The Spirit of the Game ft. Luke Blaxill | Warhammer The Old World
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2024
- Is there a place for the competitive gamer in Warhammer The Old World? Will the mechanics of the game buckle under the stress test of tournament play? Or will all our doubts be allayed by the Spirit of the Game?
WD 221
#warhammertheoldworld #warhammerfantasybattle #warhammerfantasy #warhammer
Honestly listening to you both made me remember a time when society was a bit more gentler in its manner and teleported me back a bit.
Your right I got the models for brettonia to recapture my past a little and to hold them as a time capsule from my past as you both said.
2002.
Hope to see more from you both!
There's much to be said about warhammer and nostalgia. I hope to make a video about it someday.
Dr Luke- scourge of line warriors everywhere. Great series, can't wait for more!
Here’s the thing, 4GT’s and 5RTT’s later, I’ve never seen anyone actually playing Linehammer.
Tried it once in a test game just to try it, and it went really badly. It was so easy to move block me and Whittle me down with dangerous terrain spells that it was obvious it was a bad strategy. My friend then tried it with his High Elves and got destroyed.
the stillmania conversation gave me goosebumps. Well said about the time capsule.
What a cool podcast. I hope you continue with this ❤
Dr. Vlad Linehammer! You are welcome! 🧛🏻♂️
Great listen so far (halfway through). I concur on all of the concerns.
Sat here painting 80's models with contrast paint.
I painted these same models with enamels at the time and I'm fucked if I'm doing that again 🤣
Well, I suppose you have earned the right to do it after that!
Man, I don’t miss enamel paints from the late 80’s/early 90’s.
Herohammer is enjoyed using the 5th edition campaign packs and through drafting magic items and using some house rules. Still my favorite era. Great conversation guys ❤
Yes, I ought to give it another go sometime; it’s been a while!
@drlukeblaxil I completely agree with you. It is indeed the aesthetic perversity of the lines that I hate as well. When building a unit, I should be thinking about how many ranks I’m able to squeeze in, not how many models I can squeeze onto a single line before it becomes unwieldy.
Very happy that Dr Blaxill mentioned the grudge of Drong battle report with Nigel Stillman deploying in lines, losing very badly and every reader thinking why????
The first attempt at linehammer!
DID HE CREDIT ME FOR TELLING HIM???? bah now I have to watch the whole thing 😅 oh well
I 100% remember that battle report and all my friends were absolutely befuddled lol
Feels like a time travel in my mind listening to you guys ! Great Chat !
The reason I'm playing Fantasy now, despite it always being my favourite game, is because I had just turned 17 or 18 when AoS launched, so I didn't have a crowd, I didn't have much mobility, and so I wanted to play warhammer, so to get people into it, I couldn't afford there to be a big barrier to entry, and i only had one army.
Now I'm getting multiple Old World armies to make sure that if it does die, I'll have the forces to enjoy with my friends.
"4+ it" the new code for get stuffed, catchy. Enjoyable discussion, although the mental image of a Jes Goodwin chaos champion slathered in contrast paint might haunt me for a while.
Enjoyed the discussion as ever. Something I am curious about is how 6th Edition overcame 'herohammer' and gave a role back to units without having the things (especially step up) that you two (Luke in particular I guess) argue are needed for The Old world to do the same. I occasionally find myself feeling slightly sceptical when I see TOW being criticised for having 4th/5th Ed problems and that then being discussed in terms of 8th Ed having solved them when it rather looks from the outside as though there has been more than one way of doing so already. I realise cavalry were more powerful in 6th while infantry had a better time in 8th, but on what I've watched (quite a lot, but I haven't played either, played 3rd from when it came out to some time after 4th appeared) they both seem to have been pretty functional. Was the success of 6th just a matter of army lists and points values as it doesn't seem that different from older versions in terms of the rules? If so then perhaps this is where TOW has things wrong rather than the rules themselves - at least in terms of balance, the awkwardness for measuring charges, the silliness of some of the extreme outcomes of removing base-to-base etc is obviously another matter. Very much just asking the question, don't have a concrete view as not enough experience of either game to hold one.
There are a few reasons why 6th Ed was more troop oriented. First of all, magic items got divided by army, and their power got seriously diminished. Also, base stats line got nerfed a bit (vampires used to be S6 or S7 base, for example). Magic got reduced too, by a big margin. Lastly 6th started with a supplement called Ravening Hordes which contained a simplified all army list. And that booklet was better balanced.
As for 8th, I did not play as much (disliked it) but I think it related to the loss of the horde rule and the fact that you cannot attack rider rider separately from the mount in TOW.
the core problem with TOW Herohammer is the ludicrous 50% of Points allocation to Characters of ANY size.
This enables you to field Chaos Lords on Dragon in 1500 pts games and similar bullshit.
6th and 7th mitigated the Hero Problem by enforcing a strict core tax (2 Core Choices minimum + another one every 1000 points) and limiting Hero/Lord Choices. (3 Hero Slots up to 1999, from then on each +1 and +1 for Hero and Lord Slots) and limiters on how many Elite and Rare choices you could take.
This negated any lord choices below 2000 points (and with that basicly all dragons and similar mounts) and limited the total number of hero characters you would and could take.
Also Heros and Lords got toned down from 5th edition in power.
As Example: A Hero Level Vampire in 7th would cost you 100 points for a M6 WS6 BS4 S5 T4 W2 I6 A3 MW7 model with Magic Level 1 and no armor or equipment.
He could take vampire abilities for 50 points (this included his non magical heavy armor + choice of weapon for 20 points or 25 points for barded nghtmare, heavy armor, shield and lance, but also the additional magic level for 30 points) and 50 points in magic items.
So a well kitted out small vampire would cost you 170+ points for a quite strong and killy hero level character, but wch has to be purpose build and you need them, because the rest of your army does very little without vampire support in movement or combat. you could only march in 6" around vampires, they are the only lvl2 casters you get and the only lord choice you have. Only small lvl1 necros availible as Heros.
You needed at least one Vampire in the army as your general, when your general dies, your army crumbles.
You need alot of power dice per turn to upkeep your units, as skeletons and graveguard tend to fight the long war (meaning you have to grind down the enemy over several turns, for that you need upkeep via "invocation of nehek" to keep the unit in game)
Heavy Hitters are Blood Knights and Black Knights, but the first ones are frenzied and painfully expensive, the later ones are only semi mobile and require a vampire to babysit.
