My only real complaint with magic is that I'd like to see the core lores more differentiated. I don't think 'Illusion' feels inherently more tricksy than any other lore. 'Necromancy' doesn't actually raise the dead, 'Daemonology' doesn't summon daemons or leads to possession etc - they're all very save and samey. Everyone gets a missile, everyone gets a vortex, and so on. Thats something I'd like to see fleshed out more if we ever get a 2nd edition.
I believe that whole rules in old world work like this more balanced. All armies special rules are the same, others reroll 1 in armor others in wounds , hit etc. Even green skins lost their randomness.
You say that, and I personally agree, but hold up a minute and listen to the wind, "Brettonians are too strong, says the wind..." "Tomb Kings haven't a chance says the sand..." this is entirely done as a balance component, this way if vortex spells are the juice, no further fuckery is required, you just use that spell. I agree there's a character loss this way, but the squeakiest wheel gets the grease, and our competitive community never, ever, stops squeaking
Agree somewhat. Every lore was given the same general toolkit of 1 of each of the main spell types, and then +1 more of one type. I think Daemonology works great at enhancing your guys. This isn't the grander Daemonology that wizards had in classic WH, but sort of a pact-making lore. However, a lot of spells do just seem like variations of each other, with the spells people often complain about being the ones that vary the most.
disagree, there should be no summoned units in a tabletop game. It is really problematic that an army can exceed the starting points of a game by summoning new units onto the field
I would love to see a "how to play" tutorial series and even some faction overview /intros, or basic strategy videos from you now that you're hundreds of games in and it's a year later. Mainly the "how to play" video series though if I had to choose.
Agreed! We don't play too often but my son and I are having a heck of a time getting everything down. Games take forever when constantly consulting the rules.
Agreed, the competitive scene is only fun if you play a few builds of 3 armies, but at base level the game is really fun and has a great push and pull to it.
Love the fall back in good order rules but WAP is a better rules set overall, the fact that the old world only lets infantry fight & shoot in ONE rank just kills it for me, it makes infantry terrible and turns it into Monster Hammer (very sad 😔).
Do you think... if they let infantry fight w/ 2 ranks by default (3 w/ spears) would that fix it? I would still want killed models to not get to attack to maintain some of the value of having superior initiative.
I 100% agree that there isnt enough core infantry on the table. I'm even ok with the typical core units being weak and not great, as long as everyone has to bring them, it's fair.
@@MountainMiniatures oh interesting I have an old box i got from someone who'd had it unopened for years, came with a bastiladon and skinks but all the stands were the same size and it's been quite difficult to use.
I'm with you dude. I have an army that can hang (miraculously, it only requires one dragon,) but I've played it so, so, so, many times... ...I'm ready to retire my DE's for a spell.
I agree with you on the core point. Ironically I think Handmaiden of the Everqueen as general is a pretty large punishment in order to take sisters vs other lists in which the core upgrade condition is an actual bonus.
I wish something was done to even out magic a little more, since I hate the prevalence of Level 4 Wizards. I did a few games only bringing Level 2's and it was a significant difference - I almost never felt my own spells go off but my opponent was casting freely. I don't mind Level 4's being more powerful I just hate that they feel almost required.
I think the designers made a poor choice neutering ranks and flanks where that is the game's unique selling proposition. It just isn't possible to bring in enough static CR to win a combat by a reliable margin. That has a couple knock on effects. Maneuver around the flanks to break that static CR less relevant. Chip damage to weaken static CR is less relevant. Still a cool game that I enjoy.
Rebalancing the Power of Level 4 Wizard could be easily done by Reducing the Spellcasting bonus to +1 for Level 1/2 Mages and +2 to Level 3/4 Mages. The benefit of knowing a wider amount of Spells to one per Level could be enough
I think the way they fix the spread from level 1-4 is by increasing the cost non-linearly. From level 2 to 3, you gain 6” of dispel radius, another spell to roll on, another spell, & +1 to cast. That should cost substantially more on each iteration. Maybe level 2 should cost 30, but 2 to 3 should be 50, & then 3 to 4 another 75 to really make it a decision you have to make. Currently, it’s just less efficient to take two level 2s because you’re losing value from items not being shared between the two & both get beat by a level 4
Mages fix: Lv 1-2 gain +1 to their casting. Lv 2-4 gain +2 to their casting. Maximum magic bonus: +3 (looking at you TK) The game is awesome. I stopped playing 40K and AoS since those games look like board games now xD
I don't even understand the +1 to cast. Well there are some bound spells but they also get power levels to their casting, so why on earth those bonuses even exist then? The base should be +0 to cast and then like 3-4 level wizards give +1.
Overall, I like TOW, I think the addition of FBGO and GG are great, I like a lot of the stuff they took from WAB, and more importantly I like the newly found enthusiasm for WHFB in my local community Some gripes off the top of my head: -Too many situations where the game partially rewards bad outcomes. Your wizard breaks and flees out of my dispel range. Now your pillar of fire can go through my army and I can only throw fateds at it. Your war machine panics, they FBGO with the gun because they now count as a single model and can't reach the model count minimum to flee, then they shoot me in the face next turn like nothing happened. Your cavalry fail a charge and get caught out, they counter charge next turn and get their full 3 inches 66% of the time. etc. -Mentioned above, dispellers need to measure to the template when dispelling a vortex. -First charge is a good rule for chariots that have serious problems with static res. but was handed out too liberally to cavalry that already eat infantry for breakfast and don't need it. -The "moves in a random direction actually means scatter despite explicitly not using the word scatter" FAQ ruling is BS. Fanatics stay still 1/3 of the time? Be serious. -Just abstract pursuit based on the roll. Moving to figure out if you caught them is a waste of time and leads to weird situations. -I understand getting rid of outnumber but was capping rank bonus at 2 really necessary? -Warband is a great rule from WAB for representing barbarians but there needs to be a good guy version. Why are state troops, the poster boys for strength in numbers, not bolstered by their ranks? Why are bretonnian peasants with spears and pots on their heads re-rolling charges?
Those are all very resonnable and relevant points, to make this game we love even better. 😊 How would you handle the overtuned magic without nerfing it to the ground ? I love my magic, I just do not like it to be an auto include for all my opponents. People should not feel compelled to bring à level 4 in every list.
@@plazma5343 The TOW designers clearly had a strong vision in mind for the magic system in this game, so I don't just want to say "go back to dice pools like my favorite edition", but I do agree. Some thoughts I have (just spitballing, I'm sure some of this would have knock on effects I haven't considered): -Some of this is fixed through much needed changes to army comp. Force players to choose between the dragon-mounted blender lord and the level 4 arch wizard. -Certain spells just need balancing, and by certain spells, I mean Pillar of Fire -Dispellers probably need some help. Maybe switch back to same number or higher. I'd change outclassed in the art to no more wizardly dispells this turn. Rolling on the miscast table as the inactive player sucks. Consider bumping Fateds to once per phase instead of once per turn. -My favorite aspect of TOW magic is that wizard positioning really matters, but that should lead to consideration about having spells that range further than dispel distances. -Speaking of fireball, bound spells are too reliable, or the items that give you them are too cheap. Fix one of these. TOW feels like there is a factory somewhere in The Old World pumping out Ruby Rings. -If you want to incentivize taking lower level wizards, maybe switch base casting bonus to +1 for lvl 1-2 and +3 for 3 and 4. Your max casting bonus is your wizard level. To reach this, you must have another wizard within command range, 12 inches, whatever. Maybe this is too much of a change, but the thought is to try and capture the "sorcerers apprentice " feel of a bunch of level 1s and 2s throwing dice into your pool.
@@DoomDiver222 i like all of those, maybe not all at once, but there is room for improvment. I absolutly do not want to go back to the completely random dice pool magic phase. This game doesn not need more rng. Even in 9th age, it doesnt work that well to me, and its the best version there is. Dont want to go back to the even older system, where you only that two choices : full omega zapzap Kaboom Magic Or two lvl one with each two PAMs. I like the way wizards work now, I just think (like everyone) that the balance clearly favors bringing à single lvl4 in almost every occasion. I would go a step further than you and say lvl 3/4 have only à +2. Or have them ahave the +1 and level one and two have no native bonus to casting. Seems a bit weird that everyone gets a bonus, why is the base wizard not casting the actual casting values. However, helping dispels against lvl 4 is great, but lvl 2 being so poorly efficient (being dispelled all the time) is a problem. I want à game where all these options are efficient and have pros and cons : lvl 4 + lvl2/ single lvl4 / 2 lv2 / single lvl2. Currently there is only one option that is efficient
@@plazma5343 1 casting die or dispel die per level. You may not have 2 greater of one type of dice than the other. So: Lvl1) 1/0 or 0/1 Lvl2) 1/1 Lvl3) 2/1 or 1/2 Lvl4) 2/2
Nice review. I am sad to say that I totally agree with you on the core unit problem. In my opinion core units should be the backbone of your army, supplied with only a few special or rare units, which I also believe was the whole Idea of Warhammer fantasy back in the old days. Now it seems core is out and armies are only built around characters, specials and rare units. Maybe this is good in tournaments, but I would have liked much more rank and flank units as you call it. In my opinion the only way to fix this is rerolling the army points setup, or have mulple choises on army point builds for different situations such as "casual gameplay" or "tournament gameplay". Other than that, its a nice game =)
I've only played 10 times but here are my thoughts so far. I'll start with a positive- the army building flexibility coming back has been awesome and fun! Here are some critiques: 1) Going with a more complex ruleset, with 6th edition or ancients as a baseline, was not a great idea. Played a 6-turn game this afternoon and it was fun but took over 4 hours. Played at Adpeticon and it was hard to finish 2,000 point games in 3 hours. Trying to swim against the tide of streamlining design isn't a great idea given the way that it drags things out. The complexity has also resulted in more rules disputes. It seems like they should have just improved 8th. 2) All lists are including level 4s. That is a huge design failure. A clear take-away from 8th was that folks should be able to focus on combat lord selections or any other army selections without being forced to select a level 4. There was a consensus to nerf the strength of magic in 8th, and here we are all having to take a level 4- they didn't get the job done on that. Like you guys I like many aspects of the magic system but the level 4 by default isn't ok. 3) They overcorrected on infantry and it does not look like any other edition. Go back to +3 rank bonus for static combat res. Eliminate the fighting rank and only allow models in base contact to fight. 4) Need to be able to change facing after "give ground" results- makes no sense that if you're flanked you cannot do this when you can do it if you lose by more with a FBIGO result.
