When was infantry actually ever good? 4th and 5th were herohammer, 6th and 7th were dominated by cavalry in the competitive scene, 8th in the competitive scene they were only really good as points denial units in a few armies like Orcs, High Elves and Empire. The fundamental mechanics of any edition of Warhammer just do not favour infantry, particularly elite infantry. High Elf infantry has been good in some editions because they fundamentally ignored core mechanics of the game with rules like always strikes first.
Really enjoyed listening to an engaging and active conversation. I thought it was great you both recognise the challenges implicit to finding answers to these problems. It's so easy to over-correct some of these issues. I found myself agreeing the most with the core observation - how it is actually played doesn't match the way its depicted. It's not simple, but it feels like we should be able to get a bit closer.
Dr. Blaxill, we are honored beyond measure to be your punks! Another excellent video! Greetings to you and Simon from the United States, from a fellow Warlord online!!!
I have played WFB since 3rd edition. I owned a game store and ran tournaments for 25 years all the way through 4th ed up through 8th. I played WFB with multiple armies that entire time. 6th edition was the first major revision that rebalanced the rank and file and characters, getting rid of Herohammer. 8th was the everything Dr. Blaxill has said it was. 8th did have issues at launch, it did seem like it was all deathstars, 6 diced spells and 2d6 charges. But once you got it down, it wasn't that way at all. 8th was the best rules set for rank and file, and tactical tournament play. Good players with balanced armies beat deathstars, 6 dicing and such all the time.
Ah yes, I recall you mentioning this in an earlier comment. Well, a rich memory cache there to draw upon! Certainly I agree- 8th ed with comp and patching was really an outstanding game. Played well over 500 games and still encountering new stuff all the time and nobody ever really 'solved' the meta. I found 6 dice deathstar guy does win quite a few games, but generally against other guys doing the same thing...
If you started since the 3rd and was forced to abandon them after the 8th you should be using the armies project or 9th age where the books are not made to sell models.
@@j.h.3851 I don't understand your logic. Playing Warhammer makes finding games easier. There is things WAP and 9thAge do I like and things I don't like, but finding people to play with is nice. This is why playing the current rules of a widely loved and played game that we all have a shared interest in is preferable.
@@DrBlaxill death stars tend to have weak and minimal support units that are is easy to clean up and then you can focus fire the deathstar with your entire army. Those players tend to be terrible at coordinating their units together too or supporting the frontline. We played uncomped 8th most of the time and death stars didn't last long against balanced but efficiently built armies. 8ths main issue (which I'm sure you know) is the early army lists (especially Tomb Kings) were so much weaker than the later ones.
17:10 100% agree! The early pictures look like Warhammer as we've known it for 3-4 decades. It does _not_ look like how TOW is being played. There must have either not been much communication between the marketing people and the designers, or the designers had no clue as to how their rules would encourage certain playstyles, list builds, unit formations, etc. I've noticed that they are gradually shifting towards images of wider units on the boxes. Like they're slowly discovering how the game is actually played on tables outside of the design studio vacuum.
It looks like TOW everywhere that isn’t a tournament. I assure you that the vast majority of players absolutely do not care about tournament play or the meta. And I say that as an avid tournament player who’s been playing since 4th ed. I have never seen linehammer in any friendly game, only tournament and tournament prep games.
Tourney play will turn everything to 11. Generally I think the idea is to make it look bigger. The base sizes elude to this to me. I don’t think tournaments were factored in when designing, but high level play will bring high level BS to any game. Hopefully now with more direct feed back from the community from chaps from this show and others we will get a tighter rule set next edition, it’s re setting a game is not easy especially for the likes of GW
@@Stonehorn With no disrespect to your assurances or claims of knowledge of how TOW looks "everywhere that isn't a tournament", experiences vary 😉 And I say that as an avid casual player who’s been playing since 4th ed.
Exactly the same as with Blizzard and Warcraft, they have an idea, no clue how it will work and then release it as a full game to then be play tested by the public, a year later they have something that eventually gets close to working.
As someone who played and loved 6th, but was out of the hobby for 7th and 8th, I must admit my nostalgia kicks in and I'm reflexively against the rules changes 8th edition brought in. That said, in actively working against that bias: the way I played 6th is not at all representative of modern tournament party, and I suspect that much of what I enjoyed with 6th games would not be there in truly competitive 6th edition games. I'm still instinctively against step up, but letting infantry fight in two ranks (three of they have spears) would definitely be appreciated. I also feel like spears should give a bonus against charging cavalry (bonus to initiative and strength). My biggest issue, other than infantry just not having a place, is magic. I don't mind it being weaker, or being spread across phases, but the 2d6+level system is bad thanks to the distribution of a 2d6 roll. High level wizards are almost undispellable, and can also easily dispell almost anything a low level wizard puts out, which makes taking a level 4 almost a requirement and makes magic very interactive. How would I fix that? I don't know. But it needs to change.
