Can I just say how much I love this content?? The enthusiasm and humor is infectious, meanwhile the indepth discussion and analysis is the best on TH-cam! You're on the verge of blowing up with the release of The Old World!
Seconded. Especially the analysis he provides shouldn't be taken for granted. There are so many people making these kind of videos now on TH-cam who don't do their homework about the past, and rather than acknowledging their ignorance are just making false statements on how things were. More than that, people don't seem to even read the articles and are speculating on things which have been clearly stated in these articles. Luckily, we have Dr Luke Blaxill, so I can turn away from those other videos and steer my ship here.
@@jussituurinkoski Absolutely right - you'd think that anyone making these sort of things would read the article, get their heads round what they've read and think about what was worth discussing etc before they post their video. We know Dr Luke is going to talk about the bits worth talking about and maybe grumble a bit about what hasn't been made clear in it and that's very much the way to go!
I don't like flavour text of that spell either. I'm going to get a biro and write something else over the top. Something like: 'In uttering the secret tongue, his hands became as steel and his limbs as iron flails. A harvest of wounds was reaped in their passing.' Or something.
In 5th ed, they had a moment of weakness and replaced the college decks with 'battle magic' which had spells called things like 'destruction' and 'move unit'. I hope pre-collegiate days does not mean a destruction of imagination for spell lores and descriptions. Indeed, one would have thought the colleges themselves due to bureaucratisation and regularization might have made them more utilitarian- thus making the former times cowboy country where anything went!
@@DrBlaxill Aye? That reminds me of early kings of war, too, where the spells were so general as to be shapeless. You mentioned when we talked that that old world might manifest a more sword and sorcery tone. I'd quite like that; it would be fitting if every magic user (except elves) were getting their magical lore from some dubious source. Instead of going to college, a would-be mage might learn to commune with inhuman powers and bargain mystic secrets from them. Daemons. Spirits. Even vampires, maybe! No power without a price. Corruption ensues. Unheard of sorceries in careless hands... Exactly the sort of environment to give rise to the mystic bureaucracy of late-period Warhammer and savage witch hunts. No need for it to be boring at all!
@@BardicBroadcasts Absolutely. There are clearly hints of that in the lore from some of the colleges. Amethyst magic is pretty close to necromancy really, and one wonders what the practioners got up to 'off label' when the Impieral Board of Magic Inspection's regulators were not about. Amber and Jade were perhaps the least successfully tamed and placed in urban locales in Altdorf, with older wizards perhaps secretly yearning for merrie times before urbanisation and systemisation of magic. Also one wonders who the personages in spell names really are and what happened to them. Bjuna? Zandox? Brionna? Wyssans? Shemtek? Apek? All the events that gave the later collegiate spells their names occurred in cowboy times before the great burecratisation- a time of dark and unregulated adventure!
I'm liking the potential dynamics of play between armies. Goblin, for example, may need to use massive formations that are really wide to put out enough attacks to matter. Dwarves could rely on armor and leadership to engage, lose, and fall back; all in order to set up a flank charge on that mass of gobbos. Its all very exciting!
Strength not necessarily reducing armour saves much, the 'natural roll' thing on breaking and potentially weaker magic are all looking rather good for my dwarves. They might end up with so high a points value that not many of them are allowed to turn up at this rate!
That's how most armies were in 6th ed - cheap horde-type (Greenskin & Skaven) armies went for depth & rank bonus while middling armies went for balance of width & depth, & the skilled ones went for width to get most attacks or mobility.
I think that the following sentence (especially the last part) from the article should be factored in when we ponder about how wide a unit should optimally be: "There are plenty of wrinkles to this - some models may make supporting attacks from a deeper rank, multiple units can be engaged in the same combat, and any model that is able to fight without being in base contact may only make one [sic!] attack this turn."
2:57 Given that the 2+ to hit is borrowed from Warhammer Armies Projects, it would not surprise me if they borrowed here as well, where lances provide +2 initiative, in addition to the bonus from charging. I don't know whether they'd borrow other weapon rules from that ed, but heavy cavalry with lances is something you want striking first, in all but the rarest of circumstances. It doesn't feel good when they're not.
The main effect of TOW so far has been to make me realise - still more than I had - just how brilliant 3rd ed was. To still be exercising influence 35 years later- remarkable.
I haven't bought a Games Workshop product in years. This....this I will try for sure! I loved 8th Ed! And this has the ring of nostalgia to it. The only real concern I have is the magic system. I loved the 8th Ed system. I'm worried they will make the spell system akin to AoS. Eep!
Very much liking the potential for a very tactical combat phase, a couple of large Empire blocks with detachments to counter-charge (if this remains) is a very tempting new army project! Great discussion as ever, thank you for doing it!
I think I read that the models in rear ranks step up when models in front rank die. "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…"
@@NapoleonicWargamingyes good point. Editions that didn't have step up (or before step up was invented) did use such wording. However it's still unclear whether in this context it means it's in or out
@@NapoleonicWargaminginteresting. 3rd edition models were removed from the front in combat, one of the reasons you couldn’t strike back. 5th definitely removed them from the back (basically stating it was for practical purposes). I’d forgotten they changed it
Hello, Punk! Fantastic video as always. They way I understood the article, Falling Back in Good Order is the same as Break and Flee, but if you get caught by the pursuer you just get charged as usual instead of being run down and killed. Regarding magic though, yeah, I really hope they have some more powerful spells they just didn't show yet. Who has access to which magic and how spell selection works will also be very interesting to see. Something like Hammerhand would be fine on, say, a Warrior Priest. But I'd be really salty if I got that on a regular Wizard instead and my Warrior Priest somehow rolled Fireball.
Great video as always! Keep them coming. Greetings from Peru. Loving the Old World, i believe there will not be many casualties, so ranks will still be important.
I like this mechanic as it can alter the chances of an exposed flank charge for the attacler or defender. Definitely a new factor to tactically consider.
I might be having a senior moment, but I seem to remember High Elves having a Ld of 9. In the example shown they are assigned a Ld of 8, so we might be seeing a general lowering of Ld values?
They've had 8 for a very long time apart from some elites with 9 (who did not include sword masters). I can't recall if the top of my head if some elves has 9 on 3rd ed, but of course then you also had cool willpower and intelligence alongside leadership so it was less integral
@@DrBlaxill They went 8,9,9,8 in 3rd ed so bit of a mix. Dwarfs were on 9. Chaos were odd as Warriors and maybe even Marauders (which of course meant something different then) could also be champions of other units so had high Ld etc and also gave bonusses where required.
I'm going to give this game a shot when it's released and I'm going to be an early adopter and fight people at the GW store for a copy of the starter set like a 1980s mother at Christmas wrestling competing mothers for the last Cabbage Patch Kid toy doll for her daughter's present.
A scenerio: You are in close combat and your unit is 5-wide and 4 deep. You got full command + a character in the unit. The enemy strikes first, you lose 6 wounds. When you are supposed to fight back, can you fight back with the character and the champion? When in close combat and you got a character in there as well. Does the last wounds on the unit strike the character OR can models in base contact attack that character if the want to?
