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.

SU-152 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

Cheap. Outnumber enemy. Charge enemy front and rear.

AOS players will have a field day in TOW tournaments TOW players just moving death star elite units front to front while AOS players learned how to attack weak side of units and outflanking enemy with multiple units years ago.

Do units in AoS have flanks? rear? or any type of LoS limitation? so those tactics matter at all.

Yes, yes, no. Granted, they're not explicit in the rules, so a lot of people would miss them if they aren't thinking too deeply, but formation on the tabletop certainly does mean something in AoS and a unit being attacked from certain sides/angles can definitely change the outcome of a battle. Especially when you consider multiple units working in tandem (usually a hero + unit nearby) and the implicit rules that go along with that.

SU-152 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

Cheap. Outnumber enemy. Charge enemy front and rear.

AOS players will have a field day in TOW tournaments TOW players just moving death star elite units front to front while AOS players learned how to attack weak side of units and outflanking enemy with multiple units years ago.

Do units in AoS have flanks? rear? or any type of LoS limitation? so those tactics matter at all.

That was going to me my question. How do units with no formation, no facing, and 360 degree vision have a 'flank' to attack?

Some 8E players did, indeed, rely on deathstars to win games. I loved those players; I'd kill the mandatory second and third unit and play keep-away the rest of the game. Easier to do with some armies than others, of course, but generally doable if you were careful.

What are 'implicit rules' and how does that turn not having rules for flanks into having more rules for flanks than classic WHFB? An AoS player being better at flanking than a WHFB player?

That seems like a completely bizarre argument to me

 ph34r wrote:
What are 'implicit rules' and how does that turn not having rules for flanks into having more rules for flanks than classic WHFB? An AoS player being better at flanking than a WHFB player?

That seems like a completely bizarre argument to me

I am not supporting or defending tneva92's argument that AoS players will have better knowledge/gameplay in TOW by virtue of being AoS players. Nor am I saying that there are more rules for flanks in AoS than classic WHFB/TOW.

The implicit rules are things like, units will have unit champions or other models with different wargear, and if you attack into it from a position where their pile-in move fails to get those models into range, they are not going to be able to attack with those. Or if you attack into the flank of a formation that is 2 ranks of 5 files, even after pile-in moves, less total enemy models will be able to fight back.

Then we get into multiple-units-acting-in-tandem, where if you strike from behind you can get the exposed hero unit that is providing buffs to the main unit.

Just because these things aren't explicitly spelled out in the rules like WHFB has, doesn't mean they aren't in the rules.

Pretty sure that was just a troll post anyways

it was, but given how people already claimed that using the new movement rules to get behind the opponent is WAAC while the on reddit people mention that the one who will use formation changes is going to lose because you are better off just moving your locks straight forward

there is some truth inside that some "hardcore" fantasy players will be surprised by people who actually use the full spectrum of the rules

I kinda hope that it actually turns out to be "relatively" mobile game that encourages aggressive manouvers so you can get on opponents flanks/rears. Or so that you have to move your ass anyway.

My few games against Dwarfs really made a mark.

outside of 8th edi comps dwarfs were actually mobile

Yea, when playing in 8th until the armybook came out, I was taking a ton of rangers, miners, and slayers with Strollaz runes, using the Anvil to get extra movement during the actual game.

The 8th armybook removed that feature of the Anvil. Although, if I remember, you could still take a bunch of Strollaz runes and ambushing units, it's just the actual mobility during the game was hampered by not getting the Anvil's bonus move.

On a less silly but still flank and rear combo pondering?

If I beat you in combat, and have a units engaging you to front and say, left flank? If you’re pushed back or fall back in good order…..wonder which way you go?

It reads like all 3 versions of giving ground are away from the highest unit strength from the wording in the article. Though it's not very clear

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

Cheap. Outnumber enemy. Charge enemy front and rear.

AOS players will have a field day in TOW tournaments TOW players just moving death star elite units front to front while AOS players learned how to attack weak side of units and outflanking enemy with multiple units years ago.

Rear charges in WFB have always been rare, Flank charges easier. But as GW have shown, that won't do much, at most moving the enemy.

And those charges won't guarantee winning the combat anyway. I'm not sure what rules you think you're reading, but low I Low Ld armies won't win combats even if you do get flank charges. The enemy killing you before you can strike will do far more for the CR than your chaff ranks will, because you aren't going to kill much in return.

Spending all your time trying to set up complex charge manoeuvres only for them to achieve nothing is a pretty demoralising experience.

I see nothing in the rules that make skinks, skaven slaves (or just skaven), goblins, gnoblars et al actually useful. This was an issue GW had decades ago, people spending tonnes of time painting big units of speed humps is not incentivising.

These rules push that to a far bigger extreme than even that, because at least goblin horde could outnumber you into fleeing and run you down, now they can't.

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Hoping to see some more info about combat that explains the value of low Ld units in the new paradigm.

Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's GW so it's pretty hard...

Cheap. Outnumber enemy. Charge enemy front and rear.