It's a shame that there were so many unpainted armies at that event. The hobbyist players may not be taken seriously in a some circles but given an unpainted army that goes 5-0 and a heavily converted, well painted and based army that goes 0-5, people new to the game will swarm towards the latter. Great discussion, thanks for posting!
Another factor that favors Simon's point about cannon damage is that an increase only serves to harm the upper echelon of durable models. It increases the average wounds dealt from 3 to 3.5. Most troops simply don't care about that difference-the damage floor of a single wound is enough to splatter them. It's a simple-but-elegant little control to the ecosystem that I think Old World would benefit from.
I played in a 6th edition tournament last summer at Ropecon, Helsinki. We had a disagreement about fleeing skirmishers so we asked ne neighbouring table. We didn't like their ruling, so we asked the TO. Didn't like that either, but then we spotted a wild Tuomas Pirinen who gave us the official ruling, which I don't think was how the rule was written but whatever. It made the most sense. Try to do that with a game written by a "Games Workshop(tm) rules team"
@@PaintsAreOp Ask Tuomas, lol! Well that's a pretty cool option if available. Certainly I liked how the designers in the past were given full credit and really owned their creation!
Regarding the stepping up, I want a middle ground between 6th and 8th. It's amazing, that killing the enemy faster gives a bit of protection. It is strange that the protection can be 100% when charging ranked up Infantry. I'd give regular and heavy Infantry 2 attacks per rank after the first they had at the beginning of the combat, that can be struck to the front. Maybe like a stomp.
So interesting the discussion about 3D printed and contrast painted models and whether they fit. Personally I don't have a problem as long as it "feels" old world. I use lots of AoS models for my orcs and goblins and lizardmen and some incredible 3D prints for my marked chaos warriors. But all the models I use are just attempts to recreate what I have in my mind's eye, or what I've seen in the artwork which doesn't always match the official miniatures. But one of my regular opponents is happy to go really rogue. He's used AoS kharadron overlords as chaos dwarfs, 40k daemon engines as his war machines, 3D printed arabic warriors for an "Araby" army using empire rules, and 3D printed "empire" miniatures as a "tomb kings" army. I play him because it gets me more games in and we're friends, but it does ruin the immersion for me. I also use lots of contrast paint on my armies because it means I can get them on the table quicker and also paint lots more armies! I think it can look really good in the hands of a competent painter. I don't really have a problem with it and it's great that it's made the game more accessible to people.
With the greatest of respect Dr Blaxill your predjudice against speed/transparent paints is contradictory with your aversion to seeing bare plastic/metal on the table as well as being quite gate keepery. This style of paint has made painting more democratic and accessible to newbies, enabling them to paint decent looking models early in their painting journey. As a result more people are able to get more models painted which means more fully armies on the tabletop. hopefully those newbie painters will look to develop their skills over time and learn about the joy of layering, highlighting, blending etc. I know that has been my journey since re-entering the hobby. Edit. just got to your conversation about gate keeping :)
Yeah but they are also abused by people who have no intention of engaging with the hobby aspect and are only interested in WAAC metahammer. In this way, contrast paints become the lipstick on the pig if you get my metaphor?
To clarify- I don't mean contrast/speed paints per se, but specifically them as an accessory to a particular sort of play style (WAAC metahammeingr as @idiotproofdalek writes below). Ditto 3D printing. Nothing wrong with it in itself, but its also important to recognise its a great tool for the 'army in a weekend' meta rider.
@DrBlaxill that makes sense, thank you for your clarification. I guess I dont really think about metahammer as i am very much a narrative wargamer who puts theme, story and aesthetic first. Yes I still want my army to function and give me a chance of winning but it is not my primary concern, neither is it for most of the gamers that I play with. Thanks also for another really interesting video.
I remember when people used to say the same about ‘dipping’ and even Devlan mud - before it became earth shade. If you turned up with a fully dipped army these days you’d probably win best painted it sounds like.
@@adamsboringvids Spray, Dip, Done! It seems contrast paint killed the brief dipping renaissance. When contrast paint arrived I said 'We need a bigger Gate'
Really nice debate and I really like the videos. Agree on most thing except the D6 wounds for canons. The problem ain’t monsters but character mounted on monsters. It is fun that Giants or other 6 wounds monster are now a little more viable than in previous edition where they could be one shot by artillery. Characters on monsters with 3 saves need adjustment but not at the cost of 6 wound monsters with no save ;)
There is an easy nerf for characters on dragons or monstrous cavalry: if you do enough wounds to kill the mount, the mount is killed and you get the points for it. The rider is now a pedestrian and might be feeling rather lonely.
I'd really like it if in challenges, characters swung at the rider's wounds alone. That, coupled with maybe stomps and mount attacks having to go into the unit, would give foot characters an actual niche, where they can deal with wild dragons.
