsters.
7. BALANCE THE ARMY BOOKS, all of them, prior to release.
8. Above all don't dumb down, WHFB wears big boy trousers, we can handle words like 'melee' rather than 'fight' etc. We can handle making characters with magic item lists and freeform equipment lists.

I'm not sure needing to guess with Cannon makes all that much of a difference, except to relative new comers.

One of the things I always found is it only takes three or four games to get your eye in.

After all, we know the board is typically 48", edge to edge. And I know how far I deployed the Cannon. From those two non-variables, the rest becomes fairly basic trig, further informed by known quantities, such as "that unit of 20 Executioners, in a 5x4 deployment is 80mm deep and 10mm wide" that can be further extrapolated to better judge the distance. (yes it involves converting Imperial to Metric, but still not too tricksy, once you're shown how)

So I argue that removing the guess makes relatively little difference, overall.

Going out on a limb here - but boxed sets for each faction are important.

I know a lot of people who have got rid of their Warhammer Armies since AOS came out. They still remember the game fondly but are frustrated by the changes. Getting them back in will require some sweet deals.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm not sure needing to guess with Cannon makes all that much of a difference, except to relative new comers.

One of the things I always found is it only takes three or four games to get your eye in.

After all, we know the board is typically 48", edge to edge. And I know how far I deployed the Cannon. From those two non-variables, the rest becomes fairly basic trig, further informed by known quantities, such as "that unit of 20 Executioners, in a 5x4 deployment is 80mm deep and 10mm wide" that can be further extrapolated to better judge the distance. (yes it involves converting Imperial to Metric, but still not too tricksy, once you're shown how)

So I argue that removing the guess makes relatively little difference, overall.

The actual evidence of what happened when they did change it would suggest otherwise though. There's a reason canons shot up to "must-have" in just about every army that could take them, and a bunch of flyers and monstrous critters fell out of favour.

Some small number of people can be uncannily accurate with guess range weapons. Most people, with a bit of practice, can hit "basic" targets like big units more often than not, but can't knock a tick off the back of a fly from across the board.

Guess range with bounce was both better for the game and more entertaining.

Well, rule of cool remains a thing

Overall, once right, just once, I'd like an edition where the relative balance of unit types (Characters, Monsters, Infantry, Cavalry, Monstrous Infantry, Artillery, Chariots) works about right.

Me? I never, ever really got on with Cavalry. I found them far too prone to Rubber Lance syndrome, and all that armour doesn't help when you lose to pure Static Res. So I shied away from them, in favour of Chariots (chuck a couple in, and giggle at the impact hits swinging combat your way).

Monstrous Infantry of course found their feet in 8th. Like, seriously. They went from being too expensive for ranks, and not hitty enough to cope without them, to being really quite 'ard, as two ranks fighting made all the difference.

But, in turn, 8th made Big Monsters a bit bobbins. Steadfast wrecked them a lot of the time, even with Thunderstomp. Plus, the majority of mounts, up to End Times when they enjoyed combined rider/mount profiles had no save to speak of - so people simply attacked the beasty.

And Cavalry really got Nerfed by 8th, again thanks to Steadfast and a general inability to gather enough attacks to cut through the ranks in the first round of combat.

Now, what's the solution? First aforementioned tweaks to Steadfast. Make it less of a sure thing - or perhaps require a character within the unit? I'm just spitballing here.

Cavalry may benefit from some form of impact hits for the mounts. I mean, as well as Lances, having a tonne of high speed horseflesh pile into your ranks, historically, was part of the Infantryman's problem. The impact alone could break bones, and anyone bowled over is at high risk of drowning in mud.

Oh, and please remove the 'cavalry suffer Fear from units with Flaming Attacks'. They're battle trained. I'm sure they've been trained to cope.

Hmmmm. Serious spitballing. Perhaps a greater variety of unit formations could help? Might just be adding needless complexity though.

First and foremost I'd say remember the key word KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid!


This was a guideline my entire military career, and applies doubly so to wargaming. The glut of both WFB and 40K could have been alleviated had the designers simple kept that one tenet. The army book rules glut led to rules being introduced to counter the glut which led to new army book rules glut, and it's basically collapsing under its own weight. THAT needs addressed first and foremost.

I don't have much faith sadly in GW making a system that I can jump in with both feet.

