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.

 catbarf wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
If I deploy 200 points of chaff vs 200 points of elite

The elites should win more often than not, because the chaff models have superior board control. You didn't take Goblins or Gnoblars or Skavenslaves because they were good troops- not even for the points- you took them because they were just as good as elites when it came to blocking off flanks, interrupting marches, and opportunistically flanking to provide rank bonus.

This is not the sort of brainless game where 200pts of anything has equal odds against 200pts of anything else. Every unit type has natural counters, and every unit type contributes soft factors beyond raw killing power.

Correct. What would the 200 points look like? They could be two decent-sized units, which would put the one elite one in a quandry. Points are there to facilitate balance, but not infallible. Tactical skill is also required for units to be effective, which is why we bother playing.

the third edition book had a discussion on points, noted how when you compare a dragon to a goblin points cease to function - the dragon will kill a few and the rest will run, doesn't matter how many there are its never "balanced"

points only work at a figure level between roughly comparable things to show which is better and by how much

or at an army level, unit level etc things need to be roughly comparable for points to make sense

so asking if 200 points of chaff are equal to 200 points of elite doesn't overly make sense, in broad terms they should contribute the same to an army, but it doesn't mean its a fair fight between them

leopard wrote:
the third edition book had a discussion on points, noted how when you compare a dragon to a goblin points cease to function - the dragon will kill a few and the rest will run, doesn't matter how many there are its never "balanced"

points only work at a figure level between roughly comparable things to show which is better and by how much

or at an army level, unit level etc things need to be roughly comparable for points to make sense

so asking if 200 points of chaff are equal to 200 points of elite doesn't overly make sense, in broad terms they should contribute the same to an army, but it doesn't mean its a fair fight between them

Consider 200 points of horse archers vs 200 points of heavy, elite infantry. In close combat, the horse archers will lose. But how will the infantry catch them?

This is why additional limits were put in place in 6th, to try to limit units whose points value was highly circumstantial. Artillery crews at a distance can wreck even big monsters, but in close even the worst chaff can mop the floor with them.

The additional challenge GW faces is in the fact that - unlike almost all wargames - GW does not rely on the players to collaborate in creating a fun, balanced scenario. Instead, GW purports to provide this service as part of their design, and - making matters worse - they also seem to approach it with a high degree of indifference.

This is why I can look at some of the mechanics and think "wow, this looks neat" but understand that the execution is likely going to fail because it always does.

I believe the continuing loyalty to 2nd ed. 40k was because the hobby didn't reach the "professional tournament" level during its run. Many of the rules are contingent on mutual agreement and variant lists are specifically noted as unbalanced but entertaining. At this late date, I don't see GW returning to that mentality.

 Hellebore wrote:
I'd be interested to see what you consider a capable goblin or skaven army if you don't think chaff units should be effective at killing things. nothing but goblins and trolls, skaven and ratogres?

A capable Goblin or Skaven army was one that took advantage of its non-chaff options, of which there were plenty beyond trolls and ogres. For Goblins, that's fanatics, doom diver catapults, squigs, wolf riders, spider riders, rock lobbas, and Arachnaroks off the top of my head, even if you choose to ignore Orcs entirely. For Skaven, that's Stormvermin and basically everything from Moulder, Skryre, Eshin, or Pestilens. Either way you then also have characters that could be credible combatants, as well as magic. Building an army out of nothing but chaff units was always a meme; even the Gnoblar Horde list had access to artillery, monstrous infantry, and giants.

Those chaff units were there to guard your flanks, fill gaps in the line, lend rank and outnumbering bonuses when necessary, prevent the enemy from marching, speedbump scary stuff, hold objectives, help dogpile vulnerable units, et cetera. Things where their combat ability was secondary to the utility of having another ranked unit on the board, and having cheap units to perform these roles provided a tangible advantage over an army that went all-in on elite deathstars and had to choose whether to leave their warmachines exposed or squander a 300+pt unit on guard duty.

Against MSU elites, your advantages were rank bonuses and outnumbering at the cost of lesser raw damage output, so stacking that CR to support the heavier hitters let you take apart MSU armies piecemeal. MSU had other vulnerabilities besides that, but throwing chaff infantry into equal points of elite infantry without any force multipliers was always a braindead play.

For TOW, we do not know the full rules yet and it's absurd to immediately dive into theorycrafting about how snippets of rules previews conclusively prove that certain unit archetypes are invalidated. But I do not expect that 200pts of anything will have coin-flip odds against 200pts of anything else because that's simply not how this game genre works.

I didn't get any experience of it but I thought MSU and skirmisher charge redirects etc were a large part of the 8th meta? In a bad, overly skewed kind of way?

