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.

 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.

I respect your view, but disagree. Its a skirmish game. Always prefered how 12 and 16 men infantry looks on the table. 30 and 40 men strong units looks silly to me.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

I'm comparing small units of elites to large units of chaff - their COST alone should mean they are useful. Otherwise they have no value at all and no incentive to buy. Spending ages painting a speedhump is suboptimal.

The point was that outnumbering won't matter, because it will only increase the chance the combat moves backward 2D6".

Having a wide frontage is being encouraged for everyone. The WS table is also better than it used to be. And having a wider frontage with wraparound only gives you the chance to kill a couple more, assuming there is the step up rule. And my point is that even if they did win through killing more (unlikely given the factors at play), the result would still be that most of the time they just move the combat backward a few inches, and the elite unit gets another opportunity to not lose.

The chances of a larger chaff unit beating their opponent on kills alone is small, but even if they do, their reward is now much smaller for that feat.

So far all these rules have done have made high WS, I and Ld armies far better and made low WS, I Ld armies far worse. It's making a bimodal distribution, which makes the results more extreme than they used to be.



EDIT: The ability to wrap around with a wider frontage actually makes elite units again even more powerful, because a unit of 10 in 2 ranks will only get a max +1 bonus from those 5 behind, while a unit of 10 in a single line will potentially get +5 casualties.

The wrap around frontage will see shallow wide elites who don't want to bother with building ranks but will get a better outcome as a result.

 Platuan4th wrote:

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.

Units of 50 shuffling around in strict block formation is just as ridiculous as 10 or 20 in terms of "muh realism", better just to come to terms with "each model represents 5/10/20/whatever"

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

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.

Units of 50 shuffling around in strict block formation is just as ridiculous as 10 or 20 in terms of "muh realism", better just to come to terms with "each model represents 5/10/20/whatever"

I'm not talking about "realism". The physical force itself on the table looks tiny and off.

for me I tend not to bother too much on the models, used to historical gaming with 24 men representing a full regiment etc, no issues

the idea that the "hero" is the bod themselves and their retinue also makes the damage output more credible. just an abstraction after all.

for me it comes down to the physical footprint of the units in relation to each other, how they move and how they interact with terrain, assuming there is any of note.

quite happy with blocks of 10, 20, whatever, so long as a larger block is generally more cumbersome due to being larger (which they usually are) and with now for the most part it seems only single ranks fighting the push back in good order mechanic I think makes it a lot easier to see them as considerably larger blocks or as 1:1 as well

have to see how it actually plays in the end, if its advanced beyond gimpy "impossible charge" blocking stuff and avoids the "death star" type unit issues I'm happy

 Platuan4th wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

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.

Units of 50 shuffling around in strict block formation is just as ridiculous as 10 or 20 in terms of "muh realism", better just to come to terms with "each model represents 5/10/20/whatever"

I'm not talking about "realism". The physical force itself on the table looks tiny and off.

Is Warhammer Fantasy not fundamentally a game where each infantry model is supposed to represent multiple models "lore wise"? What's the point in making it "look realistic" when baked into the game is the assumption that it is not one to one?

triplegrim wrote:I respect your view, but disagree. Its a skirmish game. Always prefered how 12 and 16 men infantry looks on the table. 30 and 40 men strong units looks silly to me.

I agree with this for the sole reason that huge units are mind-numbing to assemble and paint. Smaller units are more visually interesting and provide more 'moving parts' for the tabletop experience for a given model count.

Plus a 16-strong unit on 25mm bases has the same physical footprint as a 25-strong unit on 20mm bases, with a little more space between the individual models to better show off the sculpts. All it would take would be slightly larger bases to replicate the board presence of large units in 8th.

Guys, you are way overthinking an aesthetic preference.

Not when it actually effects the gameplay, ie multiple smaller units vs a few large blocks. I only came along in 8th and initially thought "big units rule, the olden days sucked look at those tiny units" but if it means more moving parts then great. I'll be very interested to see how it plays with many units of 10, 16 etc. given I only played 8th Lizardmen and the smallest infantry units were usually 10 skirmishers, everything else tended to be 15 or 20+

In my mind THIS is the exact sort of thing Warmaster was for: players who wanted gargantuan units on the board. If the units were massive blocks of 100+ models we wouldn't be able to play on terrain boards at all.

The rules are interesting insofar as they seem to be downplaying the importance of charging. This used to be the absolute object the game, and in the "guess the range" period, players would do things like move units a few tenths of an inch less than their movement to throw that off.

I've already gone on record as saying random charge distances are stupid. There is no historical example of this happening. When charges failed, it was from enemy fire, not because someone was an inch off on the distance. If GW wants to implement a "countercharge" rule, that would work as well.

Anyhow, there seems to be a sense that a single impact should not decide the engagement. That was absolutely the case in the earlier editions, where the charging unit slammed into a unit, inflicted casualties, and if the front rank was wiped out, the defenders were toast in the subsequent morale check.