I'd be happy with a rank and flank game that wasn't centered around CCG mechanics and maximizing mortal wound output and first turn alpha strikes, with a focus on movement and maneuver being first and foremost.

herjan1987 wrote:
Okay I went out and did GW`s job. Here behold:

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-The-Old-World-103564831113848/

Like, share, comment and follow lets show GW that we would like that this project be succesful..

You should probably put a disclaimer that its not an official GW page. GW's lawyers have a reputation for being rapid zealots...like the Adeptus Arbites, funnily enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm not sure needing to guess with Cannon makes all that much of a difference, except to relative new comers.

One of the things I always found is it only takes three or four games to get your eye in.

After all, we know the board is typically 48", edge to edge. And I know how far I deployed the Cannon. From those two non-variables, the rest becomes fairly basic trig, further informed by known quantities, such as "that unit of 20 Executioners, in a 5x4 deployment is 80mm deep and 10mm wide" that can be further extrapolated to better judge the distance. (yes it involves converting Imperial to Metric, but still not too tricksy, once you're shown how)

So I argue that removing the guess makes relatively little difference, overall.

The actual evidence of what happened when they did change it would suggest otherwise though. There's a reason canons shot up to "must-have" in just about every army that could take them, and a bunch of flyers and monstrous critters fell out of favour.

Some small number of people can be uncannily accurate with guess range weapons. Most people, with a bit of practice, can hit "basic" targets like big units more often than not, but can't knock a tick off the back of a fly from across the board.

Guess range with bounce was both better for the game and more entertaining.

Guessing range was also a skill that you had to learn. That is a good thing,
Premeasuring trivialized many aspects of the game, really.

I would do a specific FB feedback thread, but I fear the moderation would simply be a pain in the neck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd forgotten about pre-measuring.

Yeah. That needs to go! Honestly, don't know what I was getting confused about!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I would do a specific FB feedback thread, but I fear the moderation would simply be a pain in the neck.

Its already on live. Just need the people there. Search for Warhammer: The Old World an you will found it.

And thank you for the disclaimer I will ad that this is a Unofficial page.

 auticus wrote:
I don't have much faith sadly in GW making a system that I can jump in with both feet.

I'd be happy with a rank and flank game that wasn't centered around CCG mechanics and maximizing mortal wound output and first turn alpha strikes, with a focus on movement and maneuver being first and foremost.

Yeah I think this, and a pretty much unchanged pre-End Times setting is my "sigh of relief" point. Perfect would be nice. Reasonably balanced would be great. But mostly I just want a system, a setting, and an aesthetic that are recognisably Warhammer Fantasy, rather than -both mechanically and otherwise- a mere AoS prequel.

I would like to see them borrow from 40k codexes in that each faction has sub factions with their own little tweats. For example for High Elves you could play Hoeth or Ellyrian and both feel different due to either a subfraction bonus or a change in army composition (Reivers could be core for Ellyrians and special for other HE sub factions).

Don't limit it to ForgeWorld!!! Since price of entry was addressed earlier I'll just say that I found 8th fairly easy to buy into even post AoS but if this is exclusively ForgeWorld the cost of entry will just be FAR worse.

Don't make my already existing armies null and void. I have for the most part all GW fantasy minis in my armies. gw didn't profit from them because they were 2nd hand or oop and on sale at game stores to make room for sigmar. Not my fault gw decided not to profit from my purchases because they blew up the old world. That's on them and I don't intend to suffer because of it.

I think that sums up most of my big hopes. Some other ones were already addressed above by others.

I think it'll be a return to WHFB as we knew it, rather than a whole new rules set.

Though, having said that - lets the needs direct. If they struggle to balance the old system (the core of which remained pretty much unchanged for nearly three decades) it may be that more drastic changes are needed?

But yeah. Please steer away from the modern take that is Buff Bubbles. I've personally nothing against them, as it's just another variation on resource management. But that's not WHFB. If I want to make a unit punchier, I'll do it old school. Bung in a Champion Level Hero with a magic weapon, and maybe soup them up with a spell that needs to be cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gangland wrote:

Don't limit it to ForgeWorld!!! Since price of entry was addressed earlier I'll just say that I found 8th fairly easy to buy into even post AoS but if this is exclusively ForgeWorld the cost of entry will just be FAR worse.

Its the Warhammer Studio, not FW or Specialist Games So that's something!

