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.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Apparently I was playing a very different game then because the notion that extra bodies in units did nothing more than provide a static CR bonus is pretty nonsensical to me. Even at a bare minimum it's extra wounds before you're eating into the potential for reducing that +3 CR 'ranks' result and that's only looking at bigger blocks of infantry.

The explanation Alessio gave as to why points per model was poor is because the value of a Chaos Warrior hitting people is substantially higher than the value of one standing around providing 20%of a single point of static CR, at at the very least it would be a better reflection to price for additional ranks rather than additional models.

 Baragash wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Apparently I was playing a very different game then because the notion that extra bodies in units did nothing more than provide a static CR bonus is pretty nonsensical to me. Even at a bare minimum it's extra wounds before you're eating into the potential for reducing that +3 CR 'ranks' result and that's only looking at bigger blocks of infantry.

The explanation Alessio gave as to why points per model was poor is because the value of a Chaos Warrior hitting people is substantially higher than the value of one standing around providing 20%of a single point of static CR, at at the very least it would be a better reflection to price for additional ranks rather than additional models.

Sure but, to an extent you can bake that into the actual points and it's somewhat reflected in the respective unit sizes. I push back on the argument that those extra models are just providing additional static CR, particularly at the more elite unit end of the spectrum. If anything I'd hope TOW is going to err more towards the lower model count end of the scale anyway (more 4th/5th Edition then 8th...) and the diminishing returns of sinking points into big footprint units is more pronounced.

I'd also argue that there could be a more holistic response; actual scenario objectives and victory mechanics in WHF could certainly have offered more variety in order to give a better representation of unit 'value' over just how good they were at killing things.

we have/had such calculations, with the minimum amount of models for a unit cost a certain price which is higher than the per model price for models added after that

making the per model points go down the larger the unit gets

AoS had that during 2.0. One problem with it is that it greatly encourages you to take full unit blocks and makes them more and more efficient the bigger they get.

This isn't bad in itself because it allows big infantry blocks to be viable. The downside though is that it can push out middle-weight and elite unit blocks in favour of simply flooding the board with cheaper core infantry.

It's very difficult to balance units of fewer number into a system where taking all or nothing is basically encouraged and where big infantry blocks just get better and better the more points you put into them.


It closes down the viability of smaller elements on the table.



Of course in typical GW fashion they solved this by going a bit overboard against big infantry blocks in 3rd edition by both removing the discount for taking more models per unit and also by removing the ability to take more than 2 full units at 2K points through the reinforcement point system. Which in itself wasn't a bad idea, but I feel was a heavy hand across all armies when forces should vary. Elite Stormcast armies should have had fewer reinforcement points compared to armies like Skaven who should have had more for their chaff-like skaven.

But that's all drilling down into more complexity - the upshot is that units that get cheaper per model, as they get bigger, heavily encourages big units

In R&F being a large unit is a big disadvantage which is not present that way in AoS because there are no LOS or movement restrictions

Bigger being more point efficient but also harder to get those points working

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Can't see them doing that in the slightest for TOW. Fully expecting the 'classic' points and some manner of force organization chart. 10th Edition 40K game philosophy choice may well be a thing but this isn't the same studio.

Like "Lords cannot exceed 25% of your force, Heroes cannot exceed 50% of your force, special units cannot exceed 50% of your force, and rare units cannot exceed more than 25% of your force. You must include 1 core unit per 1,000 points."

8th wasn't a terrible ruleset. There are things that should be tweaked like steadfast, magic that effects entire units taking characteristic tests or dying (while basic stats being 2-3 so you'd lose 50-67% of the unit), and an overall balancing of the game. WHFB had sharp tiers vs what current AOS is balanced to.

a killy R&F unit should be high cost per model, yes the ones behind are not contributing to the fight directly - thats then a player choice, have those extra bodies for the static CR, or rely on the performance of the ones at the front for direct CR.

making the rear bodies cheaper doesn't work, especially as you then have that on the crappy horde stuff which depends on static CR and all you do is put more models on the table