Very good analysis and content on you channel in general. I like the fact that they tell us that “any model that is able to fight without being in base contact may only make one attack this turn”. This means that you probably could change formation to reduce the amounts of attacks you receive (and give), which could be useful if facing a stronger adversaries such as chaos warriors if you are a lousy peasant mob. Also since there is no outnumber or steadfast (maybe) doesn’t that mean that it’s better to split units to increase maneuverability and gain extra rank bonuses? Depending on how ranks are calculated of course. For example: If I have 20 Chaos warriors, instead of going 10 wide I could split to 10x2 and 5 wide. So if the peasant mob from earlier go deeper instead of wider I can charge with one unit only and try to outflank with the other, or charge both in for the same result as if I had 1 unit of 20 with -1 rank bonus, again depending on how that’s calculated. Going 2 units also mean that your heavy knights might only break 1 unit when they charge with the potential of getting flanked on my turn if combat goes poorly for you. I played warhammer as a kid (6-7th edition) and looking to start for real again, didn’t really like 8th edition with the super strong broken spells and hoards. Also AoS was not may cup of tea at all. So It would be super useful to know what the “old guard” opinions on those thoughts are or what I’ve might have missed. I know we don’t have the entire ruleset yet so it’s impossible to tell at this point.
2:06 "In editions 1-7, if you charged, you struck first." Please re-read your 1st to 3rd ed rulebooks 😊 This only started in 4th. Not sure about the details in 1st and 2nd, but charging in 3rd was only an initiative tie breaker, otherwise charging provided +1 to hit, thus you could get better to hit rolls than the WS vs WS table allowed for.
Hard agree on the magic. Warhammer is by heritage a conanesque world. Magic should be dangerous and powerful. I think mechanically the best should be for some spells that are powerful and game changeres BUT they should only perform well if position (or other conditions) are met. Therefore the receiver should feel outmaneuvered and not cheated by just throwing a handfull of dices.
Indeed. A hard balance to strike of course, and an overpowered spell not requiring imagination to use will swiftly find itself at the cutting edge of the metagame. But here, it feels as though they are being a little too conservative. But, we'll see.
An excellent watch as always. Really looking forward to getting back into the hobby in the new year when I can learn a new rule set rather than staggering on with my 6th ed nostalgia.
Small correction. Charging Units didn’t strike first in 3rd ed, but in initiative order with the weapon bonuses (instead a unit received a +1 to hit bonus).
Re: Colleges of magic. I'd heard discussed elsewhere that lore wise this is prior to the Colleges of Magic being setup in the empire under the influence of the High Elves. So Empire magic is meant to be a bit more wild in this time period. So for me if this is them paying attention to detail then I'm all for it.
i noticed a few things regarding the balance. in 8th ed the smaller the army, the worse the balance was, regarding the magic. the melee rules rewarded big blobs of infantry and the movement rules punished heavy cavalry. elite was the most important unit category you needed to win the battle. your interesting heroes and monsters were so costly that you needed atleast a 2000 point army to be able to field them. the new fleeing rules, more spread out magic, infantry charge distance nerf and the slight buffs to archers sound to me like they are trying to reduce the amount of points you need to field an interesting and balanced army. one of the issues of warhammer fantasy has been that it was really hard to pick up for new players, because of the huge amount of money and time you had to invest if you wanted to play an interesting fully painted army, i think all these changes could work quite nicely. if magic is less of a gamechanger, you aren't forced to invest your points into a lvl 4 damsel. if weaker units can drown your infantry but not your monsters, because of the toughnss cap, you want to invest into elite instead of horde units. if your heavy cavalry can now zone enemy infantry, you can choose which enemy to engage and play more tactically. if your archers are shit but in a good position because you protect them with your cavaly you can get some more kills in. if rank bonus is less important this takes away a huge part of the security a goblin horde had regarding their standing power. if the melee is an ebb and flow, there are more opportunities to change the tide of battle in your favor, you might even want to send in your damsel on a unicorn, flanking the enemy. this could be even interesting in a 500 points army. the overall rules feel more tight knit than 8th ed.... still trying to contain my excitement.
Great post. 8th did not scale so well I agree (or at least, not equally between armies). Sub 2000 point games are not that great. Previous editions, like 6th, definitely scaled down better. If it is rock paper scissors like rather than certain units only entering play at particular points values then the basic low points values games might be more fun.
They mention that any model not in direct base to base contact can only make one attack. So "chaff" infantry would prefer the ranks and a smaller frontage?
These videos go from strength to strength! Overall, more good stuff I reckon - I do note that along with 2s to hit, there are no 6's to hit and I'm sure that that was a thing in at least some editions? Of course that could be the purview of spells, abilities and befuddlements only in this version. Or indeed perhaps even stupidity. It certainly allows for massed hordes to remain a threat beyond just numbers, while still allowing really proficient troops to carve through opponents with no doubt contemptuous ease! I very much agree with you about the interesting possibilities the new Initiative system throws up - it gives space for things like weapons and abilities to shape combat outside of just how hard you hit with something or a numerical bonus to hit or wound - I really like the idea of say formed spear and pike armed troops being a nightmare for cavalry to engage frontally - perhaps getting to strike such mounted troops first and maybe with a bonus to hit or something like that to boot. Of course the inverse could also be true - heavy cavalry charging home into the flank of such a close formed unit should really expect the relevant bonuses to shred them to red ruin. As I say, anything that allows for the interplay of troop type (and class), weapons and so on to inform tactics is a big thumbs up from me, and opens up some interesting potential design choices. I think I really like the Fall back in good order mechanic as well - there was a somewhat similar thing that certainly worked well for Warhammer Ancient Battles (WAB), especially for troops such as Roman Legionaries who - with decent LD (and a couple of other complementary rules) - as you might expect of such drilled troops are as often able to make an orderly withdrawal rather than succumbing to a full rout except for when roundly beaten or thoroughly depleted. Of course, for the truly canny general, this also opens the way for you to deliberately place troops you suspect will give way but not necessarily break, to draw the enemy in, perhaps for a dastardly Cannae tactic style thrashing! Or at least a bit of a mugging by pulling them level with your harassing skirmishers or something. Unless I missed something, I don't think I saw anything capping the max a rank bonus could be (at say a max of 3 as was sometimes the case in previous editions)? So maybe things like Skaven slaves can just swamp the foe in massed ranks to shore up the otherwise usually parlous state of their combat resolution scores! Especially if step up is *not* a thing. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. Re the spells - it is possible that these are essentially just examples of "safety valve" spells? That is semi-universal spells (maybe every lore gets it's own one) that all wizards have access to one of just so they have....something in a combat situation, but not necessarily indicative of spells in a broader sense? We shall see. Certainly, as you say, the only wizard I'd ever really *want* in combat usually would be a chaos one in Chaos Armour, and even *then* they'd likely have some hellish blade they could use instead, but we'll just have to be good little punks and wait for more there!
A fantastic comment, many thanks. Exactly- a weapons/troops triangle of rock paper scissors. There are all sorts of interplays. For example sword being strong vs axe, archery strong vs flyers, mace being good against brittle targets. Regeneration in prior editions was a good example of that- a very powerful ability but hard canceled by fire.
"Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt." So id say step up is in effect.
they actually do mention in the article that causalities come off the back rank and they mention follow warriors stepping into after their comrades have died. From the article in question: 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
The confusing thing is that they also say " a charging unit has the opportunity to overwhelm its enemies before they have the wit to swing back". Now of course that could just be that they might wipe them out, but equally the line about stepping forward to replace their fallen comrades could just be to fight in the next round of combat rather than the current one - they have decided to keep us guessing.
So far I’m liking the design decisions, sure magic is a bit simplified but 6 dicing big kill spells was a terribly boring meta Seems like they are doing their best to make all the characteristics of a unit have a potentially viable niche which I’m here for 100% I do get the feeling that elves are still going to be pretty bonkers given the potential for very high weapon skill,initiative, and possibly high ap on strength 3 weapons
What bothered be in 6th ed when I played the game last was that combats were usually over in a heartbeat and large units disappeared as a result of a single round. I really like the idea that if you roll equal/lower than your natural leadership then all is not lost even if you lost the combat. But yeah, the interactions are complex enough that you really have to play the game to see how, for example leaving out the overnumber bonus for combat resolution will effect.
Always a pleasure to see your video popping up. I'm concerned about the front rank 'all model swing' as well. Monster unit will have great advantages and it will be impossible for elf/dwarf/human elite infantry to minimize damages they take by minimizing the number of opponent they charge. We dont know if reformation during combat is possible after give ground...
I have really loved the rules so far. Fantasy was my childhood and seeing these rules makes me nostalgic as heck. Glad GW hasn't been to heavy handed with changes. The changes they have made have been things I have wanted.
It's good to see that they took over some of the best rules from WHAP. I like that a lot. By the way, what kind of doctor are you? Well, considering your content, it must be that kind of doctor working in a private underground laboratory, creating "The Thing" and finally releases it to the world. 😉
We have been playing with house rule +1I for years now in 8th ed. while not as impactful as older editions it’s been a nice compromise that comes into play more often than you’d think
While the entire front rank gets to strike, models NOT in base contact only get 1 attack. So Warriors of Chaos (or other elite units) won't benefit as much as one would assume. copy/paste from the almanac: "and any model that is able to fight without being in base contact may only make one attack this turn." What would be very intresting is being able to modify your Ld with certain character abilities to have you 'fall back in good order or give ground'. Could be very tactical.
excellent video, you really outclass all other youtubers when it comes to good in-depth analysis of the rules (and implications!). On the rules itself, I secretly was sort of hoping for some ways to make manouevring easier, am i the only one which hated that part of the game, the continuous measuring for fractions of an inch (we in the civilized world would call those milimeters) to be accurate ..
Yes. Personally I am all for complex movement, but some aspects of what they have said seem to add complexity for no particular gain I can see (lack of free wheel during charge).
Subbed. If I still lived in London my High Elves would give you a jolly good thrashing.... But alas, I moved to Dusseldorf in order to pay more from import fees for my Official GW products.
Great Video as always, love listening to your thoughts and commentary! I like the idea of combats being more in depth and lasting through multiple turns possibly, rather than constant breaking and unit wiping. It feels more realistic for the push of a melee. The strength and toughness table is again a welcome addition, as is the combat resolution bonuses. I can’t wait to see how morale impacts everything. I also agree that I wish the magic phase had a more pool mechanic rather than rolling two dice and beating a number. Oh well, can’t have everything I guess. 3rd edition good, Age of Sigmar bad!
Yes yes, I am pleased to see my beloved tables back! There seems to be finesse in every phase of the game and the (sometimes gamebreaking) power of magic seems to be dimmed down quite a lot. To me it seems that wizzards will be rather enalble you to have some more options in every phase, than to utterly toast entire units in one devastating magic phase.
You're rockin the rules and I'm loving your analysis. My goal is to one day visit England and look you up for an epic Old World battle the likes of which The Bard has never seen! I have a full scale, Forgeworld Chaos Dwarf Army and have never been able to use them. Let's just hope GW puts as much effort into the less supported armies' rules as the creator for WAP did so eloquently.
Been anjoying lots of your content recently. But can I make a suggestion? It would be helpful for your subs and viewers to have playlists. I would appreciate being able to look through your videos by type. Otherwise, keep up the good work. 😊
I have been playing since 6th ed and I always thought it was strange that regardless of how high your WP was your lowest to hit roll could only be a 3+. I like that a bloodthirster can now hit a goblin on 2+.
It is still definitely possible, just won't happen as often. As I understand it in the cases where the unit would have broken before but now don't the knights will still get to charge the unit again so will likely duff them up some more. Depending on when that actually happens the knights may of course be more open to getting flank charged etc while they're doing it, we'll have to see.
Magic was tipped in favour of armies with more wizards to the point that you bringing along a few wizards to your opponent’s four wizards (Vampire Counts) could be rendered offensively useless. If my memory of this dynamic is wrong, I’m happy to be corrected.
I totally on board with the WS table, this looks great, as does the initiative bonus on the charge (I believe this was a very common suggestion). I think this going to be a very tweaked version of 7th Ed, I hope they keep step up, but I suspect it’s gone. The long frontage I don’t think is going to an issue (and I believe it’s only a single models offering supporting attacks in the front). Skarbrand is very happy with magic 😂🤷♂️
@@brett7773 you have two sides to this tbh, you certainly have a valid point, but when you take away stepup, heavy cavalry charges become fairly unstoppable. The fall back mechanic might be enough, because that was something missing. But wiry less attacks from units in general (instead rolling buckets of dice), it could be ok.
Did you catch the thing about models not in btb only getting one attack in combat? 🙂 Makes the 20 wide chaos warrior thing not as viable. Although the reverse conga line of them still looks like its a viable strategy. Also some folks are talking about a no limit rank bonus (as the table doesn't have the +1 per rank (up to 3) as other editions have in the table. Dont know if this is a thing though.
Might not be that important to have a limit given how many models you'd need to have a lot of ranks that count given that if you're deeper than you are wide your ranks won't count at all.
Right on the warriors. The 10 wide dudes might get say 6 or 7 in base to base against a 5 frontage unit (assuming corner to corner fighting and taking into account potentially smaller based adversary). Then the other 3 or 4 get only one attack. So optimised formation for elite choppers probably seven wise.
Yea... Killy troops will have a resurgence methinks. I don't see how for example empire swordsmen will be that useful in this ruleset. I think i remember something about 6 wide minimum for ranks but im unsure. Someone said units of 100 skaven slaves or goblins 10 deep would be scary to face. Getting 9+ kills could be tricky to manage. More so if the gobbos have spears and you get 20-ish attacks back. Even at ws2 str 3
Only first rank allowed to fight then it will be a lot of elite troops/monster infantry with just 2 ranks I presume. On the other hand, less kills so rank bonus will be worth double🤔
Whatever the the merits and negatives of what's been shown so far, it's a massive positive that they've identified one of the worse rule mechanics across WFB and 40K (that is still in HH 2.0 2022!) - the combat resolution "elite unit wiped out via fleeing because I lost by 1" issue. They could probably - should probably - have streamlined the interaction here more, but isolated from the rest of the game it's pretty simple to understand once you understand the logic, and easy to memorise. I don't want to flee; I'd prefer not to fall back (or do I?) and I'd LOVE to give ground. The way it works is logical and results in a realistic simulation of an actual fight. Pretty sure perusing a falling back unit you fight a fresh round of combat, as the benefit of giving ground is that you're all just locked in combat but for now that interaction is over? Also one can assume "step up" was referred to here: "Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt." ?? We also don't know where wizards are positioned in the unit ? Maybe they can go in the rear rank?