8th magic was an abomination. A true mat ward creation. We could do a lot to flatten the curve on Lvl 1-4 in tOW by just giving them all the same dispel range.
@ nah, it was pretty terrible. “Don’t think, just roll lots of dice.” That was 8th magic. If it wasn’t a mat ward project I’d probably still be in awe someone thought getting rid of miscasts was a good idea.
I'm glad you are having so much fun with TOW. I hope I'll find that same enjoyment at some point. I promised myself to give TOW a two-year trial before deciding whether to return to an older edition. I agree that the push-and-pull feature is very cool. Being able to push a little to potentially set up a charge or get out of an opponent's line of sight is an interesting mechanic. That said, I don’t like how break tests don’t seem to matter anymore. In all of my games, only three units have failed and fled. Most of the time, units fall back in good order and move 1 inch back. It’s such a disappointment after winning by 20 points. Maybe it’s just me, but it feels like I lack tools in my list building to counter other lists. I always thought the concept of Lore of Heavens countering artillery, artillery countering monsters, and magic items countering wizards was a cool system. It feels like some armies have a harder time doing this than others. I call it the Rule of Three, but it feels like everything has three added rules now-like Healebeads, Strength, Armor Piercing, and Armor Bane. I find it hard to remember all the AP and AB values, and to me, there doesn’t seem to be a clear system. I think my biggest complaint is the index in the back of the book-it’s killing all my enjoyment. More often than not, we waste 10-20 minutes looking up one specific rule. It leads to arguments and more complaints about TOW. My continuation will all depend on this changing for me.
As the individual army videos release, obviously, one of the biggest system complaints is that core infantry, the "heart of the game," is, by all accounts, kinda worthless to bring en masse. This has been asked elsewhere, but what changes would you make, not necessarily to attempt to balance the game overall, but just to make infantry an actually enjoyable part of the game?
@@EPGelion I recognize that is the exact “problem”. I would love to see a greater focus on core. And in all honesty, I want to give you an answer. I’ve thought about this over and over, but I cannot come up with a single suggestion other than toning down the heroes. But I suspect that would upset more people that it does appease.
@@MountainMiniatures What if instead of “general makes specific unit core” it was more like “specific character gives specific units within Leadership range +X to Attack or WS or STR?”
Old World has very little rank and file and the magic rules are broken. We need step up, rank bonuses and magic to be tone down a notch or two. The issue is wizard level as a bonus is to much.
Is he calling the initiative bonus for charging "step up"? It's not called that in the rulebook as far as I can tell. Step up was the 8th edition rule that allowed units to fill in the models that got killed and fight in that turn. That is a rule the game needs, but step up is not a mechanic in TOW.
Dunno, i was trying to get all in with Bretonnia, but needing 2 books because the armybook doesnt include all was a let down, completed my peasants, fixed my original Trebuchet and thats it.
I am glad initiative now matters. In previous additions elves paid out their butts for better move, weaponskill and initiative when those Stats were no where near as impactful as strength and toughness.
5:35 Agreed. The whole push and shove of combat is great. It both makes it a bit more interesting that the way it worked in 6th (the last edition I played). Also it feels more interesting from a emergency narrative point of view.
14:40 One thing I like with the Handmaiden mechanic is that to use her as a general, you cannot take any Prince or Noble (save for a BSB) so it really forces you into some decision when building your list. Also that character is very mid so it has to be really intentional, I’m going with a big brick of SoA in core
Nice one! I liked that you touched on the spells being good this edition, that's one of my pet peeves. With regards to great weapons being taken over magic weapons. I think that's a problem with magic weapons, too. So many magic weapons have AP -1 at most which just isn't enough for something you pay 25+ points for.
It's interesting that you say 5th edition was herohammer - 5th is significantly less hero hammer compared to TOW. Shooting and magic were far more able to shutdown characters, characters did not have shared profiles, and the game typically had many restrictions on characters - to get an idea what was typical you can either use the guidelines in the battle book or even look at the 5th edition campaign supplements where very few characters were ever taken.
I think you really nailed everything from the magic to the lance suggestion. I think the ruby ring & talisman of protection are generally too played, & some magic weapons could be more aggressively costed to be taken over a GW more often.
I want magic/dispel dice pools. Make magic interactive again. One level 4 wizard standing in the middle saying "No fun allowed" by dispelling everything isnt interactive, I want decisions to be made.
Yep. Magic needs another resource, rather than "throw 2 dice, add spell level". A solution I saw suggested to alleviate L4s in the middle is limit dispelling to one attempt per Wizard, not Wizard Level. That would give purpose to lower level Wizards, as they could overwhelm a stronger Wizard, though have a harder time casting.
I love "resource management" in games and even though magic was pretty powerful in 6/7th edition (Hello Dance Macabre spammers) it was really fun using the dice pool.
I would limit level 3 and 4 wizards to both two casting and dispel attempts per turn, while 1 and 2 level wizard could only do once. This way, three level ones could outclass a level 4 wizard
@@christiannordin5328 - Agree. The dice pool was an interesting resource. You could safely cast fewer spells with more dice, or try for many spells with few dice. Liked that aspect of it. Disliked how bonkers some spells were and spell channelling though.
I really really wish I liked it but I was an 8th infantary guy so hero hammer just isnt for me. I get the appeal of it but Its just not for me sadly. Saved my armies for 15 years and ended up not liking it is heart breaking xD
I was incredibly stoked to play Old World, bought the Bretonnia box and everything. Haven't yet gotten a chance to play yet, still need to paint most of my models, but the assessment that Line Infantry doesn't really work and isn't very good is really disheartening. Should I still try to get into this game despite that? Are most players still going to bring infantry?
I 100% agree with "let core be core!". Core units should be the largest part of the armies and do the large part of the close combat battles in a rank & file wargame imo. By making other "veteran" units core you take away the reason to use ordinary core, I mean why would you use the weaker unit if you could use a stronger as core? And if one player uses them all the time, he/she forces the other player to do it as well to best counter them. And the more you see rare units on the field as "core" the more you take away their "awesomeness & cool factor" from them and they just become new core units, and you dont get that "oh shit, they have cave troll!" fealing any more if that makes any sense? That said, there is ofc nothing wrong with playing battles with only over the top units, but that (to me at least) is more suitable in AoS and not for ToW.
As a skaven lover and builder of tow MASSIVE Skaven armies I said I would never play another GW Game. However I am very interested in this version of fantasy. I have been collecting a small amount of skaven and look forward to completing them into a 2,000 point force. I for one never really cared for scenarios and really just liked battling it out with my enemy. After all the Skaven have but one purpose in life and that is to either wipe out all the other races or at the very least enslave them. Your doom cometh man things!
There is another RAW not covered, its to do with lance formation vision arc being from second row, it means if they are close enough and on an angle its possible to declare a charge but if you wheel first you then connect with your own flank. Its rare!
Actually here is the original shot www.tidesandtrails.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot_20241224_093609_Messenger.jpg The one I just posted is how it looks when you wheel from the second rank. It's how lance formation works.
@@MountainMiniatureslol I've tried 3 times to respond to this it keeps getting deleted. I have pictures to show what I mean at the website tidesandtrails if you put that with the normal stuff for a url (I can't be more specific YT deletes it) but 100% we are doing correctly. You wheel from the second rank in a lance so imagine what happens if that means the first horse hits their side against a close unit.
@ send me a link at steve@miniwargaming.com I’ll check it out. But from what you are explaining I’m pretty sure you are doing something incorrectly. I’ll do my best to explain if you provide the pics.
@@discomute I’ll add: if I’m understanding the situation correctly, the mistake you’re making is you think you are allowed to wheel. If things are as I’m seeing them in my minds eye, you don’t wheel and go straight in and blunt yourself. This is under the rules for lance. As I said if I understand the situation as you explained it, it doesn’t need any correction. You’re just moving incorrectly.
Brettonnian (or any other exsting) flying characters should join flying units. They just should not have skirmishers rule. That would be enough imho. Taking it back to just infantry and horse/wolf/pig/cold one based characters having 360 would tone down stuff significantly.
I have a question that unfortunately will not be FAQed by GW since it's about a legacy faction, the Vampire Counts: Can I use the "Invocation of Nehek" ability on a zombie unit that has not yet suffered any losses? It is undisputed that I can exceed the unit size (Newly Dead rule), but can it be proven that you are allowed to actually use the ability, since in the text for "Invocation of Nehek" or "Ressurecting the Fallen", for example always says something about "recovering lost wounds" etc.
In order for the game to work and all the stuff in it be useful you need meaningful scenarios and often people that play against each other where they know what armies they will play with. Most of the time you probably also know the models they own. The issue I have is that the game as written and the balance simply don't work for matched play, at least not very well. That is, you build a list and have no clue what you will face. There are so many things in the game you have to know that you are likely to face in order to make the game balanced (like dragons or any monster with a powerful character). Many items and units are simply not viable in a scenario you don't know what you will face. A good very concrete example would be, say... the Flaming Banner.... If you know you are facing a troll horde it is not over costed at all, but in most cases it will be more a hindrance than a strength. The same goes for infantry... Infantry the way the game are written need to have scenario rules that make them viable, such as victory locations that you need to hold and require say a unit strength of ten and a banner. Infantry also are more important if you run break points rather than model points cost that basically just cause points denial behaviour which is boring. The game is about you and your friends having fun and what models you like and want to paint. So you need to set up the game so you can take the models you like and you all still have a good chance to win if you play well. The scenarios that we used actually have meant that even core models have become more important as you need more units that are cheap and have the numbers necessary, it also bring you cheap strength to the army break points you need as well. So a balanced army in many ways then become very good. I also feel that level 4 wizards being so powerful also is an issue when you have few powerful units rather than a more diverse number of medium strength units. A wizard are still a huge point sink that might not have the influence enough on it's own. Sometimes in our games it can be more valuable to have two mages so they can be in more than one place even if they are slightly less likely to get their spells off. Due to our scenarios we also have seen hero hammer being less of an issue for the same reason, you need more units.. which feeds itself as you then wants even more units. And as units also need ten strength to get VP and they are important units also tend to be at least 15-20 strong and you need multiple of them so individual models can't be too expensive either etc...