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also 8th amused me, yes there were "six dice this super spell!!" things, these were in effect a hard counter to a "deathstar" unit, if your force didn't depend upon a single brick such spells were dangerous but less of an issue, same with the scenarios, if you only ever played "battleline" I think it was called the game was quite different to if you played all six scenarios

I saw a lot of tournament packs that tried to limit the six dice magic, which yes is a bit crap but has its purpose, and then as a result had to stick a whole load more rules in to counter deathstars

the games I played with it out of the box so to speak went quite well, you could have the deathstar, but you placed a lot in the lap of lady luck doing it, or you could spread your points out a bit and do better more generally

e.g. the enemy has a deathstar and you don't have a super wizard, well it can be blocked, distracted, entertained with garbage if they only have the one block

a lot depended how you wanted it to go, only having to kill 100 points more than your enemy for a win helped, it was another counter to the deathstars, kill a support unit or two then avoid it

leopard wrote:
a killy R&F unit should be high cost per model, yes the ones behind are not contributing to the fight directly - thats then a player choice, have those extra bodies for the static CR, or rely on the performance of the ones at the front for direct CR.

making the rear bodies cheaper doesn't work, especially as you then have that on the crappy horde stuff which depends on static CR and all you do is put more models on the table

All of this depends on your combat system, how 'stepping up' works, if you can fight with back ranks, and how many, if 'static CR' is even a thing and how much it matters, and so on. Even then, you can use this as a design element and let e.g. 'horde' armies (or units) have decreasing costs for further ranks, while e.g. Speardudes have constant cost, or even increasing cost, and Elite units have increasing or even quadratic costs. Of course, you'd need to check such a system thoroughly and getting it right would be tricky.

 kodos wrote:
In R&F being a large unit is a big disadvantage which is not present that way in AoS because there are no LOS or movement restrictions

The truth is that such a statement is wrong, because it assumes it will be a disadvantage in all situations in game. Depending of the victory conditions, strategic positions, availability of the armies or even the terrain disposition, it can actually be an advantage in itself. For example, big units can block enemy passage in a crucial chokepoint with their big imprint on the battlefield, much easier than multiple smaller ones.

Which is a reason belief points solve everything in balance is fundamentally flawed, and people only looking at them for that matter are just fooling themselves. That's not how a wargame works.

When Kill Team came without points and just set warbands, these people were screaming about imbalance. But the reality of current Kill Team is that points aren't needed for balance. They just put another system based on a definite set of models to be used by all for "balance". And it actually works.

I don't expect TOW to come without points, by the way, since it's all about nostalgia and going back to the old days of Warhammer Battle. But thinking points in absolute is the grail of balanced wargames was already proved wrong so many times in the past. It's just a question of habit that they're used so often, that's all.

the main issue I had with WHFB from 3rd onwards when I started playing it was the requirement to charge into combat

for me it should have been possible to move into combat as well, at a cost of losing all charge bonuses/impact hits etc.

why?

because half the time the safest place to be was right next to an enemy unit, they couldn't charge you as you were not in front, and would block ranged fire at you from about a 180 degree arc.

where as in practice a few blokes would wander sideways and say "I have a very sharp bit of metal, would you like to see it?"

and yes I get the point on how you need to adjust the combat system around how you pick points - however I seldom saw a proper fightly unit actually lose a fight to chaff, even with the chaff CR considered - they just killed far too many for it to matter

what mattered then was steadfast meaning units seldom broke - if you had a choice, take the morale test on a characters leadership, with modifiers, or on the units unmodified leadership without modifiers I think it would have been better

would also have gone back to the "free hack" system, whereby a unit can withdraw from any combat, though its enemy gets a "free hack" - i.e. gets to make a single attack per model that automatically hits, resolve as normal

result being its a lot harder for chaff to tarpit an elite unit, say chaos knights trapped by skaven slaves, the knights can probably risk the strikes from the slaves not doing significant damage and so can pull back, potentially allowing another unit to block the slaves from going back in

thing is, as has been noted before there is a lot you could do to "fix" warhammer, but in so doing it stops being warhammer

I thought 8th worked pretty well, some of the army books needed a re-write and the various colours of magic needed adjusting so they were all more or less the same in utility

I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

 Altruizine wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
My first guess would be an Empire dude. GW showed a Tomb King and Bretonnian already. If they're going to drip feed us new models, I'd expect to see one of each of the core or whatever it was factions before a focus on a single faction.

