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.

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 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...

Oh, wow. I forgot all about that rule. What a weird choice for that book.

That was one of the best rules GW ever wrote. Watching people seeth over it was often times the only fun to be had when playing a High elves player.

All I saw was a shrug and pretty much every High Elf list becoming 4 Mages, 3 10-man Archers, 4 Bolt Throwers, and fill the rest to taste, usually cav or chariots. I think I was the only HE player in either of my groups running a Prince and a BSB during that time. I was certainly the only person running 3 20-man Spearmen blocks at every game...

kenofyork wrote:
A 2 handed weapon decreased your initiative while a long weapon increased it in the 1st round.

Which is odd, because most 2-handed weapons are quite long. A longsword is longer than an arming sword of the type typically used with a shield. A pollaxe is longer than a battle axe. And then you get to pike....

 Vulcan wrote:

kenofyork wrote:
A 2 handed weapon decreased your initiative while a long weapon increased it in the 1st round.

Which is odd, because most 2-handed weapons are quite long. A longsword is longer than an arming sword of the type typically used with a shield. A pollaxe is longer than a battle axe. And then you get to pike....

The 2-handed weapons in fantasy include: giant two-handed axes, giant two-handed hammers, giant two-handed clubs, giant two-handed swords etc. They were envisioned as being heavy and unwieldy (questionable on the zweihandler part but the point stands). The mental imagine is someone raising the weapon over and back the head, before forcefully overcoming the sheer downward weight of the weapon to swing it up and then downwards. Think of it as having a wind-up motion before attacking. Hell, even IRL historical two-handed sword techniques involves a lot of whirling of the blades due to their length.


Poleaxes, halberds, bills, etc., in comparison, are generally longer than Zweihandlers and uses simpler swinging motions most of the time, so one can envision their reach gives them advantage to hitting first against heavier two-handed weapons. The "heavier" image is also the reason why they get the +1 strength and therefore -1 to armour saves.

Long swords, arming swords, hand-and-a-half swords, on the other hands, are used in one hand and their wind-ups are much faster (since compared to the Zweihander, swinging them can be as quick as the twisting of the wrist, whereas the other has to raise both arms), but due to length they must get into hitting range of both two-handers and pole weapons' range to in order to attack.

Then you have spears, usually significantly longer than even polearms, and their attacks are majority quick thrusting attacks, capable of out-ranging all other weapons except even longer spears (Pikes) or missile weapons. Everyone else will get the poke long before their own weapons can touch the opponent's flesh.

Thus it makes sense the order should be quick-long-pokes > slower-shorter-swings > quick-short-pokey-swings > slow shorter swings.

Compare this to 3rd edition, two-handers gets -1 to initiative due to being "cumbersome", -1 to saving throw, +1 to strength, whereas Halberds got +1 strength, in addition, +1 initiative against cavalry. spears +2 I and an addition +1 I against cavalry. Pikes gets +3 I and additional +3 I against cavalry.

those are things the game defined it in a way to work withing the game
it has nothing to do with reality, same as horses give +1 armour

making 2 handed weapons "realistic" they would not have strike last or less Initiative but rather impossible to be used in close order and units with such weapons would be skirmish formation only
(so the downside of doing more damage would be never getting any passive bonus)

leopard wrote:
and so far we have seen how units are organised and how they move and it more or less fits, the new march column (which seems a more or less direct read in from Black Powder and similar) makes sense and may perhaps lead into longer games to allow movement to matter

It does look like something out of a Napoleonic wargame.
I can see where that comes from considering Jervis' involvement in Napoleonic wargames as well as the influence of the Napoleonic period on wargaming in general (it's the period wargaming started with).
It seems very strange in a quasi-late medieval to Renaissance period wargame and even stranger for goblins to be worrying about.

there are certainly signs so far that some of the older edition flavour is coming back, but also some more modern solutions to some of the problems of earlier editions with the changes to charge distances so they are not 100% sure things but also not something you are going to usually be doing on the second turn.

it feels like this should be more than "pile forward and six dice a super spell" (ala 8th) and more than "who gets the charge roll on turn 2" (8th again) while removing the "I can stop you ever charging me while I can always charge you" (7th and earlier) stuff

It does look like GW is taking a sensible approach IMO.
A game that captures "the feel" of Warhammer, but benefits from improved game design is the way to go. We'll see how well they do it.

