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.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Did they have great weapons and shields as options for the miniatures?

Yes. From the box you can give them xbows, guns, shields or great axes. So since you get these in the sprue, I imagine it will be an option in the game. GW loves to be precise with box content and game options.

Not only that, bugmans rangers metal models came with greataxes and crossbows too. One of the more iconic units for dwarfs I'd argue.

I guess it would require playing, but I'd have thought the reason you wouldn't "go wide" is that it facilitates being charged by multiple units.

It also hinders your other units attempting to charge, plus unless you play on Planet Bowling Ball, one end or the other is going to get bogged down in something. 100” (no 20mm bases anymore, remember) is a lot of space. Heck, it’s wider than most entire gaming tables.

They borked it! Blackfang has the right link now.

Working link
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/04/old-world-almanack-how-magic-brings-a-sparkle-to-the-battlefield/

Seems okay. Certainly light years ahead of current 40k psychics.

Well the article did reveal one thing I was wondering, 40x60mm base for cavalry seems a little too big unless that's just for that particular model.

The unicorn is monstrous cavalry, not standard cavalry.

 bong264 wrote:
Well the article did reveal one thing I was wondering, 40x60mm base for cavalry seems a little too big unless that's just for that particular model.

It does say "Monstrous Cavalry", so maybe it's for that? Maybe we'll see more cavalry profiles in next week's article.

 bong264 wrote:
Well the article did reveal one thing I was wondering, 40x60mm base for cavalry seems a little too big unless that's just for that particular model.

That seems really weird considering the shown model looks like it’s on square base.

Each conjuration has a casting value appropriate to how complex it is, and spells are cast on 2d6, adding the skill level of the caster. It’s a quicker system than the previously used

Good! I like how some things are simplified.

Miscasts are also well thought.

Loving Magic Resistance (-X).

Also, monstrous mounts giving extra wounds!!!

Liking ToW TOO MUCH!!!!!

Vargheist wrote:

 bong264 wrote:
Well the article did reveal one thing I was wondering, 40x60mm base for cavalry seems a little too big unless that's just for that particular model.

That seems really weird considering the shown model looks like it’s on square base.

Probably a rules change made after an early model was printed up. Doesn't take much to change the base going into the box, but take a lot to change the base on the painted model.

It's just the angle shortening the long edge isn't it?

Even the old cavalry bases were 50mm long - that unicorn couldn't possibly fit on a 40mm long base.

Handmaiden has bunch of rules too but articles does give hint what does do.

She’s at her best when she’s joined by a unit, as her aura confers Magical Attacks and Magic Resistance (-2) to the brave men and women she leads, and her Shield of the Lady ability allows her to seek sanctuary in the back rank where she can cast her spells untroubled by the aggression of the foe.

Handmaiden also has Magical Attacks and MR listed but I think "Aura" and "Blessing" are the rules that confers them to the unit attached.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Working link
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/04/old-world-almanack-how-magic-brings-a-sparkle-to-the-battlefield/

Seems okay. Certainly light years ahead of current 40k psychics.

Huh. I joked about it earlier, but they really did bring back the 3rd edition magic lores (though significantly cut down in terms of the number of spells). That's a nice nostalgia hook.

Interesting approach to magic resistance (a penalty to the casting roll)


Glittering Robe is a hell of spell. Storm call is... nice... but is limited by the short range. You can disrupt units as they come into combat but slowing a unit down so they're out of position in the early turns is much more risky and hard to pull off.

Sorry everyone bad reading comprehension on my part lol. But now I'm wonder why the downgrade from 50x75mm? Unless that was just an 8th ed thing. As for the new magic I am excited to see it in action, here's hoping for a q1 release next year 🤞

Where did this 'the whole front row gets to attack' come from? Back in sixth it was just as many as were in base contact (though you could lap round if you won a round). Did it change for later editions (I stopped at 6th and went in to LoTR) or was there something in the warcom article?

Warcom article but we don’t have a ton of insight into caps on it, other rule interactions, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Magic is indeed the 2d6 system, suppose it fits the theme of not being game breaking and supplementary instead. See how it plays. I love the new magic resistance, it’s actually super useful now.

Lot of good things here - interesting to see elementalism back.

I see they have Necromancy in the core book but no Vampire Counts....Can Empire have it I wonder?

Hopefully you can dispel any spells remaining - not the invulnerable "remains in play nonsese of other editions

Personally I’m loving that if you mess up a dispel badly enough you miscast. Gives a much better “battle of wits and wills” feel to magic if you can outclass a dude so hard he literally explodes.

Yeah this all seems fine.

The most controversial thing for me is the 60 mm x 40 mm base size for the unicorn.

How is that going to rank up? Or maybe it isn't?

The big news here is combined profile for character and mount. Unicorn adds 1W to maiden. I can imagine a dragon will add 5W and maybe 1T to a character riding it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also misscasting is kind of redundant/bad game design now. Before, your chances of a misscast would naturaly increase the more dice you rolled. Now you always roll 2 dice, giving you about 3% to roll snake eyes.

It is nice flavour but do wizards and even runesmiths dispeling need a 3% chance of catastrophic failure or even wiping out your unit?

 bong264 wrote:
Sorry everyone bad reading comprehension on my part lol. But now I'm wonder why the downgrade from 50x75mm? Unless that was just an 8th ed thing. As for the new magic I am excited to see it in action, here's hoping for a q1 release next year 🤞

Every model's unit entry specifies its base size. There's no reason why differently sized models in the same unit category have to have the same base size. I doubt Dragon Ogres go down in size, for instance, because they wouldn't fit on 40x60 bases if I recall correctly.