I like it apart from the lack of combat reform. It makes it too hard to recover from a flank or rear charge and also makes falling back in good order weirdly better than giving ground.
I love ToW. It has some minor quibbles (pay for wheels, magic system). And some BIG ones (infantry, monstrous mounts and skirmish). But the bones are great! And I hope it gets a version 2.0 in a year or two. Usualy I want systems to last longer. But since this is v1, I can get behind a v2 (or like v1.5) sooner rather than later.
Challenge accepted ! Question unanswered for you : Hatred/Fear (X) referring to dwarf, elf, etc. => what's the definition of the "X" for the rules ? (is a dryad an elf ?) No mention in the book found ! If you can tell, will be thanksful aha ! Cheers and thanks for the videos
As I said, in the "Hatred" or "Fear" interaction I'm a goblin, I fear the elves. I didn't find any definition of an elf. Does it mean the book ? The name ? The lore ? Can't say and I could perfectly understand whatever definition is given
Respectfully disagree, at least partially. I think if a player wants a single model to have the shock power to break any unit, or to dominate the field with magic, or to win with killing power versus attrition, those should be valid playstyles. I just wish there were more builds where bringing in and preserving static CR was a viable strategy, especially for dwarfs and empire where that is an archetypal army style.
@@ericolson922 The problem is that is impossible that all playstyles would be valid. When you make a ruleset you create what playstyles work and what didn´t work. And if you make a system with units with limited movement, line of sigth and damage potency and put units with good movement and potency, these units will be dominate the game. The same with magic and projectile weapons.
@corsariosandrorect5238 I think we are actually pretty close in opinion. The Old World designers decided hammers are the most fun way to play and made a game filled with awesome hammers and crappy anvils. I think where we differ is that I feel the solve is to boost the anvils a little bit rather than taking down the hammers. In practice that looks a bit more like 6th ed where with good play against a dragon for example an infantry block could take a charge from the front and lose but hold, and use a support unit to charge in and the combined static CR was enough to win. Currently the lethality is just too high relative to static CR and no standard infantry has a chance. For magic I think the simplicity of the system that uses simple modifiers causes a problem. Since the system uses 2d6 the probability is curved, so the difference between +3 and +4 reaching the tail end of the curve is significant. The cost of going from level 3 to level 4 doesn't really match that bonus, but a simple cost adjustment that makes going from 3 to 4 less of a no brainer would fix it. Linehammer I actually don't mind because it is the only real check infantry has to get the attack volume to threaten monsters and it is also one of the few cases in the current game where there is real incentive to try to maneuver for flank attacks.
@@corsariosandrorect5238 I think we are close in what we want. I would like a game where people field armies rather than powerful single pieces. I also want the game to be focused on maneuver rather than lucky dice rolling. I think Old World is close to that, but the designers decided that doing damage was more fun than resisting damage so they skewed things a little too far towards awesome hammers and powerful casting, at the expense of reliable anvils and dispels. I happen to think a few mild tweaks to boost static CR and give low magic armies a chance to dispel would make a more dynamic game that allows both play mentalities. Fundamentally the game is about generating CR. Killing the enemy is the fun way to generate CR, so designers emphasize that. But currently the max static CR you can bring to a fight is too low to balance out all the killing power. All that takes to fix it is bringing back 1 more possible rank bonus and/or outnumber bonus. Magic is tricky because casting is on 2d6, so the distribution is peaked, so any +1 modifier towards the tail value has a huge impact. I want to see lvl 4 casters on the table because it is a high fantasy setting. The most powerful caster in the land (which is what a lvl 4 represents) SHOULD be able to take over a game, but their cost needs to reflect that. And there needs to be more counter play available to low magic armies. But to not overcorrect to the point where people stop bringing the power units that make it a high fantasy setting.
one small thing i like about this over other games is i need less dice. rarely do i need more than 10 maybe 15 dice including the artillary and scatter die. 40k i need 40 just to shoot a single unit of intercessors now. I feel old world takes longer to actually learn to play but once your playing the games fly by, this game feels much faster than 40k and aos, probably because its more "simple" go towards enemy and fight them dont need to "do i move this unit here so i get on the objective or do i have fun and fight the enemy but get no real points".
Great video, and thanks for all the quality battle reports. I definitely agree I love the old world rule book, and that if you are each just taking a fluffy army list containing a battle line of core infantry that shove back and forth with the give ground and FBIGO system, the game is fantastic, probably the best yet. However, it has some glaring problems 1) Bretonnian Pegasus knights. The skirmish rules are too permissive. No unit that has skirmish should ever want to be charge the enemy, basically. Certainly you cannot give a flying, swiftstride, monstrous heavy cavalry unit skirmish. They are the most overpowered unit in the game, even more overpowered than dragons, because they ignore all the facing rules that define TOW rulset. They just move wherever they want and charge whatever they want 2) Combined profiles on ridden monsters with stacking defensive items is too strong. War machines are a joke into them. I think it takes about 21 cannon shots to take out the chaos lord on dragon? If war machines are meant to keep ridden monsters in check, they most certainly are not doing it 3) Core infantry, particularly empire core infantry, are just pretty terrible. You never want to bring them. They range from too expensive for what they do, to WAY to expensive for what they do for empire (all their melee state troops are 2 points overcosted). In any kind of competitive environment, the infantry is left floundering around helplessly in the middle of the field while dragons and pegasus knights and magic zip over their heads, deciding the course of the battle. Then they get cleaned up at the end. Line infantry don't work in a kill points only game, I think. they are about holding ground, but you don't need to hold ground, you need to kill people And line infantry is far too slow to do anything in that regard. You can't use them to 'pin' an enemy, because the enemy is a dragon that can just fly over their heads and ignore them.
Someone who has played 3rd, 6th,7th, 8th and 9th Age. All have their strengths. Problem with 3rd you had to have a GM and the game could be very slow. 6th with the Ravening Hordes WD was probably the most balanced and straight forward. Boring. Maybe but balanced. Then 7th changed the ranking system with infantry 4-5 wide and made Calvary way to good (Blood Knights and Skullcrushers anyone?). I loved 8th but GW didn't finish or clean up much with the rules during the end times. (Skaven, Beasts, Bretts)Warmachines were just to powerful and infantry was to large. Step up was a great rule though. The Old World is a big mix of good and bad rules. I actually like the Command and Strategy phase system. Charging and combat is pretty good in TOW and push back is a favorite. I will admit that there is some issues with Skirmish with the 360 charge direction, Lv 4 Magic caster being to mandatory and Flying Monsters being to good. Dont even start with me on Pegasus Knight shenanigans. Overall I cant wait to see more of TOW but it only needs couple fixes. 7/10
TLDR: Yes. I love the complexity of the game as it makes it so hard to master and creates so many hilarious and funny moments. Yes it could do with some balances and tweaks like any game but at it's core it's great.
My issue with the magic system, is that dwarves are really bad at dispelling, and locking down you opponents spellcasting. MR 1 doesnt do a whole lot when many impactful spells are vortex's! I get you point regarding having a spellcasting squish, but I think level 4 should be rarer. Lore wise only incredible mages such as slaan, or Teclis would fit "the top level". Some random Goblin shaman arent really on the same tier. And by making certain races be better at magic, it adds another bit of faction complexity. Definitely agree regarding dwarf war machines!
8th edition was only a Deathstar edition for players who didn't play the rules to their fullest and built effective armies. Deathstars put all your eggs in one basket and couldn't do any strategic play. Every tournament level player I know and I played on competitive teams that went to 100 main tournaments for 8th, played with multiple large units of infantry and an assotrment of supporting units . 8th was a great rules set with a bad learning curve.
Really enjoyed this video, cheers! I wonder - what do you see happening with the Legacy factions in the future? Are you hopeful for an eventual release (even if many years down the line)? Or do you think they will be lost to history? I'm a big fan of TOW - I just hope eventually we can get the legacy armies back.
I think I will just stick to 8th ed and my own house rules. TOW is not bad but honestly why change? I have everything produced for 8th ed so I have all the armies and I don't need to wait on products just by figures which is how a wargame should be.
I think the game is really good now and it'll be perfect in an year, when the miniatures for all the armies will be available. What I fear is what will happen next, with new releases that could bloat the game. I'd really love this set of rules to be frozen for at least 5 or 6 years, possibly forever. We don't need new rules, models or editions. In terms of future releases I'd only be satisfied if armies that are currently listed under the legends section get their wave of returning models. That's why I still love playing 6th edition of Warhammer and if Old World becomes as bloated as 40k I'll happily switch back to that old edition.
House rule worth trying. Decrease the need for level 4 wizards but keep magic more or less the same. reduce the casting value of all spells by 2. Than Wizards do not add their wizard level to casting or dispel attempts. Level 4s are still great for number of spells and dispel range, but lower level casters can still cast successfully.
The problem with you system is that 2 level 2 wizard is better that a a 1 level 4 wizard, so nobody will use level 3 or 4 wizards. But no system can make all wizard level equally useful and you idea would make the magic less potent and more manageable without put the same points on magic.
Positives: - Old World is a dope af fantasy setting. I enjoy it immensely more than AoS and so happy to see older kits make a come back. - Nice to see GW give it some love and honor the games that have been in its past. - Streamlined magic is very nice. The older ways were tedious, cumbersome, and slowed the game down. - Overall, unit and army balance is there and it's nice to see. No one unit feels over the top, outside of combat lords on dragons. Monsters feel properly powerful. Negatives: - The step up ruling for this edition yields some legit feel bads. It puts more emphasis on combat heroes to help carry the unit to make a difference and ultimately just gives the front rank and that hero extra "wounds" to rely on for the ongoing combats. Let models in unit "step up" and fight when their comrades die. Seeing units in a 20x1 formation is stupid and gamey. - Relying on static res to win is boring. Picking up dice and letting your units do the talking is more fun. - Lvl 4 wizards are way too oppressive. - Morale and falling back is odd. I get what GW is attempting to do but it's pretty easy to get into a situation to simply "push and pull" back and forth for almost the entire game. Resulting in again, a static, boring game. Honestly: I give this game a 4/10. The potential is there. House ruling some things make this a more fun game than it currently is. There are more fun, engaging, dynamic rank'n'flank games out there that yield a quicker, more fun time (Conquest, OPR: Age of Fantasy Regiments, Kings of War, Oathmark).