GW seem to be cautious with how much they are investing. Reusing old kits where possible and the like.
That's less than Warhammer deserves, but sensible buisness practice.

 DarkBlack wrote:

leopard wrote:
and so far we have seen how units are organised and how they move and it more or less fits, the new march column (which seems a more or less direct read in from Black Powder and similar) makes sense and may perhaps lead into longer games to allow movement to matter

It does look like

GW seem to be cautious with how much they are investing. Reusing old kits where possible and the like.
That's less than Warhammer deserves, but sensible buisness practice.

Old kits released initially as the foam coming out of the champagne bottle when popped is part of the initial appeal I feel.

I'll buy some old stuff probably.

I also like the few rules we've seen so far.

Hope army comp is fairly structured for predictable matchups in tournaments, not just 'take 1 hero and max 3 duplicates of whatever'.

 Just Tony wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 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...

Oh, wow. I forgot all about that rule. What a weird choice for that book.

That was one of the best rules GW ever wrote. Watching people seeth over it was often times the only fun to be had when playing a High elves player.

All I saw was a shrug and pretty much every High Elf list becoming 4 Mages, 3 10-man Archers, 4 Bolt Throwers, and fill the rest to taste, usually cav or chariots. I think I was the only HE player in either of my groups running a Prince and a BSB during that time. I was certainly the only person running 3 20-man Spearmen blocks at every game...

I remember our main HE player ranting about being forced into those types of magic heavy, ranged heavy lists due to Intrigue at Court. He was playing in some rather high end regional leagues against some of the top competative players and you either went all-in on magic or magic heavy+cavalry heavy. My retro-6th ed HE army is a nice mix of magic, shooting, cavalry and infantry that I feel is effective, but I don't think it would have held up at the high level they played at.

The 7th ed book dropped Intrigue at Court, I highly doubt we'll see it return for ToW

Like many rules of its era, Intrigue at Court was a fun and fluffy rule. It just wasn't balanced.

Here's hoping Orcs and Goblins don't have to deal with animosity.

Why? Part of O&G’s uniqueness no?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Like many rules of its era, Intrigue at Court was a fun and fluffy rule. It just wasn't balanced.

Here's hoping Orcs and Goblins don't have to deal with animosity.

I want animosity to go back to 3rd edition, not the latter day "this unit now does nothing" or taking whatever they end up calling "Mortal Wounds" in this (you know that gak is coming). have the units actually fight each other

 nathan2004 wrote:
Why? Part of O&G’s uniqueness no?

Some people hate dice in dice games. Ideally for them everything works always so they can numbei crunch game before it's even started.

If you're throwing out something like intrigue at court, a relatively minor army affect (outside the general's aura bubble it doesn't matter), but claiming that animosity should stay which is a whole army affect, then I'm not sure what logic is being applied.


It is much harder to balance animosity than it is to balance intrigue at court.

So either the game is not using rules with deliberate downsides for armies or it is. But protecting one army from a downside and enforcing them on another doesn't seem particularly fair.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Like many rules of its era, Intrigue at Court was a fun and fluffy rule. It just wasn't balanced.

Here's hoping Orcs and Goblins don't have to deal with animosity.

Balance is not meant to be fun. It's only meant to be balanced.

That's why when GW stopped doing these "unbalanced rules" in the corresponding armies, they felt dull to the players who knew them.