There is a pretty big issue of having to have the on foot model as well as the mounted version. Also, allot of these dragons that are 8/9 wounds have two wounds on character. A dragon with 7 wounds and all the bells and whistles is still basically as big an issue as the 9 wound dragon for most lists.
@pigzy9807 It's a dual issue of mounted lords having both superior durability and damage dealing. Stomp attacks absolutely break challenges, and ensure even the most durable lord can only last 2-3 turns in a challenge. During this time, it is almost statistically impossible for even the best combat character to kill a fully kitted dragon, unless he has access to monster slayer (which if the dragon has a significant ward, the odds are still in the dragon's favor). There's simply no path to balancing dragons in this ed while stomps remain a thing in challenges, and dragons stay at 10 wounds.
@pigzy9807 On the subject of avoiding needing a separate foot model. My idea was to have only the character be capable of being killed separately, not the mount. If the mount dies they both die, it the character dies, the mount would go "berserk" and gain frenzy, auto tie combat for that round. If the mount itself ever lost combat, the mount would auto flee, or be given a very low, separate leadership value to achieve this same purpose.
An idea for comp I have never heard is to have something like your character allowance equals the points in core you bring (still make core min 25%or something). It seems like this would help to keep armies looking about right.
I think I floated this on one of the FB groups but no one really responded. Instead of core being a straight tax it opens up your character allowance… but if you want to use that 50% character limit then the other 50% will have to be core. Or you could build a more balanced list.
@@aaronsomerville2124 I actually really like the idea, but in the current state of the game, it would be catastrophic for some armies. For instance, HE's core units absolutely suck, while Orc and Goblins have amazing core units. Would make the game even more unbalanced. Core has to be more balanced strength wise for this idea to work.
25mm bases, for models that can otherwise only rank up diagonally, are a welcome change. My big hat chaos dwarf warriors are very content on their 25mm's. I did base them for OW, but have not rebased my odd 7000pts worth of 8th edition Skaven. The decision to change base sizes seems to have been a mix of allowing bigger/more awkward models to rank up easier, and to nudge old players to start a new army. That's what I did.
Good video chaps, interesting perspective on it all. I think I agreed with all the issues, but not all the solutions (and that tied into your point about which edition was the favourite before!) Coming from more 6th (although a bit of 8th in the last couple of years) there are lots of things I like about Old World. However, there are some things that I would adopt from 8th: 1- Skirmish rules - much cleaner in 8th, and speeds up the game 2 - flee/chase - the dice off, then move approach seems much cleaner, and helps to avoid any disputes over ting % of a degree in flee direction and movement (as it will always be a little out in a game like Warhammer!)
Thinking further, could 8th Ed step up be a special rule for some elite infantry? This would allow the 6th Ed style ranks, outnumbered etc to boost cheap infantry and tar pits. Then elite infantry would get to do more fighting (perhaps with a minus to hit)
I hate how skirmishers played in 8th. That said, if there is a need to stop 360° charge arcs, don't go back to 8th, but create a rule "Follow the leader" that basically says that the skirmishers can move shoot and cast spells in 360°, but to charge, the charged unit has to be in the 90° vision arc of the leader (either the champion or another designated model). You can then outmaneuver the skirmishers by trying to get out of the leaders vision arc, but the unit will still have the advantage of 360° movement and sight for the other stuff.
I think that would be a very acceptable solution. Making a distinction between casting spells/shooting being 360 - and charging (and being charged) in arc. They have that principle already with wizards in chariots.
I'm a bit of a 6th ed man myself, not exactly by choice more that they blew up the world before I could get around to getting 40 dwarf warriors with great weapons together. One thing that pops into my head when people talk about how to make Infantry better, is to count the models on the flanks of the unit as part of the front fighting rank sort of like the 'lapping round' rule they used to have in 6th. That way Infantry gets more attacks while simultaneously making deeper ranked formations closer to the linehammer volume of attacks without the actual line. I think you wouldn't get them if you were being flanked, nor if you were in marching column
I think that in a future edition, infantry should have a kind of rock paper scissors effect; spear infantry much better against cav, maybe +1S when charged by cav or cause fear or dosrupted charge, something like that. Inf with other weapons more effective for dealing with spears, and cav would be great for dealing with infantry without the spears still.
I think in addition to that, infantry equipment options need to matter a bit more. Spears in particular never have felt impactful enough- apart from in 9th age where they had -2 AP if charged, +3 initiative, and fight in extra rank.