Could go either way, of course. Not like we actually have much of a clue yet what GW is doing with The Old World.

Apart from that its at least a 2025 release?

Presumably the unit points system/faux power level system will be implemented, going by 40k 10th. Seemed like a game philosophy choice to me.

Does The Horus Heresy use faux power levels?

Nope, HH doesn't. Not only does it not use faux powerlevels but it actually iterated in pts cost even and is seemingly not affraid to go under the 5pts bracket either.

and HH has the idea that you buy a block of say ten marines, which will include a sergeant, for a set point value.

and can then add extra bodies, at a slight discount, then pay upgrades for the lot or model by model

also vehicle squadrons where the extra hulls cost less than the first

leopard wrote:
I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

I don't, this is the fantasy grognard game, it should be as detailed and fiddly as Necromunda or Heresy.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:
I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

I don't, this is the fantasy grognard game, it should be as detailed and fiddly as Necromunda or Heresy.

fully agree thats how it should be

however this is GW, the rules will be a "least possible effort" thing

leopard wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:
I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

I don't, this is the fantasy grognard game, it should be as detailed and fiddly as Necromunda or Heresy.

fully agree thats how it should be

however this is GW, the rules will be a "least possible effort" thing

The Old World is done by the Forge World/Specialist Games team, so at least there is something to be said for waiting until we actually see them screw things up before we worry about that stuff, regardless of how psychotic we think the 40k rules team is.

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:
In R&F being a large unit is a big disadvantage which is not present that way in AoS because there are no LOS or movement restrictions

The truth is that such a statement is wrong, because it assumes it will be a disadvantage in all situations in game. Depending of the victory conditions, strategic positions, availability of the armies or even the terrain disposition, it can actually be an advantage in itself. For example, big units can block enemy passage in a crucial chokepoint with their big imprint on the battlefield, much easier than multiple smaller ones.

Which is a reason belief points solve everything in balance is fundamentally flawed, and people only looking at them for that matter are just fooling themselves. That's not how a wargame works.

When Kill Team came without points and just set warbands, these people were screaming about imbalance. But the reality of current Kill Team is that points aren't needed for balance. They just put another system based on a definite set of models to be used by all for "balance". And it actually works.

I don't expect TOW to come without points, by the way, since it's all about nostalgia and going back to the old days of Warhammer Battle. But thinking points in absolute is the grail of balanced wargames was already proved wrong so many times in the past. It's just a question of habit that they're used so often, that's all.

No one is claiming points solve all balance issues. But you're ignoring the fact that by far the easiest and fairest way to play a pick up game with someone you don't necessarily know really well is to have a points limit. The more complex the options, the more complex the restrictions should be (e.g. limited "elite" units, better equipment costing more etc).

bobthe4th wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that by far the easiest and fairest way to play a pick up game with someone you don't necessarily know really well is to have a points limit.

That's actually not true, especially because it's not a fact at all. Points is simply a convention, but it's not a guarantee of balance at all. The actual easiest way is to use set units without having to bother building a list with points - like GW does with combat patrols in 10th edition. Buy a combat patrol box and play with it. Can't make it any simpler and easier than that, really. Very newcomer friendly as well.

As to be "fair"...it's so subjective it's not really a point in itself.

What is true is that we have people partisan of points system who are very vocal about how good it is and how a game without it is not worth it. They do spend a lot of energy in that, but that doesn't make it true (mostly, they're afraid of another system because they don't want to play without points). It's not about balance, it's about habits.

The more complex the options, the more complex the restrictions should be (e.g. limited "elite" units, better equipment costing more etc).

That only applies for competitive scene. For a "pick up" game, the more complex your restrictions are, the less appealing your game becomes to newcomers.