There is one interaction not defined in the rulebook. It involves special distance attacks that go against the initiative of the target instead of the thougness and war machines. For a example, when a sepulcral stalker shoots against a war machine and makes an impact. What is the roll for wounding? War machines have no initiative, the crew does, but usually you use the thougness of the war machine.
thats covered in the main rules page 97 If a model has a characteristic of ‘0’, it has no ability whatsoever in what the characteristic represents. a warmachine is immune to the petrifying gaze, the cannon doent know a snake is trying to stare it to death.
I have yet to actually receive any of my Bretonnia stuff that I ordered a year ago and to be honest the game just depresses me because gw seems to have taken my $750 and won’t give me my stuff.
@9:30 It's been my general experience that disallowing the brilliant helm from going on a dragon, thus forcing most (obv not all) to a 3+ save from where they were at 2+ and -1 to-be-hit, has been enough to reign in dragon dominance. You still need to build a list that takes super-dragons into account, but you probably aren't looking down the barrel of a 2+ 5++ 5+++ killing machine.
Fix this edition, put out all of the appropriate books and models including legacy armies and THEN give people a year to enjoy their armies before a new edition. Anything other than this is a failure.
Do you like speed and violence? Play Bretonnia. Do you like a more considered approach? Play Tomb Kings. Both of them are disgustingly overpowered, so you can't really do wrong (the starter sets give you a good force to start with too).
My friend and I have a hard time agreeing with how step up works in this game. The amount of fights my mostly infantry tomb kings list just sits there and takes a beating is kinda boring from a player stand point. Just feels like a very non interactive game when it comes to “the other player”
completely agree 😊 I just want more the Poker-System from the Winds of Magic of 8th ed. So i have to choose, what to dispel. Now in TOW its just rolling two dices, and if you are higher you get it... thats a bit lame... 😅😅 rest of the game is awesome❤
As an avid watcher of your battle reports I would like to say a big thank you! I have learnt a lot watching you guys play. I also have one question regarding rules: we have a pegasus knight unit with the banner that gives vanguard. They are joined by a character. Does the character also get vanguard?. There is an faq that says: " If a character without the Vanguard special rule joins a unit with it during deployment, can the character make a Vanguard move with the unit? No. What's more, if the unit is formed, it will not be able to make a Vanguard rule. However, if the unit is in Skirmish formation, it can make its Vanguard move as normal, leaving the character behind." -- however my opponents argue that the banner gives vanguard to everyone, including the character. I would like to know your opinion on this. Thank you!
I agree with your opponents, the banner gives Vanguard to the unit including the character. The FAQ has created confusion. The banner is a magic item conferring the ability on everyone in the unit which includes the character. The FAQ would be referring to units that get Vanguard as a base special rule that are joined by characters without the special rule.
@@AdamteVelde thank you for the reply. In my long time playing various editions of warhammer fantasy I learnt not to assume what rule designers meant. :)
@@catalingavrilescu2317 Got me reading the FAQ. I saw that Vanguard and Scout cannot be used together. Makes me ask "why"? There are units that can take both. There is a Beastman magic item that grants both abilities to a character.
@@AdamteVelde scout cannot charge after using scout, vanguard can. Now a unit that use both scout and vanguard could pop up in the middle of an enemy deployment potentially winning the game before it started.
@catalingavrilescu2317 the unit still cannot charge if the unit deployed using scout. Just allows a vanguard move. The units that can do this are: Empire Archers, Squires, Waywatchers, Beastmen character with Skin of Man.
3e is the actual best but you haven't played it, that is why you think wtow is the best. The Warhammer Armies book in combination with the RoC books can't be beat. You can form testudos with your Dwarf Warriors.
I think your gripe about Black Orcs or Longbeards being available as a Core choice is a little overblown. Its a 0-1 limit and your General must be either a Black Orc Boss or Dwarf King. The higher above 2000 points you go, the less it matters. And taking Sisters of Avelorn as Core has an even higher tax. They're still limited to 0-1 and now you're forced to take a 2 Wound, Leadership 8 General, which means you can't take a non-BSB Noble or Prince.
Nah see the Black orc Warboss is already in the list, he is just too good, its not a tax at all. The Dwarf King is a top tier fighter, but yes i dont always want him in my list, but id take him far less if he didnt unlock Core longbeards. and the High Elves can get an 18inch leadership aura far too easy to offset the handmaiden as your General by just taking a Noble BSB with pure of heart and put it on a griffin. And i dont see this model as a tax either, its too good.
@@MountainMiniaturesI just don't agree with this take since infantry is still well below other unit types. I'm fine with good infantry being core at 0-1 or with other restrictions.
The thing is even if there's 0-1 limit, the special will take the minimum requirement of core, so you'll likely run with less core actually. Those special infantry shouldn't ever be promoted out of core. It doesn't free up more special because there's no way you'll ever hit 50% special limit on any list anyways. Sisters I can see because that general tax is quite huge. So big that I wouldn't likely take them as a core and run them rare and take those characters :D
@@GamingwithTheCooler im confused. That covered on page 111 of the forces of fantasy book under the heading of "lance formation and Skirmishers" Im not seeing anything that is ambiguous here, what am i missing?
More narrative focus to lores of magic instead of making everything the same for "balance" reasons. I also really wish that AP was strength based again. Infantry needs to be fixed so that it is the core of virtually every army. Wrap around needs to go and models should only be able to hit models they have contact with. Extra wounds dealt can bleed over into the rest of what they are fighting.
Steve, I'd be with you on Core allotments if Core was worth having in all armies. Warriors of Chaos or Dwarves have amazing core choices and don't care, but many other armies absolutely hate their core and don't want to take a point over.
Would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who never played warhammer fantasy before TOW and compare that to the opinions of WFB veterans which by far are the majority of people reviewing the game, sometimes we forget that the perspective of the player can totally alter the experience of the edition.
I'm glad people like it, but I can't get into a rank and flank game where there effectively is no rank and flank. If you play the game in a non-competitive way it's fine. But as soon as anyone actually tries to start to win the game, it degenerates into this thing that bears no resemblance to the fantasy of what it is supposed to represent.
My only real complaint with magic is that I'd like to see the core lores more differentiated. I don't think 'Illusion' feels inherently more tricksy than any other lore. 'Necromancy' doesn't actually raise the dead, 'Daemonology' doesn't summon daemons or leads to possession etc - they're all very save and samey. Everyone gets a missile, everyone gets a vortex, and so on. Thats something I'd like to see fleshed out more if we ever get a 2nd edition.
I believe that whole rules in old world work like this more balanced. All armies special rules are the same, others reroll 1 in armor others in wounds , hit etc. Even green skins lost their randomness.
You say that, and I personally agree, but hold up a minute and listen to the wind, "Brettonians are too strong, says the wind..." "Tomb Kings haven't a chance says the sand..." this is entirely done as a balance component, this way if vortex spells are the juice, no further fuckery is required, you just use that spell. I agree there's a character loss this way, but the squeakiest wheel gets the grease, and our competitive community never, ever, stops squeaking
Agree somewhat. Every lore was given the same general toolkit of 1 of each of the main spell types, and then +1 more of one type. I think Daemonology works great at enhancing your guys. This isn't the grander Daemonology that wizards had in classic WH, but sort of a pact-making lore. However, a lot of spells do just seem like variations of each other, with the spells people often complain about being the ones that vary the most.
disagree, there should be no summoned units in a tabletop game. It is really problematic that an army can exceed the starting points of a game by summoning new units onto the field
@@johnhildenbrand2642 eloquently put
I would love to see a "how to play" tutorial series and even some faction overview /intros, or basic strategy videos from you now that you're hundreds of games in and it's a year later. Mainly the "how to play" video series though if I had to choose.
Excellent suggestion. This would be so helpful to get more interest on the game
Agreed! We don't play too often but my son and I are having a heck of a time getting everything down. Games take forever when constantly consulting the rules.
Man Reads Book: Definitive Edition
Greasus goldtooth reads book
I feel the same about the game. You entertain us with the most fun ways to play the game, thank you!
Agreed, the competitive scene is only fun if you play a few builds of 3 armies, but at base level the game is really fun and has a great push and pull to it.
That classic WE dragon at 8:53 just warms my heart!
Love the fall back in good order rules but WAP is a better rules set overall, the fact that the old world only lets infantry fight & shoot in ONE rank just kills it for me, it makes infantry terrible and turns it into Monster Hammer (very sad 😔).
Do you think... if they let infantry fight w/ 2 ranks by default (3 w/ spears) would that fix it? I would still want killed models to not get to attack to maintain some of the value of having superior initiative.
I 100% agree that there isnt enough core infantry on the table. I'm even ok with the typical core units being weak and not great, as long as everyone has to bring them, it's fair.
I think the only reason pegasus knights are skirmishers is because the minis are too wide to be physically alligned with another.
No. Every flying unit in every edition have been skirmishers in the best of my memory.
You're right
Lol ripperdactyls are too wide to be aligned as skirmishers haha
@@discomute that’s not true. They come with flight stands with three different heights. And when placed on the 40 mm² base a rank of perfectly.
@@MountainMiniatures oh interesting I have an old box i got from someone who'd had it unopened for years, came with a bastiladon and skinks but all the stands were the same size and it's been quite difficult to use.
As a DE player, I really want something new, I know it won't happen but alas
I'm optimistic that the Legacy armies gonna make it in down the line.
I'm with you dude. I have an army that can hang (miraculously, it only requires one dragon,) but I've played it so, so, so, many times... ...I'm ready to retire my DE's for a spell.
I think some of the legacies will be the new factions teased for this year.