As someone who never got into the table top hobby while it was supported but has long loved the Warhammer Fantasy setting (through novels and PC games) I've been following TOW news and commentary with a lot of excitement. I reall appreciate your work in articulating the differences between editions, styles of play, and approaches to how Warhammer can be played on the table top in addition to making the case for your own preferences. I have to say that after everything I've looked into so far I'm actually more in favor of HeroHammer kind of narrative games and am most interested in giving a go with TOW and the fourth and fifth editions; if I can find a group that plays them. These videos are always very informative and very entertaining, I look forward to more punk annihilating commentary!
As mainly a 6th edition player, I think my improvements to the old world would be to include the free swing into combat, step up, more combat res for ranks, attacks base to base only with a wrap around rule for infantry units
Is it worth bearing in mind this was a first stab at the rules after a big break? I think it would be too much to expect them getting it right at the first attempt.
You're a generous man Thomas! I think had they consulted with some tournament players they would have avoided many of the problems. I don't think they were interested in doing that, unfortunately. However- tournament proofing a game is only one part of it, and I'm much less critical on their other decisions. However, I do agree with you that subsequent attempts are likely to build on this one.
@@idiotproofdalek may be, but i think -1 will be easy to calculate and faster. And not so hard as now) I.e: Your Hammerers under charge by Bretonnian Knights, lance of 8 knights, you have 6 wide 12 models unit. With fcg it will 213 points for both Firstly 6 knights with champ will make 8 attacks 4+/3+ with no armour (-2 ap). After - horses, 7 attacks 4+/5+ against 5+ armour. 3,44 wounds, so at least 3 dead hammerers. They will answer. 2 hammerers with champ - 7 attacks: 3+ / on 6+ no armour, 2,3,4,5 against 5+/ against 5+ ward. If we add 6 attacks with fixed (-1 to hit ) step up, it will be 4+ to hit. Totally 3.12 wounds Knights still winning in worst charge situation (single charge on front, without any buff). initiative and charge still matters, but not so bad situation for elite infantry In real life knights will choose better charge possibilities
The focus of most UA-camrs at the moment seems to be heavily skewed towards competitive play. This is leading the discussion on where the rules should be going. Where is the focus on playing so called "narrative" games? Where are the channels documenting the struggle of a couple of border princes and their rag tag mercenary armies, interesting characters, involving scenarios based on a story and a development of a campaign. This is an equally awarding approach and should be as widely fanfared as 3d printed, unpainted, cookie cutter list bashing.
I agree entirely. There's a lot of room for this and it the supply isn't really meeting it. There's a 5.5 hour video of me discussing lore with the Bard on this channel, and I hope to do more non competitive stuff. I'm a big admirer of Nigel Stillman, even though I'm not a Stillmaniac
@DrBlaxill I watched your Lore vid (not in one sitting, the family would have killed me) and really enjoyed the discussion. I myself have decided to paint up two opposing forces that can act as antagonists and as forces to allow me to indoctrinate friends. I really like the idea of slowly developing the forces and building a story.
@@coljmuzz you can also get friends to play with pre chosen lists too. There's much to be said for that, as if you pick both sides you can get great balance in a game and also make the command of the armies really important (as opposed to list building). I'm toying with doing an introduction video on my own characters as personalities.
@DrBlaxill I'm used to building games (for historical sets) with both sides and corresponding scenery and scenarios and then laying the game on for others so building up two armies (with mostly 3rd edition figures from the stash) should be straight forward.
Mountain Miniatures doesnt exactly do narrative play, but they do use non competative lists. Like all treefolk wood elves (+1 mandatory unit of Glade guards). My own take is to talk to my opponent. "Hey man. You bringing a dragon? No? Cool. Then I wont either." "Oh you have only played two games? Then ill skip Sisters of the Thorn and bring Wardancers instead." "Oh. It's miss Tournament-player? Say no more. Ill take all the cheese I can bring."
Interesting that you released this today, GW have released their pack for Throne of Skulls at Nottingham: - Max cost of a single model is 500pts - 0-1 level 3 per 1000pts - 0-1 level 4 per 2000pts No restriction on level 1 and 2s. Named characters are exempt from these restrictions (maybe a hint at what's coming with Empire?). It does seem GW are recognising there are some issues with the rules!
@Infernal_Puppet I think fanatic spam has sort of been taken care of by the faq tbh. Regarding the others though, yes I think they are a little behind the meta.
Ah, we would most certainly have covered that had we known! GW put in the 0-3 outside of core quite early, so they've added in some more very light comp there.
@@DrBlaxill You did sort of predict it though! Interestingly they seem to have abandoned the 0-3 rule, it's not mentioned at all, perhaps they think the fanatic issue has been resolved. I do wonder if we will see independent tournaments adopt this like they did the 0-3 rule.
Right so I can only take a Slann in 2000 point games? We don't even have level 3 wizards, so that's a bit of nerf to us, particularly given how bad we already are at magic
I'm enjoying how TOW has become a cautionary tale for tabletop game developers, not least because of your guys' reports and analysis (in that context I'd also like to include Andy2D6 for his videos). I'm sure current and future generations of game designers will refer back to them.