Here, with TOW...they already stated the point of this game is not to be appealing to the main market, but to this very niche core of Warhammer Battle fans. So it's not about efficiency or being newcomer friendly ; it's about nostalgia and keeping the veteran players in their comfort zone. So points will be here, I have no doubt.

What will be different with old Battle is the way GW uses nowadays tools to exploit data for "balance" (mostly tournaments) and having points updated given the results to keep abusively optimized armies to stop being so effective. So there's that. But GW knows very well what points are meant to be and what they are not. A different cost for "unit back ranks" will not happen, simply because on the opposite of KoW, Battle unit formations can be changed in game - and thus back rank "being useless" depend wildly from the formation and situation they are in. Their combat efficiency is not absolute in their stats alone.

Mathias Eliasson's WAP (Warhammer Army Project) - "9th Ed." has been contacted by GW and asked to remove all IP-protected art & text.

Initially posted on Facebook, here's a link to tga where the post was copied :

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/22826-the-rumour-thread/?&page=4236#comments

Could be an indicator that TOW might indeed release this year as rumored..

Old-Four-Arms wrote:
Mathias Eliasson's WAP (Warhammer Army Project) - "9th Ed." has been contacted by GW and asked to remove all IP-protected art & text.

Initially posted on Facebook, here's a link to tga where the post was copied :

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/22826-the-rumour-thread/?&page=4236#comments

Could be an indicator that TOW might indeed release this year as rumored..

Hardly a surprise (even to them). Do seem to be rumblings about an October/November release but given we don't know how much beyond the rules/lore is going to be 'new' in terms of physical releases, it's hard to gauge how viable that sounds (alongside the also heavily rumoured Epic reboot in some guise from the same team).

Maybe, but Fluffhammer was contacted 2019/2020 to remove all IP protected stuff and people thought this indicates a release soon

might be related, might be something else (like GW was not aware of the details of that project and only recently found out)

 kodos wrote:
Maybe, but Fluffhammer was contacted 2019/2020 to remove all IP protected stuff and people thought this indicates a release soon

might be related, might be something else (like GW was not aware of the details of that project and only recently found out)

Might just be the legal department completing their quota of 'things done this quarter' at the eleventh hour

don't remind me of that, there is enough on my desk that needs something until end of the week that I can get fully behind such things and would call it the most plausible reason

Old-Four-Arms wrote:
Mathias Eliasson's WAP (Warhammer Army Project) - "9th Ed." has been contacted by GW and asked to remove all IP-protected art & text.

Initially posted on Facebook, here's a link to tga where the post was copied :

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/22826-the-rumour-thread/?&page=4236#comments

Could be an indicator that TOW might indeed release this year as rumored..

If they first got around to doing that now, it probably means a september 2025 release, right?

This is not something you do 3 months before launch.

Judging by the single model they are going to present on saturday, I think we are 20 months at least from a release. If they have a game at all, and its not just vaporware. As I've said before, just a reprint of 6th starter box, digital army books and limited support would be fine by me. Or ditto for 7th or 8th. Or just whatever.

I've been paying a few WR and WAP games, and they are no worse than anything GW will release after years of tinkering with the promised Old World.

Cyel wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

You didn't play 8th edition, did you.

You're right. It introduced random charge ranges and I had no desire to play such game so 7th is the last one I've had experience with.

Kinda curious.

Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Apparently I was playing a very different game then because the notion that extra bodies in units did nothing more than provide a static CR bonus is pretty nonsensical to me. Even at a bare minimum it's extra wounds before you're eating into the potential for reducing that +3 CR 'ranks' result and that's only looking at bigger blocks of infantry.

The explanation Alessio gave as to why points per model was poor is because the value of a Chaos Warrior hitting people is substantially higher than the value of one standing around providing 20%of a single point of static CR, at at the very least it would be a better reflection to price for additional ranks rather than additional models.

That Chaos Warrior in the back has one more function beyond providing static CR. He is making sure anyone who dares charge the unit from behind will have a very, very bad day.

I made that mistake once, early on. Got a unit of CW surrounded and charged them on all sides. The CW trashed the small units on the flanks and rear so badly the accumulated ACR shattered the big block in front.