The only thing I do not like so far are the base sizes. The rest sounds pretty awesome. Well, okay, I would have preferred only 3rd Edition armies, no Khemri but Skaven and Dark Elves.
In regards to spells and wizards beeing weaker. Maybe wizards now can cast an amount of spells equal to their level, so a level 1 wizard can only cast one spell but a level 4 wizard can cast four. If this were to be the case maybe magic might not feel to bad even though the spells themselves seemingly aren't as strong anymore.
8th edition magic's overarching power was the inevitable consequence of what came before. Once WFB started to die around 6th edition (few people wanted to play it for reasons I suspect few here one to admit: and it wasn't the IP!) - we reach 8th Edition where the game is almost dead. So the rules writers are ordered to put in the "horde" rule in order to stimulate more sales and milk £££ the tiny number of existing players (i.e. get them to buy more boots). The result of this and the previous games design of WFB resulted in games being largely predictable after deployment, the so called "auto-pilot" effect that plagued Warhammer. So magic had to be overpowered as a "patch" to fix this issue. You can't predict magic.
It will be interesting to see how this goes. I actually have a Bretonnian army which I've put off painting for far too long - I'm planning to use them in Kings of War though (and Lion Rampant as French). Frankly I don't trust GW. I hope the new game - the new old game? - lives up to expectations but, other than all the egregious GW developments of the last few years which we know all too well, the fact that 'traditional' Warhammer is, and has been for years, part of an extremely successful videogame franchise and yet *still they only do Age of Sigmar on the tabletop* - ah well. Fingers crossed.
Yes - it does appear that GW may finally be catering to parts of the fanbase thus far neglected. I'm just forlornly wishing Man 'O' War would make a comeback - that was one of GW's best, if not the absolute best, barring Blood Bowl and Necromunda, specialist games. Having a naval game with reasonably affordable fleets was the perfect companion to traditional Warhammer.
The idea of units pushing and pulling ad nauseam over the battlefield seems very silly to me. It would also make the game longer and bogged down versus quick and deadly (wich is something i hate about Age of Sigmar). It seems tedious rather than exciting. Otherwise im more positive than i expected about the new rules, other than the rerolls for shooting, and the concerns about magic you mentioned. Great analysis, love your content!
Just tell me if i can take aliies Gdubs!!! Ogre's for all, bad guy soup etc. Although my number 1 wish is that the mechanics scale to play small games.
Dr Luke killing Age of Sigmar, slice by little slice. You must be a high skill, low strength warrior of The Old World with your piercing blows to the horrow that is AoS
I'm intrigued that a decisive break and flee and pursuit is no more likely if the combat was won by 1 point or by 8 points. Two possibilities: 1. Fall Back in Good Order/Give Ground is punished in some way in certain circumstances, like when attacked from multiple angles, when pushed up against terrain, the board edge, or other units. This would bring back "decisiveness" and link it with positioning. Exiting! 2. None of the above is true and every unit has essentially gained glorified Stubborn... direct damage output will be the only sensible way to remove units. Very unexciting!
Yes I should have made more of the second point. Unless leadership is harder to boost or reroll (or gets reduced at certain thresholds like rallying) then we might not see a decisive charge where an enemy is.so.badly beaten than it's curtains. Which is part of the essential character of battle and indeed often key a moment of fantasy battles such as as the charge of the riders of Rohirrim at Minas Tirrith
@DrBlaxill I had another thought... It would be a bit strange if units are equally likely to begin fleeing after a lost combat as they are from a simple Panic test... I wonder if we might see different sorts of Panic in next week's reveal, with a marginal failure *not* causing fleeing. It could be fairly sensible to have some sort of "Shaken" outcome that merely forfeits the unit's next turn.
I think he’s playing the character of old hammer fans, who grumble like long beards at times haha. Gotta love em though, always have the coolest minis.
@@iggyrocksallExactly. Rage of Sigmar is (I hope, anyway) nowadays a form of ironic pastiche, to be performed fondly for comedic purposes. Old World will I hope mend those fences.
You are allowed to not like things. Some people don't want their models to have side cut shaved heads all the time, WoW pauldrons, and space marines in their fantasy game. AoS is a bit better now, but between the 1.0 art, no points, bring whatever you want, you can have multiples of named characters, rules based on how long your beard was, and measuring from the model instead of the base were all dumb decisions. AoS is forever tainted as the design by committee make as much money with as little artistic effort as possible game.
@@iggyrocksall :-) I must admit, I would like to play modern 40k just to see what it is like. I have no idea. I have never actually played a game of 40k.
Can I just say how much I love this content?? The enthusiasm and humor is infectious, meanwhile the indepth discussion and analysis is the best on TH-cam! You're on the verge of blowing up with the release of The Old World!
Seconded. Especially the analysis he provides shouldn't be taken for granted. There are so many people making these kind of videos now on TH-cam who don't do their homework about the past, and rather than acknowledging their ignorance are just making false statements on how things were. More than that, people don't seem to even read the articles and are speculating on things which have been clearly stated in these articles. Luckily, we have Dr Luke Blaxill, so I can turn away from those other videos and steer my ship here.
@@jussituurinkoski Absolutely right - you'd think that anyone making these sort of things would read the article, get their heads round what they've read and think about what was worth discussing etc before they post their video. We know Dr Luke is going to talk about the bits worth talking about and maybe grumble a bit about what hasn't been made clear in it and that's very much the way to go!
I don't like flavour text of that spell either. I'm going to get a biro and write something else over the top. Something like: 'In uttering the secret tongue, his hands became as steel and his limbs as iron flails. A harvest of wounds was reaped in their passing.' Or something.
In 5th ed, they had a moment of weakness and replaced the college decks with 'battle magic' which had spells called things like 'destruction' and 'move unit'. I hope pre-collegiate days does not mean a destruction of imagination for spell lores and descriptions. Indeed, one would have thought the colleges themselves due to bureaucratisation and regularization might have made them more utilitarian- thus making the former times cowboy country where anything went!
@@DrBlaxill Aye? That reminds me of early kings of war, too, where the spells were so general as to be shapeless. You mentioned when we talked that that old world might manifest a more sword and sorcery tone. I'd quite like that; it would be fitting if every magic user (except elves) were getting their magical lore from some dubious source.
Instead of going to college, a would-be mage might learn to commune with inhuman powers and bargain mystic secrets from them. Daemons. Spirits. Even vampires, maybe!
No power without a price. Corruption ensues. Unheard of sorceries in careless hands... Exactly the sort of environment to give rise to the mystic bureaucracy of late-period Warhammer and savage witch hunts. No need for it to be boring at all!
@@BardicBroadcasts Absolutely. There are clearly hints of that in the lore from some of the colleges. Amethyst magic is pretty close to necromancy really, and one wonders what the practioners got up to 'off label' when the Impieral Board of Magic Inspection's regulators were not about. Amber and Jade were perhaps the least successfully tamed and placed in urban locales in Altdorf, with older wizards perhaps secretly yearning for merrie times before urbanisation and systemisation of magic.