 RustyNumber wrote:
I didn't get any experience of it but I thought MSU and skirmisher charge redirects etc were a large part of the 8th meta? In a bad, overly skewed kind of way?

8th, and a bit before, had some easily breakable rules

1. charger always conforms to the target - hence small skirmish chaff "redirecting" a large block that would contact them, end up "aligning" to face towards a board edge then when they overran etc they end up out of position and taking two turns to get back, or staying put, but still facing the wrong way with flanks exposed - when "in reality" (and yes, yes I know) they would likely have just rolled over the chaff

2. charge blocking - using the above requirement and positioning several units such that the enemy cannot conform to any of them, and thus cannot charge any of them, leading to the ridiculous situation of a large combat block facing two small, lone characters standing just in front of them (or cheap fliers, or cheap chaff units), but unable to charge either of them and unable to move around them

I think there were a fair few issues in movement, its a war game, not a "you can't touch me" game, or at least it should be a war game, stuff should fight

the other side was chucking six dice super spells that some armies had no counter to, e.g. anything that was an initiative test to survive, good luck Dwarves, Orcs, Ogres etc - however those same spells were seemingly designed as a kerb on "death star" units with multiple characters etc as it made such risky. Of course a lot of event packs focused on how to nerf the magic, and then how to nerf the death stars.

A fair bit of this came down to leaving a bad feeling at times, a feeling where one player is basically a passenger in a game with little they can actually do - I would note that if you played the game as it was actually written though some of these issues went away. e.g. the chaff redirect stuff, given a victory was killing 100 points more than the enemy you could score a win by killing some chaff and then if the enemy wants to avoid combat.. let them. Again most event packs changed that in some way.

This coupled with 8th encouraging large blocks of models that were both expensive to buy and time consuming to paint and yet that on table were largely ineffective because the enemy had the bulk of their army in one large block, which was virtual suicide to charge, and some cheap chaff to stop you even trying to hit it until it steam rollered one of your units and the game became far too predictable and won in the list building phase

I would note again, play it as it was written though, which meant going for more than just the "Battleline" scenario where some of these tournament lists struggled and it was a different game

tl;dr issues with 8th, over earlier editions especially
- it was an issue written by the marketing team to sell a lot more models
- the rules were too fragile and easily broken if a player wanted to

Morale and Psychology due tomorrow.

I guess stubborn and Unbreakable needs to be changed from how they used to work, since the combat resolution works so different.

Stubborn now feels kind of superfluous. Unbreakable shouldn’t prevent being pushed back.

Though I suppose Stubborn could mean a modifier to combat res, reducing the chance of being pushed back. Or perhaps might grant a re-roll in your break test.

 triplegrim wrote:
Morale and Psychology due tomorrow.

I guess stubborn and Unbreakable needs to be changed from how they used to work, since the combat resolution works so different.

It will be interesting to see what they give us in the article. But neither of these are hard to imagine how they will rework them.

Stubborn will probably be something like: "When making Break Test, this unit ignores the modifier to the Break Test. It therefore will never Fall Back in Good Order, instead it Gives Ground if it does not Break and Flee."

Forget stubborn and unbreakable, I wanna know what fear and terror do now. Hoping it’s not 8th rules as psychology wasn’t super important in that edition imo. Also almost always forgot to get my opponent to roll fear tests.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/27/old-world-almanack-get-in-the-right-headspace-for-morale-and-psychology/?utm_source=sm&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=old-world&utm_content=blpreorder23/11/23&fbclid=IwAR2T2IxOyWU3koW_R87EZvM09xhWs0JI8UKQgsb-bwhiNMVAtbbGQQ5bTN8

Some nice info here now to mull over.

Confirms how the break tests results operate.

Fear now seems to be a nice mixture of 6th and 8th edition. Terror has a bit more bite to it now.

Also, Stomp is still in the game, so Monsters have a bit more hitting power.

Well Fear and Terror now sound legitimate.

Break Tests still seem to heavily favour Dwarfs over all other traditionally high Ld armies.

Not only are they less likely to actively flee? But just being pushed back, ready to charge me in the turn sounds like it’s gonna suuuuuck. And indeed, only encourage The Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitablity, where my sole strategic option is “peg it across the board as fast as I can, and hope I’ve enough bodies left for a half decent shot at a punch up”, whilst my half witted opponent claps like a seal at their “tactical genius” of just huddling around a hill they demanded be in their deployment zone. Yes I am speaking from genuine experience here. Sod you, Cheaty Steve!