I agree with you on the core point. Ironically I think Handmaiden of the Everqueen as general is a pretty large punishment in order to take sisters vs other lists in which the core upgrade condition is an actual bonus.
I wish something was done to even out magic a little more, since I hate the prevalence of Level 4 Wizards. I did a few games only bringing Level 2's and it was a significant difference - I almost never felt my own spells go off but my opponent was casting freely. I don't mind Level 4's being more powerful I just hate that they feel almost required.
I think the designers made a poor choice neutering ranks and flanks where that is the game's unique selling proposition. It just isn't possible to bring in enough static CR to win a combat by a reliable margin. That has a couple knock on effects. Maneuver around the flanks to break that static CR less relevant. Chip damage to weaken static CR is less relevant. Still a cool game that I enjoy.
I like that they are supporting it again I own all but 2 armies. I just wish they launched this instead of trying to delete it.
Rebalancing the Power of Level 4 Wizard could be easily done by Reducing the Spellcasting bonus to +1 for Level 1/2 Mages and +2 to Level 3/4 Mages. The benefit of knowing a wider amount of Spells to one per Level could be enough
I really hope they give books for legend Armies. I'm a Khorne Demon player and getting Skarbrand, Skulltaker, and Karanak back would be awesome
it’s coming man just be a little patient they are coming
@mikez2311 did they say they are? I'm excited if they are
@
follow the money
@mikez2311 not sure I understand? GW is allergic to money haha
They will release Legends books when sales start to slide on these armies.
Like Pokemen-Gotta milk them all!
I think the way they fix the spread from level 1-4 is by increasing the cost non-linearly. From level 2 to 3, you gain 6” of dispel radius, another spell to roll on, another spell, & +1 to cast. That should cost substantially more on each iteration. Maybe level 2 should cost 30, but 2 to 3 should be 50, & then 3 to 4 another 75 to really make it a decision you have to make. Currently, it’s just less efficient to take two level 2s because you’re losing value from items not being shared between the two & both get beat by a level 4
Mages fix:
Lv 1-2 gain +1 to their casting.
Lv 2-4 gain +2 to their casting.
Maximum magic bonus: +3 (looking at you TK)
The game is awesome. I stopped playing 40K and AoS since those games look like board games now xD
I don't even understand the +1 to cast. Well there are some bound spells but they also get power levels to their casting, so why on earth those bonuses even exist then? The base should be +0 to cast and then like 3-4 level wizards give +1.
Agreed, TK getting +7 to cast is ridiculous.
@@robnoel9306I dont play against much TK, how do they get up to +7 ?
Keep bonuses as they are. 24" dispel range. And... Each additional time you cast or dispel in a turn is +1 on the miscast table
@@robnoel9306+9 at the last tournament I played lol (+1 from each casket)
Overall, I like TOW, I think the addition of FBGO and GG are great, I like a lot of the stuff they took from WAB, and more importantly I like the newly found enthusiasm for WHFB in my local community
Some gripes off the top of my head:
-Too many situations where the game partially rewards bad outcomes. Your wizard breaks and flees out of my dispel range. Now your pillar of fire can go through my army and I can only throw fateds at it. Your war machine panics, they FBGO with the gun because they now count as a single model and can't reach the model count minimum to flee, then they shoot me in the face next turn like nothing happened. Your cavalry fail a charge and get caught out, they counter charge next turn and get their full 3 inches 66% of the time. etc.
-Mentioned above, dispellers need to measure to the template when dispelling a vortex.
-First charge is a good rule for chariots that have serious problems with static res. but was handed out too liberally to cavalry that already eat infantry for breakfast and don't need it.
-The "moves in a random direction actually means scatter despite explicitly not using the word scatter" FAQ ruling is BS. Fanatics stay still 1/3 of the time? Be serious.
-Just abstract pursuit based on the roll. Moving to figure out if you caught them is a waste of time and leads to weird situations.
-I understand getting rid of outnumber but was capping rank bonus at 2 really necessary?
-Warband is a great rule from WAB for representing barbarians but there needs to be a good guy version. Why are state troops, the poster boys for strength in numbers, not bolstered by their ranks? Why are bretonnian peasants with spears and pots on their heads re-rolling charges?
FBIGO used to just be a successful leadership check when losing. Noone used to just stay where they were.
Those are all very resonnable and relevant points, to make this game we love even better. 😊 How would you handle the overtuned magic without nerfing it to the ground ? I love my magic, I just do not like it to be an auto include for all my opponents. People should not feel compelled to bring à level 4 in every list.
@@plazma5343 The TOW designers clearly had a strong vision in mind for the magic system in this game, so I don't just want to say "go back to dice pools like my favorite edition", but I do agree.
Some thoughts I have (just spitballing, I'm sure some of this would have knock on effects I haven't considered):
-Some of this is fixed through much needed changes to army comp. Force players to choose between the dragon-mounted blender lord and the level 4 arch wizard.
-Certain spells just need balancing, and by certain spells, I mean Pillar of Fire
-Dispellers probably need some help. Maybe switch back to same number or higher. I'd change outclassed in the art to no more wizardly dispells this turn. Rolling on the miscast table as the inactive player sucks. Consider bumping Fateds to once per phase instead of once per turn.
-My favorite aspect of TOW magic is that wizard positioning really matters, but that should lead to consideration about having spells that range further than dispel distances.
-Speaking of fireball, bound spells are too reliable, or the items that give you them are too cheap. Fix one of these. TOW feels like there is a factory somewhere in The Old World pumping out Ruby Rings.
-If you want to incentivize taking lower level wizards, maybe switch base casting bonus to +1 for lvl 1-2 and +3 for 3 and 4. Your max casting bonus is your wizard level. To reach this, you must have another wizard within command range, 12 inches, whatever. Maybe this is too much of a change, but the thought is to try and capture the "sorcerers apprentice " feel of a bunch of level 1s and 2s throwing dice into your pool.
@@DoomDiver222 i like all of those, maybe not all at once, but there is room for improvment.
I absolutly do not want to go back to the completely random dice pool magic phase. This game doesn not need more rng. Even in 9th age, it doesnt work that well to me, and its the best version there is. Dont want to go back to the even older system, where you only that two choices : full omega zapzap Kaboom Magic Or two lvl one with each two PAMs. I like the way wizards work now, I just think (like everyone) that the balance clearly favors bringing à single lvl4 in almost every occasion.
I would go a step further than you and say lvl 3/4 have only à +2. Or have them ahave the +1 and level one and two have no native bonus to casting. Seems a bit weird that everyone gets a bonus, why is the base wizard not casting the actual casting values. However, helping dispels against lvl 4 is great, but lvl 2 being so poorly efficient (being dispelled all the time) is a problem.
I want à game where all these options are efficient and have pros and cons : lvl 4 + lvl2/ single lvl4 / 2 lv2 / single lvl2. Currently there is only one option that is efficient
@@plazma5343
1 casting die or dispel die per level. You may not have 2 greater of one type of dice than the other.
So:
Lvl1) 1/0 or 0/1
Lvl2) 1/1
Lvl3) 2/1 or 1/2
Lvl4) 2/2
Excellent review. Really hope they get rid of ‘Take X as core’, there’s a reason why they have army comps.
This was great, thanks. It is not often you get a review after a year with a game. I've only just started playing but loving it so far.
This caused a lot of debate on my Facebook group when I shared this video. I approve of this video and your dedication to the hobby.
Nice review. I am sad to say that I totally agree with you on the core unit problem. In my opinion core units should be the backbone of your army, supplied with only a few special or rare units, which I also believe was the whole Idea of Warhammer fantasy back in the old days. Now it seems core is out and armies are only built around characters, specials and rare units. Maybe this is good in tournaments, but I would have liked much more rank and flank units as you call it. In my opinion the only way to fix this is rerolling the army points setup, or have mulple choises on army point builds for different situations such as "casual gameplay" or "tournament gameplay".
Other than that, its a nice game =)
I've only played 10 times but here are my thoughts so far. I'll start with a positive- the army building flexibility coming back has been awesome and fun! Here are some critiques: 1) Going with a more complex ruleset, with 6th edition or ancients as a baseline, was not a great idea. Played a 6-turn game this afternoon and it was fun but took over 4 hours. Played at Adpeticon and it was hard to finish 2,000 point games in 3 hours. Trying to swim against the tide of streamlining design isn't a great idea given the way that it drags things out. The complexity has also resulted in more rules disputes. It seems like they should have just improved 8th. 2) All lists are including level 4s. That is a huge design failure. A clear take-away from 8th was that folks should be able to focus on combat lord selections or any other army selections without being forced to select a level 4. There was a consensus to nerf the strength of magic in 8th, and here we are all having to take a level 4- they didn't get the job done on that. Like you guys I like many aspects of the magic system but the level 4 by default isn't ok. 3) They overcorrected on infantry and it does not look like any other edition. Go back to +3 rank bonus for static combat res. Eliminate the fighting rank and only allow models in base contact to fight. 4) Need to be able to change facing after "give ground" results- makes no sense that if you're flanked you cannot do this when you can do it if you lose by more with a FBIGO result.
8th magic was an abomination. A true mat ward creation. We could do a lot to flatten the curve on Lvl 1-4 in tOW by just giving them all the same dispel range.
Abomination is a bit strong. Basically, the top spells of the battle magic lores needed to be toned down. The rest of the magic rules were fine.
@ nah, it was pretty terrible. “Don’t think, just roll lots of dice.” That was 8th magic. If it wasn’t a mat ward project I’d probably still be in awe someone thought getting rid of miscasts was a good idea.
Dragon Hammer
Yep, it's awful
Magic is designed so you need to have a lvl 4 wizard.
Rolling dice for the WoM was awesome.
I'm glad you are having so much fun with TOW. I hope I'll find that same enjoyment at some point. I promised myself to give TOW a two-year trial before deciding whether to return to an older edition.
I agree that the push-and-pull feature is very cool. Being able to push a little to potentially set up a charge or get out of an opponent's line of sight is an interesting mechanic.
That said, I don’t like how break tests don’t seem to matter anymore. In all of my games, only three units have failed and fled. Most of the time, units fall back in good order and move 1 inch back. It’s such a disappointment after winning by 20 points.