This changed in 6th ed. with "stubborn" units, and also the unit strength bonus, and since I quit after that edition, I don't know what came next. At any rate, there seems to be a desire to see combat as "sticky" rather than a single impact.

That is to say, line units engage and wear each other down while flankers try gain the edge and force the issue.

Except that it will only be sticky for high Ld units. Low Ld units will be run over as per usual.

The only way it will be sticky for low Ld units is if they miraculously win a combat - which given low Ld is chained to low WS, and often I, is unlikely.

 ph34r wrote:
Is Warhammer Fantasy not fundamentally a game where each infantry model is supposed to represent multiple models "lore wise"? What's the point in making it "look realistic" when baked into the game is the assumption that it is not one to one?

it once was but that part was removed from the rules later for "realism"

Well it was originally just j suggestion anyway and didn't make sense rulewise anyway

 Hellebore wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

I'm comparing small units of elites to large units of chaff - their COST alone should mean they are useful. Otherwise they have no value at all and no incentive to buy. Spending ages painting a speedhump is suboptimal.

The point was that outnumbering won't matter, because it will only increase the chance the combat moves backward 2D6".

Having a wide frontage is being encouraged for everyone. The WS table is also better than it used to be. And having a wider frontage with wraparound only gives you the chance to kill a couple more, assuming there is the step up rule. And my point is that even if they did win through killing more (unlikely given the factors at play), the result would still be that most of the time they just move the combat backward a few inches, and the elite unit gets another opportunity to not lose.

The chances of a larger chaff unit beating their opponent on kills alone is small, but even if they do, their reward is now much smaller for that feat.

So far all these rules have done have made high WS, I and Ld armies far better and made low WS, I Ld armies far worse. It's making a bimodal distribution, which makes the results more extreme than they used to be.



EDIT: The ability to wrap around with a wider frontage actually makes elite units again even more powerful, because a unit of 10 in 2 ranks will only get a max +1 bonus from those 5 behind, while a unit of 10 in a single line will potentially get +5 casualties.

The wrap around frontage will see shallow wide elites who don't want to bother with building ranks but will get a better outcome as a result.

But shallow 10 wide elite units will have a hard time maneuvering, will have a super weak flank, and will take multiple charges...

 Hellebore wrote:
Except that it will only be sticky for high Ld units. Low Ld units will be run over as per usual.

The only way it will be sticky for low Ld units is if they miraculously win a combat - which given low Ld is chained to low WS, and often I, is unlikely.

Even a bog standard Goblin has a 40% chance of falling back. Obviously General/Hero Ld and Standard rerolls on top before we even consider any potential Ld boosting rules they could come up with.

Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a limit on rank bonus. So the thing stopping you from going for maximum static combat resolution is avoiding being in marching formation.

 Graphite wrote:
Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a limit on rank bonus. So the thing stopping you from going for maximum static combat resolution is avoiding being in marching formation.

well that and the cost and size of exposed flanks, but to be honest "hard" limits on unit sizes don't sit right with me any way, there is never a reason for it other than "because". and with rank bonus that was capped at three, why three? why not four? or two?

yes this means, in theory, large bricks of cheap rubbish are possible, however I have yet to see "steadfast" as a rule, the new push back mechanic seems to have replaced it, so when faced with such a brick basically you hit it in the flank with something nimble to nuke the rank bonus (hopefully) and then hit the front with something that can kill it - otherwise the idea that a huge block will stick about in combat (as the bods towards the back may not even realise they are even in combat) seems fine

in terms of utility I suspect 2x20 goblins will do more than 1x40 anyway, for one thing each can cover one flank of the other, and multiple smaller units can essentially deny flank attacks to the enemy for a while at least where as a few larger ones are much more exposed.

have to see how it actually plays out in practice once we have the full actual rules and critically the army lists & points

leopard wrote:

 SgtEeveell wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Now its just a bad sculpt that dont fit the theme, and that makes me also question the throne bit balancing on the spine. I mean, is it supposed to fly with a lord balancing on that throne?

Is it supposed to fly? The wings have no membrane.

How does it smell with no nose?

actually quite nice, so there

All this talk of crocodile skeletons made me look.

Amazon has some, but they're 20" long. Might make for some nice desert terrain though.

https://www.amazon.com/Crocodile-Skeleton-Halloween-Decoration-Trick/dp/B0BWKTBS2H

 Graphite wrote:
Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a limit on rank bonus. So the thing stopping you from going for maximum static combat resolution is avoiding being in marching formation.

I missed in my skim reading of everything what the amount of models to require a rank bonus is?