@@subedai well we can but hope. They had all of the expertise of the 9th Age (a pro community) and didn't use it all. The moment their creation was exposed to competitive play, much of it broke and the meta became as flat as a pancake
They could dig out the monster goes berserk table from older editions. It would need reworking for the modern stat line but it would raise the randomness and risk levels. How you make a medium size infantry unit good, not so sure.
Yes. They would need to detach the rider from monster to do that of course. Part of the reason monsters are great is that the profiles are merged- this also got rid of the monster reaction table as well.
You could have an alternative trigger, such as dropping to X wounds or losing X wounds in a turn or failing to kill Y figures in a turn. The narrative of the table would have to change but it's workable.
Step up is a poor rule in the paradigm that WFB uses. It's not designed around the mechanics that WFB uses. WFB is built, balanced and pointed around initiative being a valuable stat, because it gives you the advantage of reducing strike backs. Charging being a valuable strategy, by giving you the default highest initiative in that round. Step up makes initiative pointless, you will always strike with the same number of attacks, until you've lost most of your regiment. So no points values will be balanced when you strip one core stat out of the game. When you remove the advantage of the charge (advantage in reducing strike back), you also penalise low initiative armies and make them not want to charge. The best way to make dwarfs even more of a gunline is to tell them that the really difficult charge they managed to pull off now gives them no combat advantage at all. Improving infantry is fine, but it has to be done within the rules paradigm that exists, unless you're going to rewrite the whole game to remove initiative. ToW and WFB4-7 are all built around initiative being a core stat that costs points. Anything that undermines that requires rebalancing the whole game. The issue 8th had was it took 7th ed balance and stripped initiative out with Step up, immediately unbalancing the game. If they were going to sideline initiative, they should have written the game from the ground up with that in mind, not slapped it on top.
Initiative is valuable because you get to attack first. With the right alpha strike, you can remove certain threats or even wipe a unit. What step up rewards are units with staying power either through armor, toughness, wounds or numbers. It makes it dangerous to send in small elite units up against huge blocks of troops. Step up makes more units have greater value because the worth of a unit is beyond its ability to kill first. Step up gives value back to the core units and makes the formations of your infantry important to the game play.
@NateJones10 it makes dwarfs even more of a gun line by providing no incentive whatsoever for getting off a charge. It lets people be completely sloppy with their manoeuvring because no one cares if they get charged because they will always get max attacks back. it means initiative is an irrelevant stat that should be removed as it will only ever come into play when you've lost 80% of a unit. It fundamentally does not work in the paradigm that wfb was and is built with. It is a blunt tool to solve a perceived problem that create more issue with melee than it solves. Tow didn't use it for these reasons and it won't come back because it breaks a core aspect to the game. The only way it would ever work is if you rewrote the whole game around it. Currently the wfb system in no way supports both combatants making identical attacks every round.
My fear with 8th edition is a return to the big blocks of Infantry because they just weren't fun to paint/collect and there's just no onramp where you tell a potential new player that they need to paint/assemble 60 spearmen.
Yeah true, I admit I like my current lizardmen army. Last night at 2000 I had a single 24 block of Saurus along with two monsters, cowboy, Slann, krox, skink, rippers etc. It wouldn't be complete without a large block of infantry but it looked pretty awesome with just one...
I think a huge factor of brettonia being over represented is not only they are strong, it is they are also the first army to be released with minis and an arcane journal plus easy proxyable units.
33:20 I feel your frustration, but I for one is guilty as charged, I enjoy the new magic system. And at least it works. One advantage to the simple system is that Old World wont need the dedication needed for 40k today, which I had to shelf due to being a casual.
The issue with it is because it's so simplified, strong magic buffs have few counters. You need that level 4 wizard every game (mentioned in the rulebook as being incredibly rare). You can't do much against that Chaos guy with +7 to cast and forcing you to basically reroll your casting attempts. You need that lore familiar every time, because half the spells are situational to useless, and 1/6 of them are OP and strangely don't cost much to cast. Even on the merits of the system itself, the details they chose end up breaking that system.
@thecappeningchannel515 The +7 thing is a bit of a gross combo, but rerolling casting is just a base arcane item for Chaos, Infernal Puppet. The design intent of covering the board with lower level casters simply doesn't work either, because +2 over is a big bonus, and because 18 in is way too short a dispell range. That's practically charge range for most cavalry, exactly where your caster does not want to be! I agree that the design philosophy behind the system, while not everyone's cup of tea, is fine, and has some huge benefits in improving the game's flow. But the system as is not balanced, even at a basic casual level. You'd need changes like everyone has 24 in dispel range, level 1s and 2s have a +1 to cast/dispell, level 3s and 4 a +2, non random spells, maybe get signature spells for free, and ideally a rework of some of the spells lore by lore, changing casting values/adding new spells to replace the weaker ones.