This way, at least theoretically, we have clarity on which base size a model is to use, and it can be tailored to the rest of the army without having to conform to a game-wide standard. No guarantees GW is going to make use of that, but the potential is there.

 Aesthete wrote:
Yeah this all seems fine.

The most controversial thing for me is the 60 mm x 40 mm base size for the unicorn.

How is that going to rank up? Or maybe it isn't?

If knights are on 30mm wide bases, the lance wedge has room for the sorceress in the third rank. Might look a little ungainly with gaps on both sides of her base or the flanks not being entirely straight, but I don't think there are any rules problems that can't be overcome with a sentence or two in the lance formation rule.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
I can imagine a dragon will add 5W and maybe 1T to a character riding it.

Unless it's like in the 8th edition where ridden monsters are separate from monstrous mounts.

Really love what they are doing with the whole thing so far, and magic looks quite interesting!

Love that dispel now has a risk, taking a chance to miscast while dispel doesn't makes it a no brainer to attempt, I like that! And the miscast table, on a first look, looks really good and balanced so far. Some harsh effects for the low numbers, while the higher one at a minimum stops you casting further (won't do much when it's your last spell cast in the turn tho, unless "the ability to cast" is also tied to dispel which would prevent the mage to dispel too, then it would be great).

Then there is this part that I am not sure: "What’s more, every spellcaster can attempt to dispel their opponents’ conjurations – provided they’re within 18” as first and second-level casters, or 24” at levels three and four". It could mean that every mage in range has the ability to dispel, but will still be limited to one dispel attempt per spell cast like before, or maybe you could try to dispel as many time as you have mages in range. And mages could be limited in dispel attempts themselves so maybe you burn them all one that one spell you want to stop.

Also, love that base size is specified on the unit info, hope that's how it's going to be for everything. But can we please get some TK info too, all we get is Bret this, Bret that!

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
The big news here is combined profile for character and mount. Unicorn adds 1W to maiden. I can imagine a dragon will add 5W and maybe 1T to a character riding it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also misscasting is kind of redundant/bad game design now. Before, your chances of a misscast would naturaly increase the more dice you rolled. Now you always roll 2 dice, giving you about 3% to roll snake eyes.

It is nice flavour but do wizards and even runesmiths dispeling need a 3% chance of catastrophic failure or even wiping out your unit?

I mean your logic is probably what lead to miscasts being dropped from AoS and 40k, but miscasting was always a thing in WHFB, and The Old World does seem to be WHFB:Nostalgia Edition. So here it is.

It means there is still that risk of pumping loads of points into wizards. And that 3% will crop up if you’re intending on casting 5 or 6 spells per turn.

And it does give design space to have certain magic items and such to interact with it - forcing a miscast something other than snake eyes for example.

Wow, pretty elegant and simplified mafic system thats miles ahead of 40ks psychic system.

I like the range of dispell. 24 inches for greater wizarsds and 18 for lesser. Gives you some more battle of wits/placement to consider, though probably not super relevant depending on battleboard size.

MaxT wrote:

It means there is still that risk of pumping loads of points into wizards. And that 3% will crop up if you’re intending on casting 5 or 6 spells per turn.

And it does give design space to have certain magic items and such to interact with it - forcing a miscast something other than snake eyes for example.

Very good point on misscast giving you a bigger and bigger risk the more wizards you bring. There is a big question on how many dispells wizards can make. If the number is limited than players could be incentivised to overwhelm the enemy anti magic capabilities by bringing lots of wizards like in 7th. If one lv4 can dispell all spells in 24" radius than spamming wizards is less good of a strategy.

I like that all the magic lores seem to be in the core rule book. Also the fact that the magic phase is split up into the other phases of the game based on the type of spell. Its been a change i've wanted since 7th edition.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

MaxT wrote:

It means there is still that risk of pumping loads of points into wizards. And that 3% will crop up if you’re intending on casting 5 or 6 spells per turn.

And it does give design space to have certain magic items and such to interact with it - forcing a miscast something other than snake eyes for example.

Very good point on misscast giving you a bigger and bigger risk the more wizards you bring. There is a big question on how many dispells wizards can make. If the number is limited than players could be incentivised to overwhelm the enemy anti magic capabilities by bringing lots of wizards like in 7th. If one lv4 can dispell all spells in 24" radius than spamming wizards is less good of a strategy.

The trouble with having your big wizard lord do all the dispels is you then run the risk of him exploding his own head and those of anyone nearby.

Also, the thing with assailments being cast in the combat phase means the number of times a miscast takes out a chunk of the enemy is going to go way up too…

 Mr_Rose wrote:

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

MaxT wrote:

It means there is still that risk of pumping loads of points into wizards. And that 3% will crop up if you’re intending on casting 5 or 6 spells per turn.

And it does give design space to have certain magic items and such to interact with it - forcing a miscast something other than snake eyes for example.

Very good point on misscast giving you a bigger and bigger risk the more wizards you bring. There is a big question on how many dispells wizards can make. If the number is limited than players could be incentivised to overwhelm the enemy anti magic capabilities by bringing lots of wizards like in 7th. If one lv4 can dispell all spells in 24" radius than spamming wizards is less good of a strategy.

The trouble with having your big wizard lord do all the dispels is you then run the risk of him exploding his own head and those of anyone nearby.

Also, the thing with assailments being cast in the combat phase means the number of times a miscast takes out a chunk of the enemy is going to go way up too…

Indeed. And the new miscast table seems a lot more brutal to those nearby: 1/6 chance of pie plating your unit as S10 AP-4 and 1/4 chance of a smaller template at S6 AP-2.

Imagine being in the middle of a lance formation and having the first happen - you’d pretty much wipe the unit out.