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.

 Vulcan wrote:

leopard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

leopard wrote:
the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"

as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.

point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight

likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"

If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.

decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged

Why on earth would a pike unit treat flanks same as front? Historically, pike blocks were even MORE vulnerable to flanking attacks than other infantry, simply because it was impossible for the 16' pikes to all raise, turn, and lower - and it has to be done nearly simultaneously or pikes get dropped and people DIE - in time to threaten a flanker.

That's why most early modern battles were decided by whose cavalry won the flank battle, and restrained from pursuing fleeing cavalry so they could turn and flank the pike blocks.

Meanwhile the swiss gwalthufe without either arty or cav.


But if gw implements pikes and estalia, alows squares and makes them decent ob the mechanical front then i'd drop my chaos warriors in an instant and join estalia. The urge to poke is strong.

All this flanking talk brings me back very very old memories when you had to guess distances charges and I destroyed my opponent army with an extremely accurate flank charge guess with my chaos knights... massacre! Not sure what edition it was.

 NAVARRO wrote:
All this flanking talk brings me back very very old memories when you had to guess distances charges and I destroyed my opponent army with an extremely accurate flank charge guess with my chaos knights... massacre! Not sure what edition it was.

Chaos knights were often a class for themselves, especially with lances.

Loving what I see so far: premeasurement + charges with limited randomness

leopard wrote:


point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight

There is another very easy partial solution to that: like in Warmaster and many other wargames, LoS is 180º full frontal (i.e. not 45º degree to each side from the front).

SU-152 wrote:
Loving what I see so far: premeasurement + charges with limited randomness

leopard wrote:


point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight

There is another very easy partial solution to that: like in Warmaster and many other wargames, LoS is 180º full frontal (i.e. not 45º degree to each side from the front).

Oh man, thats such a simple solution. Chefs kiss again.

I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.

LOS is 360. Someone in the rear is going to spot an enemy moving past and shout about it.

In 3rd edition, a unit could conduct maneuvers as part of the charge.

There were penalties and restrictions within 4" of the enemy. but you could do a right face, redress ranks, and charge.

If you failed a maneuver test or attempted one in close proximity during a charge your charging unit was unformed in the first round.

Being unformed meant a loss of all charge bonuses and if you lost the first round of combat you auto-break. Not a really good situation to be in but a risk worth taking in some situations.

There was no pre-measuring and the result of a failed charge was the unit making a double move and being unformed. Usually just short of the intended target.

3rd edition was my favorite in spite of the odd bits. I listened to an interview with Rick Priestly and he commented about that version and how he thought it was too complex. He seemed to have less of a roll in making 3rd edition than he did in later versions.

Darkial wrote:
I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.

Ooooh no! Nope nope nope!

The whole point of turning your flank is the reward given by the game mechanics. If I’ve manoeuvred cleverly, then you should be punished for not seeing it coming. Being deft with large, ponderous blocks of infantry is a huge part of the skill required for the game.

It would also make Fast Cavalry pretty crap. Typically you don’t see them in large units. They’re there to harass and distract, and if you’re lucky run over Artillery, Lone characters, or come in with a rear charge assist to really swing a combat. And of course, chase down already fleeing units if you’d prefer to maintain your overall battle line (pursing in isolation can lead to the victorious unit out of position with its own flanks exposed). Allowing big blocks to easily counter Fast Cavalry entirely defeats the point of Fast Cavalry.

Darkial wrote:
I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.

You had to overcharge, then move. Then you lost ground in the wheel, and by then you were trapped, if it was an infantry unit. In Cav charges, it was a tactic to overshoot the charge, then wheel into the enemy unit's flank. Two or more ranks it was a good deal. One, it was suicide.

Once again I agree with MDGrotsnik. I don't like such "solutions on a stick" like proposed sideward/backward charges. You got outflanked, suffer the consequences!