@@ndalum75 IMO if they did casting and dispelling is on 3d6 and you get +1 for level 3 and 4s be a more balance system. Infernal Puppet would be on 4d6 drop highest as normal.
The core rules don't need to be changed to buff cannons. Since TOW is in the past relative to earlier editions, just introduce an optional technological advancement of newer more powerful gun powder(or newer cannons ) to bring them to the newly invented higher power of earlier editions.
Watched the entire video, a lot of great points. On the subject if making Infantry better, I think simultaneous combat would help, however it would require some slight changes to how combat works. Mainly to do with Initiative and charging. Keep the Initiative bonus for charging, and have either the to hit roll being Weapon Skill Vs Initiative, or those with a higher Initiative get a re-roll. Missions are vital! Love the idea of standards making units a scoring unit. Units should have standards, makes the game look better! 25% Lord and 25% hero is an obvious one that will I think still allow Goblins to take a lot of characters, while stop the silliness of 2 Dragons in 2,000pts games. I am surprised there was no talk of Stone Throwers as it is they are just not worth it, whereas they should be amazing things. Big hit was due to the rules for partially hit, and the bigger base sizes. Again, the pendulum swung too far. On the subject of 8th, it worked really well in bigger games. Used to play 5,000 -6,000pts very regularly, and a lot of the issues vanished. It smoothed out the über spells and Death Stars. I have to say I am always amazed at how it feels like Blaxhill and myself are reading from the same page. I am a gatekeeper, but I have been playing since 4th... so was in the field long before these upstart 3d printers and contrast paints! On WYSIWYG, I am a purest. If the model has a great wespon, that is what the model has. The spirit of Stillmania lives on in my forces.
8ed had the best magic system so far. The spells were busted and it made it bad, but basic system was about ok. It could get upgraded with “can’t cast with more dice than wizard level” to make it even less of a “I roll 6 dice looking for IF”. If we’re keeping the ToW casting mechanic, a simple Lvl1&2 should add +1 to casts and dispels, Lvl3&4 should add +2 to casts and dispels would help. That would help the “need lvl4 wizard” syndrome. Obviously all spells need to get their difficulty dropped by 2. Infantry needs to be winning by static CR as it always was. Step up is the wrong direction and will kill the game again as it did before. But issue is - with FBIGO, winning by CR often means nothing as enemy just bounces and can’t be pursued down. Capping rank bonus at +2 and removing Outnumber was a mistake. Also, overall this is a fun game with no balance. Adding balance somewhere will inevitably unbalance something else. Let’s just enjoy drinking beer while pushing toys about. 😂
It hit me a while back that The Old World has the feel of a fan rules project, but a fan rules project that wasn't a big collaborative one with a lot of perspectives and a clear objective of This Thing But Better at the core. Rather, the more typical solo passion project kind of development. And apparently there wasn't that much more than that going on in terms of development resources assigned to it at GW? In that it really was largely the work of one man with a plan and whoever they could rope in for playtesting? But it really has all that kind of 'this thing personally annoyed me so I'll tweak that', 'I like that bit of this thing so I'll throw that in' kind of approach that characterises such projects without a grand plan overview.
As a major TO on the East Coast of the USA I would love to work with anyone on a new version of comp like we had in 8th to balance tournament Warhammer.
@@poxous3854 I think given another 6 months I can see one emerging and commanding widespread respect. Bookmark my details, maybe one day we can chat about it
Enjoyed the conversation. Nevertheless I can't help feeling some of the 6th vs 8th stuff discussed betrays your prejudices (I suspect you might put your hands up to that anyway). When I first saw a game of 8th the first things I noticed about it that really struck me as the game having changed significantly from how I remembered Warhammer were random charges and pre-measuring. Both of those are of course still there. Now I get that it's less random in TOW and rules like countercharge and swiftstride often make the charge rolls less exciting and important as quite often the risk isn't there to the same extent, but that's not got much to do with older editions. I was already familiar with the 6th Ed magic and while a bit different (I think better) 8th Ed magic is obviously pretty similar and the new system has little to do with either. On flee and pursue I'm pretty sure that if you roll higher with your pursuit in 6th you catch them no matter what so I think you're also not quite right to blame the messiness of the new system on 6th Ed on that front. There's a lot of talk about objectives/missions etc and while these seem to me to be a good way of improving gameplay, variety of unit types etc they do quite often feel a bit arbitrary or contrived and not very meaningful. Not sure how you get around that though. Think you might also be a bit unfair to the 3D printing types as a lot of them do seem to paint their armies very well. I normally don't like the models (think you're much too generous to Highland Dwarfs for example), but then I don't like many models made this century unless they go out of their way to look like they weren't.