Also one wonders who the personages in spell names really are and what happened to them. Bjuna? Zandox? Brionna? Wyssans? Shemtek? Apek? All the events that gave the later collegiate spells their names occurred in cowboy times before the great burecratisation- a time of dark and unregulated adventure!
I'm really enjoying your coverage of these old world updates
I'm liking the potential dynamics of play between armies. Goblin, for example, may need to use massive formations that are really wide to put out enough attacks to matter. Dwarves could rely on armor and leadership to engage, lose, and fall back; all in order to set up a flank charge on that mass of gobbos. Its all very exciting!
Yes- maybe the most interesting basic interactions we have seen without necessarily requiring special rules.
Strength not necessarily reducing armour saves much, the 'natural roll' thing on breaking and potentially weaker magic are all looking rather good for my dwarves. They might end up with so high a points value that not many of them are allowed to turn up at this rate!
That's how most armies were in 6th ed - cheap horde-type (Greenskin & Skaven) armies went for depth & rank bonus while middling armies went for balance of width & depth, & the skilled ones went for width to get most attacks or mobility.
If you're not fielding gobbos in regiments of at least 60 you're not doing it right, imo.
I think that the following sentence (especially the last part) from the article should be factored in when we ponder about how wide a unit should optimally be:
"There are plenty of wrinkles to this - some models may make supporting attacks from a deeper rank, multiple units can be engaged in the same combat, and any model that is able to fight without being in base contact may only make one [sic!] attack this turn."
2:57 Given that the 2+ to hit is borrowed from Warhammer Armies Projects, it would not surprise me if they borrowed here as well, where lances provide +2 initiative, in addition to the bonus from charging. I don't know whether they'd borrow other weapon rules from that ed, but heavy cavalry with lances is something you want striking first, in all but the rarest of circumstances. It doesn't feel good when they're not.
Hear hear! Apart from (perhaps) if they charge onto pikes.
Don’t forget that 2+ to hit and initiative bonuses also existed in 3rd Ed 😉
The main effect of TOW so far has been to make me realise - still more than I had - just how brilliant 3rd ed was. To still be exercising influence 35 years later- remarkable.
I'm honestly excited for this edition
I haven't bought a Games Workshop product in years. This....this I will try for sure! I loved 8th Ed! And this has the ring of nostalgia to it. The only real concern I have is the magic system. I loved the 8th Ed system. I'm worried they will make the spell system akin to AoS. Eep!
Im getting more excited every update, honestly
It's massively exceeding my expectations, no question
Very much liking the potential for a very tactical combat phase, a couple of large Empire blocks with detachments to counter-charge (if this remains) is a very tempting new army project!
Great discussion as ever, thank you for doing it!
I think I read that the models in rear ranks step up when models in front rank die. "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 was the same wording as 6th. Step up is out.
@@NapoleonicWargamingyes good point. Editions that didn't have step up (or before step up was invented) did use such wording. However it's still unclear whether in this context it means it's in or out
@@NapoleonicWargaminginteresting. 3rd edition models were removed from the front in combat, one of the reasons you couldn’t strike back. 5th definitely removed them from the back (basically stating it was for practical purposes). I’d forgotten they changed it
Hello, Punk!
Fantastic video as always.
They way I understood the article, Falling Back in Good Order is the same as Break and Flee, but if you get caught by the pursuer you just get charged as usual instead of being run down and killed.
Regarding magic though, yeah, I really hope they have some more powerful spells they just didn't show yet. Who has access to which magic and how spell selection works will also be very interesting to see. Something like Hammerhand would be fine on, say, a Warrior Priest. But I'd be really salty if I got that on a regular Wizard instead and my Warrior Priest somehow rolled Fireball.
Great video as always! Keep them coming. Greetings from Peru. Loving the Old World, i believe there will not be many casualties, so ranks will still be important.
Hope so!
I like this mechanic as it can alter the chances of an exposed flank charge for the attacler or defender. Definitely a new factor to tactically consider.
I might be having a senior moment, but I seem to remember High Elves having a Ld of 9. In the example shown they are assigned a Ld of 8, so we might be seeing a general lowering of Ld values?
They've had 8 for a very long time apart from some elites with 9 (who did not include sword masters). I can't recall if the top of my head if some elves has 9 on 3rd ed, but of course then you also had cool willpower and intelligence alongside leadership so it was less integral
@@DrBlaxill They went 8,9,9,8 in 3rd ed so bit of a mix. Dwarfs were on 9. Chaos were odd as Warriors and maybe even Marauders (which of course meant something different then) could also be champions of other units so had high Ld etc and also gave bonusses where required.
I stand corrected then @@DrBlaxill 😀
I'm going to give this game a shot when it's released and I'm going to be an early adopter and fight people at the GW store for a copy of the starter set like a 1980s mother at Christmas wrestling competing mothers for the last Cabbage Patch Kid toy doll for her daughter's present.
A scenerio:
You are in close combat and your unit is 5-wide and 4 deep.
You got full command + a character in the unit.
The enemy strikes first, you lose 6 wounds.
When you are supposed to fight back, can you fight back with the character and the champion?
When in close combat and you got a character in there as well. Does the last wounds on the unit strike the character OR can models in base contact attack that character if the want to?
Very good analysis and content on you channel in general.
I like the fact that they tell us that “any model that is able to fight without being in base contact may only make one attack this turn”. This means that you probably could change formation to reduce the amounts of attacks you receive (and give), which could be useful if facing a stronger adversaries such as chaos warriors if you are a lousy peasant mob.
Also since there is no outnumber or steadfast (maybe) doesn’t that mean that it’s better to split units to increase maneuverability and gain extra rank bonuses? Depending on how ranks are calculated of course.
For example: If I have 20 Chaos warriors, instead of going 10 wide I could split to 10x2 and 5 wide. So if the peasant mob from earlier go deeper instead of wider I can charge with one unit only and try to outflank with the other, or charge both in for the same result as if I had 1 unit of 20 with -1 rank bonus, again depending on how that’s calculated.
Going 2 units also mean that your heavy knights might only break 1 unit when they charge with the potential of getting flanked on my turn if combat goes poorly for you.
I played warhammer as a kid (6-7th edition) and looking to start for real again, didn’t really like 8th edition with the super strong broken spells and hoards. Also AoS was not may cup of tea at all. So It would be super useful to know what the “old guard” opinions on those thoughts are or what I’ve might have missed.
I know we don’t have the entire ruleset yet so it’s impossible to tell at this point.
I'm shocked that such an evil tome as AoS Generals Manual should be on your shelf. The inquisition will be making an unexpected call I fear!
Since monday i‘ve been waiting eagerly for the „hello punks!“ followed by an in-depth analysis 😊
2:06 "In editions 1-7, if you charged, you struck first." Please re-read your 1st to 3rd ed rulebooks 😊 This only started in 4th. Not sure about the details in 1st and 2nd, but charging in 3rd was only an initiative tie breaker, otherwise charging provided +1 to hit, thus you could get better to hit rolls than the WS vs WS table allowed for.
Hard agree on the magic. Warhammer is by heritage a conanesque world. Magic should be dangerous and powerful.
