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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Saber wrote:
A number of these rules are from Warhammer Ancient Battles, the historical ruleset penned by Jervis and the Perry twins. Most notably Marching Columns, Counter-Charge and Fall Back in Good Order (FBiGO or "Fuh-bee-go" as we used to say).

I wonder if there will be other elements WAB incorporated into TOW. In particular, WAB had rule called "Drilled" that allowed well-trained troops to change formations quickly and even disengage from combat. Cavalry could also disengage when fighting infantry. Those would be good additions.

Can you weigh in a bit more? Only there are some blanks in GW’s missives I’m hoping you might offer clarification on.

For instance, FBiGO. If I pressed my attack, was there a further round there and then, and if I drove you back off a charge, did I still count as charging in that subsequent round?

My memory is a bit hazy, so take this with a grain of salt.

For FBiGO it was a full fall back move: i.e. 2d6" for infantry, etc. If the enemy pursued and caught you, it was counted as new combat and the pursuers counted a charging. FBiGO was especially important for Romans who got a strength bonus from their pilum on the first round of combat, whether charged or charging.

Giving Ground was when you lost combat and broke, but outnumbered the enemy 2:1. You made a d6" move (or 2d6" for cavalry), and the enemy moved his standard M score in inches. If he caught you combat continued, with neither side counting as charging.

 Hellebore wrote:

But a horde of crap vs a smaller unit should be grinding them down with size and weight. This rule literally ignores the size of the unit and its ability to rout an enemy by outnumbering it, because the bonuses have no effect on the chance to rout.

The horde of crap will still be winning every round of combat through static CR tho won't it, pushing the elite back and getting free charges until they eventually roll a natural rout.

The rules seem like they have had pretty decent thought behind them.

There's been decent solutions to random charges, how initiative works and how combat resolution doesn't just result in charge -> flee

I have faith in that people that have identified these things are capable of understanding that cheap troops won't just be routing through CR any more and will come up with something to address it.

There is still a lot of information missing (not least points) which could drastically change things. But from the information given so far, it seems like life will be tough for some units.

Let’s take a look at the example of the article: Trolls vs Swordmasters

The Trolls manage to cross the field (over multiple turns and through arrows, bolts and fireballs) and charge the Swordmasters, despite stupidity and random charge distance.
Now they get hit by the Swordmasters first, even though the Trolls charged and the Swordmasters wield great weapons.
Being big regenerating brutes, the Trolls still win by a moderate amount, break the Swordmasters and manage to catch them during pursuit.
But wait! Instead of routing those pesky elves, the Trolls merrly get to fight the Swordmasters in another round of combat as they failed their break test but still managed to roll below their Ld.
Well, at least the Trolls count as charging! However, they still get hit first by the Swordmasters wielding great weapons…

There seem to be a lot of things that need to turn out just the right way, to make the Trolls viable.
Will be interesting to see how they convince Orc&Goblin players to not just load up on artillery and magic which probaly would have destroyed the Swordmasters before the Trolls could even reach them.

However, let’s not jump to conclusions, TOW could still turn out great in the end!

Ah yes. One unit vs unit comparison and other unit obviously is worthless against everything.

There's always hard counter for every unit. Doh. If you cherry pick worst option to go against of course the other unit is going to suck.

Rock. Meet paper. Have fun.

Seelenhaendler wrote:
There is still a lot of information missing (not least points) which could drastically change things. But from the information given so far, it seems like life will be tough for some units.

Let’s take a look at the example of the article: Trolls vs Swordmasters

It seems a bit weird for the example to be Trolls beating the Swordmasters and then discuss whether that makes Trolls non-viable...

The bigger question I think would be something like Boar Boys (still initiative 2?) who might strike second - but would lose a bunch of relatively expensive bodies before getting to go. Which was always the problem in 8th.
But then if charging gave you +3 initiative, so effectively initiative 5, its only going to be things like Swordmasters that are an issue - and you could just point these units at other things.

My concern is more that FBiGO could have really random effects. I mean is there a cap on how many new combats you can be in? Depending on how far you fall back in good order, units could be zooming 20" forward/back across the table, and fighting 3 times etc.

Seelenhaendler wrote:
There is still a lot of information missing (not least points) which could drastically change things. But from the information given so far, it seems like life will be tough for some units.

