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.

 Hellebore wrote:
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...

I'm okay with a somewhat conservative approach, depending on what else is going on. The friend who got me into Warhammer used to tell stories about when his Wood Elves could shoot into combat involving a T7 Treeman risk-free as their arrows couldn't hurt it.

 Hellebore wrote:
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...

8th sort of went back to the 5th edition profile so I think they'll keep doing that in TOW, ofc depends if it's gonna be 6/7/8 or 5/6/7 or something compeletly different, but if you paid attention in 8th, the also brought he Emperor Dragon type back to the game via the Storm of Magic supplement, bringing the profile up to 9/9. IMO too many dragons though... Personally I was pretty ok with the 8th Dragon Profiles, didn't like them adding the Emperor type as a separate profile, they could have just given the Star Dragons the upgrade option for wizard levels instead. They sorta did this with the War of the Beard campaign scenario in one of the latter White Dwarf issues, with just 1 optional wizard level.

Also for the roll-after-roll for significantly higher WS/BS/T thing... at least for the to-wound rolls, I think it's fine as-it since Dragons will probably keep their scaly skin (+X) rule anyway, so lower strength attacks will be covered.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Any guesses on what the next reveal will
Show? Entire tomb kings lineup?

TK is most likely, but I doubt the entire lineup since BRT had a long build-up to its reveal. We had already seem several Paladins on foot teases, as well as the Prophetess before their full reveal.
I will LMAO if they are revealing some piece of terrain next Sat tho...

Depending on the level of their scaly skin, but previous damage tables cut out after 3 pts higher than your strength.

So T7-10 would have been invulnerable. Certainly moving to everything can always be wounded on a 6+ would change that, but then you need to give big things stronger armour to offset that.

 Hellebore wrote:
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...

Honestly? I'm not confident they'll keep much of 6th ANYTHING at this point.

that is a tricky one, the more random charges are, the less they should matter
yet so far we have a wider spread of reliable charges for infantry and 8th Edition randomness for cavalry

so strike first on charge might be too much depending what else is there
like strike first in charge could be countered by "everyone can fight back" to take out the importance of the random dice roll, yet if damage scales too high charges are devastating either way (you strike back but your unit is still gone)

Do we know anything yet on the way the rules and army lists will be released?
Are we back to a huge core rulebook with extra army books? Or will GW do the old fashioned thing and put all the army lists in the back of the core rulebook?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Do we know anything yet on the way the rules and army lists will be released?
Are we back to a huge core rulebook with extra army books? Or will GW do the old fashioned thing and put all the army lists in the back of the core rulebook?

They said in previous previews they will release "core lists" for all existing armies similar to indexes at the release, then release books for various armies / campaigns in details. It's pretty clear we'll have a big rulebook at the start. They didn't seem to say the core lists will be in it (it would make the book too big anyway IMHO).

Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?

Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...

 Hellebore wrote:
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...

I’m expecting Charging Units Strike First, as that’s been WHFB since I can remember. Indeed, High Elves trumping that with Always Strikes First were the exception.

In terms of models? I think I may prefer the combined profiles first seen in End Times. Even the nastiest flying monster had a weak point of its rider. Of course that wasn’t itself an oversight but a design intent. Farting around atop a Dragon whilst not wearing much armour is risky, and I’m genuinely not bitter about the times my Dragon buggered off when its rider was killed (stupid Way Watchers. Stupid Killing Blow Arrows. Stupid Monster Reaction Test!). But I think the combined profiles might be a neater solution.

 lcmiracle wrote:
Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?

Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...

Pretty much makes Seer Council the most viable build. Certainly doesn't discourage it...

They could do charging as an initiative bonus - like 2x when charging.

Also, simultaneous attacking is good.

8th combined profiles is interesting but I kind of prefer separate. Would you combine war machines as well?

I think the 1-4 /5-6 to hit either is simple enough. But we'll see I suppose.

I'm just looking forward to dwarfs with runic construction rules again. That's my favourite part for my favourite army.

Cyel wrote:

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.