I think mechanically the best should be for some spells that are powerful and game changeres BUT they should only perform well if position (or other conditions) are met. Therefore the receiver should feel outmaneuvered and not cheated by just throwing a handfull of dices.
Indeed. A hard balance to strike of course, and an overpowered spell not requiring imagination to use will swiftly find itself at the cutting edge of the metagame. But here, it feels as though they are being a little too conservative. But, we'll see.
Age of Sneedmar (formerly Chuck's)
An excellent watch as always. Really looking forward to getting back into the hobby in the new year when I can learn a new rule set rather than staggering on with my 6th ed nostalgia.
Small correction. Charging Units didn’t strike first in 3rd ed, but in initiative order with the weapon bonuses (instead a unit received a +1 to hit bonus).
Indeed so! Further confirmation of the long shadow of 3rd ed.
No mention of unlimited rank bonus, or did I miss it?
Thank you for your content. I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Re: Colleges of magic. I'd heard discussed elsewhere that lore wise this is prior to the Colleges of Magic being setup in the empire under the influence of the High Elves. So Empire magic is meant to be a bit more wild in this time period. So for me if this is them paying attention to detail then I'm all for it.
i noticed a few things regarding the balance. in 8th ed the smaller the army, the worse the balance was, regarding the magic. the melee rules rewarded big blobs of infantry and the movement rules punished heavy cavalry. elite was the most important unit category you needed to win the battle. your interesting heroes and monsters were so costly that you needed atleast a 2000 point army to be able to field them.
the new fleeing rules, more spread out magic, infantry charge distance nerf and the slight buffs to archers sound to me like they are trying to reduce the amount of points you need to field an interesting and balanced army. one of the issues of warhammer fantasy has been that it was really hard to pick up for new players, because of the huge amount of money and time you had to invest if you wanted to play an interesting fully painted army, i think all these changes could work quite nicely.
if magic is less of a gamechanger, you aren't forced to invest your points into a lvl 4 damsel.
if weaker units can drown your infantry but not your monsters, because of the toughnss cap, you want to invest into elite instead of horde units.
if your heavy cavalry can now zone enemy infantry, you can choose which enemy to engage and play more tactically.
if your archers are shit but in a good position because you protect them with your cavaly you can get some more kills in.
if rank bonus is less important this takes away a huge part of the security a goblin horde had regarding their standing power.
if the melee is an ebb and flow, there are more opportunities to change the tide of battle in your favor, you might even want to send in your damsel on a unicorn, flanking the enemy.
this could be even interesting in a 500 points army.
the overall rules feel more tight knit than 8th ed.... still trying to contain my excitement.
Great post. 8th did not scale so well I agree (or at least, not equally between armies). Sub 2000 point games are not that great. Previous editions, like 6th, definitely scaled down better. If it is rock paper scissors like rather than certain units only entering play at particular points values then the basic low points values games might be more fun.
They mention that any model not in direct base to base contact can only make one attack. So "chaff" infantry would prefer the ranks and a smaller frontage?
These videos go from strength to strength!
Overall, more good stuff I reckon - I do note that along with 2s to hit, there are no 6's to hit and I'm sure that that was a thing in at least some editions? Of course that could be the purview of spells, abilities and befuddlements only in this version. Or indeed perhaps even stupidity. It certainly allows for massed hordes to remain a threat beyond just numbers, while still allowing really proficient troops to carve through opponents with no doubt contemptuous ease!
I very much agree with you about the interesting possibilities the new Initiative system throws up - it gives space for things like weapons and abilities to shape combat outside of just how hard you hit with something or a numerical bonus to hit or wound - I really like the idea of say formed spear and pike armed troops being a nightmare for cavalry to engage frontally - perhaps getting to strike such mounted troops first and maybe with a bonus to hit or something like that to boot. Of course the inverse could also be true - heavy cavalry charging home into the flank of such a close formed unit should really expect the relevant bonuses to shred them to red ruin. As I say, anything that allows for the interplay of troop type (and class), weapons and so on to inform tactics is a big thumbs up from me, and opens up some interesting potential design choices.
I think I really like the Fall back in good order mechanic as well - there was a somewhat similar thing that certainly worked well for Warhammer Ancient Battles (WAB), especially for troops such as Roman Legionaries who - with decent LD (and a couple of other complementary rules) - as you might expect of such drilled troops are as often able to make an orderly withdrawal rather than succumbing to a full rout except for when roundly beaten or thoroughly depleted. Of course, for the truly canny general, this also opens the way for you to deliberately place troops you suspect will give way but not necessarily break, to draw the enemy in, perhaps for a dastardly Cannae tactic style thrashing! Or at least a bit of a mugging by pulling them level with your harassing skirmishers or something.
Unless I missed something, I don't think I saw anything capping the max a rank bonus could be (at say a max of 3 as was sometimes the case in previous editions)? So maybe things like Skaven slaves can just swamp the foe in massed ranks to shore up the otherwise usually parlous state of their combat resolution scores! Especially if step up is *not* a thing. Will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Re the spells - it is possible that these are essentially just examples of "safety valve" spells? That is semi-universal spells (maybe every lore gets it's own one) that all wizards have access to one of just so they have....something in a combat situation, but not necessarily indicative of spells in a broader sense? We shall see. Certainly, as you say, the only wizard I'd ever really *want* in combat usually would be a chaos one in Chaos Armour, and even *then* they'd likely have some hellish blade they could use instead, but we'll just have to be good little punks and wait for more there!
A fantastic comment, many thanks. Exactly- a weapons/troops triangle of rock paper scissors. There are all sorts of interplays. For example sword being strong vs axe, archery strong vs flyers, mace being good against brittle targets. Regeneration in prior editions was a good example of that- a very powerful ability but hard canceled by fire.
"Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt." So id say step up is in effect.
they actually do mention in the article that causalities come off the back rank and they mention follow warriors stepping into after their comrades have died.
From the article in question:
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
Yes, I think that inference is 95% likely. They don't literally say it, but it seems probably from the way its written.
The confusing thing is that they also say " a charging unit has the opportunity to overwhelm its enemies before they have the wit to swing back". Now of course that could just be that they might wipe them out, but equally the line about stepping forward to replace their fallen comrades could just be to fight in the next round of combat rather than the current one - they have decided to keep us guessing.
The only opinion I have been looking forward to on this... 😎
So far I’m liking the design decisions, sure magic is a bit simplified but 6 dicing big kill spells was a terribly boring meta
Seems like they are doing their best to make all the characteristics of a unit have a potentially viable niche which I’m here for 100%
I do get the feeling that elves are still going to be pretty bonkers given the potential for very high weapon skill,initiative, and possibly high ap on strength 3 weapons
What bothered be in 6th ed when I played the game last was that combats were usually over in a heartbeat and large units disappeared as a result of a single round. I really like the idea that if you roll equal/lower than your natural leadership then all is not lost even if you lost the combat. But yeah, the interactions are complex enough that you really have to play the game to see how, for example leaving out the overnumber bonus for combat resolution will effect.
Always a pleasure to see your video popping up. I'm concerned about the front rank 'all model swing' as well. Monster unit will have great advantages and it will be impossible for elf/dwarf/human elite infantry to minimize damages they take by minimizing the number of opponent they charge. We dont know if reformation during combat is possible after give ground...