I'm indeed interested to see GW's take on orcs and goblins armies in TOW. Animosity in Battle could be frustrating for sure, but boy was it always giving results that made someone laugh in every of my games with them at some point.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Why? Part of O&G’s uniqueness no?

A defining aspect of them no less.

The poorly disciplined barbarian horde who could hit like a ton of bricks, if you could just get them moving toward the same goal.

There is a balance to be struck however. Memory fails me on its various incarnations though.

Oh I don’t disagree at all a balance needs to be struck but some of the most fun I had playing warhammer was against O&G players and the wonky things their armies would do. Very good memories those games.

what my cousins and I found with orcs in six edition was that the balance for animosity was there points cost, your average orc boy or savage orc boy unit is way cheaper then thier stats and as such you can take multiple units of them to make up for the fact that some are not doing anything on a given turn.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Oh I don’t disagree at all a balance needs to be struck but some of the most fun I had playing warhammer was against O&G players and the wonky things their armies would do. Very good memories those games.

Well yea, you would would have fun when your opponent's army is (mostly) hindering itself, wouldn't you? Wonder how much fun the O&G players were having? (based on 99% of the ones I've seen discuss the topic, not a whole lot)

Animosity was a classic rule. I hope they don't get rid of it.

 lcmiracle wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

kenofyork wrote:
A 2 handed weapon decreased your initiative while a long weapon increased it in the 1st round.

Which is odd, because most 2-handed weapons are quite long. A longsword is longer than an arming sword of the type typically used with a shield. A pollaxe is longer than a battle axe. And then you get to pike....

The 2-handed weapons in fantasy include: giant two-handed axes, giant two-handed hammers, giant two-handed clubs, giant two-handed swords etc. They were envisioned as being heavy and unwieldy (questionable on the zweihandler part but the point stands). The mental imagine is someone raising the weapon over and back the head, before forcefully overcoming the sheer downward weight of the weapon to swing it up and then downwards. Think of it as having a wind-up motion before attacking. Hell, even IRL historical two-handed sword techniques involves a lot of whirling of the blades due to their length.

Spoiler:

Poleaxes, halberds, bills, etc., in comparison, are generally longer than Zweihandlers and uses simpler swinging motions most of the time, so one can envision their reach gives them advantage to hitting first against heavier two-handed weapons. The "heavier" image is also the reason why they get the +1 strength and therefore -1 to armour saves.

Long swords, arming swords, hand-and-a-half swords, on the other hands, are used in one hand and their wind-ups are much faster (since compared to the Zweihander, swinging them can be as quick as the twisting of the wrist, whereas the other has to raise both arms), but due to length they must get into hitting range of both two-handers and pole weapons' range to in order to attack.

Then you have spears, usually significantly longer than even polearms, and their attacks are majority quick thrusting attacks, capable of out-ranging all other weapons except even longer spears (Pikes) or missile weapons. Everyone else will get the poke long before their own weapons can touch the opponent's flesh.

Thus it makes sense the order should be quick-long-pokes > slower-shorter-swings > quick-short-pokey-swings > slow shorter swings.

Compare this to 3rd edition, two-handers gets -1 to initiative due to being "cumbersome", -1 to saving throw, +1 to strength, whereas Halberds got +1 strength, in addition, +1 initiative against cavalry. spears +2 I and an addition +1 I against cavalry. Pikes gets +3 I and additional +3 I against cavalry.

Not my experience in HEMA, but I suppose for game balance purposes we have to accept some... silliness.

Wayniac wrote:
Animosity was a classic rule. I hope they don't get rid of it.

People really like it. When I was making the rules for orcs in my system, I assumed people didn't like it but boy was I wrong!

Apparently an integral element of the army list, to be left out at one's peril.

Okay, who is deleting my posts? I've seen two go so far that didn't come close to violating board rules. What is going on here?!?!?!

leopard wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Like many rules of its era, Intrigue at Court was a fun and fluffy rule. It just wasn't balanced.

Here's hoping Orcs and Goblins don't have to deal with animosity.