You're not wrong about what the problem is, but since GW wants fantastic elements in its fantasy game and heroes to feel impactful, it's a problem we should expect to persist.

It's specifically ranged flying characters that can exploit their small base size because of the unwieldy nature of regimental movement, as well as LOS and limitations of missile troops. Short of denying these characters the ability to fly, which would at least in the case of a Tzeentch sorcerer on disc be super unfluffy (probably others as well), you'll have to find mitigating elements elsewhere.

That doesn't mean you should abandon all restrictions for regimental blocks, but just off the top of my head you could for instance let a handful of soldiers walk into combat with a character that strays too close. They don't get a charge bonus, and leaving formation loses you some rank bonus on the main unit, but you could at least deter such characters from exploiting LOS restrictions unchallenged and possibly tie them up for a turn or two. Actually make dancing around an enemy unit a tactical option rather than the obvious correct choice it's been for as long as I played Fantasy.

 kodos wrote:
that is a tricky one, the more random charges are, the less they should matter
yet so far we have a wider spread of reliable charges for infantry and 8th Edition randomness for cavalry

so strike first on charge might be too much depending what else is there
like strike first in charge could be countered by "everyone can fight back" to take out the importance of the random dice roll, yet if damage scales too high charges are devastating either way (you strike back but your unit is still gone)

The article mentions counter charge as a (conditional) charge reaction, with no explanation what exactly it does. I could see a charge letting you strike first against units standing their ground, while losing that bonus against units that opt to counter charge.

Would be a bit of a trade-off. You guarantee that both units enter combat even if the charger rolls badly, but you dampen to blow to the charged unit (provided initiative doesn't still favor the charging unit).

the whole "strikes first" thing could easily be mitigated by going back to 3rd, you fought at the initiative step - but initiative was modified.

IIRC charging was a positive, a spear or a lance was a positive and there were a few other modifiers

in general higher initiative models would go first, but this could be altered tactically so squishy elven archers could be run down by lance equipped cavalry on the charge, but elven spearmen were much harder (as IIRC spears got an extra bonus v cavalry)

many of these bonuses were negated by going in from the side or rear so even elite troops could find themselves in trouble.


the game also had the "free hack", as a unit broke from combat (or chose to withdraw) the enemy got an extra round of combat where all hits hit automatically, but damage was rolled as usual.

heavy army elite troops caught by goblins? meah, withdraw and go do something else they likely won't hurt you. vice versa and the gobbos are in trouble - meant pinning a unit in combat required more than the cheapest unit you could find who would have a model or two left after the fight

also meant that good troops who got unlucky were very seldom cut down as they pulled back

the flip side was 3rd took a lot longer to play

 Geifer wrote:

The article mentions counter charge as a (conditional) charge reaction, with no explanation what exactly it does. I could see a charge letting you strike first against units standing their ground, while losing that bonus against units that opt to counter charge.

Would be a bit of a trade-off. You guarantee that both units enter combat even if the charger rolls badly, but you dampen to blow to the charged unit (provided initiative doesn't still favor the charging unit).

I think it'd be largely based on the Empire's detachment's Counter Charge special rule, in which, the counter-charging unit makes a out-of-sequence move against the charging unit after the charging unit successfully charged the regimental unit. The charging unit does not get to make a charge reaction against the counter-charge. Both the charging and the counter charging units have the same rules and bonuses of charged applied -- in 8th that means in this engagement both sides gets +1 to having charged this turn.

 lcmiracle wrote:
Speaking of 6th edition, what about that Intrigue at Court special rule for High Elves wher their army generals are selected at random?

Getting your general to be an LD8 Mage instead of your LD10 Noble would suck pretty hard...

I think the problem is that it feels unfair when certain armies have these potentially very negative special rules - while others operate like clockwork.
Its also potentially hard to balance effects that may happen in some games - but won't in others. Should for example say High Elves be somehow cheaper (either collectively, or just the characters) because they may be stuck with a LD8 Mage as their general? But what about the times when they get the LD10 Noble?