Of course we don’t have the full picture just yet. Certainly we don’t know what Dwarf Ld might be. It could well have been lowered to offset how hard they are to shift just under the basic rules. And there may be spells or other abilities which count a unit’s native Ld as lower.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Break Tests still seem to heavily favour Dwarfs over all other traditionally high Ld armies.

Not only are they less likely to actively flee? But just being pushed back, ready to charge me in the turn sounds like it’s gonna suuuuuck. And indeed, only encourage The Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitablity, where my sole strategic option is “peg it across the board as fast as I can, and hope I’ve enough bodies left for a half decent shot at a punch up”, whilst my half witted opponent claps like a seal at their “tactical genius” of just huddling around a hill they demanded be in their deployment zone. Yes I am speaking from genuine experience here. Sod you, Cheaty Steve!.

Seems we have played the same guy...


This is the first rules reveal that was more of a yawn to me.

I like that terror can cause troops to flee before combat though.

Animosity remaining was a welcome surprise. I know its been a point of dispute for O&G players but I'm personally glad to have it around.
The Shaggoth looks to have an almost identical statblock to its 8E version so doesn't look like monster stats are likely to inflate much.
The Shaggoth remaining Ld9 and Swordmasters being Ld8 in the last article both point towards Leadership values remaining comparable to historical values, although rerolls might still be reduced.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Break Tests still seem to heavily favour Dwarfs over all other traditionally high Ld armies.

Not only are they less likely to actively flee? But just being pushed back, ready to charge me in the turn sounds like it’s gonna suuuuuck. And indeed, only encourage The Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitablity, where my sole strategic option is “peg it across the board as fast as I can, and hope I’ve enough bodies left for a half decent shot at a punch up”, whilst my half witted opponent claps like a seal at their “tactical genius” of just huddling around a hill they demanded be in their deployment zone. Yes I am speaking from genuine experience here. Sod you, Cheaty Steve!

Of course we don’t have the full picture just yet. Certainly we don’t know what Dwarf Ld might be. It could well have been lowered to offset how hard they are to shift just under the basic rules. And there may be spells or other abilities which count a unit’s native Ld as lower.

Deploy in the opposite corner, point out your Trebuchet out ranges his cannons.

sit back and enjoy the rage as you pelt rocks at the immobile huddled masses and steadfastly refuse to entre gun range.

for a bonus point, if you accept some peasant losses, and frankly why not as they smell, the long bow out ranges most firearms, make that hill into a burial mound


that aside, to be honest a well drilled force should be hard to break in melee

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Break Tests still seem to heavily favour Dwarfs over all other traditionally high Ld armies.

Not only are they less likely to actively flee? But just being pushed back, ready to charge me in the turn sounds like it’s gonna suuuuuck. And indeed, only encourage The Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitablity, where my sole strategic option is “peg it across the board as fast as I can, and hope I’ve enough bodies left for a half decent shot at a punch up”, whilst my half witted opponent claps like a seal at their “tactical genius” of just huddling around a hill they demanded be in their deployment zone. Yes I am speaking from genuine experience here. Sod you, Cheaty Steve!

Of course we don’t have the full picture just yet. Certainly we don’t know what Dwarf Ld might be. It could well have been lowered to offset how hard they are to shift just under the basic rules. And there may be spells or other abilities which count a unit’s native Ld as lower.

Why would just being pushed back allow them to charge? Just opt to follow up and reengage

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Also note that given how many USRs we've seen in just the 2 or 3 ranged weapon profiles that have been previewed, there's bound to be a whole host of combat modifying abilities to game the break check.

So today's article confirms that abilities can modify the testing unit's Leadership, which affects their odds to Break and Flee.

Crisis over?

Vorian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Break Tests still seem to heavily favour Dwarfs over all other traditionally high Ld armies.

Not only are they less likely to actively flee? But just being pushed back, ready to charge me in the turn sounds like it’s gonna suuuuuck. And indeed, only encourage The Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitablity, where my sole strategic option is “peg it across the board as fast as I can, and hope I’ve enough bodies left for a half decent shot at a punch up”, whilst my half witted opponent claps like a seal at their “tactical genius” of just huddling around a hill they demanded be in their deployment zone. Yes I am speaking from genuine experience here. Sod you, Cheaty Steve!

Of course we don’t have the full picture just yet. Certainly we don’t know what Dwarf Ld might be. It could well have been lowered to offset how hard they are to shift just under the basic rules. And there may be spells or other abilities which count a unit’s native Ld as lower.

Why would just being pushed back allow them to charge? Just opt to follow up and reengage

It’s more having to hang around like a lemon and risk flank charges.

Quite intuitive psychology rules. Fear can cause a -1 to hit, nice.