Let’s take a look at the example of the article: Trolls vs Swordmasters

The Trolls manage to cross the field (over multiple turns and through arrows, bolts and fireballs) and charge the Swordmasters, despite stupidity and random charge distance.
Now they get hit by the Swordmasters first, even though the Trolls charged and the Swordmasters wield great weapons.
Being big regenerating brutes, the Trolls still win by a moderate amount, break the Swordmasters and manage to catch them during pursuit.
But wait! Instead of routing those pesky elves, the Trolls merrly get to fight the Swordmasters in another round of combat as they failed their break test but still managed to roll below their Ld.
Well, at least the Trolls count as charging! However, they still get hit first by the Swordmasters wielding great weapons…

There seem to be a lot of things that need to turn out just the right way, to make the Trolls viable.
Will be interesting to see how they convince Orc&Goblin players to not just load up on artillery and magic which probaly would have destroyed the Swordmasters before the Trolls could even reach them.

However, let’s not jump to conclusions, TOW could still turn out great in the end!

We have zero idea how Fear works. I could be like 4th-7th, where they autobreak if they outnumber and win, or like 8th where of the unit fails it drops to WS1... which makes those Swordmasters a lot less punchy as even against WS3 they are now needing 5+ to hit.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. One unit vs unit comparison and other unit obviously is worthless against everything.

There's always hard counter for every unit. Doh. If you cherry pick worst option to go against of course the other unit is going to suck.

Rock. Meet paper. Have fun.

Lol, what!?

As I said, I picked the example given in the article, so no cherry picking.
Yeah, I am aware that they gave this example to specifically show that charging units not necessarily get to strike first, even against opponents wielding great weapons.
However, apart from striking last, all the other points made are the same versus virtually any unit that is not destroyed on the charge.
So, my point still stands that it is looking tough for some close combat unit, at least from what we know so far.

As for your point on viewing two units in isolation:
That is true, but there is not much that would help the Trolls to improve the outcome.
While on the other hand, a Great Eagle on the HE side to march block or redirect the Trolls would be a cheap and very effective addition to the HE army.

Except we don't know the rules for the swordsmen, the trolls, the HE army, the O&G army or a full picture of the core rules. Not to mention points.

Seelenhaendler wrote:
The Trolls manage to cross the field (over multiple turns and through arrows, bolts and fireballs) and charge the Swordmasters, despite stupidity and random charge distance.
!

This is not the case. Charges are most likely T2 as it always was and if Trolls are anything like the former editions they are terrible targets for small arms and petty ranged magic.

Their weakness is lack of Ranks and low Ld/Stupidity.

@ Tyel: Striking first or not is not the point I was trying to make. The problem I see is that cc units, in particular infantry, have a hard enough time to get into combat, break their opponents and catch them during pursuit. The FBiGO result makes this chain of events even harder.

@ stonehorse:
In the article, there is no malus for the Swordmasters due to fear of the Trolls given. Just the basic -3 due to the combat result.

This could change with more information, however.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:Except we don't know the rules for the swordsmen, the trolls, the HE army, the O&G army or a full picture of the core rules. Not to mention points.

Did you even read my post?
It literally starts with:
„ There is still a lot of information missing (not least points) which could drastically change things. But from the information given so far, it seems like life will be tough for some units.“

Scactha wrote:

Seelenhaendler wrote:
The Trolls manage to cross the field (over multiple turns and through arrows, bolts and fireballs) and charge the Swordmasters, despite stupidity and random charge distance.
!

This is not the case. Charges are most likely T2 as it always was and if Trolls are anything like the former editions they are terrible targets for small arms and petty ranged magic.

Their weakness is lack of Ranks and low Ld/Stupidity.

Trolls were T4 with AS6+ (maybe 5+ in 8th?) at best, basically as tough as an orc.
In addition, they had Regeneration 4+. However, this was circumvented by flaming attacks, e.g. of fireballs.
Due to the high point cost and low model count, Trolls were usually a high value target even for small arms and fireballs.

Also, with M6 you only get into cc turn 2 if your opponent wants you to, in particular with stupidity/animosity being a factor as well.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

But a horde of crap vs a smaller unit should be grinding them down with size and weight. This rule literally ignores the size of the unit and its ability to rout an enemy by outnumbering it, because the bonuses have no effect on the chance to rout.

The horde of crap will still be winning every round of combat through static CR tho won't it, pushing the elite back and getting free charges until they eventually roll a natural rout.

Assuming that isn't negated by opposing casualty count - high ld tends to be attached to competent combat units. Prolonged drawn out combats makes the crap highly vulnerable to flank charges and being ganged up on, when previously they would have potentially wiped the unit out by then and not been so vulnerable.