To a degree you can say "its a dice game, random stuff happens" - but still.

I had an O&G army (mainly goblins) and by picking these units, had a huge number of such rules. Animosity, Stupidity, terrible leadership in general, fanatics doing random movement, squig hoppers going a random distance, war machines and wizards who were all happy to blow up etc. The complete inverse of "animosity sucks, I'm instantly taking a Black Orc as my general."
This army was very fun to play in a relatively soft setting. Sometimes things worked well - and sometimes I managed to kill significant more of my own army than my opponent. Which was fine because we could both laugh about it. Going to a more competitive game against someone who's thinking "this isn't funny, I'm just going to destroy you" would tend to be frustrating.

I'm not sure how you'd resolve those contradictions.

Had, indeed still have and hope to use again, an O&G army that played that way. and yes got frustrating when it was up against yet another min/max Empire gunline with someone who considered "Battleline" to be the only scenario possible and invariably wanted some "comp" pack rules that were never well explained to be in full force

Once upon a time, I had a full, pre-plastic Savage Orc army.

It was bonkers, and a lot of fun. An exercise in vaguely organised anarchy and the fine art of herding cats.

I don’t want the anarchy to be removed. And I don’t want to see a Charge not allow me to strike first. So much of the skill of the game is organising combats to your own advantage. And that includes doing what I can to ensure I’m charging you, and not the other way around.

Remove that? Undead and Orc face an uphill struggle, as their diabolical Initiative value will see them striking last most of the time anyway, giving me precious little incentive to, y’know, bother charging you in the first place.

 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 understand what you say and I partially agree. But I don't think it's fun that a small unit that moves double than your big infant block can block in one direction your big infantry black because they're are 1 inch from your flank. Imagine an army saying hey I can't turn because we have someone on the side but we can't charge him because it's on my side and not on my front.
Maybe the half distance is too much but maybe a couple of inches side charge without any bonus at all?

From what I've seen, most WHFB players like that games are decided through maneuvering and not through who can build an omnipotent deathstar that takes no skill to drive tho.

Problem of strike first in charges is that it made initiative stat kinda irrelevant, since most of the crucial battles depend on the charges in older editions. Battles that last on more than one round weren't that many (usually involving unbreakable / stubborn units...well at least, if heavy weapons that always strike last aren't involved), and fight by iniative was thus not really happening that often. That's why in V8, they use initiative as the main rule to know who strike first. Sure put a lot of troops in disappointing situations, especially compared to stupidly high initiative fighters (elves even without their strike first special rule), but at least the stat felt like it mattered more than in older editions.

That's also why they removed initiative completely from the stats in AoS and use a system of alternating choosing which unit to fight in the battle phase. There was simply no need to use a separate stat for that.

As for TOW, we'll see what GW decides to choose.

I think charging letting you strike first is reasonable - but it has to be tamed by rules like step up.

Initiative is alive and well in HH, I'm sure it will exist in ToW.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Initiative is alive and well in HH, I'm sure it will exist in ToW.

Yeah, but in HH, charge doesn't allow you to strike first : it gives you more attacks. So initiative has very much a point.

key is you allow and use initiative, but provide modifiers to it when charging, when using long reach weapons on the charge etc so that in general a unit charging in a prepared way will strike prior to the unit it has charged, but such that a well drilled, prepared and suitably equipped enemy may manage to stand

also when multiple units charge provide a bonus to both, if a unit is hit in the flanks remove many of its bonuses - you hit nasty elite units hard, after stripping flank protection

 lord_blackfang wrote:
From what I've seen, most WHFB players like that games are decided through maneuvering and not through who can build an omnipotent deathstar that takes no skill to drive tho.

Pretty much this. Indeed, Deathstars actively harmed the game, because they so dramatically shifted how you played. Especially with 8th Ed introducing “if I have more ranks, I don’t suffer break test modifiers”.

