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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is honestly looking like the most exciting set of rules that GW has released since the Adeptus Titanicus relaunch. I am increasingly hyped.

I would tend to agree, but remember that a lot of snippets of 10th also looked swell...

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is honestly looking like the most exciting set of rules that GW has released since the Adeptus Titanicus relaunch. I am increasingly hyped.

I would tend to agree, but remember that a lot of snippets of 10th also looked swell...

Tbf the issue with 10th is less the core rules and more the army composition rules.

If, like HH, TOW aligns mostly to how things were historically in that regard then hopefully we’ll be OK.

On my part, I’m hoping we go back more or less to the 6th/7th paradigm, though maybe with the minimum Core being still a %.

the core rules were never really a problem with any GW system

and currently, the more I see from TOW the less excited I get

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.

Essentially 20 gallons of gak shoved into a 5 gallon sock. I imagine the rules will suffer for it once dice hit the felt.

Well that's a small encyclopedias worth of special rules on the shaggoth. Back to bloat it is.

 Just Tony wrote:

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.

Essentially 20 gallons of gak shoved into a 5 gallon sock. I imagine the rules will suffer for it once dice hit the felt.

Why do you care, you’re out remember

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is honestly looking like the most exciting set of rules that GW has released since the Adeptus Titanicus relaunch. I am increasingly hyped.

I would tend to agree, but remember that a lot of snippets of 10th also looked swell...

Can you name one?

Well I have some Beastmen so I am bit interested.

Although Beastmen are a bit wild to speculate on as there was bit of an leap between 6th & 8th edition books and this new version has micture of both.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is honestly looking like the most exciting set of rules that GW has released since the Adeptus Titanicus relaunch. I am increasingly hyped.

I would tend to agree, but remember that a lot of snippets of 10th also looked swell...

In my opinion, specialty games rulesets have mostly been better than what GW considers their main games. So I remain optimistic.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Well that's a small encyclopedias worth of special rules on the shaggoth. Back to bloat it is.

For some reason I've never had an issue learning two dozen USRsin fantasy, but the keyword system in 40k just makes my eyes cross and glaze over whenever I look at a unit card when I try to get back into 40k.

Removed - rule #1 please..

Play nice everyone, please. What are we AOS players bashing fantasy players for getting their game back?

For the person that asked about Fear in 8th, it was only a LD test to see if a unit was affected. Had no affect on charges so that part is new for TOW.

Not seeing anything that changes the issues the melee rules present.

In fact the fall back in good order is even less useful than was claimed - it's at most a 6" move backward, not a full flee, while the give ground is only 2".

That's a whole lot of moving large unwieldy blocks of troops for very little gain.

So we are still in the situation of high Ld units just not being broken in combat.

The capacity of some rules to modify Ld won't impact this unless it is spread across the whole army, in which case it would have been simpler to just change the way the break test.


Will be interested to see if any armies bother deploying chaff units at all under these rules. You get more value for your dollar by not.

 Hellebore wrote:
Not seeing anything that changes the issues the melee rules present.

In fact the fall back in good order is even less useful than was claimed - it's at most a 6" move backward, not a full flee, while the give ground is only 2".

That's a whole lot of moving large unwieldy blocks of troops for very little gain.

So we are still in the situation of high Ld units just not being broken in combat.

The capacity of some rules to modify Ld won't impact this unless it is spread across the whole army, in which case it would have been simpler to just change the way the break test.


Will be interested to see if any armies bother deploying chaff units at all under these rules. You get more value for your dollar by not.

Well. Physically smaller armies will be a blessing imo. I could play with the size of the army box deals contents as full sozed battles and be happy with it tbh.

Yeah, I'm concerned about the physical clunkiness of the fall back rules. Pushbacks were one of the (many) overcomplicated rules in 3rd edition that slowed games down.

Didn't KoW have a separation mechanic in 2nd Edition? I don't remember "push back" being that complicated and nothing I've seen feels overly complicated. A unit can fall back in good order and you can choose to chase it. Leaving your flanks open but likely counting as charging in the next combat phase.

Feels fine to me.

leopard wrote:

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.

I think magic will be a big factor with the new fantasy.

I liked aspects of the old system (like the fact you actually had to manage dice and risk, rather than just rolling a d6 for every spell with no thought or input required), but it also had some pretty severe issues:

- As noted above, a lot of spells were ridiculously strong, with many being able to just delete even 500pt characters/monsters outright if they failed a single roll, as well as vaporising whole units.

- Spells known being random. One of the many depressing attempts by GW to balance things with randumb. See, now it's fine to have stupidly strong spells because you might end up not knowing them.