Well, I think we are fairly open with that. Nonetheless, the 8th vs 6th perspective is critical to the way OW is perceived amongst a large portion of the player base, and I've never seen a 6th ed person complaining OW is too much like 8th (despite premeasuring) and plenty the reverse. I don't find charging in OW especially interesting, both due to the point you make there about the swiftstride and also the fact that the maximum declarable range is less than the actual range, meaning that you usually get a charge if you can make it. Also I don't like that fleeing is resolved at the end of all the charges rather than being declared immediately per charge, which removes a whole tactical minigame within the charge phase (I keep forgetting to complain about this point!) Quite right on the pursuits, I just checked the 6th ed rulebook and that abstraction was already in. I don't have 5th ed to hand, but I presume that they are reverting to that. Be good to check though, because if pursuit is still 'roll higher and kill on the spot' there, then it would make this clunckfest they introduced here even more inexplicable. With the missions, you can introduce some fluff to it. For example 'capture loot', 'destroy a baggage train'. or 'break through' that can give them a semblance of military fluff. The only problem I find with it is that it seems odd both sides would be doing the same mission at the same time, rather than (for example) one attacking an objective and the other defending it.
@@DrBlaxill The impression I get on 6th vs 8th is that 8th players tend to suggest 8th based changes to try to fix some of the game's problems and 6th players often reject them because they don't like 8th. The problems themselves are not necessarily 6th Ed problems though - 'Herohammer', getting rid of base-to-base, weird outcomes from the new push back/FBIGO system certainly aren't for starters. I can see that there's a return to some clunkiness that is more reminiscent of older editions and that 6th Ed players are more comfortable with that than 8th Ed ones, whether that's because the 8th group are proportionally more competitive and therefore more likely to feel the need for a cleaner game or if it's because those changes are specifically a return to 6th I'm not sure? Could easily be wrong on all fronts though! I thought the difference in declarable and actual charge range looked interesting when I first saw it, but it seems to be the opposite in practice. Can't remember how 4th and 5th did the pursuits. I remember the 'Free Hack' from way back when though! I can see that it's possible to introduce some fluff to the missions, but I suspect there will be a lot of meaningless markers on tables and 'control' of points on the field being rewarded on a turn-by-turn basis without any reason to ever have thought it was meaningful.
Great debate and some very valid points. I am wondering if these aforementioned mission packs are available somewhere? I'm keen to try them out and see if they can shift some attention and relevance to infantry and more core units.
I don't think there's any single fix for infantry - it's definitely a range of small tweaks to bring things back into line. I've got a bevy of house rules that I'd like to start testing in my friend group. Firstly is Step Up attacks should be returned but made at -1. Let's your infantry roll some dice, but is unlikely to let weak goblin spears tear down swordmasters. Secondly, First Charge shouldn't fully negate ranks - instead every 3-4 unit strength in the charger should negate one extra rank besides the first. If you have three additional ranks the charging unit would need unit strength 9 to fully negate all rank bonuses. Thirdly, if a single model is fighting a ranked unit then it should be subject to a Surrounded special rule and the ranked unit should get an extra rank of attacks. This would apply to infantry, cav and monsters alike. Fourthly, crossbows and handguns (and possibly other missile weapons) should be able to fire in two ranks, at least in the shooting phase. The extra S and AP of a handgun over a bow means nothing when you're probably shooting 5 or 6 shots on 5+. Weight of fire needs to be upped somehow on these units. Finally, not so much related to increasing the value of infantry, the Impetuous rule should be Impetuous(X), and rely on a leadership test with the number in the brackets added to your roll. This let's it tie back into the overall Leadership system while allowing for granularity with some units being more unreliably Impetuous than others.
There are some clear winners in balance, but I don't think we have seen the extent of what the game is capable of. Many many folks are still struggling to get models on the table, and there are some great builds that require a lot of discipline and skill to work. What we need is GW to have enough stock! 3D Printing or having old models in the closet are the only way folks are getting stuff on the table. Always glad to hear your thoughts Dr Blaxill
Enjoyed your Bretonnian chat on Richy's channel the other day, it was highly stimuating! Certainly, the n number is still very small. Young game, not a huge number of players, and - as you say - supply issues with getting models to tabletp[. All of these are limiting the evolution of the meta somewhat. I personally am sceptical we'll see enormously more diversity than what we have now (or anything like what we had in 8th) but I'd love to be proven wrong! Occasionally someone is inventing something of course, like the poison bow block (an old idea from 8th but not seen so far in OW). Or my favoured theorylist idea which would be about 25 gyros/scout gyros/bombers with the expeditionary force with those fire and flee/move and fire guns.