Really looking forward to your reviews of the book/s once they come out! Another great video, thank you.
There will be much to say about that. Still more of course in the playing!
I think the spells will be cast during the fight and will count toward combat resolution, and that’s why they’re keeping them toned down.
Loving these videos. Keep up the good work Blaxill!
You are amazing sir.
This could end up being a crazy fun Frankenstien warhammer fantasy edition.
I have really loved the rules so far. Fantasy was my childhood and seeing these rules makes me nostalgic as heck. Glad GW hasn't been to heavy handed with changes. The changes they have made have been things I have wanted.
It's good to see that they took over some of the best rules from WHAP. I like that a lot. By the way, what kind of doctor are you? Well, considering your content, it must be that kind of doctor working in a private underground laboratory, creating "The Thing" and finally releases it to the world. 😉
Interestingly there seems to be some warmaster mechanics being applied here.
We have been playing with house rule +1I for years now in 8th ed. while not as impactful as older editions it’s been a nice compromise that comes into play more often than you’d think
One minute and I'm here commenting
Great video
By the lady you are quick!
+3 initiative on the charge
@@DrBlaxill But was it in the flank, the rear or just in the front?
While the entire front rank gets to strike, models NOT in base contact only get 1 attack. So Warriors of Chaos (or other elite units) won't benefit as much as one would assume.
copy/paste from the almanac: "and any model that is able to fight without being in base contact may only make one attack this turn."
What would be very intresting is being able to modify your Ld with certain character abilities to have you 'fall back in good order or give ground'. Could be very tactical.
This is quite important. As you say, everyone getting to swing does not in itself preclude base to base mattering.
excellent video, you really outclass all other youtubers when it comes to good in-depth analysis of the rules (and implications!). On the rules itself, I secretly was sort of hoping for some ways to make manouevring easier, am i the only one which hated that part of the game, the continuous measuring for fractions of an inch (we in the civilized world would call those milimeters) to be accurate ..
Yes. Personally I am all for complex movement, but some aspects of what they have said seem to add complexity for no particular gain I can see (lack of free wheel during charge).
Another top tier opening to the latest video offering😅😁
Subbed. If I still lived in London my High Elves would give you a jolly good thrashing.... But alas, I moved to Dusseldorf in order to pay more from import fees for my Official GW products.
Ah well- 'tis an Elven tradition to vanish away upon a boat ;-) Glad to have you on board this one!
@@DrBlaxill this is true, although I would hardly compare Germany to the Undying Lands
Great Video as always, love listening to your thoughts and commentary! I like the idea of combats being more in depth and lasting through multiple turns possibly, rather than constant breaking and unit wiping. It feels more realistic for the push of a melee. The strength and toughness table is again a welcome addition, as is the combat resolution bonuses. I can’t wait to see how morale impacts everything. I also agree that I wish the magic phase had a more pool mechanic rather than rolling two dice and beating a number. Oh well, can’t have everything I guess. 3rd edition good, Age of Sigmar bad!
Yes, striking the balance between a combat feeling epic, but also there still being the chance of a dramatic rout.
No max rank bonus?
Yes yes, I am pleased to see my beloved tables back!
There seems to be finesse in every phase of the game and the (sometimes gamebreaking) power of magic seems to be dimmed down quite a lot.
To me it seems that wizzards will be rather enalble you to have some more options in every phase, than to utterly toast entire units in one devastating magic phase.
You're rockin the rules and I'm loving your analysis. My goal is to one day visit England and look you up for an epic Old World battle the likes of which The Bard has never seen! I have a full scale, Forgeworld Chaos Dwarf Army and have never been able to use them. Let's just hope GW puts as much effort into the less supported armies' rules as the creator for WAP did so eloquently.
May it be so! The Chaos Dwarf general has forever been at the back of the lunch queue since the dawn of time.
Been anjoying lots of your content recently. But can I make a suggestion?
It would be helpful for your subs and viewers to have playlists.
I would appreciate being able to look through your videos by type.
Otherwise, keep up the good work. 😊
Good idea, I'll look into that!
Interesting.. very interesting..
I have been playing since 6th ed and I always thought it was strange that regardless of how high your WP was your lowest to hit roll could only be a 3+. I like that a bloodthirster can now hit a goblin on 2+.
I'd wager spells happen in the combat phase according to initiative, same as melee attacks.
That would be intriguing if so. However they will have to make wizards more resilient if 'combat casting' is to be serious
It seems like the new combat resolution rules will massively disadvantage knights as it is essentially impossible to break a unit completely now.
It is still definitely possible, just won't happen as often. As I understand it in the cases where the unit would have broken before but now don't the knights will still get to charge the unit again so will likely duff them up some more. Depending on when that actually happens the knights may of course be more open to getting flank charged etc while they're doing it, we'll have to see.
Magic was tipped in favour of armies with more wizards to the point that you bringing along a few wizards to your opponent’s four wizards (Vampire Counts) could be rendered offensively useless. If my memory of this dynamic is wrong, I’m happy to be corrected.
In some editions certainly. I think that memory might be from 6th ;-)
I totally on board with the WS table, this looks great, as does the initiative bonus on the charge (I believe this was a very common suggestion).
I think this going to be a very tweaked version of 7th Ed, I hope they keep step up, but I suspect it’s gone.
The long frontage I don’t think is going to an issue (and I believe it’s only a single models offering supporting attacks in the front).
Skarbrand is very happy with magic 😂🤷♂️
Step up makes the Initiative stat (and thus the benefit of charging in this edition) valueless unless fighting against a single ranked unit.
@@brett7773 you have two sides to this tbh, you certainly have a valid point, but when you take away stepup, heavy cavalry charges become fairly unstoppable. The fall back mechanic might be enough, because that was something missing. But wiry less attacks from units in general (instead rolling buckets of dice), it could be ok.
Did you catch the thing about models not in btb only getting one attack in combat? 🙂 Makes the 20 wide chaos warrior thing not as viable. Although the reverse conga line of them still looks like its a viable strategy.
Also some folks are talking about a no limit rank bonus (as the table doesn't have the +1 per rank (up to 3) as other editions have in the table. Dont know if this is a thing though.
Might not be that important to have a limit given how many models you'd need to have a lot of ranks that count given that if you're deeper than you are wide your ranks won't count at all.
Right on the warriors. The 10 wide dudes might get say 6 or 7 in base to base against a 5 frontage unit (assuming corner to corner fighting and taking into account potentially smaller based adversary). Then the other 3 or 4 get only one attack. So optimised formation for elite choppers probably seven wise.
Yea... Killy troops will have a resurgence methinks. I don't see how for example empire swordsmen will be that useful in this ruleset.
I think i remember something about 6 wide minimum for ranks but im unsure.
Someone said units of 100 skaven slaves or goblins 10 deep would be scary to face. Getting 9+ kills could be tricky to manage. More so if the gobbos have spears and you get 20-ish attacks back. Even at ws2 str 3
Nice as always bro
HammerHand dear Luke. Big difference if your squishy mage is in fact a chaos warrior wizard ;)
Only first rank allowed to fight then it will be a lot of elite troops/monster infantry with just 2 ranks I presume. On the other hand, less kills so rank bonus will be worth double🤔
1 rank fighting happened in all but 8th and that never happened. Combats will be won by characters and ranks.