Good moves should be rewarded, bad moves should be punished with no artificially created "out of jail" cards to compensate for mistakes (that's why I really hated the Insane Courage rule when it was introduced in 7th)

I actually think that the more opportunities for making mistakes (and exploiting opponent's mistakes) the better the game (any game), as there are more instances when the difference between someone playing better and the one playing worse can manifest.

but steep learning curves are bad and cause new players to quit the game in frustration because experienced players take advantage of their mistakes and grind them into sand. /s

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Darkial wrote:
I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.

Ooooh no! Nope nope nope!

The whole point of turning your flank is the reward given by the game mechanics. If I’ve manoeuvred cleverly, then you should be punished for not seeing it coming. Being deft with large, ponderous blocks of infantry is a huge part of the skill required for the game.

It would also make Fast Cavalry pretty crap. Typically you don’t see them in large units. They’re there to harass and distract, and if you’re lucky run over Artillery, Lone characters, or come in with a rear charge assist to really swing a combat. And of course, chase down already fleeing units if you’d prefer to maintain your overall battle line (pursing in isolation can lead to the victorious unit out of position with its own flanks exposed). Allowing big blocks to easily counter Fast Cavalry entirely defeats the point of Fast Cavalry.

I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.

What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.

chaos0xomega wrote:
but steep learning curves are bad and cause new players to quit the game in frustration because experienced players take advantage of their mistakes and grind them into sand. /s

Honestly a huge huge amount of this depends not on the game but on the players and their attitudes. It also depends on the company too. If the rules are well presented and easily read and there are lots of official guides and tactical tips and such then even a complex game can be very popular.

The issues come when you've local player groups that are hyper competitive and not friendly; when there's a big generational gap between newbies and experienced (ergo no to little intermediate group) and when the parent company hasn't formatted the rules well and/or doesn't produce much guide material in addition.


GW gets around a few of them even if their writing isn't top rate. They could still fall down ,but the bonus is it would more likely be one game not many. Plus as they are targeting more experienced old-school players with this game they can likely accept that the players have played a wargame before and do know at least the basics.

 Vulcan wrote:

leopard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

leopard wrote:
the one rule I always thought WHFB needed was the ability to "move" into combat, not "charge" but "move"

as in any legal move that ended up in contact initiated combat. no charge bonuses, no charge reactions (and no march moves into it, just a normal move) - include shuffling sideways or to the rear.

point being all of a sudden standing next to the enemy is no longer 'safe', nor is sitting just out of arc, nor is sitting at silly angles. you get contacted, you fight

likewise "If I cannot conform to you, you conform to me, if thats not possible the units touch and only half of each front rank fights"

If pike units ever become a thing, like estalia, then i'd expect such a move to be reasonable to be implemented post haste.

decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged

Why on earth would a pike unit treat flanks same as front? Historically, pike blocks were even MORE vulnerable to flanking attacks than other infantry, simply because it was impossible for the 16' pikes to all raise, turn, and lower - and it has to be done nearly simultaneously or pikes get dropped and people DIE - in time to threaten a flanker.

That's why most early modern battles were decided by whose cavalry won the flank battle, and restrained from pursuing fleeing cavalry so they could turn and flank the pike blocks.

there certainly were pike units (think Swiss and a few others) who were trained to be able to present spikes to the flanks if required - wasn't the full force for a push of pike, but it was enough to keep cavalry away

leopard wrote:

there certainly were pike units (think Swiss and a few others) who were trained to be able to present spikes to the flanks if required - wasn't the full force for a push of pike, but it was enough to keep cavalry away

It's called 'form square', and yes, two or three ranks of pike face every direction. Not changing front to back or side at a moment's notice.

There would probably have to be a fairly high minimum unit size to make it useful. No point in having 'fight in three ranks' and you only have one or two facing that direction. It's an immobile formation as well, as there's no practical way to march sideways. Good for sitting on and defending an objective, not so good for advancing to take one.