AOS players will have a field day in TOW tournaments TOW players just moving death star elite units front to front while AOS players learned how to attack weak side of units and outflanking enemy with multiple units years ago.

As someone who heavily played The Empire in 6th and Dark Elves in 7th, I can say I puled off a few flank charges in day. I think I'll be fine.

The 8th edition rule book was thick enough to be a tome. Rip out all the fluffy and we maybe have seen a page of partial rules for The Old World.

We can’t be disappointed that “X unit won’t have value” yet, because we don’t know.

When I played 6-7th editions and compared them to 40k at the time, I used to say that Fantasy is a far superior game, because player moves trump raw stats.

In WFB you could beat a much stronger unit with a weaker one if you manoeuvered better. A puny goblin regiment in a flank of super-elite Chaos Knights won combat 100% of the time and likely broke them.

With 40k it doesn't matter how smart your manoeuvers are, to defeat a unit you need a stronger sum of units - that's why you get this "huge dudes exchanging sledgehammer blows on the head" vibe from 40k instead of "a duel of expert fencers".

Unfortunately, the new TOW break test rules favour raw stats (and randomness) over player agency and manoeuver. It doesn't matter how well you coordinate and execute a huge CR advantage - for a decisive result you just need a certain roll vs certain Ld value, the same for 1CR or 10CR advantage.

I don't know why GW went this way. The cynic in me says "you can't sell being a good player, but you can sell good stats on units".

I'm wondering if there is a bit more to the "retire in good order" and "push back" stuff than we have seen.

e.g. being hit in the flank preventing such a move as quite a few other games do it, and especially being hit in the rear

leopard wrote:
I'm wondering if there is a bit more to the "retire in good order" and "push back" stuff than we have seen.

e.g. being hit in the flank preventing such a move as quite a few other games do it, and especially being hit in the rear

Honestly if you get pushed back and have a unit in the rear i don't care what unit we are talking but atleast as many inches in models even partially moved in to the unit at the rear should just flat out be killed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
When I played 6-7th editions and compared them to 40k at the time, I used to say that Fantasy is a far superior game, because player moves trump raw stats.

In WFB you could beat a much stronger unit with a weaker one if you manoeuvered better. A puny goblin regiment in a flank of super-elite Chaos Knights won combat 100% of the time and likely broke them.

With 40k it doesn't matter how smart your manoeuvers are, to defeat a unit you need a stronger sum of units - that's why you get this "huge dudes exchanging sledgehammer blows on the head" vibe from 40k instead of "a duel of expert fencers".

Unfortunately, the new TOW break test rules favour raw stats (and randomness) over player agency and manoeuver. It doesn't matter how well you coordinate and execute a huge CR advantage - for a decisive result you just need a certain roll vs certain Ld value, the same for 1CR or 10CR advantage.

I don't know why GW went this way. The cynic in me says "you can't sell being a good player, but you can sell good stats on units".

I think it's a problem of making elite units in elite armies worth it compared to raw board presence so as to not just bounce off with even smaller elite units through static CR bonus.

Its certainly understandable for some armies that it'd be a "need" to do so, but at the same time it's also something that benefits armeis that have "cheapish" good morale units far more.

Not Online!!! wrote:

leopard wrote:
I'm wondering if there is a bit more to the "retire in good order" and "push back" stuff than we have seen.

e.g. being hit in the flank preventing such a move as quite a few other games do it, and especially being hit in the rear

Honestly if you get pushed back and have a unit in the rear i don't care what unit we are talking but atleast as many inches in models even partially moved in to the unit at the rear should just flat out be killed.

thats how quite a few games do it, they have a push back mechanic, but any unit that cannot push back for some reason is destroyed outright. the sole exception is usually you can push back one of your own units to make space

a few also deny push backs if caught in the flank

leopard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

leopard wrote:
I'm wondering if there is a bit more to the "retire in good order" and "push back" stuff than we have seen.

e.g. being hit in the flank preventing such a move as quite a few other games do it, and especially being hit in the rear

Honestly if you get pushed back and have a unit in the rear i don't care what unit we are talking but atleast as many inches in models even partially moved in to the unit at the rear should just flat out be killed.

thats how quite a few games do it, they have a push back mechanic, but any unit that cannot push back for some reason is destroyed outright. the sole exception is usually you can push back one of your own units to make space

a few also deny push backs if caught in the flank

Which i hope is true.
I am not a fan of outright wiping a unit though that just got merely pushed back in good order, but getting flanked and or rear blocked should come with heavy casualities.

a way I have thought about, but never seen, is to remove whatever models are required from a unit such that its front rank can push back as required

say a unit on 1" bases is four ranks deep, has an enemy front and rear and gets pushed back 2"

thats two dead ranks from the rear to allow the front to push back, if the enemy follows up they are in trouble for the next turn

It is entertaining how some people are so certain that low LD troops will be useless after seeing maybe 5% of the rules, hardly any USRs and zero points costs

MaxT wrote:
It is entertaining how some people are so certain that low LD troops will be useless after seeing maybe 5% of the rules, hardly any USRs and zero points costs

Well they won't be hugely useful in combat, if that is by "useful" you mean "likely to stick about in a prolonged fight against higher skilled fighters"

the skill for the player is in finding ways to use such units to have an impact on the overall result out of proportion with their costs and stats.

there is little point looking at a unit and thinking "what can this unit do?", instead look at it and think "what can this unit do as a part of my wider army?"

its fine for some units to have a role which is basically "act as a speed bump", and even more so with things the game could contain such as objectives based around battlefield control, mechanics such as alternating deployment where smaller, cheaper units can be useful

the game is not entirely about killing things for every single unit, or at least it shouldn't be

What are the changes compared to 8th that people think are making chaff useless?