Whatever the the merits and negatives of what's been shown so far, it's a massive positive that they've identified one of the worse rule mechanics across WFB and 40K (that is still in HH 2.0 2022!) - the combat resolution "elite unit wiped out via fleeing because I lost by 1" issue. They could probably - should probably - have streamlined the interaction here more, but isolated from the rest of the game it's pretty simple to understand once you understand the logic, and easy to memorise. I don't want to flee; I'd prefer not to fall back (or do I?) and I'd LOVE to give ground. The way it works is logical and results in a realistic simulation of an actual fight.
Pretty sure perusing a falling back unit you fight a fresh round of combat, as the benefit of giving ground is that you're all just locked in combat but for now that interaction is over?
Also one can assume "step up" was referred to here: "Casualties are removed from the back ranks, representing the rear ranks stepping forward as their comrades bite the dirt." ??
We also don't know where wizards are positioned in the unit ? Maybe they can go in the rear rank?
Third ed good, age of sigmar bad!
CLICK!
Great video. Keep them coming.
The only thing I do not like so far are the base sizes. The rest sounds pretty awesome.
Well, okay, I would have preferred only 3rd Edition armies, no Khemri but Skaven and Dark Elves.
I love you, man
Hi Val heffelfinger
It's not the Heresy 2.0 table so it's great
In regards to spells and wizards beeing weaker. Maybe wizards now can cast an amount of spells equal to their level, so a level 1 wizard can only cast one spell but a level 4 wizard can cast four. If this were to be the case maybe magic might not feel to bad even though the spells themselves seemingly aren't as strong anymore.
8th edition magic's overarching power was the inevitable consequence of what came before. Once WFB started to die around 6th edition (few people wanted to play it for reasons I suspect few here one to admit: and it wasn't the IP!) - we reach 8th Edition where the game is almost dead. So the rules writers are ordered to put in the "horde" rule in order to stimulate more sales and milk £££ the tiny number of existing players (i.e. get them to buy more boots). The result of this and the previous games design of WFB resulted in games being largely predictable after deployment, the so called "auto-pilot" effect that plagued Warhammer.
So magic had to be overpowered as a "patch" to fix this issue. You can't predict magic.
It will be interesting to see how this goes. I actually have a Bretonnian army which I've put off painting for far too long - I'm planning to use them in Kings of War though (and Lion Rampant as French). Frankly I don't trust GW. I hope the new game - the new old game? - lives up to expectations but, other than all the egregious GW developments of the last few years which we know all too well, the fact that 'traditional' Warhammer is, and has been for years, part of an extremely successful videogame franchise and yet *still they only do Age of Sigmar on the tabletop* - ah well. Fingers crossed.
We can but hope! However, I think augaries are thus far almost as good as I dared hope.
Yes - it does appear that GW may finally be catering to parts of the fanbase thus far neglected. I'm just forlornly wishing Man 'O' War would make a comeback - that was one of GW's best, if not the absolute best, barring Blood Bowl and Necromunda, specialist games. Having a naval game with reasonably affordable fleets was the perfect companion to traditional Warhammer.
The idea of units pushing and pulling ad nauseam over the battlefield seems very silly to me. It would also make the game longer and bogged down versus quick and deadly (wich is something i hate about Age of Sigmar). It seems tedious rather than exciting.
Otherwise im more positive than i expected about the new rules, other than the rerolls for shooting, and the concerns about magic you mentioned.
Great analysis, love your content!
I’d guess that once a unit is down to 25% of its starting size it will not be able to fall back…?
More like 'AoS was a mistake, please forgive us pretty please'
LOL if your wizzard is squishy you deserve it for not lifting. Chaos is the way, muscles armour and spells
Just tell me if i can take aliies Gdubs!!! Ogre's for all, bad guy soup etc.
Although my number 1 wish is that the mechanics scale to play small games.
To be fair, you can't compare a core rulebook to a GHB.
Your people await the sermon on the latest revelation from above (or below).
you have about 5 seconds more to wait...
In reality a well organised defensive line receiving a charge would always have an advantage over most attackers - but GW will never play it that way.
Dr Luke killing Age of Sigmar, slice by little slice. You must be a high skill, low strength warrior of The Old World with your piercing blows to the horrow that is AoS
Happy Thanksgiving... turkey 😂
Dude, you seriously need a woman's touch in your apartment. That shit doesn't fly when you're pushing 40...
Other than that, great video 😉
Oh you haven't seen upstairs dude ;-)
I'm intrigued that a decisive break and flee and pursuit is no more likely if the combat was won by 1 point or by 8 points.
Two possibilities:
1. Fall Back in Good Order/Give Ground is punished in some way in certain circumstances, like when attacked from multiple angles, when pushed up against terrain, the board edge, or other units. This would bring back "decisiveness" and link it with positioning. Exiting!
2. None of the above is true and every unit has essentially gained glorified Stubborn... direct damage output will be the only sensible way to remove units. Very unexciting!
Yes I should have made more of the second point. Unless leadership is harder to boost or reroll (or gets reduced at certain thresholds like rallying) then we might not see a decisive charge where an enemy is.so.badly beaten than it's curtains. Which is part of the essential character of battle and indeed often key a moment of fantasy battles such as as the charge of the riders of Rohirrim at Minas Tirrith
@DrBlaxill I had another thought...
It would be a bit strange if units are equally likely to begin fleeing after a lost combat as they are from a simple Panic test...
I wonder if we might see different sorts of Panic in next week's reveal, with a marginal failure *not* causing fleeing.
It could be fairly sensible to have some sort of "Shaken" outcome that merely forfeits the unit's next turn.
In 3rd if you followed a pushed unit you got a +1 hit bonus this was the charge bonus of the edition. Also those pushed back lost spear/pike bonuses.
3rd edition remastered
3rd ed good, Age of Sigmar BAD!
+1 ini doesnt challenge the elves firststrike^^
I don't understand the need to slag ancient editions of AoS. There's room for all of us.
I think he’s playing the character of old hammer fans, who grumble like long beards at times haha. Gotta love em though, always have the coolest minis.
@@iggyrocksallExactly. Rage of Sigmar is (I hope, anyway) nowadays a form of ironic pastiche, to be performed fondly for comedic purposes. Old World will I hope mend those fences.
You are allowed to not like things. Some people don't want their models to have side cut shaved heads all the time, WoW pauldrons, and space marines in their fantasy game. AoS is a bit better now, but between the 1.0 art, no points, bring whatever you want, you can have multiples of named characters, rules based on how long your beard was, and measuring from the model instead of the base were all dumb decisions. AoS is forever tainted as the design by committee make as much money with as little artistic effort as possible game.
@@DrBlaxillwhy can’t we all just get along and finally turn on 40k the true arch nemesis.
@@iggyrocksall :-) I must admit, I would like to play modern 40k just to see what it is like. I have no idea. I have never actually played a game of 40k.
To Hit table is bad cuz there are no 6+ to hit. WS 2 peasant hit god of murder withWS 10 on 5+ for some stupid reason.
you're forgetting the to wound chart where some weapons can't even wound above a certain toughness
Well, i'mma adjust that a bit. 8th ed good, AoS bad.