Still, I wouldn't be upset if some sort of 'form square' mechanic was introduced into the game. The trick is doing it without making Dwarf Oathstone players feel they've been gypped out of something special.

wasn't forming square, this was really before infantry squares were fully developed

would be good to see more of that sort of thing in the game though, Ld test to do it quickly or without to take a turn

forming squares was much later

and the 360° pike formation was not very mobile, hence it was countered by light cavalry with guns doing hit and run attacks
which again was countered by using gun formations as main weapons and the pikes were just there to protect the flanks
forming squares came up with the bajonett, when gun and spear were combined and the gun formation was their own flank protection against cavalry

yet the point is, the units never did those things on their own or was it ever possible to do it as an emergency solution
if the opponent was in charge range, it was too late to start changing formation and it was always ordered from the commanders and never done by the soldiers on their own

hence it is on the player to change the formation to face the biggest threat and not on the game to add fail safe mechanics for not getting outplayed

leopard wrote:

decently done pike units would be nice, not easy to move about but in effect counting the sides as "front" if charged

Sorry, what?
That's not how pike formations worked at all.
Historical pike formations were very strong to the front, but had exceptionally vulnerable on the flanks.

That sounds more like a war wagon.

 kodos wrote:
forming squares was much later

and the 360° pike formation was not very mobile, hence it was countered by light cavalry with guns doing hit and run attacks
which again was countered by using gun formations as main weapons and the pikes were just there to protect the flanks
forming squares came up with the bajonett, when gun and spear were combined and the gun formation was their own flank protection against cavalry

yet the point is, the units never did those things on their own or was it ever possible to do it as an emergency solution
if the opponent was in charge range, it was too late to start changing formation and it was always ordered from the commanders and never done by the soldiers on their own

hence it is on the player to change the formation to face the biggest threat and not on the game to add fail safe mechanics for not getting outplayed

but should at least be possible. make positioning matter, make protecting flanks matter. in effect make "I six dice this!" no longer the key to winning and make a lot of the nastier cavalry a bit harder to control once it starts moving - there are a lot of historical games that get all this sort of thing right that could quite easily be drawn from here

 Geifer wrote:
I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.

What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.

This would be my issue. I'm not sure how anyone can be under the illusion that this is skilful.

Tyel wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.

What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.

This would be my issue. I'm not sure how anyone can be under the illusion that this is skilful.

I dont disagree here but I think you identify the problematic thing wrong. The problem is the fast and maneuverable single character having too much freedom of movement coupled with disproportionate impact on a unit, not the unit being unable to charge backwards.

I think the rule of thumb in such asymmetric game design should be that the ease of use of a game element should be in inverse proportion to its power.

The next person who drags this thread off topic is getting a month off from the site, I am sick to the back teeth of it. Seriously, Stop it.

-

leopard wrote:

But should at least be possible. make positioning matter, make protecting flanks matter. in effect make "I six dice this!" no longer the key to winning and make a lot of the nastier cavalry a bit harder to control once it starts moving - there are a lot of historical games that get all this sort of thing right that could quite easily be drawn from here

I would also prefer that, but it's not the aim here.

The main take away from (especially) the most recent article, for me, is:
Warhammer the Old World will be like playing WHFB as it had been. It can't be exactly like all the editions at once, but it looks like it will have the same general feel and mindset.
GW looks to be playing it safe and giving the fans of Warhammer what they want.
How well they're doing that is another matter that I am not in a position to comment on because I am not a nostalgic Warhammer veteran or fan.

These movement rules (and hero phase rules) look like a lot of rules, fussing about and keeping track of details with questionable impact on the game or the experience of playing it.
It put me off Warhammer back in the day and it will put me off The Old World.

That doesn't make The Old World bad or wrong though just not the game for me (again), which makes my preferences irrelevant.
I will be playing other games with less fussing about (the names of which are off topic) while the people who actually want this thing and will (hopefully) enjoy it.