I want animosity to go back to 3rd edition, not the latter day "this unit now does nothing" or taking whatever they end up calling "Mortal Wounds" in this (you know that gak is coming). have the units actually fight each other

Ugh. Mortal Wounds. You've given me another nonstarter strike to look out for if I ever get addled enough for someone to convince me to suddenly like random charges...

tneva82 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Why? Part of O&G’s uniqueness no?

Some people hate dice in dice games. Ideally for them everything works always so they can numbei crunch game before it's even started.

Do you hate literally EVERYTHING about gaming? I ask because all you do is complain. NONSTOP.


And maybe the issue is that there CAN be such a thing as too much random.

Rihgu wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Oh I don’t disagree at all a balance needs to be struck but some of the most fun I had playing warhammer was against O&G players and the wonky things their armies would do. Very good memories those games.

Well yea, you would would have fun when your opponent's army is (mostly) hindering itself, wouldn't you? Wonder how much fun the O&G players were having? (based on 99% of the ones I've seen discuss the topic, not a whole lot)

Hello. I'm a long time Orc and Goblin player, and I've had fun with the animosity rules ever since I started using the army in 6th. Please don't attempt to speak for everyone.

I play O&G too. Animosity is hilarious. Removing it would be a bad move. If anything I want more results on the animosity chart and I'd like to have the orc and goblin specific miscast table and the "size matters" chart too

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Animosity was a classic rule. I hope they don't get rid of it.

People really like it. When I was making the rules for orcs in my system, I assumed people didn't like it but boy was I wrong!

Apparently an integral element of the army list, to be left out at one's peril.

The thing GW used to be really good at back in the day and that has largely evaporated from the main games now is that you got tangible variety between armies, both in play style and the presence or absence of random effects to reflect the faction's background. The great thing about it, verisimilitude aside which I found to be an important aspect for drawing players into their chosen army, is that with enough variety you offer something for everyone. If you want to math out your game before it even starts, you get your predictable armies. Other armies provide something to those who bought into the wackiness of a faction's fluff. In my opinion it's to the games' detriment that 10th ed 40k (and its more recent predecessors, too) and AoS gave dropped such flavorful rules in pursuit of balance at the cost of any other consideration. It cuts out a part of the customer base who is simply no longer catered to.

It's understandable why this happens. This stuff is really hard to balance and you'll see the crowd who is into predictability become very vocal when they lose a perfectly planned game to a random effect. They don't want it in their army for obvious reasons, but not in the enemy army either because it still has an effect on them during the game. It's a shame to see as far as I'm concerned, but hardly surprising. Which is why I really hope that GW goes hard after the nostalgia money with The Old World. The game might actually retain all these fun little rules if the designers have enough incentive to stay away from mindlessly modernizing the game for the competitive crowd.

I will say I'm a little wary after GW revealed the absence of the magic phase. The magic phase was where wizards went kablooey and you'd better believe that I want my fireworks. There's no strict need for catastrophic failure to be tied to a specific phase, but traditionally making magic and psychic powers an ability used in other phases hasn't resulted in particularly interesting or meaningful perils rules. Remains to be seen how it all shapes out, of course.

 lurch wrote:
what my cousins and I found with orcs in six edition was that the balance for animosity was there points cost, your average orc boy or savage orc boy unit is way cheaper then thier stats and as such you can take multiple units of them to make up for the fact that some are not doing anything on a given turn.

Exactly this; without Animosity, O&G were far too cheap and it was a core balancing feature of the list.
I will say that I hope they find a middle ground with streamlining it. The two roll system (roll once to see if you’re affected then another to see how) was cumbersome and the one-die system (one D6 roll says if you’re affected and how) was too swingy. Maybe a single 2D6 table?

Animosity was a rule for O&G armies for as long as I can remember, it is pretty much a staple of the faction. I very much doubt it will be gone - but probably changed in some way.