That lead to utterly ridiculous situations, like a huge blob of Skaven Slaves being all but unbreakable, because a low cost champion could lead from the back (preventing me singling him out), boosting the base leadership, for it to be further boosted by the Skaven adding their rank bonus to said Ld. Have the BSB handy and your re-rolling.

It was cheap, it was nasty. Didn’t matter I could run over a dozen or more with Chariots, or attacked with a fairly chunky regiment. Skaven Slaves were so dirt cheap, they came in ridiculous ranks.

But Doc, why do it a charge? Well. I wouldn’t. Not if I could reasonably avoid it. Except, my opponent has this pesky thing called a movement phase too. And Skaven were faster moving than most.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:
Problem of strike first in charges is that it made initiative stat kinda irrelevant, since most of the crucial battles depend on the charges in older editions. Battles that last on more than one round weren't that many (usually involving unbreakable / stubborn units...well at least, if heavy weapons that always strike last aren't involved), and fight by iniative was thus not really happening that often. That's why in V8, they use initiative as the main rule to know who strike first. Sure put a lot of troops in disappointing situations, especially compared to stupidly high initiative fighters (elves even without their strike first special rule), but at least the stat felt like it mattered more than in older editions.

That's also why they removed initiative completely from the stats in AoS and use a system of alternating choosing which unit to fight in the battle phase. There was simply no need to use a separate stat for that.

As for TOW, we'll see what GW decides to choose.

I disagree. Chargers Strike First is incentive to be making, not receiving, the charge. Which in turn incentivises good play and clever manouvering.

Especially for slow I troops (Zombies, Skellingtons, Orcs, Stunties), take that away and….why ever bother charging? For high I stuff (Elves and upwards) the same applies. If I’m going first anyway, where’s my incentive for controlling the flow of the battle?

Charge Strikes First is essential to the game.

leopard wrote:
key is you allow and use initiative, but provide modifiers to it when charging, when using long reach weapons on the charge etc so that in general a unit charging in a prepared way will strike prior to the unit it has charged, but such that a well drilled, prepared and suitably equipped enemy may manage to stand

also when multiple units charge provide a bonus to both, if a unit is hit in the flanks remove many of its bonuses - you hit nasty elite units hard, after stripping flank protection

The problem is, in the world of random charges such interesting maneuvers as a multiple charge are too much of a gamble. Even with 2 charging units having 80% chance of connecting, one third of the time only one will make it would into combat and probably die without the support of the other.

I expect good players who are not going to count on lucky 2/3 chances to lean more into dependable anvil death stars than (un)coordinated assaults. And, as MadDok is saying, it's not going to make the game any better.

Tyel wrote:
I think charging letting you strike first is reasonable - but it has to be tamed by rules like step up.

This I agree with.

In earlier editions of WHFB, combat casualties reduced the number of models eligible to fight.

So, if two units of equal frontage are in combat? We’d be say, 5 on 5. I strike first, and I cause 4 casualties. Those are removed from your rearmost rank(s) reducing your rank bonus. But, it also meant you counted as having 4 fewer models eligible to fight. The exceptions being unit champions and attached Characters.

But, and for the life of me I can’t remember when, “Step Up” was introduced, which meant whilst I still reduced your overall rank bonus, I could no longer deny you your full attacks, as it’s presumed those in the following ranks stepped forward, and so could fight.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I disagree. Chargers Strike First is incentive to be making, not receiving, the charge. Which in turn incentivises good play and clever manouvering.

Especially for slow I troops (Zombies, Skellingtons, Orcs, Stunties), take that away and….why ever bother charging? For high I stuff (Elves and upwards) the same applies. If I’m going first anyway, where’s my incentive for controlling the flow of the battle?

Charge Strikes First is essential to the game.

Because the combination of WS being a low value/influence stat and negating the value of Initiative isn't compatible with Elves being a high cost army, which is why GW had such huge issues trying to write good/balanced army books (particularly for the High variety).

Yes, I am wondering how GW will solve the Elf Infantry Dilemma this time.

Possibly by using the new HH WS table? Ie hitting on 5+ immediately if you're one pip worse.