Maybe it’s just me, but it feels like I lack tools in my list building to counter other lists. I always thought the concept of Lore of Heavens countering artillery, artillery countering monsters, and magic items countering wizards was a cool system. It feels like some armies have a harder time doing this than others.
I call it the Rule of Three, but it feels like everything has three added rules now-like Healebeads, Strength, Armor Piercing, and Armor Bane. I find it hard to remember all the AP and AB values, and to me, there doesn’t seem to be a clear system.
I think my biggest complaint is the index in the back of the book-it’s killing all my enjoyment. More often than not, we waste 10-20 minutes looking up one specific rule. It leads to arguments and more complaints about TOW.
My continuation will all depend on this changing for me.
As the individual army videos release, obviously, one of the biggest system complaints is that core infantry, the "heart of the game," is, by all accounts, kinda worthless to bring en masse. This has been asked elsewhere, but what changes would you make, not necessarily to attempt to balance the game overall, but just to make infantry an actually enjoyable part of the game?
@@EPGelion I recognize that is the exact “problem”. I would love to see a greater focus on core.
And in all honesty, I want to give you an answer. I’ve thought about this over and over, but I cannot come up with a single suggestion other than toning down the heroes.
But I suspect that would upset more people that it does appease.
@@MountainMiniatures What if instead of “general makes specific unit core” it was more like “specific character gives specific units within Leadership range +X to Attack or WS or STR?”
Old World has very little rank and file and the magic rules are broken. We need step up, rank bonuses and magic to be tone down a notch or two. The issue is wizard level as a bonus is to much.
Rank and flank without either, it's awful
Haven’t played TOW but I’ve been playing WAP this year and love it.
Yep, that has been what my gaming group has running WAP, and it has been a blast.
WAP has solid rules, i had a great time when playing it
@@MountainMiniatures and I'm really happy that things are still going on/updates have come out since GW did the cease and desist, release of old world
WAP was created by a true fan. ToW by a company that did it as a side project
@@shaengar7440 I know first hand that your statement is 100% false
Is he calling the initiative bonus for charging "step up"? It's not called that in the rulebook as far as I can tell. Step up was the 8th edition rule that allowed units to fill in the models that got killed and fight in that turn. That is a rule the game needs, but step up is not a mechanic in TOW.
Dunno, i was trying to get all in with Bretonnia, but needing 2 books because the armybook doesnt include all was a let down, completed my peasants, fixed my original Trebuchet and thats it.
I am glad initiative now matters. In previous additions elves paid out their butts for better move, weaponskill and initiative when those Stats were no where near as impactful as strength and toughness.
5:35 Agreed. The whole push and shove of combat is great. It both makes it a bit more interesting that the way it worked in 6th (the last edition I played). Also it feels more interesting from a emergency narrative point of view.
It's just cavalry death stars, unfortunately. They have to exist, because without them it would be grindhammer
You've given me hope for this, sir! I'll need to dive into the game sometime soon.
Let's make Core Core again!
14:40 One thing I like with the Handmaiden mechanic is that to use her as a general, you cannot take any Prince or Noble (save for a BSB) so it really forces you into some decision when building your list.
Also that character is very mid so it has to be really intentional, I’m going with a big brick of SoA in core
Nice one! I liked that you touched on the spells being good this edition, that's one of my pet peeves.
With regards to great weapons being taken over magic weapons. I think that's a problem with magic weapons, too. So many magic weapons have AP -1 at most which just isn't enough for something you pay 25+ points for.
It's interesting that you say 5th edition was herohammer - 5th is significantly less hero hammer compared to TOW. Shooting and magic were far more able to shutdown characters, characters did not have shared profiles, and the game typically had many restrictions on characters - to get an idea what was typical you can either use the guidelines in the battle book or even look at the 5th edition campaign supplements where very few characters were ever taken.
Yep, 5th had good core rules with some abuse, ToW is just proud to be awful
did they fix the fact that a skirmisher unit can deploy in a circle to minimize models hit by templates cos the center is mostly void?
I think you really nailed everything from the magic to the lance suggestion. I think the ruby ring & talisman of protection are generally too played, & some magic weapons could be more aggressively costed to be taken over a GW more often.
I want magic/dispel dice pools. Make magic interactive again. One level 4 wizard standing in the middle saying "No fun allowed" by dispelling everything isnt interactive, I want decisions to be made.
Yep. Magic needs another resource, rather than "throw 2 dice, add spell level". A solution I saw suggested to alleviate L4s in the middle is limit dispelling to one attempt per Wizard, not Wizard Level. That would give purpose to lower level Wizards, as they could overwhelm a stronger Wizard, though have a harder time casting.
I love "resource management" in games and even though magic was pretty powerful in 6/7th edition (Hello Dance Macabre spammers) it was really fun using the dice pool.
I would limit level 3 and 4 wizards to both two casting and dispel attempts per turn, while 1 and 2 level wizard could only do once. This way, three level ones could outclass a level 4 wizard
@@christiannordin5328 - Agree. The dice pool was an interesting resource. You could safely cast fewer spells with more dice, or try for many spells with few dice. Liked that aspect of it. Disliked how bonkers some spells were and spell channelling though.
@@franciscoaguilera3619 - Works. Something like this is needed, because currently there is no resource associated with these attempts.
Love watching your videos guys as new to TOW! Keep em coming!
Look at how beat up that book is and try to tell me he doesn't love the game. I dare you.
I really really wish I liked it but I was an 8th infantary guy so hero hammer just isnt for me. I get the appeal of it but Its just not for me sadly. Saved my armies for 15 years and ended up not liking it is heart breaking xD
Yes , this game is awesome .
I was incredibly stoked to play Old World, bought the Bretonnia box and everything. Haven't yet gotten a chance to play yet, still need to paint most of my models, but the assessment that Line Infantry doesn't really work and isn't very good is really disheartening. Should I still try to get into this game despite that? Are most players still going to bring infantry?
I 100% agree with "let core be core!". Core units should be the largest part of the armies and do the large part of the close combat battles in a rank & file wargame imo. By making other "veteran" units core you take away the reason to use ordinary core, I mean why would you use the weaker unit if you could use a stronger as core? And if one player uses them all the time, he/she forces the other player to do it as well to best counter them. And the more you see rare units on the field as "core" the more you take away their "awesomeness & cool factor" from them and they just become new core units, and you dont get that "oh shit, they have cave troll!" fealing any more if that makes any sense?
That said, there is ofc nothing wrong with playing battles with only over the top units, but that (to me at least) is more suitable in AoS and not for ToW.
I love Dragons. But the more I love is to win without them and the most is to win without them against them. :)
As a skaven lover and builder of tow MASSIVE Skaven armies I said I would never play another GW Game. However I am very interested in this version of fantasy. I have been collecting a small amount of skaven and look forward to completing them into a 2,000 point force. I for one never really cared for scenarios and really just liked battling it out with my enemy. After all the Skaven have but one purpose in life and that is to either wipe out all the other races or at the very least enslave them. Your doom cometh man things!
It's awful. Don't bother bringing infantry to a game
There is another RAW not covered, its to do with lance formation vision arc being from second row, it means if they are close enough and on an angle its possible to declare a charge but if you wheel first you then connect with your own flank. Its rare!
@@discomute that’s not possible. I think you are wheeling incorrectly.
Actually here is the original shot
www.tidesandtrails.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot_20241224_093609_Messenger.jpg
The one I just posted is how it looks when you wheel from the second rank. It's how lance formation works.
@@MountainMiniatureslol I've tried 3 times to respond to this it keeps getting deleted. I have pictures to show what I mean at the website tidesandtrails if you put that with the normal stuff for a url (I can't be more specific YT deletes it) but 100% we are doing correctly. You wheel from the second rank in a lance so imagine what happens if that means the first horse hits their side against a close unit.
@ send me a link at steve@miniwargaming.com
I’ll check it out. But from what you are explaining I’m pretty sure you are doing something incorrectly.
I’ll do my best to explain if you provide the pics.
@@discomute I’ll add: if I’m understanding the situation correctly, the mistake you’re making is you think you are allowed to wheel. If things are as I’m seeing them in my minds eye, you don’t wheel and go straight in and blunt yourself.
This is under the rules for lance.
As I said if I understand the situation as you explained it, it doesn’t need any correction. You’re just moving incorrectly.
Very curious about the one year later reviews. 💯agree with you review. I wish you all a merry christmas and a happy new year! Love fron Holland
Brettonnian (or any other exsting) flying characters should join flying units. They just should not have skirmishers rule. That would be enough imho. Taking it back to just infantry and horse/wolf/pig/cold one based characters having 360 would tone down stuff significantly.
I have a question that unfortunately will not be FAQed by GW since it's about a legacy faction, the Vampire Counts: Can I use the "Invocation of Nehek" ability on a zombie unit that has not yet suffered any losses? It is undisputed that I can exceed the unit size (Newly Dead rule), but can it be proven that you are allowed to actually use the ability, since in the text for "Invocation of Nehek" or "Ressurecting the Fallen", for example always says something about "recovering lost wounds" etc.
In order for the game to work and all the stuff in it be useful you need meaningful scenarios and often people that play against each other where they know what armies they will play with. Most of the time you probably also know the models they own.
The issue I have is that the game as written and the balance simply don't work for matched play, at least not very well. That is, you build a list and have no clue what you will face. There are so many things in the game you have to know that you are likely to face in order to make the game balanced (like dragons or any monster with a powerful character). Many items and units are simply not viable in a scenario you don't know what you will face. A good very concrete example would be, say... the Flaming Banner.... If you know you are facing a troll horde it is not over costed at all, but in most cases it will be more a hindrance than a strength.
The same goes for infantry... Infantry the way the game are written need to have scenario rules that make them viable, such as victory locations that you need to hold and require say a unit strength of ten and a banner. Infantry also are more important if you run break points rather than model points cost that basically just cause points denial behaviour which is boring.
The game is about you and your friends having fun and what models you like and want to paint. So you need to set up the game so you can take the models you like and you all still have a good chance to win if you play well.
The scenarios that we used actually have meant that even core models have become more important as you need more units that are cheap and have the numbers necessary, it also bring you cheap strength to the army break points you need as well. So a balanced army in many ways then become very good.