Cairn Wraith and Banshees are a royal pain in the ass for the enemy and are a very unexpected, very powerful unit but again freaking expensve. (6 cairn wraith cost you 300 pts)
Another problem is the redundancy of elite infantry, such as Elves, Chaos Warriors, Dwarfs etc. in square blocks of 5x5 or even 5x4. You're basically putting 100s of points in a position whereby they don't impact the battle in any meaningful way except 1 combat res (rank bonus).
The factions who best utilise traditional rank and file blocks of infantry are Skaven, Beastmen and O&G (Marauders for Chaos i guess as well), they have horde, warband and are most importantly cheap pts cost per model, they'll be relying on those rank bonuses to generate combat res rather than inflicting any great amount of wounds.
I approve of the passion those videos are made.
wow. never heard someone explain line hammer better. well done
Long Live Dr. Blaxill!!! If you don't know anything about Warhammer, just ask him!!!!
GW need to employ Dr Blaxill to break the game during testing before they release it
from a hobby perspective my favorite thing about TOW is the increase in base size. Ranking up is so much better and adding some flock or some extra scenery on the bases can look great.
Agreed, for about 90% of all units. There are those "small model, easy to rank, horde unit" cases where I still prefer 20mm bases: the current Nightgoblins and Skaven Clanrats/Slaves for example. Those just look... a bit lost on 25mm bases.
Fun fact: the Nightgoblins and Skaven from 5th/6th edition, which never ranked up easily, now work PERFECTLY fine on 25mm bases. Common Goblins are coming back, I hope those Nightgoblins do too.
@@darnokx9277 My 80s Minotaurs are going to look great on their new 50x50s once I've built the fences and gates and what have you round the outsides.
Yes I agree they look better if you have new models, and for many old models too. Some old models look a bit silly on big bases though - I have many old goblins and dwarfs which are just perfect on 20mm
Amazing cast can't wait for more! I can't disagree with anything said
Yeah, I don’t even have an 8th edition rule book. I kind of remained mired in 6th edition. It’s interesting that 7th edition, which I also played, but didn’t love (I guess), doesn’t seem to come up much. For casual games of TOW I just can’t see using full on linehammer. I’m enough of “wargame as simulation” type of player, that the idea of a model 20” away from base to base contact being able to strike with a hand weapon just requires a level of suspension of disbelief that I’m not capable of. I really believe that, when GW designed TOW, there was an assumption of “gentlemen’s behavior” (should we be saying gentle person?) in game play, that would avoid the most egregious abuses of “all models in the front rank fight” and reform after combat and conga lines and skirmisher hammer. Sadly GW may overestimate the reasonableness of the community.
7th had a fantastic start (ie the core rulebook with all the 6th edition supplements - as well as lovely lovely art design) - but i think people complain about the 'codex creep' in the edition?
@@playfulruss4227 some of the armybooks are quite broken, others depend on playstyle and list building how bad it is.
i can build you an asshole vampire counts list, but also a fluffy list that is nice to play against.
With demons... that is barely possible. no matter how you play them, they tend to be broken.
Warriors of Chaos is again one of those wich can be insanely powerful, but also fair, depending on the list you build.
Overall 7th is just the better 6th.
But yes, a few army books are easy to abuse.
Keeping in mind, that certain books in 6th were also ridiculusly broken too btw.
Something I like to inject about meta-chasing. In card games, like magic, this works because a deck of cards feeds the cards to you in a semi-predictable order based on probability. Meta chasing in Warhammer though (and other wargames) isn't as viable because deployment, movement, positioning, your skill as a general and level of tactics and strategy you can employ all matter. There is also so many variables with a wargame that are on the table all at once, verses cards games where you have a limited slice of your resources at a giving time. Thus, game balance and meta is not as important as a army you are familiar with and good generalship.
I’m much more of a narrative focused wargamer, and I for one would support rules being written for the competitive players first.
The main reason being that narrative gamers, in my opinion are far more inclined to see rule sets as a loose guideline for creating stories, rather than a framework for competitive, sports-like gameplay.
There have been many cases where I’ve transplanted individual rules or entire systems from other wargames into my games of old world.
At any case, thank you for another fantastic episode! I find that you and Dr Blaxil have a great chemistry and you always come up with some very intriguing points together.
Simply make tournament amendments, a quick pdf job done. The rest of us can get on learning and playing the game with buddies
The thinking being that narrative players can deal with comp ruleset just fine, anyway?
The reason I don't think Warhammer should be overly competitive is that the game itself isn't. That's why very few serious wargamers even play Warhammer. It's not serious. It's innately unbalanced due to the armies all being wildly different, it's very book-heavy, it's tactical mixed with pure luck, and it's made not for comp play in any real sense.
Having said that, if you just mean, 'make it as tight and modernised as possible' then you have a decent argument -- though I still disagree to some degree. There's a reason this is quite popular, and we're slowly going back: modern is not always better. Streamlined and tactical and polished is not what we always want. Sometimes, we want the messy fog of war and madness. One clear area is how templates work and general maths. They went a bit far in streamlining it all for the sake of competitiveness and exactness. The same is true for the magic system, which seems much worse here than in Fantasy.
Narrative players still need a firm foundation of rules, unless you're just going to also homebrew your own favour-filled and more randomised ruleset.
Since this is heavily aimed at Fantasy players, we can assume most players are narrative players. This game should not be trying to impress the small number of comp players. The only logic here is that they're trying to capture the more technical Total War players, which needs to be very exact and comp instead of raw narrative fun. Getting the balance is difficult. They did a decent job, but we cannot go any further into comp without hurting the entire game.
Already, the concept of 'competitive' in any real sense is a joke. Some armies are far better than every other army, assuming both players have done their jobs and know how to play. That's why you only find around 3 armies are the best any given edition at the highest levels, other than in niche situations. This is grossly unbalanced, unfair, and non-competitive for the other 5+ armies people are playing. This is even worse for Necromunda and 40k, where we see 10+ factions that are hopeless in terms of victory.
If you've not linked 'victory' with 'competitive', I don't understand what you're talking about -- just a tight, well-written ruleset? That should exist, anyway. There's a long history of very technical, exacting rules for narrative-based games. These are not really in conflict. It's about balance. Also: narrative players are often more worried that their army will be boxed in. They want more of an open-narrative in the lore so they can shape the army and story and colour scheme, etc. however they want -- but this has little bearing on the actual details of the rules. You can see lots of examples of extremely 'rules-heavy' narrative games and very 'loose ruleset' narrative games.
Making it lifeless, non-random, and fast-paced just for the sake of the people that want that is not ideal, even if it doesn't massively impact the way you play. I think it does indirectly impact you. Though you indicated that you can work around this, that does take effort on your part. The ideal would be that GW gives you what you need, and also makes the more technical/'gameist' players happy, too. I think Fantasy did a decent job of that, as did 40k from about 3rd to 5th edition. Necromunda also did a good job, but the extreme imbalance between gangs meant that it was a problem for victory-driven players, but it was good for every other type of player.