WS5 hitting on 2s and getting hit on 6s vs WS2
Everyone being less likely to flee and get run down
Others?

Cyel wrote:
When I played 6-7th editions and compared them to 40k at the time, I used to say that Fantasy is a far superior game, because player moves trump raw stats.

In WFB you could beat a much stronger unit with a weaker one if you manoeuvered better. A puny goblin regiment in a flank of super-elite Chaos Knights won combat 100% of the time and likely broke them.
.

And thats a bad thing - catching out a similar sized unit or spearmen or similar. and routing fine - a few gobbos wiping out Chaos Knights - thats just beyond stupid. A huge mob of gobbos maybe - yeah swarming them etc.

It was equally stupid elite units not hitting low WS units easily - the table going back to previous editions is IMO a huge improvement

 Mr Morden wrote:

Cyel wrote:
When I played 6-7th editions and compared them to 40k at the time, I used to say that Fantasy is a far superior game, because player moves trump raw stats.

In WFB you could beat a much stronger unit with a weaker one if you manoeuvered better. A puny goblin regiment in a flank of super-elite Chaos Knights won combat 100% of the time and likely broke them.
.

And thats a bad thing - catching out a similar sized unit or spearmen or similar. and routing fine - a few gobbos wiping out Chaos Knights - thats just beyond stupid. A huge mob of gobbos maybe - yeah swarming them etc.

It was equally stupid elite units not hitting low WS units easily - the table going back to previous editions is IMO a huge improvement

A unit of spear armed soldiers wiping out a unit of cavalry by hitting them in the flanks is a bad thing?

Not sure I follow that. Superior tactics is the name of the game.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Cyel wrote:
When I played 6-7th editions and compared them to 40k at the time, I used to say that Fantasy is a far superior game, because player moves trump raw stats.

In WFB you could beat a much stronger unit with a weaker one if you manoeuvered better. A puny goblin regiment in a flank of super-elite Chaos Knights won combat 100% of the time and likely broke them.
.

And thats a bad thing - catching out a similar sized unit or spearmen or similar. and routing fine - a few gobbos wiping out Chaos Knights - thats just beyond stupid. A huge mob of gobbos maybe - yeah swarming them etc.

It was equally stupid elite units not hitting low WS units easily - the table going back to previous editions is IMO a huge improvement

Doubtful the Goblins would cause the Chaos Knights to run.

A unit of 20 Goblins will be have 6 attacks (champion+5), hitting on 5+ and wounding on a 5+, the Knights will save on 2+. So the Goblins inflict zero casualties.

The Knights attack back 2 attacks hitting on 3+, and wounding on 2+ (strength 5), the Goblins get no save. The mounts attack, 2 attacks hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+, the foblins save on 6+.
The Knights will kill 2-3 Goblins.

The Goblins now with 17, will have flank, 2 ranks, and a standard, for a combat result of 4.
The Knights will outnumber (10), 3 kills, and a standard. For 5. They win by one and the Goblins flee.

Chaos Knights are brutal in 6th, even more so if increased to choosen... which seemed to be very popular.

But realistically, nobody fielded units of 20 Gobbos for that reason. You’d want 30 or so for a Redundant Rank, and if Night Gobbos you’d almost certainly drop the points for Fanatics and Netters.

Also, the Knights S5 were only wounding on a 3+. Had to be double or more their T for a 2+ to wound

Mad Doc, that's the new 40k wounding chart from 8th edition.

The Fantasy chart, as far back as 3rd edition, would have S5 wounding goblins on 2s.

This is why the old "free hack" rule was good, if gobbos do break chaos knights the "free hack" isn't that scary

the other way around however is slightly different

 stonehorse wrote:


Doubtful the Goblins would cause the Chaos Knights to run.

A unit of 20 Goblins will be have 6 attacks (champion+5), hitting on 5+ and wounding on a 5+, the Knights will save on 2+. So the Goblins inflict zero casualties.

The Knights attack back 2 attacks hitting on 3+, and wounding on 2+ (strength 5), the Goblins get no save. The mounts attack, 2 attacks hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+, the foblins save on 6+.
The Knights will kill 2-3 Goblins.

The Goblins now with 17, will have flank, 2 ranks, and a standard, for a combat result of 4.
The Knights will outnumber (10), 3 kills, and a standard. For 5. They win by one and the Goblins flee.

Chaos Knights are brutal in 6th, even more so if increased to choosen... which seemed to be very popular.

I feel like you've assumed two ranks for the Chaos nights.