 Just Tony wrote:
First and foremost I'd say remember the key word KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid!


This was a guideline my entire military career, and applies doubly so to wargaming. The glut of both WFB and 40K could have been alleviated had the designers simple kept that one tenet. The army book rules glut led to rules being introduced to counter the glut which led to new army book rules glut, and it's basically collapsing under its own weight. THAT needs addressed first and foremost.

KNIGHTS IN SATAN'S SERVICE you meant

Super full ack. simple but meaningful, not bloated and agonisingly complicated constructions that will inevitably lead to inconsistencies in the rules.

Rules = Core Rulebook
Army lists = Army composition rules and units - these use rules from the rulebook, plus a bit of army flavor (e.g. undead cause fear, all dark elves have hatred, bretons must have a ASB, army specific magic items...).

No 3 sides of special rules for any unit, worst of all examples was the Hell pit abomination... => bloats everything up to being unplayable in the end!

Magic spells can be selected rather than being rolled for randomly.

CAMPAIGN SETS like in 6th edition! 2-3 each year with sets of scenery, character models, old and new units that are needed to play the scenarios (Update of standard troop palette doing so! )

Take fan input into account with a kind of "Citadel Journal 4.0", with battle reports, "historical" battle scenarios, background stories and rules of legendary heroes participationg in these battles, add some section for fanmade special characters both showing off their conversion and writing skills. Sooner or later, some new Tuomas Pirinen will appear! Published online and if demand is high enough, in print.

I just hope they won't go 40k with data sheets and the like. Or introducing a ton of new monsters again like they did in 8th to keep sales up. New shiny things are ok, but they should be consistent with the existing background.

Things to keep #1

It was templates that got me on this one. Do Not Bring Back Partials.

Nothing ruined a game quite like TFG squabbling whether or not a base was 50%, or 49.99999999% percent covered (exaggeration for affect).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do not remove blast templates. They’re underwhelming in 40k and AoS, due to unit spacing. But when you’re ranked up, dropping a beautifully aimed rock is potentially game winning.

I feel like Artillery needs that level of impact (pun!) to really feel like it’s earned its roll. Especially with guess range adding a level of skill (yes I’ve recanted previous position following further thought).

Consider the Imperial Rocket Launcher. Initial guess, then Cannon Style overshoot, finally Rock Lobber style final scatter. As a direct damage weapon, you needed to be pretty lucky, no matter how good your guessing game is. But, it also discourage your opponent packing his units too tightly, as dense deployment upped the weapon’s overall efficiency.

Plus, it’s memorable when it lands bang smack in the middle of the intended target. Only managed that once myself, but it was against TFG’s ‘Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitability’, so couldn’t have happened to a nicer block. Straight in the midst of his Longbeards, and barely 3 out of 25 or so survived.

 Yodhrin wrote:


I agree with your points regarding ruleset and gameplay, with the addition that I think elements of the 7th Ed magic system are a good idea - "battery wizards" were too much of a thing during 6th.

I couldn't disagree more with your view on the setting though. Because for me, that's always been the key word - setting. The Warhammer World(and, IMO, 40K) always work best as a frame to tell stories within, not a story in and of itself. It should feature a "present day" that is always, officially, in Current Year of the IP, with a basic setup that permits both conflict and cooperation between the various states and races. Novels, campaigns, and army book backstories should all be "historical", with the static present-day serving as a backdrop for players' stories and games. I'm aware some people lose all enthusiasm without a constantly changing and evolving soap opera to follow along with, but I wager they're a tiny fraction of the people who want a constant stream of content to play with, who would be entirely satisfied with "historical" material and the ever-widening-window approach to expansion.

I too like the idea of Warhammer Fantasy as a setting at two minutes to midnight, that's why I'd prefer story progression to be done through historical campaigns. Rather than replaying major parts of Warhammer history, pick something 200 years before Karl Franz and invent an Empire Civil War or a Dark Elf invasion of Cathay or whatever. Enables a slightly bit of story progression and dynamism without undermining the core setting or pushing it towards an inevitable ending. Perhaps 'progression' was the wrong word as this would more be using the blank spaces in Warhammer history to allow for a bit of the story progression that AOS does fairly well.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I'm not great with the bookfacery - am I missing something or is that not a group?

Its a Facebook page. Like the one AoS has. Drop a like and press follow and you will recieve every info on the topic.