LOTR and Blood Bowl are often seen as their best games, likely because they are the most balanced between the loreists and gameists. They make almost everybody equally happy, more so, Blood Bowl. GW have struggled to bring that over to Fantasy and Sigmar and 40k, and now Old World. Maybe the next edition can perfect it in about 2 or 3 years. We'll see. :)
P.S. Luke is already a solid comp-narrative player. I'm not counting him, so much as the hardcore comp type players. Luke has already made it clear that he deeply cares about the 'feel' of war (that's what we are simulating here, after all) and the narrative and player freedom. All he really wants here is the sense of actual war (i.e. non-linehammer) and some actual balance (i.e. non-dragonhammer). That's not the same thing as comp, however. They just either focused far too heavily on 'have fun with big dragon' or they didn't care/think about it. I have no idea what they were thinking. But I do largely agree with everything Luke says about this game, and I'm clearly not a comp type player. As I said, at Luke's heart, I believe he does have a firm understanding of the fog of war and wackiness and randomness to Warhammer. So, he's clearly not asking that this all be very exact and technical and for 'comp' players. He clearly doesn't agree with the Chess-like notion of Warhammer, he just doesn't want linehammer and dragonhammer madness crushing the table.
Fantastic conversation. Thank you:)
I always feel that the rules should always be written with the competitive players in mind. Why? In order to protect the casual/narrative players from the waac competitive players. I’d like to be able to participate in organized play, but I don’t want to be forced to take the meta netlist in order not to get steamrolled.
9th age was good at this, but the type of legalistic rules writing it takes to achieve it isn't for everyone.
Excellent observation. I wish the designers shared these thoughts.
I’ve played so much ninth and reading the rule book is never meant to be the interesting part.
It's hard not to agree with all of these points
Do you agree with paying your bills?
@@geeksworkshop perpetually
let blaxil know that im printing scans of 80s kev adams sculpts out, putting the on round bases and air brushing and contrast painting them.
Haha
I would dispute that HeroHammer was rejected by the community. It was rejected by that Finnish guy (I assume he was just trying to make a name for himself). You have to remember that tournaments where not a thing back in 4th, think they might have started around 5th. Sadly you will always get the dick at the table, they tend not to last too long in groups. Just play fair and remember everyone is there to have fun and everyone should feel they have a shot at the title. Sure bring your dragon but either don't bring it every game or play it fairly, (my bone dragon died to monster slayer in my first game btw and that cost me a shot at the title). Great video by the way and this rambling is just my 2 cents
Pirinen would have had his brief from the bosses. Do you remember in the late 90s when GW had just brought out their first multi-part plastic kits for Warhammer? GW were looking for a way to sell more of these, and-what do you know-the new edition of Warhammer encouraged, through the newly structured army lists and changes to the rules themselves, large regiments of so-called "core" units. Curiously, metal models were getting smaller during this period, perhaps because Citadel had recently moved away from lead in their alloy. Be that as it, if you understand Warhammer as a vehicle for selling models first, the decisions made by the designers make a lot more sense.
@@NoiselessShadow Your 100% correct, I have always had a love/hate relationship with GW for the sell models at the expense of the fanbase shenanigans that they do. Loved 2nd edition 40k as well and they did the same with that, although to be fair to them 3rd edition 40k was still a good game.
One solution to hero hammer is to reduce points max to 25 percent. To make the table look less of a skirmish and more like an army, also increase minimum spend on core to 50 percent. Just in idea I’m going to try out.
I like that personally. Might be a bit too early to make big changes though!
Aren't the janky reforms limited by the movement allowance of the unit? stopping the conga lines etc.
To a certain extent yes.
GW in the 80's & 90's rocked!
This is why I stay home and play with myself.
I think its going to be hard to escape the effect competitive 40k has had on wargaming.
easy fix for linehammer would be to limit the amount of models attacking in the front to 10
Great vid !! What I don´t really get is the perceived 'need' to play this game. Perhaps its the difficulty for some to see what you described, and try for themselves? I dunno; for me it´s so obvious it´s in detriment of infantry and looks; this is just the opposite of what I think is fun, really.
We´ve chosen not to move on in my gaming group, and we keep on enjoying 8th ed, with the added benefit of not having to rebase or use those ugly trays and still being able to use our poker face during magic phase !!
However I like the idea of people starting to play this and make the community grow; perhaps we get a good new edition somewhere down the line or these new players move over to old editions !
I’m not sure any newcomers to the game will be converted to 8th Ed.. but there’s no reason we can’t try ha. I will play both games. Old World for beer and pizza type games and to meet new people. 8th for competitive and trying out new lists etc.
I’m not sure I caught it near the end, but do you two think you’ll be rebasing eventually?
I’ve been contemplating rebasing, not only because I think eventually Old World base sizes will be ubiquitous but also because I do sort of like the size increase. Especially for things like monsters, newer sculpts on older base sizes just doesn’t really work that well anymore.
My other preferred edition is 7th so I’m thinking I’ll just play 7th edition on the larger base sizes as well.
One other point - FBIGO just seems flat out better than Giving Ground. I really don’t understand why the supposed worse outcome (FBIGO) is better than even passing your modified leadership (Give Ground)!
Exactly! Give ground can be terrible if you’re charged in the flank!
I won't! I'll be using base expanders, I can't see that changing. I want to be able to play old editions as well as TOW.
The problem with RAI is that its impossible to properly know what is intended. For example, i think the old world is trying to run a unit with fear looking af a unit with terror the same as 8th did. But that's not what RAW says, it says the unit with fear are now suffering fear AND terror (from unit with terror). My mate thinks its intentional making terror more powerful. Who knows what is intended....
This is a great example of why RAI and RAW is the same thing. I think you are reading between the lines there. It doesn’t say that models with Fear are immune to Terror. Try to forget about 8th and read the rules like a new game.
@@d6wounds I understand your point, can't help but feel it's a little circular. "I'm a RAI guy but whatever the RAW says is the RAI". Probably a lot of time that's right, but not always.
Funnily enough, I haven't played since 5th. Total War got me interested again but had no interest in AoS. I only know about 8th because of a discussion with my gaming group about Fear/Terror.
To me, not having played anything except blood bowl for over 20 years, the sentence "Units with Fear, fear models with Terror" is a complete statement about the status of a unit with fear. They Fear them, and that's all.