I think from what they have published so far its a bit like Horus Heresy, take an older version of the rules and evolve them a bit while keeping the same feeling. I'm hopeful that as with HH they get the mix about right

blocks moving and wheeling was always a key part of how the rank & file stuff worked, it worked better with four models wide than five models wide.

the new march column I think also is a good idea so long as changing formation doesn't take an entire turn except for garbage quality troops when frankly it should as they really should not be as flexible as well drilled troops.

if they fix the worst of 8th, while taking the best of earlier I think it could be a worthwhile game, the signs so far is at least those behind it appear to actually want it to be a good game

 Geifer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Darkial wrote:
I actually thought that something like "you can charge to the flanks half of the distance and to the rear a quarter of the distance" could help some of the weird tactics of blocking a big unit with a small light cavalry unit.

Ooooh no! Nope nope nope!

The whole point of turning your flank is the reward given by the game mechanics. If I’ve manoeuvred cleverly, then you should be punished for not seeing it coming. Being deft with large, ponderous blocks of infantry is a huge part of the skill required for the game.

It would also make Fast Cavalry pretty crap. Typically you don’t see them in large units. They’re there to harass and distract, and if you’re lucky run over Artillery, Lone characters, or come in with a rear charge assist to really swing a combat. And of course, chase down already fleeing units if you’d prefer to maintain your overall battle line (pursing in isolation can lead to the victorious unit out of position with its own flanks exposed). Allowing big blocks to easily counter Fast Cavalry entirely defeats the point of Fast Cavalry.

I remember vividly exactly how clever I felt when I placed my flying, entirely free to move as he pleases Liche Priest an inch behind an enemy block and the soldiers in the back rank couldn't so much as fart his way while he blasted them with magic missiles. Truly, I let that tactical brilliance nurture me to this day.

What makes some sense against conventional units turns into a complete farce when it involves units that can just ignore restrictions like that. This is something that should be addressed. There's nothing clever about playing an entirely different game than anybody else.

Yet with Fly, he’d have been able to do that from…pretty much any position, range of his Magic Missile allowing. At least if memory serves, him being there wouldn’t have prevented that unit from Marching. And being on his Jack Jones, he’s not exactly in a particularly safe position. Against my Dark Elves? I can send Harpies after him, maybe a unit of Shades or Dark Riders. Or just pick him off with ranged units, because a lone character, especially a squishy caster is a nice wee target, regardless of the additional -1 to hit. Just two wounds and that’s him dealt with, and a decent slice of VP’s in my piggy bank.

It’s also a super niche occurrence, given single infantry models that could Fly were rare, and indeed required a Magic Item. Unless they were a Vampire. And you’re still paying points for that character model, more so if they’re a caster, with all the risks of me deciding “okay dokey skip, 20 Repeater Crossbow Bolts coming right up!”

And that’s been Warhammer ever since I’ve been playing (4th Ed). You let enemies get behind your lines, and they’ve outplayed you. If I’ve not allowed for any countermeasure to units marauding behind my lines? That’s entirely on me. If I have? Thanks for the VPs and sacrificing one of your precious character slots. Both treats are much appreciated.

 ingtaer wrote:
The next person who drags this thread off topic is getting a month off from the site, I am sick to the back teeth of it. Seriously, Stop it.

If you're going to bring out the big red font and start threatening time-out, can you actually tell us which of the like five distinct topics on the past two pages is/are considered off-topic?

Otherwise I don't know what you really expect here.

Historic usage of pike formations and "You should play KoW" are both OT for this thread.

Any guesses on what the next reveal will
Show? Entire tomb kings lineup?

Who thinks the charging strikes first rule will be there?


Also, I would love to see the 5th ed era of dragon profiles. As much as I liked the 6th ed design philosophy, they were really conservative on profiles.

Pretty much nothing was greater than T6 - war machines excepted of course.

Having the 6/4+ etc to wound capability would allow for greater Toughness values.

So you don't have carnosaurs with T5, the same as the oldblood riding it...