And given combat is initiative order and most crappy horde units have historically had low initiative, unless the charge bonus is massive they will still be striking last, so they are not necessarily relying on cr to do anything.

If its +2 then undead and goblins will be striking before dwarfs but still after elves.

I am unconvinced that reducing routs and increasing kiss chasy games of slow attriton are going to make the game more interesting.

I am also unconvinced that 10 man units of elves facing down 40 man units of goblins should be as unconcerned about breaking and fleeing as 5 elves vs 1 goblin.


As it stands, this rule buffs high ld armies massively and debuffs low ld armies massively. If it did one of those it would be ok, but both is too much.

So far I am loving everything about this new version. I am an old player having started in 2nd edition.

If you are worried about elite units never breaking, it will happen more often than you expect. I hope they bring back the rule making every unit immune to break test until it has taken 25% casualties. That really gives the chunky regiments some help.

In order for a unit to fall back it has to have some place to go. That means no enemy units blocking the move. And eventually the edge of the table will become an issue if falling back 2D6 or whatever. You may never break the dwarves, but you can force them to retire from the field.

Again, you're forcing crappy units to spend 3x as many turns to achieve an outcome they could have gotten in 1 previously. All the while the elite units are slaughtering away like nothing changed.

This rule and the charge rule are certainly making my dwarfs look great.

But the knock on effect of losing decisive routing will be far reaching

I think making battles more of a back and forth thing will be good, elite units still have the edge, less likely to be screwed over by a bad round of dice.

it remains to be seen if there is a mechanism to stop "muh infinite goblins" blocks where even a strong unit flat out can't kill them all in a game, but even then a decent unit should be able to tie them up and take them out of the game

I'm willing to give it a go, I have a mix of goblin & peasant garbage as well as faster harder hitting stuff like knights.

looks now like those smaller harder hitting units will need a bit more care in picking targets

Seelenhaendler wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:Except we don't know the rules for the swordsmen, the trolls, the HE army, the O&G army or a full picture of the core rules. Not to mention points.

Did you even read my post?
It literally starts with:
„ There is still a lot of information missing (not least points) which could drastically change things. But from the information given so far, it seems like life will be tough for some units.“

I did. Did you read that? Because you seem to have ignored your own disclaimer and then claimed life could be tough for Trolls when the only thing we know about them is that they strike after Swordmasters when they charge.

We know very broad strokes and can infer likely effects from that.

We don't know how the games designers have then accommodated those changes in other rules and points costs.

Hopefully we see nice big point increases for high Ld armies and we can see # of required models for units and armies in general fall. I think most of us would like to see 10 or 20 men units return as a common sight.

leopard wrote:
I think making battles more of a back and forth thing will be good, elite units still have the edge, less likely to be screwed over by a bad round of dice.

It very much seems that the design goal is to establish a back and forth so both players actually get to play the game, unlike previously when dictating charges allowed you to basically play the game without your opponent's participation. I think of that as a positive change, provided it works out that way.

 Geifer wrote:

leopard wrote:
I think making battles more of a back and forth thing will be good, elite units still have the edge, less likely to be screwed over by a bad round of dice.

It very much seems that the design goal is to establish a back and forth so both players actually get to play the game, unlike previously when dictating charges allowed you to basically play the game without your opponent's participation. I think of that as a positive change, provided it works out that way.

basically yes, otherwise frankly they may as well drop the "individual models" things and have units wipe other units with only a few dice rolls as thats basically where it ends up - of course that can be quicker and allow for larger games so advantages either way - given how long some units take to paint having them last more than a turn while they die horribly is a plus here

sort of, the individual goblins may not agree but its a hard life being a goblin

Seelenhaendler wrote:
@ Tyel: Striking first or not is not the point I was trying to make. The problem I see is that cc units, in particular infantry, have a hard enough time to get into combat, break their opponents and catch them during pursuit. The FBiGO result makes this chain of events even harder.

It reduces the chance that you charge, fight one round of combat, win by 1 and proceed to break and destroy the unit.
The FBiGO result means they have a chance to get away - or you get back into combat and fight again. Which unless you just got lucky the first time, probably means you win combat again so they may once again face running away.

But this applies to both sides. Sure you can take a bunch of archers, war machines and mages. But how are they coping when a line of Swordmasters charges them?

Clearly GW could write rules (and points) so gunlines are the way to go. But I'm not seeing why this rule alone would be the reason why.