I also feel that level 4 wizards being so powerful also is an issue when you have few powerful units rather than a more diverse number of medium strength units. A wizard are still a huge point sink that might not have the influence enough on it's own. Sometimes in our games it can be more valuable to have two mages so they can be in more than one place even if they are slightly less likely to get their spells off. Due to our scenarios we also have seen hero hammer being less of an issue for the same reason, you need more units.. which feeds itself as you then wants even more units. And as units also need ten strength to get VP and they are important units also tend to be at least 15-20 strong and you need multiple of them so individual models can't be too expensive either etc...
I like it apart from the lack of combat reform. It makes it too hard to recover from a flank or rear charge and also makes falling back in good order weirdly better than giving ground.
Great approach and review! Keep up the good work!
I love ToW.
It has some minor quibbles (pay for wheels, magic system).
And some BIG ones (infantry, monstrous mounts and skirmish).
But the bones are great! And I hope it gets a version 2.0 in a year or two. Usualy I want systems to last longer. But since this is v1, I can get behind a v2 (or like v1.5) sooner rather than later.
It's awful because the design intent is, a v2 wouldn't be any better I think
Challenge accepted ! Question unanswered for you : Hatred/Fear (X) referring to dwarf, elf, etc.
=> what's the definition of the "X" for the rules ? (is a dryad an elf ?)
No mention in the book found !
If you can tell, will be thanksful aha !
Cheers and thanks for the videos
what interaction are you specifically asking about? in what context does "is a dryad and elf" matter?
As I said, in the "Hatred" or "Fear" interaction
I'm a goblin, I fear the elves. I didn't find any definition of an elf. Does it mean the book ? The name ? The lore ?
Can't say and I could perfectly understand whatever definition is given
@@jonasa.2186 but dryads cause fear so its a non issue. is there anything in the game that "hates" "elves"?
Dryads were not the smartest exemple, as you said, they cause fear...
Let's go with harpies. Better exemple to illustrate my point
Yeah wood elf dryad not a good example 😅
I should have given the dark elf harpie, better to illustrate my point :)
Dragons, lvl 4 wizards and line hammer should be cut down.
Respectfully disagree, at least partially. I think if a player wants a single model to have the shock power to break any unit, or to dominate the field with magic, or to win with killing power versus attrition, those should be valid playstyles. I just wish there were more builds where bringing in and preserving static CR was a viable strategy, especially for dwarfs and empire where that is an archetypal army style.
@@ericolson922 The problem is that is impossible that all playstyles would be valid. When you make a ruleset you create what playstyles work and what didn´t work.
And if you make a system with units with limited movement, line of sigth and damage potency and put units with good movement and potency, these units will be dominate the game.
The same with magic and projectile weapons.
@corsariosandrorect5238 I think we are actually pretty close in opinion. The Old World designers decided hammers are the most fun way to play and made a game filled with awesome hammers and crappy anvils. I think where we differ is that I feel the solve is to boost the anvils a little bit rather than taking down the hammers.
In practice that looks a bit more like 6th ed where with good play against a dragon for example an infantry block could take a charge from the front and lose but hold, and use a support unit to charge in and the combined static CR was enough to win. Currently the lethality is just too high relative to static CR and no standard infantry has a chance.
For magic I think the simplicity of the system that uses simple modifiers causes a problem. Since the system uses 2d6 the probability is curved, so the difference between +3 and +4 reaching the tail end of the curve is significant. The cost of going from level 3 to level 4 doesn't really match that bonus, but a simple cost adjustment that makes going from 3 to 4 less of a no brainer would fix it.
Linehammer I actually don't mind because it is the only real check infantry has to get the attack volume to threaten monsters and it is also one of the few cases in the current game where there is real incentive to try to maneuver for flank attacks.
@@corsariosandrorect5238 I think we are close in what we want. I would like a game where people field armies rather than powerful single pieces. I also want the game to be focused on maneuver rather than lucky dice rolling. I think Old World is close to that, but the designers decided that doing damage was more fun than resisting damage so they skewed things a little too far towards awesome hammers and powerful casting, at the expense of reliable anvils and dispels. I happen to think a few mild tweaks to boost static CR and give low magic armies a chance to dispel would make a more dynamic game that allows both play mentalities.
Fundamentally the game is about generating CR. Killing the enemy is the fun way to generate CR, so designers emphasize that. But currently the max static CR you can bring to a fight is too low to balance out all the killing power. All that takes to fix it is bringing back 1 more possible rank bonus and/or outnumber bonus.
Magic is tricky because casting is on 2d6, so the distribution is peaked, so any +1 modifier towards the tail value has a huge impact. I want to see lvl 4 casters on the table because it is a high fantasy setting. The most powerful caster in the land (which is what a lvl 4 represents) SHOULD be able to take over a game, but their cost needs to reflect that. And there needs to be more counter play available to low magic armies.
But to not overcorrect to the point where people stop bringing the power units that make it a high fantasy setting.
Great vid! We play our games with max 2x level 2 mages. Works fine and is more fun.
one small thing i like about this over other games is i need less dice. rarely do i need more than 10 maybe 15 dice including the artillary and scatter die. 40k i need 40 just to shoot a single unit of intercessors now.
I feel old world takes longer to actually learn to play but once your playing the games fly by, this game feels much faster than 40k and aos, probably because its more "simple" go towards enemy and fight them dont need to "do i move this unit here so i get on the objective or do i have fun and fight the enemy but get no real points".
Great video, and thanks for all the quality battle reports.
I definitely agree I love the old world rule book, and that if you are each just taking a fluffy army list containing a battle line of core infantry that shove back and forth with the give ground and FBIGO system, the game is fantastic, probably the best yet.
However, it has some glaring problems
1) Bretonnian Pegasus knights. The skirmish rules are too permissive. No unit that has skirmish should ever want to be charge the enemy, basically. Certainly you cannot give a flying, swiftstride, monstrous heavy cavalry unit skirmish. They are the most overpowered unit in the game, even more overpowered than dragons, because they ignore all the facing rules that define TOW rulset. They just move wherever they want and charge whatever they want
2) Combined profiles on ridden monsters with stacking defensive items is too strong. War machines are a joke into them. I think it takes about 21 cannon shots to take out the chaos lord on dragon? If war machines are meant to keep ridden monsters in check, they most certainly are not doing it
3) Core infantry, particularly empire core infantry, are just pretty terrible. You never want to bring them. They range from too expensive for what they do, to WAY to expensive for what they do for empire (all their melee state troops are 2 points overcosted). In any kind of competitive environment, the infantry is left floundering around helplessly in the middle of the field while dragons and pegasus knights and magic zip over their heads, deciding the course of the battle. Then they get cleaned up at the end. Line infantry don't work in a kill points only game, I think. they are about holding ground, but you don't need to hold ground, you need to kill people And line infantry is far too slow to do anything in that regard. You can't use them to 'pin' an enemy, because the enemy is a dragon that can just fly over their heads and ignore them.
agree with the core thoughts.
YUUS. Happy to see some analysis from the big man :D
Whats your view on "Warhammer Armies Project"? How does it play in comparison and where are its weaknesses?
Innovative fix for dark elves
You’ve a beastmaster as general? Monsters are core 😂
Someone who has played 3rd, 6th,7th, 8th and 9th Age.
All have their strengths. Problem with 3rd you had to have a GM and the game could be very slow. 6th with the Ravening Hordes WD was probably the most balanced and straight forward. Boring. Maybe but balanced. Then 7th changed the ranking system with infantry 4-5 wide and made Calvary way to good (Blood Knights and Skullcrushers anyone?). I loved 8th but GW didn't finish or clean up much with the rules during the end times. (Skaven, Beasts, Bretts)Warmachines were just to powerful and infantry was to large. Step up was a great rule though.
The Old World is a big mix of good and bad rules. I actually like the Command and Strategy phase system. Charging and combat is pretty good in TOW and push back is a favorite. I will admit that there is some issues with Skirmish with the 360 charge direction, Lv 4 Magic caster being to mandatory and Flying Monsters being to good. Dont even start with me on Pegasus Knight shenanigans.
Overall I cant wait to see more of TOW but it only needs couple fixes. 7/10
It can't be fixed, unlike 8th, none of its unbroken parts are sverable
TLDR: Yes. I love the complexity of the game as it makes it so hard to master and creates so many hilarious and funny moments. Yes it could do with some balances and tweaks like any game but at it's core it's great.
My issue with the magic system, is that dwarves are really bad at dispelling, and locking down you opponents spellcasting. MR 1 doesnt do a whole lot when many impactful spells are vortex's!
I get you point regarding having a spellcasting squish, but I think level 4 should be rarer. Lore wise only incredible mages such as slaan, or Teclis would fit "the top level". Some random Goblin shaman arent really on the same tier. And by making certain races be better at magic, it adds another bit of faction complexity.
Definitely agree regarding dwarf war machines!
8th edition was only a Deathstar edition for players who didn't play the rules to their fullest and built effective armies. Deathstars put all your eggs in one basket and couldn't do any strategic play. Every tournament level player I know and I played on competitive teams that went to 100 main tournaments for 8th, played with multiple large units of infantry and an assotrment of supporting units . 8th was a great rules set with a bad learning curve.
Really enjoyed this video, cheers! I wonder - what do you see happening with the Legacy factions in the future? Are you hopeful for an eventual release (even if many years down the line)? Or do you think they will be lost to history? I'm a big fan of TOW - I just hope eventually we can get the legacy armies back.
@@SanFranSicko I do no think GW is done with the legacy factions. I think they will be back one way or another some time in the future
I think I will just stick to 8th ed and my own house rules. TOW is not bad but honestly why change? I have everything produced for 8th ed so I have all the armies and I don't need to wait on products just by figures which is how a wargame should be.
I think the game is really good now and it'll be perfect in an year, when the miniatures for all the armies will be available. What I fear is what will happen next, with new releases that could bloat the game. I'd really love this set of rules to be frozen for at least 5 or 6 years, possibly forever. We don't need new rules, models or editions. In terms of future releases I'd only be satisfied if armies that are currently listed under the legends section get their wave of returning models. That's why I still love playing 6th edition of Warhammer and if Old World becomes as bloated as 40k I'll happily switch back to that old edition.