Liking it so far.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Vorian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Break Tests still seem to heavily favour Dwarfs over all other traditionally high Ld armies.

Not only are they less likely to actively flee? But just being pushed back, ready to charge me in the turn sounds like it’s gonna suuuuuck. And indeed, only encourage The Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitablity, where my sole strategic option is “peg it across the board as fast as I can, and hope I’ve enough bodies left for a half decent shot at a punch up”, whilst my half witted opponent claps like a seal at their “tactical genius” of just huddling around a hill they demanded be in their deployment zone. Yes I am speaking from genuine experience here. Sod you, Cheaty Steve!

Of course we don’t have the full picture just yet. Certainly we don’t know what Dwarf Ld might be. It could well have been lowered to offset how hard they are to shift just under the basic rules. And there may be spells or other abilities which count a unit’s native Ld as lower.

Why would just being pushed back allow them to charge? Just opt to follow up and reengage

It’s more having to hang around like a lemon and risk flank charges.

Well the whole game will work differently since it's a lot less about getting charge and routing stuff in 1 turn. I'm sure you'll quickly adapt how you play to not leave charging units swinging on the wind.

The hope would be that the death of the game revolving around charges and units instantly fleeing will make it much easier for Dwarfs to be something other than gun lines and static blocks defending those warmachines.

I wonder how following up will interact with Fear causing units. If they'll give you some sort of guarantee or if you still have to make a Ld test or stand in place.

Vorian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Vorian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Break Tests still seem to heavily favour Dwarfs over all other traditionally high Ld armies.

Not only are they less likely to actively flee? But just being pushed back, ready to charge me in the turn sounds like it’s gonna suuuuuck. And indeed, only encourage The Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitablity, where my sole strategic option is “peg it across the board as fast as I can, and hope I’ve enough bodies left for a half decent shot at a punch up”, whilst my half witted opponent claps like a seal at their “tactical genius” of just huddling around a hill they demanded be in their deployment zone. Yes I am speaking from genuine experience here. Sod you, Cheaty Steve!

Of course we don’t have the full picture just yet. Certainly we don’t know what Dwarf Ld might be. It could well have been lowered to offset how hard they are to shift just under the basic rules. And there may be spells or other abilities which count a unit’s native Ld as lower.

Why would just being pushed back allow them to charge? Just opt to follow up and reengage

It’s more having to hang around like a lemon and risk flank charges.

Well the whole game will work differently since it's a lot less about getting charge and routing stuff in 1 turn. I'm sure you'll quickly adapt how you play to not leave charging units swinging on the wind.

The hope would be that the death of the game revolving around charges and units instantly fleeing will make it much easier for Dwarfs to be something other than gun lines and static blocks defending those warmachines.

Plus it seems like you need space behind you to actually take advantage of these new rules - if you’re in your deployment zone there’s very little board to flee/fbigo/give ground into

 Rihgu wrote:
I wonder how following up will interact with Fear causing units. If they'll give you some sort of guarantee or if you still have to make a Ld test or stand in place.

Very good point here. I love the new fear rules myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I guess unit strength is back. They mentioned it a few times in this article.

Did I read that wrong or do you have to fear test every round of combat if still engaged?!?!?!?

 Just Tony wrote:
Did I read that wrong or do you have to fear test every round of combat if still engaged?!?!?!?

No, you read that right.

Terror also applies an extra -1 penalty to opposing units’ Leadership characteristic when taking Break Tests – making a break and flee outcome that much more likely.

So combat results give a positive penalty to the dice roll, but Terror gives a negative penalty directly to Leadership. Already seems like an over-complication to me.

 Just Tony wrote:
Did I read that wrong or do you have to fear test every round of combat if still engaged?!?!?!?

It’s a nerfed version of 8th Ed which had a fear test every round or drop to WS1. And frankly that barely mattered.
Can’t remember if the fear test to charge was in 8th though.

With the new FBIGO it’s a shame they didn’t bring in a nerfed version of the old outnumber autobreak thing - fear causing troops that outnumber you tend to be pretty rubbish, and outnumbered by a fear causing unit making FBIGO => Break & Flee would add an interesting dynamic.

This is honestly looking like the most exciting set of rules that GW has released since the Adeptus Titanicus relaunch. I am increasingly hyped.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Terror also applies an extra -1 penalty to opposing units’ Leadership characteristic when taking Break Tests – making a break and flee outcome that much more likely.

So combat results give a positive penalty to the dice roll, but Terror gives a negative penalty directly to Leadership. Already seems like an over-complication to me.

Except they do different things. As Terror will also effect the chance to break and flee, while the combat results just effect give ground and fall back in good order.