As it was, I remember people having mostly two issues with it. One being the only faction rule with no real benefit, the other that it really screwed with the factions balance. Both of them are valid in my opinion, but Animosity was still integral to the armies character. You could mitigate it by army composition, or embrace it - but you could not ignore it. I just wish we get an update that every now and then gives an affected unit a tangible boost.

 Geifer wrote:
I will say I'm a little wary after GW revealed the absence of the magic phase. The magic phase was where wizards went kablooey and you'd better believe that I want my fireworks. There's no strict need for catastrophic failure to be tied to a specific phase, but traditionally making magic and psychic powers an ability used in other phases hasn't resulted in particularly interesting or meaningful perils rules. Remains to be seen how it all shapes out, of course.

You could be right, but the point at which perils happen is not necessarily tied to magic being restricted to its own phase.

O&G players had fun with Animosity (and other stuff like Fanatics wiping out their own battle line) because O&G attracted players who were only in it for the fun and spectacle of the game*. I have also always had fun facing them because they were jovial people, but the army was gak. It was the sole army book always excluded from codex creep and the exception to the rule that tourney top 10s always without fail consisted entirely of the most recent 3-4 books.

(*contrast with HE crying over Intrigue)

 lord_blackfang wrote:
O&G players had fun with Animosity (and other stuff like Fanatics wiping out their own battle line) because O&G attracted players who were only in it for the fun and spectacle of the game*. I have also always had fun facing them because they were jovial people, but the army was gak. It was the sole army book always excluded from codex creep and the exception to the rule that tourney top 10s always without fail consisted entirely of the most recent 3-4 books.

(*contrast with HE crying over Intrigue)

For one this.

Otoh, i think there should be ways to migitate it and there were, cue blackorks? NVM that black orks also were cool models.

Far more annoying even though thematic was the whole" must always challange" chaos champion rules since it didn't stipulate a level at which such challanges could be accepted downwards on your opponent.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

(*contrast with HE crying over Intrigue)

Animosity was a key part of O&G for years. Intrigue at Court was introduced in 6th out of nowhere and removed in 7th. I'm all for rules defining and informing playstyle, but Intrigue was at best a random fluke that made no sense at the time, and makes even less sense in hindsight. It's a relic best buried, point in fact because it WAS buried. In 7th.

 Kalamadea wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

(*contrast with HE crying over Intrigue)

Animosity was a key part of O&G for years. Intrigue at Court was introduced in 6th out of nowhere and removed in 7th. I'm all for rules defining and informing playstyle, but Intrigue was at best a random fluke that made no sense at the time, and makes even less sense in hindsight. It's a relic best buried, point in fact because it WAS buried. In 7th.

It was perfectly fine in representing the lore it wanted to represent, but yes, it was forced out of nowhere on players who didn't get into their army for the fun of watching it randomly hobble itself. Hence O&G players being a breed apart, but their acceptance of their rules doesn't mean the rules were good.

 Kalamadea wrote:
Animosity was a key part of O&G for years. Intrigue at Court was introduced in 6th out of nowhere and removed in 7th. I'm all for rules defining and informing playstyle, but Intrigue was at best a random fluke that made no sense at the time, and makes even less sense in hindsight. It's a relic best buried, point in fact because it WAS buried. In 7th.

Yeah. I mean if High Elves were defined as this extremely political faction - and this was somehow represented all the way through the list - that might make some sense.

Off the top of my head, say every regiment had to have a champion, and you rolled on table to determine they were a martial paragon (more WS and A or something) - or some fresh noble who'd never been in battle before (less WS and A etc). Tracking it might be a bit tedious and some would hate the randomness of it - but it would feel like more of a thing. I'm sure there could be other mechanics somehow.

People would know what they were getting into.

Instead of "roll at the start, if you roll badly, your little mage may be your general, sucks to be you I guess?" There's no upside or roleplay to it. You can't really embrace it.