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.

I do like seeing the big formations, so would love to see soft restricted on size rather than too hard.

I was thinking if you put a restriction on unit width, so adding to a unit always was ranks for the most part.
Then could use the front arc measuring from the back corner to front corner and out.
Big units lose there charge and shooting arc and options, small units on the flank have much bigger ones.
Ranged units can be wider to accommodate it as well.
I think also making sure hero hammer is much less, with heroes being much closer to the units they are in. So you see a lot less huge units that exist just to keep a hero alive though everything.
It’s fine if the centre units grind more and the main game plays out on the flanks I feel.

Sarouan wrote:
Yes, for some specific infantry formations like light infantry / skirmishers, it's fine. Not whole armies only made of them all the time, it then looks silly. You don't see historic games made only of blocks of 10-15, because that would be silly and not representative of the historic battles. That is the point.

this is the point I have too disagree as the small model formations are much more representative for historical battles, they just don't look as good

"historically", a company being 50 soldiers wide and 2 soldiers deep is not good represented by square bases

a napoleonic french battalion, with 6 bases 40x15mm and 12 models in total, is much more representative and realistic for the historical battle than anything else
given a 45x40mm base with 6 models per looks better, but it is way too deep to be representative

hence for those were representation of historical battles is more important than how good a unit by itself looks, single model lines for company bases is very common, and a napoleonic battalion of 4 bases with 4 models each a "standard" (usually with 1/72 models to get more units on the table)

masses of 28mm models in one unit is not very common, simple because units become too deep and you don't have enough space on the table
outside of small scaled games (like a single brigade on the table) or mass-skirmish games, this is not really a thing

the point is, it looks silly but it is representative, were those units that don't look silly are not (or use 6mm or smaller models)

 kodos wrote:
for grand strategic games it does not really matter if it is 28mm or 15/10mm

if there are 24 models in a unit that represents 500 soldiers, or 80 models does not make a big difference
neither looks like 500 soldiers, both take the same space on the table and painting is not easier (just different)

it is simply just why what you are used to or not
hence the 16 model minimum unit in Warhammer 6th was still good as a "regiment" and the armies looked impressive

going with larger units always made it look less impressive on the "army" scale for me (hence I neither liked the gameplay nor the look of 8th Edition)

It makes huge diffence. 6mm armies with same foot print looks more impressive, easier to painj and cheaper.

And abstracted model count makes no sense when rules aren't abstracted in same way

Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

You can get away with painting less detail and still look impressive next to a full force, especially in a age of Contrast paints.

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

Small scale minis are deceptively easy to paint:
1. Prime white
2. Apply contrast
3. 1 highlight per colour
4. Base
5. Bask in the spectacle of your massive, display-tier Chapter/Regiment/Legion etc.

In 4th, 5th and 6th, blocks of 10 to 12 archer/missile troops and blocks of 20 foot troops worked great. Heavy Cav in blocks of 5 to 10 were ideal as they could compete with the bigger blocks of foot soldiers. Light cav and skirmishers were disposable and did not matter how big of units they were in (although units of 10 skirmishers/scouts and 5 light cav seemed to be the ideal size). To be honest, only Skaven and Goblins worked better in the larger sizes at that time.

The reason this worked is that these units were small enough that the player could maneuver the units on the battle field, charge and counter charge and strategy played a major role. This goes away when you field lots of larger units. Do not get me wrong, i do have a 30man, and a 40 man units Pikes and a 35 man unit of Bodyguard, but i have those for much larger games since they do not work in the standard 2150 point Tournament army.

The focus of The Old World needs to be balance and not blindly selling models. Units of twenty plastics and 5 Cav fit very well on a store shelf lets focus the game around that.

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

6mm tends to be a lot easier to paint than WFB minis and a lot quicker. You can of course go to town with paint jobs, but you can get away with the most simplistic stuff at 6mm and it still looks amazing.

6mm doesn't photograph as nicely though which is why there are some really talented 6mm painters out there, but the stuff rarely shows up in the wider wargaming hobby.

It is certainly a different experience than painting 28mm though and its not for everyone.I've done some 6mm scale WFB and if I didn't enjoy building and painting 28mm stuff so much, I'd have sold all my 28mm years ago and stuck with 6mm fantasy.

 RexHavoc wrote:

6mm doesn't photograph as nicely though which is why there are some really talented 6mm painters out there, but the stuff rarely shows up in the wider wargaming hobby.

I've been watching this guy apply his tyranid colour scheme to Epic.

https://instagram.com/ryans_minis?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

Small scale minis are deceptively easy to paint:
1. Prime white
2. Apply contrast
3. 1 highlight per colour
4. Base
5. Bask in the spectacle of your massive, display-tier Chapter/Regiment/Legion etc.

and how is this different from speed painting 28mm models?

except that 3 steps are enough in most cases (prime, apply wahs/ink/contrast, base)

 Vulcan wrote:
Yeah, there needs to be some sort of 'move into combat' to prevent such shenanigans, instead of the obsession with always charging forward

I always thought the easiest way would be to allow any unit to charge as it already could into contact, but also allow a "move into combat", using any movement allowed. this not counting as a charge for any charge bonuses, but the unit being contacted able to react as if they were being charged

point was two fold:

1. there is no no "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc
2. a unit large enough to be an actual threat isn't something you willingly blunder into, but a small skirmish unit or lone character can be managed by the bulk of the unit contacting them

would also add some sort of "zone of control" mechanic that many historical games have


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
Well, WFB ended for me with 7th. Random charges was the one single thing that made me drop the game.