 Vulcan wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

You didn't play 8th edition, did you.

You're right. It introduced random charge ranges and I had no desire to play such game so 7th is the last one I've had experience with.

Kinda curious.

Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?

With wargames everyone has their own limit point on how much random is too much or what parts they want to be random. Sometimes a mechanic in isolation is totally fine, but when combined with others the collective experience can be a problem for some.

I don't think it helps that GW is always "shaking things up" between editions. Heck right now the 40K crowd are going nuts because it seems that GW has cut down upgrade parts drastically from what they've historically been for decades. Big changes like that don't mean that new version is any less fun nor tactical or challenging; its just different. For some they get used to it; some like it; some tolerate and for others its just a direction they didn't want the game to go in.


For some Strategy games are about devising a plan and putting it into motion against your opponent. They don't want random charge distances causing their plan to fail because it feels like the agency for choices in movement is being taken out of their hands. All their careful plan undone because of a dice roll.
For others they love it, it brings the chaos of the battlefield home for them and they like the additional concern that their unit could fail a certain charge because the dice roll bad.

 Vulcan wrote:


You didn't play 8th edition, did you.

You're right. It introduced random charge ranges and I had no desire to play such game so 7th is the last one I've had experience with.

Kinda curious.

Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?

Ah, the old "but in real life!" fallacy, one would think it's been properly put to sleep by now.

Do you think ever regular march was done at exactly the same range every time? Always in a direction exactly like the one planned? Was every shooting attack at exactly the same range regardless of minor variations in the wind?



You can find a real life excuse to make everything in such a game random. Life is pretty random after all. But for some reason designers don't. Why? Because just sitting there watching the dice being rolled and consulting random tables is a miserable experience that hardly deserves the name "game". Thus certain things are abstracted to offer an interesting intellectual challenge instead of randomapalooza that hardly shows who is the better player and makes better moves.

Do you complain about units in HoMM 3 always going a set number of spaces? What about armies in Imperial 2030 or A Game of Thrones? What about prices of properties in Monopoly? Why doesn't Great Western Trail properly represent the mechanisms of supply and demand if Power Grid or Brass do it?

Exactly as Overread mentions this abstraction can be applied to a different level in different titles. Randomness serves many important purposes in design - for example it evens the playing field between players of varying skill or experience or muddies the perception of imbalance and hides the differences between sloppily playtested options. Randomness is certainly to stay, but to varying degrees in different titles directed at different audiences (for example families who play with kids need heavy randomness not to make the kids lose every time).

Not happy with Brass or Arkwright being decided solely by players' decisions? You can play Monopoly. A Game of Thrones or Imperial too deterministic and player-driven for your taste? You can play Risk.

 Vulcan wrote:
Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?

and do you think full plate armour was ever worn in combination with a shield in medieval history?
or that cavalry came in units of 5 charging an infantry unit of 20 and fought until everyone was dead in all of medieval history?

given that the bloodiest battles in that time frame had something like ~30% casualties, the whole "remove single models" is even more stupid than fixed charge ranges, the same as a unit of 20 should be removed from the game as soon as they have 6-7 casualties

there are no random rolls for muddy ground, rain/snow or "too hot to move" in the game, so do you really think it was always the same weather during medieval history?

real life example to proof why one game mechanic is more realistic than another does not work, simply because this is a game and not a simulation it starts on the basic frame of the game not being realistic

Next somebody wants fixed ranges with pretension of no premeasure thinking its great tacticaj skill to effectively premeasure with number of tricks

Fixed ranges no premeasure leads to fixed result you can predict ahead of time. No need to even play.

No premeasure leads to same with half decent players who know how to premeasue without tape so only noobs gets crushed hard. No surprise no premeasure rule favoured by bad players who enjoy filling own ego by noob smashing

you should bring those arguments to the 40k board, how fixed ranges mean that there is no need to even play as the outcome can be predicted ahead of time

I guess there won't be much support for Bolters having 4D6 range instead of fixed 24

Yea, and I guess all these games that have hexes, spaces or other countable terriories are all for noobs of no strategic or tactical skill and their results are always a foregone conclusion;D