So of course there could be a genuine mistake or typo in which the rules as written are not what is intended. My point is that generally the rules are not written by lawyers or scholars and therefore don’t need to be interpreted in such a way.
I don’t call myself a ‘RAI guy’ I just often find that someone who refers to RAW when making an argument is often stretching the meaning or deliberately ignoring the common sense understanding of the words.
@@d6wounds also I'm a lawyer so it's hard not to interpret it like I would any other rule 🤣
PS. Sorry I thought you had made a point about being a RAI guy in the video, but I must have been mistaken (which is why I summarised you like that in the previous quote)
@@d6wounds I couldn't help but revisit this in the wake of todays FAQ update. It appears I was correct the entire time about RAI for fear/terror.
Remembering magic timings is indeed a boring skill but it's not much of one. Spells that are like missile weapons go when you shoot, spells that are like attacks go when you make melee attacks, spells that effect movement go in the movement phase. Other spells go in the strategy phase - maybe if you call the command sub phase the magic phase it would be even easier for you?
Armourbane is one of the rules that I dislike as highlighting the limitations of a 40 year old system. The only ay to increase granularity is by adding more tiers of dice rolls (rerolls and up to 3 saves) or by adding conditional bonuses. eg AP 1 is better than armourbane 1 by "a bit".
This game has tried to address issues from earlier editions but is really poorly expressed even when there are no areas ripe for player intervention with like your LOS example. (eg How do you allocate wounds to multi wound units?)
I don't think anyone has ever measured a wheel accurately in any game of Warhammer ever yet the game can turn on millimetres sometimes.
Anyway I have a nostalgic enthusiasm for this edition after a few years off but we will see how long it lasts :)
Aaahh….D6 wounds….the good old days. Lol Just found your podcast and really enjoyed the conversation!
While I agree that many things can be house ruled and TO’s can put limitations on certain things, I just feel the more we have to do such things, the more it shows just how weak/bad the rule set is.
As a guy who has been playing since 1993, I love this game and want it to be great. But I feel as if GW just couldn’t care less about the game a lot of us love, and that is a bit frustrating. It just feels like a cash grab from the Total War crowd and then a cash grab from those of us older players who have that nostalgia of older editions.
Maybe I’m wrong….but I’m old enough to remember GW snuffing the life of my beloved game with a pillow over its face….but I digress…..Gentlemen, thank you for this conversation! I thoroughly enjoyed it! Liked and subbed!
Thanks! Glad you liked it
1) Boring magic
2) Janky lines
3) Janky movement and charges
4) OP dragons & skirmishers
5) Ugly movement trays or forced re-basing
Five reasons to continue playing 8th ed./9th Age.
Or Kings of War for me. Even less house-ruling.
TBH we've just now started playing Diskwars Warhammer again. And it's great fun, really getting the Warhammer fantasy feels for half the commitment. We've been surprised by how fun it is.
GW need to come out and put a hardcap on infantry width like 12 maximum for light infantry 10 for heavy for example to eliminate linehammer shenanigans.
Just bring back bases to base, it's a simple fix. Monster lords and skirmishers are much more tricky to fix though.
@@oitoitoi1 bring back force org slots and hero/lord limitations from 7th. problem solved.
I think if you follow this rule for infantry, I think it could eliminate line hammer.
Max width of 6+#of ranks
Monster infantry 3+#of ranks
Cav 5+#of ranks
So 12 chaos Warriors would be able to rank up 6x2
So horde types will have an advantage over elites
Nice idea, but wider should be possible for archers. So archers should be 9-10+ranks in this formula
@@daemonishere otherwise you will be stuck with having multiple small archery units of 5-10 models.
I don't think it's that big of a deal and it still works out to be the same thing. Actually, I would probably feel more smaller units of 5-10 so that way I can adjust my targeting.
I don't know, maybe archers are given a special formation rule that allows them to be 10 wide, but only 2 ranks.
I don't have all the answers.... But like, people will play line-hammer in tournaments and it's effective.
I saw a video about a company making base adapters with a spot to put a magnet on. So you just form up your units on the fly. The bases just “click” together and seemed to stay together pretty well for being pushed about. The big upside being that you djinned up a “movement tray” on the fly. I play dwarfs and have no idea how to rank up units, if at all. Maybe it’s just lines of missile troops and warmachines.
We've had rules written for competitive players. They are boring, too mathy and some require flat terrain.. eewww.. There is a balance to find and to find it the creators and designers need to spend more time. It would be nice that one day (not unlike the warhammer armies project),, there is an edition made for everyone by everyone with the design teams from GW. I look at TOW as the bones of something new and great to be improved over time. I hope that happens.
It was funny for me played since end of 4th-5th ed but sold all my stuff after they canned 8th. I had started to re collect 6th ed and then they announced the old world about 4 months into starting this so I just decided to wait for this to come out
Well 8th was more or less the worst balanced version of Warhammer we had in combination with the worst core ruleset.
The Horde, Supporting Attacks, Step Up and Steadfast Rules turned the 8th Meta into a shitty slugfest of 2-3 40-50 model blocks with 7-8 ranks reach that slugged it out for a few turns, while the limited movenment rules in combination with the unit width turned the game into "i have my big brick and push it forward for one turn, then i gamble on a charge, end of tactics for the game" gameplay.
Several factions with higher point costed Hero/Lord choices were basicly crippled by the 25% of army points allowance for Heros/Lords, as they were just capable of taking a single Hero/Lord in games below 1500 points, forcing everybody to play on 2500+.
Also the possibility to take Lord Level Characters in games below 2000 points was next level unbalanced.
The 25% of army points in core units tax was also enormously stupid, because in combination with the above mentioned rules, it enforced the bulding of 1-2 30-50 model blocks of Archers, Zombies or something.
Magic Rules were completely broken and turned from quite reliable but not game breaking powerful in 7th to game dominating and extremely unreliable.
Destroying whole units with a single spell was easily doable.
The proliferation of Dragon Level monsters in the game started here too. Each faction had to have a big high toughtness, high strength and high wounds monster that was not a Lord Mount.
The Rules for Warmashines turned the skill based 7th edition artillery rules, that were basicly copied to 8th, into a highly abusable format.
Not having to guess for ranges turned cannons into low skill hero snipers, stone thrower style weapons in combination with unit sizes into save unit destroyers, Bolt Throwers suffered.
In addition to that, certain units/factions had insanely broken combos. Example the combo of 30+ bloodletters that get joined by a herald of tzeentch with lore of life, that casts "Flesh to Stone" on the unit and "Throne of Thorns" on himself. Absolutely stupid, happened a few times in a few local tournaments over here and had to be houserouled to not be legal from there on.