I think the bigger issue (which may be limited by rules not mentioned) is weird results. I.E. my block charges your block. I fluff the dice and lose combat, I FBiGO 2D6 back (a guess). You pursue and connect. We fight again. Same result. I'm another 2D6 back. You pursue and we fight again. This time however I roll better and win. You FBiGO back 2D6 and I pursue etc. Effectively our units are tap dancing up and down the board while everyone else watches on.

Maybe a bit contrived - but from the article I don't see why that couldn't happen.

 Hellebore wrote:
Again, you're forcing crappy units to spend 3x as many turns to achieve an outcome they could have gotten in 1 previously. All the while the elite units are slaughtering away like nothing changed.

This rule and the charge rule are certainly making my dwarfs look great.

But the knock on effect of losing decisive routing will be far reaching

Shock horror elite units actually being useful and order of day isn't melee hero doing kills leading cheap chaff that does job of expenslve elite just as well for cheaper like before.

Also you act like elites wouldn't be overnumbered big time. Unit front and side and see how far you hold.

Really glad to see those mechanics from warmaster added to ToW.

Very hyped!

Am I just misreading or can someone point to me where if you fbigo and the victor chooses to follow, where does it say you fight another combat immediately. Is there a chance you fight it next round and count as charging? Again not arguing just not seeing where it calls out multiple combats in a turn if you fbigo.

Vorian wrote:
I think most of us would like to see 10 or 20 men units return as a common sight.

Personally, no. Tiny 6th ed sized units makes the "army" seem anemic and like a lord is just taking his personal retainers on a stroll.

Suspect now we have proper initiative order fighting that there will be various modifiers, e.g.

+1 if the unit charged
+1 if the defending unit has spears and is charged this turn (+2 if charged by cavalry)
+1 if the charging unit is mounted and has spears v infantry
+3 if the charging unit has lances v infantry
+1 if the defending unit is behind an obstacle
+1 if the defending unit stood ground to receive the charge (i.e. no stand & shoot or attempt to reform)
+1 if attacking in the flank
+3 if attacking in the rear

etc. plenty of tactical options which could stack

 nathan2004 wrote:
Am I just misreading or can someone point to me where if you fbigo and the victor chooses to follow, where does it say you fight another combat immediately. Is there a chance you fight it next round and count as charging? Again not arguing just not seeing where it calls out multiple combats in a turn if you fbigo.

"Pursue a unit that flees or falls back. If you catch a fleeing unit, it’s cut down and destroyed. If you catch a unit falling back, combat begins again and the pursuer counts as having charged".

That's as much as we have now, I think

^ Thank you, I read that as if you caught a unit in the process already of falling back (which sometimes happened in 8th) they wouldn't be destroyed immediately like in 8th but rather a new combat would begin with that unit that was already in flight. Not continual fights for units that fbigo but I could be wrong obviously. Imagine if it's pertaining to fbigo, there would be some cap on the number of fights right? Did the old rules have a cap?

 Platuan4th wrote:

Vorian wrote:
I think most of us would like to see 10 or 20 men units return as a common sight.

Personally, no. Tiny 6th ed sized units makes the "army" seem anemic and like a lord is just taking his personal retainers on a stroll.

TBF you can play at a higher points level if you want more models. If the game's rules force high model counts, you can't really do anything.

 nathan2004 wrote:
^ Thank you, I read that as if you caught a unit in the process already of falling back (which sometimes happened in 8th) they wouldn't be destroyed immediately like in 8th but rather a new combat would begin with that unit that was already in flight. Not continual fights for units that fbigo but I could be wrong obviously. Imagine if it's pertaining to fbigo, there would be some cap on the number of fights right? Did the old rules have a cap?

I think that's just a concern that's been voiced in reaction to the vague article because fighting more than once a turn has been a rule in Fantasy before. For now I don't think we have evidence that it's also a rule in The Old World (nor that it isn't).

 nathan2004 wrote:
^ Thank you, I read that as if you caught a unit in the process already of falling back (which sometimes happened in 8th) they wouldn't be destroyed immediately like in 8th but rather a new combat would begin with that unit that was already in flight. Not continual fights for units that fbigo but I could be wrong obviously. Imagine if it's pertaining to fbigo, there would be some cap on the number of fights right? Did the old rules have a cap?

I think it's pretty safe to assume it's taking about the falling back that's discussed in the article.

You could keep pursuing in warmaster, but the whole game works differently so it isn't just a case of porting the Warmaster bit over into the old world. Could be a limit, you could keep going - it's just guesswork until they tell us

Yeah, the rules themselves are frequently, let's say "ambiguous". Trying to infer the rules from a fluff article is even more ambiguouser.