Back in the day, most of my units were 4 wide with specially modelled magnetic movement trays. Then GW upped the required amount of models for a rank bonus to 5, making me remodel everything and try and pick up a few more of each model (and some were then oop). Whats the amount now? 4 or 5?

leopard wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a limit on rank bonus. So the thing stopping you from going for maximum static combat resolution is avoiding being in marching formation.

well that and the cost and size of exposed flanks, but to be honest "hard" limits on unit sizes don't sit right with me any way, there is never a reason for it other than "because". and with rank bonus that was capped at three, why three? why not four? or two?

yes this means, in theory, large bricks of cheap rubbish are possible, however I have yet to see "steadfast" as a rule, the new push back mechanic seems to have replaced it, so when faced with such a brick basically you hit it in the flank with something nimble to nuke the rank bonus (hopefully) and then hit the front with something that can kill it - otherwise the idea that a huge block will stick about in combat (as the bods towards the back may not even realise they are even in combat) seems fine

in terms of utility I suspect 2x20 goblins will do more than 1x40 anyway, for one thing each can cover one flank of the other, and multiple smaller units can essentially deny flank attacks to the enemy for a while at least where as a few larger ones are much more exposed.

have to see how it actually plays out in practice once we have the full actual rules and critically the army lists & points

we had the 40 model blocks in 8th for max damage and max Rank Bonus
prior to that such blocks were only used for Hordes to suck up damage

if there is no cap, the "minimum" sizes for bonus are:
10, 5x2, +1
15, 5x3, +2
20, 5x4, +3
25, 5x5, +4
36, 6x6, +5
49, 7x7, +6
64, 8x8, +7

with the 8 wide block on 25mm is the same as the old 10 wide block on 20mm

the question is now what heroes are going to do and of a single large block with all the heroes and damage inside is better than multiple small blocks without heroes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

I missed in my skim reading of everything what the amount of models to require a rank bonus is?
Back in the day, most of my units were 4 wide with specially modelled magnetic movement trays. Then GW upped the required amount of models for a rank bonus to 5, making me remodel everything and try and pick up a few more of each model (and some were then oop). Whats the amount now? 4 or 5?

was not mentioned yet
5 models wide is assumed as we have not seen any unit that is 4 wide on the promo-pics but it still can be a minimum of 4

It didn't mention any minimum, only that they had to be wider than they were deep.

Which leaves square units in a sort of limbo until we see what the exact rules are.

EDIT: Thus far, I'm VERY cautiously optimistic for the rules. I'm still not rebasing thousands of models, but I might invest in new, properly spaced movement trays. Now whether I'll actually buy more GW models or not, that's still very much up in the air. If they're still pricing minis like they're cast from precious metals, probably not.

No matter how nice they might be.

There's this note at the bottom of the article:

* In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep.

So Squares are combat order and not marching column

 Graphite wrote:
Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a limit on rank bonus. So the thing stopping you from going for maximum static combat resolution is avoiding being in marching formation.

Just because it doesn’t say it in this article doesn’t mean there isn’t a limit on rank bonus, you can’t take absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

Vorian wrote:
There's this note at the bottom of the article:

* In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep.

So Squares are combat order and not marching column

Ah. Missed that before. Thanks.

Vorian wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Except that it will only be sticky for high Ld units. Low Ld units will be run over as per usual.

The only way it will be sticky for low Ld units is if they miraculously win a combat - which given low Ld is chained to low WS, and often I, is unlikely.

Even a bog standard Goblin has a 40% chance of falling back. Obviously General/Hero Ld and Standard rerolls on top before we even consider any potential Ld boosting rules they could come up with.

If it works like WHFB used to, then the margin by which the combat was lost is applied as a penalty to the Ld check. Lose the fight by 3 and your Ld7 unit has just a one-in-six chance of sticking around. Even if you can test on the general's Ld9 they're more likely to break than to stay.

In practice stacking bonuses made it very unlikely to fall back just from a lost combat, but if you lost by any significant margin it was difficult to keep units in the fight. It was Steadfast in 8th that changed this up by making it so that you don't suffer any penalties if you have more ranks than the opponent, but I'll be very surprised if that rule makes a comeback.

We're discussing the new system for the Old World. They won't flee unless they roll higher than their natural Ld (presumably natural general Ld if applicable).

Losing combat heavily will now make them more likely to fall back in good order rather than giving ground.

So Goblins on Ld6 have ~40% chance of falling back in good order or giving ground and ~60% chance of fleeing like it's the 90s

I apologize, I saw that there was a Combat preview and then totally forgot to go back and actually read it after work. My bad.

 kodos wrote:

if there is no cap, the "minimum" sizes for bonus are:
10, 5x2, +1
15, 5x3, +2
20, 5x4, +3
25, 5x5, +4
36, 6x6, +5
49, 7x7, +6
64, 8x8, +7

with the 8 wide block on 25mm is the same as the old 10 wide block on 20mm

I think the easier thing is just give a +1 to the side with more ranks, -1 to the other one. That's how I did it in my game. Much easier and also more realistic. It's really a psychological edge because you are many and they are few, not because there's something special about symmetrical units with depth.