Longbeards were core in 7th.
House rule worth trying. Decrease the need for level 4 wizards but keep magic more or less the same. reduce the casting value of all spells by 2. Than Wizards do not add their wizard level to casting or dispel attempts. Level 4s are still great for number of spells and dispel range, but lower level casters can still cast successfully.
Nice idea... so like more AoS like. And how do you Dispel? Can maybe a lvl 2 wizard dispel all spells, or just 2?
Yeah I like this, level 4s are oppressive to the point that non-caster armies are almost unplayable.
The problem with you system is that 2 level 2 wizard is better that a a 1 level 4 wizard, so nobody will use level 3 or 4 wizards.
But no system can make all wizard level equally useful and you idea would make the magic less potent and more manageable without put the same points on magic.
+1 to cast on 3 and 4 levels on that and you might be good to go.
Looking forward to all the reviews!
Positives:
- Old World is a dope af fantasy setting. I enjoy it immensely more than AoS and so happy to see older kits make a come back.
- Nice to see GW give it some love and honor the games that have been in its past.
- Streamlined magic is very nice. The older ways were tedious, cumbersome, and slowed the game down.
- Overall, unit and army balance is there and it's nice to see. No one unit feels over the top, outside of combat lords on dragons. Monsters feel properly powerful.
Negatives:
- The step up ruling for this edition yields some legit feel bads. It puts more emphasis on combat heroes to help carry the unit to make a difference and ultimately just gives the front rank and that hero extra "wounds" to rely on for the ongoing combats. Let models in unit "step up" and fight when their comrades die. Seeing units in a 20x1 formation is stupid and gamey.
- Relying on static res to win is boring. Picking up dice and letting your units do the talking is more fun.
- Lvl 4 wizards are way too oppressive.
- Morale and falling back is odd. I get what GW is attempting to do but it's pretty easy to get into a situation to simply "push and pull" back and forth for almost the entire game. Resulting in again, a static, boring game.
Honestly: I give this game a 4/10. The potential is there. House ruling some things make this a more fun game than it currently is. There are more fun, engaging, dynamic rank'n'flank games out there that yield a quicker, more fun time (Conquest, OPR: Age of Fantasy Regiments, Kings of War, Oathmark).
There is one interaction not defined in the rulebook. It involves special distance attacks that go against the initiative of the target instead of the thougness and war machines. For a example, when a sepulcral stalker shoots against a war machine and makes an impact. What is the roll for wounding? War machines have no initiative, the crew does, but usually you use the thougness of the war machine.
thats covered in the main rules page 97 If a model has a characteristic of ‘0’, it has no ability
whatsoever in what the characteristic represents.
a warmachine is immune to the petrifying gaze, the cannon doent know a snake is trying to stare it to death.
@ no. Use the highest is for characteristic tests. This isn’t a characteristic test.
@@MountainMiniatures you are right. I never realized!
I have yet to actually receive any of my Bretonnia stuff that I ordered a year ago and to be honest the game just depresses me because gw seems to have taken my $750 and won’t give me my stuff.
Which country do you live in?
i had to wait like 3 months for a sphinx and necroknights. The scanned files reached me before the official minis.
@ America
from GW actual, or from a local store?
@@DarkAngelAbe ohh dude, thats not on GW, get your money back
@9:30 It's been my general experience that disallowing the brilliant helm from going on a dragon, thus forcing most (obv not all) to a 3+ save from where they were at 2+ and -1 to-be-hit, has been enough to reign in dragon dominance. You still need to build a list that takes super-dragons into account, but you probably aren't looking down the barrel of a 2+ 5++ 5+++ killing machine.
@ the most common dragon build is the chaos lord, which can’t get a 2+ save
I hope GW adds more armies
They just deleted half of them.
Fix this edition, put out all of the appropriate books and models including legacy armies and THEN give people a year to enjoy their armies before a new edition. Anything other than this is a failure.
I really want to play this game! I just can't decide between whether to start with Bretonnia or Tomb Kings!
Both have merits but it comes down to what play style you like.
@dalelyman4960 that is true. I guess for me, it would be more cav, so probably Bretonnia.
Do you like speed and violence? Play Bretonnia. Do you like a more considered approach? Play Tomb Kings. Both of them are disgustingly overpowered, so you can't really do wrong (the starter sets give you a good force to start with too).
If both playstile are good, play the army you like from design, from the lore. Its your extensive paint project, bevore playing😅
Just do what I do and collect every army 😀
My friend and I have a hard time agreeing with how step up works in this game. The amount of fights my mostly infantry tomb kings list just sits there and takes a beating is kinda boring from a player stand point. Just feels like a very non interactive game when it comes to “the other player”
I think MR should maybe come with a 6+ ward save only against vortexes - I've seen Dwarves having a hard time against vortex spam.
completely agree 😊
I just want more the Poker-System from the Winds of Magic of 8th ed. So i have to choose, what to dispel. Now in TOW its just rolling two dices, and if you are higher you get it... thats a bit lame... 😅😅 rest of the game is awesome❤
As an avid watcher of your battle reports I would like to say a big thank you! I have learnt a lot watching you guys play. I also have one question regarding rules: we have a pegasus knight unit with the banner that gives vanguard. They are joined by a character. Does the character also get vanguard?. There is an faq that says: " If a character without the Vanguard special rule joins a unit with it during deployment, can the character make a Vanguard move with the unit?
No. What's more, if the unit is formed, it will not be able to make a Vanguard rule. However, if the unit is in Skirmish formation, it can make its Vanguard move as normal, leaving the character behind." -- however my opponents argue that the banner gives vanguard to everyone, including the character. I would like to know your opinion on this. Thank you!
I agree with your opponents, the banner gives Vanguard to the unit including the character. The FAQ has created confusion. The banner is a magic item conferring the ability on everyone in the unit which includes the character. The FAQ would be referring to units that get Vanguard as a base special rule that are joined by characters without the special rule.
@@AdamteVelde thank you for the reply. In my long time playing various editions of warhammer fantasy I learnt not to assume what rule designers meant. :)
@@catalingavrilescu2317 Got me reading the FAQ. I saw that Vanguard and Scout cannot be used together. Makes me ask "why"? There are units that can take both. There is a Beastman magic item that grants both abilities to a character.
@@AdamteVelde scout cannot charge after using scout, vanguard can. Now a unit that use both scout and vanguard could pop up in the middle of an enemy deployment potentially winning the game before it started.
@catalingavrilescu2317 the unit still cannot charge if the unit deployed using scout. Just allows a vanguard move. The units that can do this are: Empire Archers, Squires, Waywatchers, Beastmen character with Skin of Man.
I’m a Wood Elf guy so I can relate to the dislike of combat. Plus combat is where the game usually draws out anyway and I ain’t got that much time! 😅
3e is the actual best but you haven't played it, that is why you think wtow is the best. The Warhammer Armies book in combination with the RoC books can't be beat. You can form testudos with your Dwarf Warriors.
That was also in 6th edition. Placing an oathstone it was called.
I like old world! But i also never played warhammer Fantasy
Wait, step up isn't back. Was there an errata that I've missed?
its been there, on page 102 of the rule book
Yeah, he said he was glad step up was back and I started googling erratas in excitement only to get saddened. It’s not back :-(
Very accurate analysis 👍
I think your gripe about Black Orcs or Longbeards being available as a Core choice is a little overblown. Its a 0-1 limit and your General must be either a Black Orc Boss or Dwarf King. The higher above 2000 points you go, the less it matters. And taking Sisters of Avelorn as Core has an even higher tax. They're still limited to 0-1 and now you're forced to take a 2 Wound, Leadership 8 General, which means you can't take a non-BSB Noble or Prince.
Nah see the Black orc Warboss is already in the list, he is just too good, its not a tax at all. The Dwarf King is a top tier fighter, but yes i dont always want him in my list, but id take him far less if he didnt unlock Core longbeards.
and the High Elves can get an 18inch leadership aura far too easy to offset the handmaiden as your General by just taking a Noble BSB with pure of heart and put it on a griffin. And i dont see this model as a tax either, its too good.
@@MountainMiniaturesI just don't agree with this take since infantry is still well below other unit types. I'm fine with good infantry being core at 0-1 or with other restrictions.
@@jtrain9926 Thats fair. its ok that we like different things my dude.
The thing is even if there's 0-1 limit, the special will take the minimum requirement of core, so you'll likely run with less core actually. Those special infantry shouldn't ever be promoted out of core. It doesn't free up more special because there's no way you'll ever hit 50% special limit on any list anyways.
Sisters I can see because that general tax is quite huge. So big that I wouldn't likely take them as a core and run them rare and take those characters :D
Yea but, how do skirmishers and the lance formation work?
@@GamingwithTheCooler that’s two different formations. You adopt one or the other.
@@MountainMiniatures when my skirmishers are charged by a lance?
@@GamingwithTheCooler im confused. That covered on page 111 of the forces of fantasy book under the heading of "lance formation and Skirmishers"
Im not seeing anything that is ambiguous here, what am i missing?
Worst spell is Dark Elves Cursed Word. After it was erratted.
More narrative focus to lores of magic instead of making everything the same for "balance" reasons.
I also really wish that AP was strength based again.
Infantry needs to be fixed so that it is the core of virtually every army.
Wrap around needs to go and models should only be able to hit models they have contact with. Extra wounds dealt can bleed over into the rest of what they are fighting.
Steve, I'd be with you on Core allotments if Core was worth having in all armies. Warriors of Chaos or Dwarves have amazing core choices and don't care, but many other armies absolutely hate their core and don't want to take a point over.
Would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who never played warhammer fantasy before TOW and compare that to the opinions of WFB veterans which by far are the majority of people reviewing the game, sometimes we forget that the perspective of the player can totally alter the experience of the edition.
I'm glad people like it, but I can't get into a rank and flank game where there effectively is no rank and flank.
If you play the game in a non-competitive way it's fine. But as soon as anyone actually tries to start to win the game, it degenerates into this thing that bears no resemblance to the fantasy of what it is supposed to represent.
I have to agree. When you try to break the game it's just a mess.
Yes, moving on folks