Im not really happy with ToW in certain areas.
1. the game needs a Force Org Chart and a Character Slot System like 7th to reign in the Hero Hammer Gameplay. Remove the % based army selection model.
2. (ths one is a personal taste thing) remove pre measuring and return to guessing.
3. Rule Bloat already at the beginning. (its fucking 16 pages of special rules plus unit/army specific special rules... FFS thats too much)
4. Rule bloat in combat resolution/moral
5. The Base Rulebook is written and edited as if the team were disfunctional autists fighting each other over the layout etc. You cant find shit quickly in there.
6. Magic... the Magic rules are just trash. Return to Power Level, Power Dice and a distinct magic phase. Its just another layer of annoying complexity added to the game to keep track of every magic interaction you can do over the course of a turn and in addition to that, the rules are quite unclear/hard to find in this atrocious book, when you are able to cast what type of spell etc, when the magic rules are spread out over 200 pages.
7. Psychology. Fear, Terror, Panic etc all got drasticly dimmed down and are basicly irrelevant for 95% of the game and interactions. Terror should do more than a -1 modifier on your Moral Check when you attack/get attacked by a Fear Unit, Hitting at -1 BS for the first turn of combat when failing is also... basicly worthless, as in most cases you would still hit on a 4+ like before.
8. Fighting rank is wonky. Should be ruled like base contact +1 models to the side. and the static bonus from ranks should be increased
We ran an 8th edition tournament last year with some highly competitive players in attendance. None of the top 3 lists had a horde in them. Personally I think the only thing out of kilter with 8th was purple sun and a couple other spells. It plays really well and you rarely see armies with multiple hordes as you did at the beginning of 8th.
I agree with much of your comments on the TOW however - the magic system is very disappointing.
some thoughts to linehammer:
its nonsensical that, because its the point of a formation, one model can be hit by more models than it can hit back.
even by encircling my smaller unit i should get the same amount of extra attacks.
the point is that it resembles unit deformation in combat, but without any drawbacks, nothing changes really other than the line units get all benefits but no drawbacks logically should occur.
another thing, with spears we arent limited to a single rank, so a double linehammer is the way to go.
reforming a 24 spearmen unit into double rank seems more acceptable.
for dragonhammer, well we will see if dragons are fun, otherwise dont play with dragons, it isnt that hard to fix, we do it all time in heresy.
for casual dont play people with unfun lists, for turnaments the to will set rules to balance the non-dragon factions in, otherwise they need to see how to deal with them.
Yes spearmen seem good in this edition. I may even do a video on it at some point… as for dragons.. yea I can’t see a fix either other than agreeing not to use them
The paradox is, herohammer and dragon(monster)hammer in general make sense, from a narrative and fantasy standpoint (i.e. Tolkien), but from a gameplay and warfare standpoint, it makes little sense. Of course, if dragons really existed, they would determine pretty much every battle without fail, followed by major weapons of war. But to make this game work, you need to focus quite heavily on men and horses, etc. Getting the balance is difficult. Tolkien got a good balance since he was writing a novel, not a wargame. I think 8th edition did okay. Got mixed feelings on other editions of Warhammer -- it seemed to jump between where the focus was. People can pick what edition they want, which is nice -- but the problem here is that there's nobody to play with for most editions at this point. Let's see what Old World second edition does!
Personally, I think you should make heroes and dragons the most powerful, but not by too much -- or, simply make infantry the most powerful despite the fact it makes no realistic sense. In theory, horseback and such should be at the top, being somewhat of a bridge between men on the ground and actual monsters. But even this has its issues: you cannot have horses be OP; otherwise, it hurts many armies and lists. Always give them disadvantages, too, such as the ability to fall over or the inability to have both close-combat and long-range weapons on the same horse (that's just innately OP), or make them very costly, or some other restriction.
It depends on the exact focus of the edition/system. Personally, I see Warhammer (Fantasy/Old World) has being infantry-based no matter what, so that should be the foundation. NO linehammer, either. After that, I'd focus on heroes (combatant heroes, including magic-users, etc.), then dragons and horses and related, closely followed by machines/weapons. Although, in reality, no hero unless superhuman is beating a dragon or such, it's just better from a human-centric and narrative viewpoint -- and psychologically -- that the hero beats the dragon. Literally every fantasy story ever. Then, my theory is that the focus should be on monsters more than machines for fantasy setting, and that dragons would be more powerful than weapons (other than very powerful ones). Horses and such should be somewhere in the middle, being more situation-based -- it depends on how you use them, and the exact army you're facing (which is often the case, anyway). (I think magic should be a very interesting system but not the central one -- combat first and foremost still, and magic-users should be more situation-based, not win every combat. Meele heroes would be top of my list, as a result. In terms of meele vs. ranged in general, that would depend on the army you're facing and the terrain and so on. Technically, unless you have some very superhuman meele going on, ranged weapons should always win in battle. Guns beat swords, just as arrows beat swords. But there are still niche situations in battle where swords win.)
P.S. Since Fantasy/Old World is typically open battle (closer to something like from 1066 AD), you would assume ranged weapons and firepower would be best, followed by large numbers of men. But, dragons would still crush everything in reality. But, some of the races are non-human so have other abilities, so that's fine. Some are stronger than others, or weak to magic, and so on. You can justify it however you want fairly easily. Nonetheless, at the core of the game is mass close-combat (i.e. sword vs. sword, or arrows/bow vs. shield, etc.). That's how it started, that's how many of the armies are built, and that's how most people play. That's how real war was, which inspired Fantasy Battles in the first place. We must be careful in radically changing this!
I got convinced to give 8th ed a go right before TOW news dropped. Wish they'd been a bit more clear about legacy armies or I'd have narrowed down the three armies I was planning to go with by one, and the one that I actually ended up making was the one that was on the legacy list. Regardless, the PDFs are fine for the most part, and I'd be happy to play 8e again, though TOW has a fair bit of steam thus far. Local store is planning on getting a small fairly casual tournament going for it soon, warts and all.
Yep personally I was lizardmen in 5th, army is long gone and now I'm back I had to decide long and hard about whether I wanted to persist or switch over to another, probably warriors of tzeentch. Went for Lizardmen in the end, couldn't help it
One last point on rules writing. 15 odd years ago when 8th was written the quality of life at the company was possibly better. Now GW is rife with stories of a poor work enviroment, little testing, worse feelings from the employees the game will suffer
I can't help but feel TOW is an excellent first draft
@@drdiscostu oh absolutely, its just that people ask the question as to why it is this way and when you have inexperienced or dssalusioned people writing rules people sometimes just dont care
i've come across this problem of Dragons as a Dwarf player, no clear cut way to deal with one
Use your cannons
Same for wood elves if you don't want to take a dragon yourself (*shock* not everyone does)
@@wakankinyan Good idea. How many shots do you think it'll take?