- Despite the idea being risk vs. reward, throwing more dice at a spell only increased the odds of miscasting - it didn't affect the outcome of the miscast. Thus, you could play it safe and have your Vampire Lord cast minor spells with only a few dice, only to roll snake-eyes or boxcars and have him blow his brains out, at which point it's basically game over without your opponent's army even being involved. Meanwhile, a wizard can throw a ton of dice to cast Black Sun or the like, miscast, and the only effect is that they're lightly tickled.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Didn't KoW have a separation mechanic in 2nd Edition? I don't remember "push back" being that complicated and nothing I've seen feels overly complicated. A unit can fall back in good order and you can choose to chase it. Leaving your flanks open but likely counting as charging in the next combat phase.

Feels fine to me.

Yes in KoW2 the loser bounced back 1" and in the next turn couldn't shoot or get a charge bonus. This gave you the option to continue melee just by walking back in, or make a clumsy retreat. There was a slight snag that units with a fairly square footprint could pivot 90d without clipping the unit that just pushed them back, and charge something else, which felt wrong and was colloquially known as Corkscrewing.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Didn't KoW have a separation mechanic in 2nd Edition? I don't remember "push back" being that complicated and nothing I've seen feels overly complicated. A unit can fall back in good order and you can choose to chase it. Leaving your flanks open but likely counting as charging in the next combat phase.

Feels fine to me.

and you immediately gain "impetuous" units unable to restrain, or requiring a leadership test to do so

 Hulksmash wrote:
Didn't KoW have a separation mechanic in 2nd Edition? I don't remember "push back" being that complicated and nothing I've seen feels overly complicated. A unit can fall back in good order and you can choose to chase it. Leaving your flanks open but likely counting as charging in the next combat phase.

Feels fine to me.

KoW was designed and encouraged to multibase, rather than WFB individually based models. It didn't require the removal of individual models. Moving a block of troops around is simple.

WFB players were famously anti abstraction around this. I used movement trays as much as possible but the amount of reforming i would make it challenging.


If all regiments are on movement trays and they push that as the standard, then maybe. But they have built a lot of rules into the shape of your regiment, so movement trays will be of limited use if you are reforming a lot.

So, tying to move whole regiments not on movement trays will be problematic.

many other games manage fine, by in effect multibasing, "regiment" being four or six bases each wider than they are deep

makes a column easy, easy to move and easy to reform

my O&G were built around 5x1 movement trays designed to allow blocks of gobbos to go 5x4, 10x2, 20x1 etc as required

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is honestly looking like the most exciting set of rules that GW has released since the Adeptus Titanicus relaunch. I am increasingly hyped.

I would tend to agree, but remember that a lot of snippets of 10th also looked swell...

The devil's in the details. They can nail the rules and then botch the army lists.

So far, the rules we are looking at could have been implemented 25 years ago.

Shaggoth has Terror, but not Fear.

Curious...

Wasn't Terror previously "same as Fear but in addition..."?

 RustyNumber wrote:
Wasn't Terror previously "same as Fear but in addition..."?

Pretty sure it was 'a model that causes terror automatically causes fear as well,' but yeah.

 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.

Best way to counter the 'gunline on a hill in the deployment zone' is some large LOS-blocking terrain right in front of it. Forests, buildings, another hill... anything that creates a dead zone they can't see to shoot into.

We now return you to TOW news and rumors...

I recall some units having both, because you may pass your Terror test, but could still fear the thing that's coming towards you.

But I'm not very experienced with WFB, so the Terror rule may have said "Also causes Fear" without needing to list it separately.

I wonder if units that cause Fear will be immune to Fear?

EDIT: Never mind...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I recall some units having both, because you may pass your Terror test, but could still fear the thing that's coming towards you.

But I'm not very experienced with WFB, so the Terror rule may have said "Also causes Fear" without needing to list it separately.

I wonder if units that cause Fear will be immune to Fear?

Pretty sure in previous editions everything that caused Terror automatically caused Fear as well.

Previously Fear causing units were immune to Fear (other than from units that caused Terror) and treated Terror causing units as if they only caused Fear; and Terror causing units were immune to both.

Would be surprised if that didn’t carry over.


On another note, it seems that Terror is substantially improved since it says nothing about it being once per game anymore, not to mention the -1Ld for Break Tests being new.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Didn't KoW have a separation mechanic in 2nd Edition? I don't remember "push back" being that complicated and nothing I've seen feels overly complicated. A unit can fall back in good order and you can choose to chase it. Leaving your flanks open but likely counting as charging in the next combat phase.

Feels fine to me.

KoW ditched its pushback mechanic due to it slowing down gameplay.

I didn't find it added much time to the game, or was complicated, the issues it had were the original charging unit then being able to reform and 'corkscrew' into another units flank the next turn.

There will probably be similar things happening in ToW where the repositioning exposes flanks.