I actually prefer random charges, however what we got was too random. something like "your normal movement plus 1d6" would have for me been better - consider it representing the guy ordering the charge not knowing the exact distance and it removes the "I am 0.1" outside your charge distance" stuff, while still reflecting the actual movement of the units (so faster units still charge further and can still use movement to good effect to maximise the chance of a charge while minimising the chance of being charged to the level the player is comfortable with).

the "everyone charges 2d6!" stuff was frankly just lazy and took away too much of the game into a pure dice roll. yes its a 2d6 roll so you can play the odds but at the end of the day its still a dice roll.

mind you I'd have also put in a minimum charge distance, can still charge below it but you don't get the charge bonuses as not enough space to build momentum up

I remember choosing 6th for my friend group because of the no random charges. I also heard it had decent balance.

Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

ANY game mechanics that allow the potential for Dwarfs to move faster than cavalry is a bad mechanic. Fixed charge moves still left plenty of room for players to drop the ball. It was never an issue in any of my games.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

ANY game mechanics that allow the potential for Dwarfs to move faster than cavalry is a bad mechanic. Fixed charge moves still left plenty of room for players to drop the ball. It was never an issue in any of my games.

In reality, cavlary have stalled, failed charges.

We never had any major problems with random charges. It certianly got rid of the issues with people who could "guess" distance to the mm....some could, some cheated.

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

ANY game mechanics that allow the potential for Dwarfs to move faster than cavalry is a bad mechanic. Fixed charge moves still left plenty of room for players to drop the ball. It was never an issue in any of my games.

In reality, cavlary have stalled, failed charges.

We never had any major problems with random charges. It certianly got rid of the issues with people who could "guess" distance to the mm....some could, some cheated.

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

Other players learned just how many inches a piece of terrain was, or could simply look at their 5 ranks of 25mm base chaos warriors (equals 5 inches) and use eyesight to check distances with those as a reference frame.

While I think there is room for wacky guess the range rules for catapults, stone throwers and charges in a sort of retro 5th edition warhammer goofy style type of game, I dont think it is the right system for The Old World. Movement + 1d6 would be better charge rules, than 2d6 at least.

Random vs fixed charge debate is WELL established to be a matter of personal taste, I don't think we need that well trod ground here in a news thread...

 RustyNumber wrote:
Random vs fixed charge debate is WELL established to be a matter of personal taste, I don't think we need that well trod ground here in a news thread...

agree, its just two different ways of doing the same thing, both have advantages and disadvantages, there are games that do both ways well and make both ways work

 Mr Morden wrote:

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

I don't get this one personally . It's part of the tactics of a game with arcs and flanks - the possibility of being out manoeuvred. Other units set back to protect that area, skirmishers with 360 vision, or even just mobile shooting units could all deal with this and is all part of this type of game with restricted movement of units.

MaxT wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

I don't get this one personally . It's part of the tactics of a game with arcs and flanks - the possibility of being out manoeuvred. Other units set back to protect that area, skirmishers with 360 vision, or even just mobile shooting units could all deal with this and is all part of this type of game with restricted movement of units.

I just think its stupid that say a few enemy can just hang out right next to a mob of Orcs with impunity but that IMO

Kindly take the rest of that discussion to the other topic, thanks!

EDIT: Deleted for being off-subject for this thread.

guess part of it comes down to this, are you, the player meant to be using the army general as an avatar, or are you meant to be every single unit leader at the same time

as noted, its just different ways of playing, keep in mind though GW are of the opinion that more random == more good

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/01/40-years-of-warhammer-gotrek-and-felix-make-a-scene/

Warhammer community has another Fantasy post about their 40 year anniversary. This time about Felix and Gortrek. I heard a rumor theirs were the only novels selling at profit for whfb in the 2000s


"This dynamic duo debuted in the story Geheimnisnacht by William King – featured in the 1989 anthology Ignorant Armies – and went on to inspire and star in a long-running novel series that has pitted them against unimaginable horrors, terrifying tyrants, and lots and lots and LOTS of goblins"

With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

Johanxp wrote:
With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

You must be fun at parties

Maybe we'll better wait until we know what TOW is actually going to be before we proclaim the sky is falling again.

The G&F novels are real fun. Definitely the only Fantasy Novels from GW I bothered with.

Johanxp wrote:
With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

Not really interested in the game tbh - looking forward to more artwork and maybe some passable lore for the era - maybe some minis but maybe not

ToW will hopefully open a window to a new edition of Mordheim. At minimum it will provide fodder for it.

Dread Master wrote:
ToW will hopefully open a window to a new edition of Mordheim. At minimum it will provide fodder for it.

Please no I don't want a monopose Warcry version of Mordheim with a bunch of disney cartoon characters and 20 DLC books. The rules are free and you can change the rules you don't like.