@@wakankinyanany person that suggest using cannons to solve dragons this edition hasnt played against dragons and maybe hasnt played this edition at all
@ianm2041 i have a better one. Dwarf player asks for help with monsters, person reminds him his army has some excellent warmachines.
Dumbest responder notices obvious point that cannons no longer auto-defeat monsters.
If you think shooting monsters from three feet away with S10 d3 Wd attacks isn't a good idea then you're the dope that needs table time.
Fliggity filtered.
In my opinion it is not „competitive play“ to put your Quarrelers in one line… or better take Rangers as Skirmishers because there are much better. Why should I shoot only half the bolts? Why should I shoot with BS3 instead of BS4 with 360 degree view? I think GW failed at writing good rules for ToW and should change them very quickly. Didn’t they test the game before? I have no idea what happened in Nottingham… 🤷🏻♂️ For me it is even not rank and file any more.
"it is not „competitive play“ to put your Quarrelers in one line"
Largely agree, but feel there is more than one side to this. I look at my old dwarf army and find that I have 24 crossbow-dwarfs. They're the 80s ones with the plastic crossbows that are slightly too big. If I field two units of 10 or maybe even 12 and each unit stands in a line to all be able to fire then that feels like anyone should think it was fair enough. If I field all 24 in a line and claim them to have 'great weapons' (I have a feeling the models don't actually have any weapon other than the crossbows though I know everyone 'has' a hand weapon) so they can somehow have a ludicrous number of high-strength attacks when charged (having somehow manged to swap their crossbows for two handed axes having stood and shot) then I think I might feel I was trying to take advantage of the dodgy game mechanics. Don't know yet how practical that would be though on the face of it it does look strong in some situations. Obviously they ought to be allowed to fire in two ranks anyway, would be nice to see that changed at some point. They shouldn't be WS3 either.
No qualms at all about fielding Rangers instead, nice to see that they're good now! Don't really have any issue with them using their two handed weapons either as that's what Citadel sold me in the form of 80s Bugmans back in the day. If I was writing rules I might not allow them to use them after a stand and shoot, but hey ho.
Sounds like you actually haven't played a real game of old-world
I can understand how they missed linehammer in testing, I can't understand how no one ran a dragon ...
"can i see it?" Doesn't that fall under "Cover"?
I preferred this rational debate rather than the hype videos.
We still game 6th ed and don't have an issue with the rules outside some of the Storm of Chaos lists. That said, I'm enjoying OW four games in.
Does the Bretonnian Duke on Hippogryph fit into the dragon category? Specifically, will it rub opponents up the wrong way like a dragon might?
Why would a dragon rub someone the wrong way in Warhammer?
What a fabulous conversation between gentleman 💯! Thanks for this. Also, for those interested we did a ‘how to slay the dragon’ video but I think you covered it - bring a dragon 😂 How to Slay the Dragon? - Warhammer The Old World
ua-cam.com/video/hE0mBMOwDps/v-deo.html
Do you think the reaction against competitive play in TOW is a reaction to the domination of competitive play (at least in the meta but also what i casually see in my local club and hear online) of 40k?
Broken character, yes one The chaos warrior from Warhammer Quest (A 2 handed big axe 1995) had rules in one White Dwarf if I remember correctly with magic items always strike first and kill anything if wounded.
New player here! One thing I haven’t found clarification on is the point of counting as charged for the next turn combat after a pursuit move. The faq says it’s an ongoing combat and you don’t get to use lances again… you don’t get an initiative bonus because you didn’t do any movement on that turn… is this something just needs an errata?
depends.
has the loosing side given ground and you moved up, then you are not charging. the fight counts as ongoing.
has the loosing side fallen back in order and you pursued into contact, then you count as charging.
has the enemy broken and fled and you pursue and overtake them, they are destroyed.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 This is related to when you pursue a unit that has fallen back in good order. The rules say that you count as having charged.. but what does that affect? for Initiative Bonus p146 is specifies that its gained only for that turn in which you charged. For this instance on the following turn of combat that you count has having charged you didn't make any movement to gain an initiative bonus.. so I don't see the point.
@@aalagerwaard when the enemy unit has FBIGO (Fallen Back in Good Order) and the other side pursues and catches up, they count as charging.
This gives them an Initiative bonus for up to 3" charging, Morningstars, Flails, Cavalry Spears and Lances apply their strength bonus, Impact hits will also be generated like in a regular charge.
This counts as "turn 1" of the combat for all purposes.
Meaning both sides must potentially test on Fear/Terror again.
Also other Charge Boni for the combat result apply again.
So "Giving Ground" is the better option in every respect, unless you expect your enemy not to pursue or really want to leave that combat and dont expect the enemy to sucessfully pursue (for example dwarfs vs skaven)
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Most of what you just described in the first paragraph for the FBIGO is not rules as written and also disagrees with the most recent FAQ.. that is exactly the problem as its very counter to how you feel it should work... How you feel like it should play (in which you have described) and what is actually written are very differen't
@@aalagerwaard The rule for FBIGO says:
The unit counts as fleeing but at the end of the Movement (2D6, remove the lower one) it ralliies automaticly and can perform a free reform.
The opponent now can choose to pursue.
Here he rolls 2D6 and adds the results together.
If the Pursuer regains contact, he counts as chargng.
When Units charge, for each inch they charge, they gain +1 Initiative up to a maximum of 3.
When units charge, they may use Boni from Lances, Flails, Morningstars etc.
If a unit that has the "Impact Hits (X) rule charged for more than 3", it generates impact hits.
The FAQ only stated, that both units cant change weapons.
Meanng from Greatweapon to Handweapon&shield for example.
It does not state, that the charging unit does not get its charge boni.
this is RAW.
RAI could be, that the pursuing unit cant use boni from Lances and Spears on Horseback, but that is not written there.
(even though i agree that the FAQ implies that, i would say it applies to the "Give Ground" scenario, as with Pursuing after FBIGO the unit clearly counts as charging by the rules)
So Scenario 1: Give Ground -> just a move up if the opponent decides to, ongoing combat.
Scenario 2: FBIGO -> opponent counts as charging as in combat round 1 if he pursues, Ini Boni and Impact Hits apply regularly etc.
I have never heard another human unironically say 8th edition was tight. I played a lot of it but out the book that game was a complete nightmare.
his point was you could play 8th edition against a complete stranger and you wouldn't have much in the way of rules debates, TOW is absolutely rife with ambiguity, there are so many things that are open to interpretation.
@@oitoitoi1yeah and my point is anyone who believes something so stupid needs their head checked.
@@morerobotwarscontent1476 yeah you seem intelligent...no wonder you struggled so much with 8th
@@oitoitoi1 lol so what is it? I thought it was a tight ruleset. Now apparently it's possible to struggle with it.
I played it from day one. There were endless unclear rulings and it barely got FAQ'd. You had to comp it to make it playable FFS. It's absolutely deluded to think two new players could sit down and play eighth without loads of rules questions.
@@morerobotwarscontent1476 Lol 8th had a massive faq. It was possible for you to struggle with it clearly, but then I'd imagine you would struggle with any ruleset based on your demeanour. Name for me please an ambiguous rule that you debated with your opponent that couldn't be figured out through common sense?
I played tournaments through most of 8th, and even when the insane end times stuff came in at the end I don't remember needing to have any real rules debates post the main FAQ.
Some people should pay their club fees 😂
TO 8TH EDITION!!!
As to your friends email response from GW, Is it not just an automated message at this point? There's no way they can keep up with that many emails
Great video!
Thanks!
TOW 2nd Ed. will hopefully fix the issues discussed
I just wish there was combat reform 😢
As regards to whats strong and whats not.
I do wonder what GW in this modern era will do with the game. As in; will they "patch it".
40K 10th edition looked good at a glance but was a broke mess at launch. But just 4 months later they had tweaked all armies so alost every army was competative in a tournament setting.
What will they do with The Old World.
Embrace the past and leave everything as is?
Tweak the points?
Or even tweak the rules?
I for one would not object to points tweaks. If noone brings say... Waywatchers to the table. Then they might need a buff.
Hypotetically; getting Killing Blow om their shots like the olden days would be a rules tweak that would make them stronger.
Lowering their cost by a point or three would ofc make them more viable. And less intrusive than rules changes imho.
I would atleast like to hear what GWs plan is
Jes Goodwin's Chaos Champions would be an obvious pick for re-release. Your pre-slotta beastmen are probably safe though.
Have they said yet that they'll be rereleasing anything as old as those Chaos Champions? I kind of hope not as like Dr Luke I have a fair few of them and the collector in me rebels against them reappearing whatever the morality of that may be. I know some people are expecting the 'classic ogres' that are promised to be the 80s Goodwin ones, but I don't believe that's been confirmed?
Nothing has been said, but for me the Chaos Champions represent the intersection of nostalgia with timeless aesthetic. They would be my pick if I was GW
@@narwhalcheese They're great models and it would seem like a good choice, just wondering if they really will go back that far. Guess some of them are maybe big enough to still run as character models alongside modern figures as they were quite big for the time. I think Dr Luke runs them as Warriors mostly though and that's probably what I'll do with mine as I don't have that many of those as they cost so many points in a 3rd Ed army as they were sort of character models too - the Warriors are also pretty chunky so it works well.
The Chaos models from that era that I would put up against them were the beastmen, but obviously that's a different army now. Would be surprised if they rereleased them anyway as they don't really fit with what they've done with the faction since though you never know, perhaps there's someone involved who understands they shouldn't all be goats!
I do wonder with rereleases what the pricing will be like - if some of these things turn out not to be significantly cheaper than on Ebay all people will be getting is being able to buy what they want more or less when they want it, but they will lose the joy of tracking them down.
@@ClydeMillerWynant The marauder giant is coming and I think that's of a similar vintage.
@@oitoitoi1 I think it's a few years younger, is the Giant maybe 1990/1? That Chaos range is Citadel stuff from round about when Marauder very first existed, maybe even slightly before as they're 87/88. They will still have been current during the time Marauder was around though so I agree it's not that dissimilar (the Giant also was available for quite a while I think though), just haven't seen anything actually promised from 80s Citadel yet, at least while we don't know which ogres they mean.
I think it needs to be designed for competitive players somewhat because the Internet exists like you guys were mentioning. Competitive players will always appear from the woodwork and nobody is trying to lose
Precisely
I disagree that 8th works as a competitive game. The base game rules are good, but magic was completely broken, and army building was a complete mess. It’s always left out of these conversations that to even make 8th edition playable in a tournament setting required a massive amount of tried and tested comp. nothing about 8th edition in its original form is suitable for tournament play.
There is no reason that ToW can’t get that same comp. I also expect that we will soon get a points rebalance. They did mention they would be doing so. If they do that once a year, maybe rework the rules with a generals handbook style update, I think we’ll see far more improvement over time than we ever saw in previous editions of Warhammer Fantasy.
And none of that gets into the other financial and marketing issues caused by 8th ed rule set. They made a floundering game (because of a decade of mismanagement) that required far too high of an investment that was incredibly slow to update. The cost to build an 8th edition force was astronomical because of huge infantry numbers
I agree with you about the comp. 8th was never balanced even with the comp system. I too expect GW to further balance OW. Some things need balancing, like dragons, maybe the vampire screams. They have already done so a little with fanatics for example. That said I still believe the 8th ruleset is superior. The only truly broken thing about the game was Purple Sun and the death magic lore attribute.
I challenge the criticism about Linehammer "Not looking like Warhammer". Is this really a bad thing? So it incentivizes wider formations closer to what you might have seen an army deployment in a historical sense. It encourages a battle line as opposed to block infantry tactics where several smaller micro battles take place across the tabletop. I submit that Warhammer always looked wrong and perhaps now it's finally taking a step to how it should look proper in order to simulate medievalesque battles.
Maybe! I cover that point in my own second linehammer video in the second section, and consider why it is deemed offensive. However, anyone propping the argument 'you are all wrong!' will face an uphill battle, no matter how legitimate his point!
We didn't play 9th Age because it felt soulless when it first came out, and we never looked back.
You and me both brother!
Honestly if they could just put it in the WFB setting with all the sauce that comes with that, it would basically be 8th edition perfected. The ruleset is fantastic and definitely the tightest form of warhammer ever made. For me I just wish they had based it on 6th edition instead.
I would agree the internet is a problem. As you said everyone will know what is powerful and what isn't. If people don't bring these units to a game that would be great, but where I live there is almost no one who would not bring those units. (too many win at all cost players.) I just end up not getting to play at all or I have to join the 'That guy' player group'.
aha! you must be one of the famous punks!
There is no excuse for poor rules writing of the fundamentals from the market leader in miniature wargames.
Yeah, people could avoid using dragons, but wouldn’t it be nice to be able to use a cool dragon model with toned-down stats, and not be considered to be a power gamer?
I think the problem arises with them when they tack on magic ward saves and regeneration. 2+ Armour, 5+ ward and 5+regen saves become a bit ridiculous on such a powerfully strong, tough and mobile unit.
@@DryzualYes, it's stacking all those defensive abilities together. A dragon is T6 7-10 wounds, not the end of the world to deal with. They should only get a ward save, no regeneration (just put a rule in that always negates it).
I feel the no-backsies on movement and the accidental contact rules promote forward-moving gameplay and discussions with your opponent about moves and charges before they are committed to. Since you can pre-measure and should be playing by intent there's no reason you can't spend the time that would be spent rewinding play discussing with your opponent how to make it so that you don't need to rewind play.
Yes of course, it’s just funny how that has to replace the ‘most important rule’ from older editions which was always a popular and noble aspiration!
I live in Australia. I’m a tournament/high level player and really enjoy the competitive challenge of 8th.
Sadly, 6th was more popular before old world and I struggled to get games.
I fear the old world is not for me and it will probably see me give up the hobby
Welcome to Kings of War, if you don't feel like Old World is for you. Now having the experiences I have, it surely does not feel like it is for me. It's really thankful that we now have so many options: all different variations of Fantasy wargaming have different flavors, and all seem to have at least some people playing them. For those who enjoy 5th ed Hero hammer, it's there for them - for me, Kings of War embodies a lot of the great things I always wanted from Warhammer.
I will have a lot of fun with the old world but for me Kings of War is the better rank and flank game.
id recommend triumph and lasalle
I never liked any of warhammer rules as they were presented. Starting with WFRP through all editions of battle, to aos and 40k.
I go make my own twist on WFB. Ill be back in 2032 with it! Going to be multiunit linehammer to honour Dr Blaxil.
Edit: Let me preface with 'at the moment'.
No. The game is not well balanced, the rules are too bloated, and time is too easily weaponised by douchebags because they are rolling during your turn.
If you want competitive friendly play Kings of War - designed by the same guy who did WHFB 6th edition but with a focus on clear rules, good balance and douchebag proofing.
WHFB is a great FUN game. But a dumpster fire for competitive play if you want fairness, balance, and games being decided by what happens on the table, not what list you bring.
We discussed why KoW is possibly the best wargame ever and the same reasons persist as ToW didn't really address any of the issues we discuss - ua-cam.com/video/Zj8BXud_7m0/v-deo.html
I reject the idea that nobody at GW "thought of Linehammer". Virtually everybody reading the TOW rules on close combat IMMEDIATELY thought of this case - usually directly followed by "how the fuck is this even a thing?". I assume those rules were written like that on purpose, with their playtesting showing it was not an actual problem - and the assumption the community would selfregulate.
Which is my take on this as well, and will remain until proven otherwise: while the rules might allow "Linehammer" a mix of ingame inpracticability and overall player consensus will shut it down for good. WHF is a game between two actual people, and nobody will pull this nonsense off other than for shits'n'giggles. Anybody playing "Linehammer" seriously is most certainly out of opponents VERY fast.
As for being proven otherwise: we will see if this is an actual issue in real games of tournaments. I guess not, but we will have to wait and see.
It's easy to miss you are suggesting something you have never conceived of in your writing. Heck, that is what literary analysis and critical analysis of texts often does.
The fact you have to explain to the Dr that now we have the internet... in 2024... LOL unreal. META has been a thing since 1997 when GTs started. Maybe he just wasn't in the loop.
True, but now it’s ubiquitous and no one can ignore it
I'm not sure that's right. The internet appeared in the late 90s for mass consumption (I got it in 1999). However, I don't believe that the small number of GTs that were held then, or in the early 2000s, really permeated to the local gaming group or the blokes in the garage, to anything like the same degree as was the case from the second half of that decade. I am not suggesting such knowledge didn't exist prior to that, but that it was confined to a much smaller proportion of the player base (those who attended GTs or knew people that did) than was the case after the rise of social media and the associated internet culture paradigm shift that occurred at around that time
@@DrBlaxill I was doing 4-5 GTs a year in 2002. In the USA we had 2 in 97, 3in 98, then 4 in 99. It exploded in the 03-06 range. In 06 I hit 6 GTs in 8 weeks one summer all over the USA. Good times.
Damn. I haven’t even painted my dragon yet….
Personally i think a water tight ruke system is great for all players competitive or otherwise. I think theres nothing worse, or should i say less immersive than having to stop everything to work out a really weird interraction.
B2B should never have been changed. It was great. Maybe adapted or evolved but 100% not moved away from and certainly not to this extendo arm stuff we have now swinging from miles away.
I think the no step up rule made heros so integral. As presumably these are the only ones who get to swing. Having higher initiatives. Each character wipes out the fighting rank of the other so only the cuaracter can swing back.
I think the charging was perfect in 8th and just needed a few adaptations possibly. But it was easy to work out out who could charge and what the distance you needed was.
I also thaink its awful that the dragons are so game dominating. We all love our big models and for them to effectively be "cheating" is upsetting. I think cannons just needed softening up so you could field them without them heing a hinderence.
This is a great watch and gives me at least a lot to thonk about woth the old world.
Ive heard 9th Age is the place to go for balance and a tigut rule set. I haven't played it at all can anyone comment?
I haven't played 9th Age, but I have experience with Kings of War. That's my go-to regiment-style fantasy wargame atm. I'm hearing there's a divide between 9th Age and 8th Edition Warhammer, and as I eventually enjoyed 8th ed more than some other people, there's a chance 9th Age could be good. But then again I don't think I'll ever again enjoy crunch and tables like I did back in the days (and even then not so much), and the speed and direct approach to the actual gameplay that Kings of War has offered has been what sold it to me.
@@Crause88fin I'll check out kings of war. Im also looking at 9th age and everything I'm reading says it very balanced but a bit techy.
I do like Old world but there's so many house rules needed atm. When the first comp pack comes out that everyone likes we can then settle into it a bit better I think.
I think its a mistake to try and play GW games competitively. ToW is going to need heavy comp by TOs for that. There are games out there that work for competitive play, Kings of War for example. But people slam that as ‘flavourless’.
You cannot square the circle of ‘flavour’ and ‘competitiveness’. One, by its nature erodes the other. A super customisable game like Warhammer can never be a competitive option, because it is so variable!
Completely agree. However we’re not asking for a competitive game out the box like 9th age. We just wanted something that you could play to win reasonably and it still look like Warhammer!
Kings of War.