Great discussion guys! Old World magic is flat compared to 8th, all wizards have been stricken with stupidity. I also agree with Simon's point on the DRAGON being way too overweighted in durability combined with power and maneuverability as piece on the board. I've left my chaos dragon in a box in deep slumber when it comes to Old World since it takes the fun out of the game. The dragon has become a titan from the 40k world, where one would need to also take a piece like this to challenge it or set aside a significant amount of points to counter or sufficiently slow it down. Still hopeful that Old World has future revisions that build from past successes.
Making cannons 1D6 wounds would really upset the balance in the game in the wrong way, that is not a feasably way. The issue is how armour and ward saves effect the combined profile of the rider and mount. There are a very easy fix that would make this way more balance without needing much thought and would not upset the balance of pretty much anything else. All ridden monsters would fall to the rule of reducing the ward and regen saves by one point as it now has the be shared between the two and the max armour save you can have with a rider and monster is 3+ and not 2+. Then call it a day. The best you can get is 3+ armour rave and then 6+, 6+ regen and ward. That would reflect ther points cost allot better and would not upset any other balance. You can still ride monstrous cavalry with the full benefits but they are not broken. Dragon riders would still be very good but nor broken. The math really work with this and i really think this would "fix" all riden monsters being too points effective.
I’m glad you touch a little upon rather terrible incomplete 3D printed unpainted armies chasing meta in the tourneys. As someone who leans a little bit more towards stillmania with fully painted armies of the old sculpts I loved, steeped in lore that I like. (GW’s terrible stocking issue and price hikes doesn’t help this) It feels a little bit disparaging to see armies treated with the care of how fast they can get them out to interact with the meta. It’s just not really my style and not really fun to take photos of, or let my imagination run wild of the armies. When it’s always fighting the grey tide. But if you want to dip your toe into competitive tourneys that’s what you’re dealing with. It’s hard to get the best of both worlds without the TO enforcing fully painted 3 color min armies.
I can 3D print but I am a puritan in that I will only buy official Old World miniatures for my games; I will even shy away from buying AoS miniatures as they have too much of a modern look for The Old World minis. I will only go to 3D printing if I'm absolutely desperate for something and there's just no way to obtain it. Even my terrain is official Old World as I'm building a small village using loads of hose Chapel of Sigmar / Empire Watch Towers + Fortified Manor (they cost me a pretty penny but the modularity of them is incredible and you can easily kitbash several different buildings from just a few of these pieces.
I prefer the GW models myself, but I think this problem is as much on GW itself as anyone. Many armies simply don't have their models available (unless you want to deal with scalpers on eBay or the like). I started a new Beastmen army in ToW and almost nothing in my roster is even on the GW website, let alone in stock. But my options are 1) Wait for several months to maybe see reprints, 2) Buy 3d-printed miniatures, or 3) Play a different list.
@@The_Winslow GW absolutely shares blame I mentioned it in my original post. I’m more complaining about the state of unpainted armies, or in Dr.Blaxil’s case just encounter proxy sticks. I have encountered things like that in tourneys too where we’re not even getting 3D printed models representative of what’s being taken just loose approximations. Can we at least paint the stick?
@@RolandoRatas Right, don’t get me wrong I’m not against 3D printing in general. I’m more annoyed hordes of unpainted grey tides that barely fit the silhouette of what they’re supposed to be representing. Emphasis on unpainted and uncared for. But I also grew up on those old gw sculpts as they evoke a certain look and feel. I think there’s still a hunger for those official gw sculpts too even with its price and stock issues.
@@DrogmirThat's more than fair. My army is only half-painted at the moment, and it doesn't feel great to deploy across from someone's fully painted list. Like coming to a wedding in a t-shirt. At the same time, I can see why TO's are being more lenient, since plenty of people simply don't have painted lists at the moment. With the community being fairly small (especially here in the US), I can understand them not wanting to exclude. But for a proper GT, having a minimum paint requirement isn't unreasonable. I think that's a pretty standard expectation from the community, and there are plenty of local events to play while you're still completing your army.
Its a great video and I think more will follow. By todays standard and the many wargames we've seen through the years TOW isn't the best wargame by a longshot. It does have WFB still holding it up, thanks to the many WFB fans. Despite the many issues several WFB editions also worked with. In the end we hoped GW was able to make TOW the best variant of WFB, really aiming to include the best of all editions. Sadly this isn't the case. Perhaps it will in a future edition of TOW, but in order to really expect that we'd need a really good games designer, which GW usually doesn't have, or if they are there often leave the compagny after a short period. I'd like to see certain weapons just work in two ranks for infantry. Spears, Halberds, Pikes. I also think this would slightly buff their use. I'd also love to see more Drilled, but indeed capping the maximum attacks of the front rank alongside it. Cannons should be D6 wounds and whilst Dragons should have their role, more Monster Slayer should be available in several armies to balance this out. But a lot of the TOW design just isn't that good.
I find it interesting that I’m not hearing many people suggest a return to “base-to-base” fighting. I would say to make infantry good again, bring this mechanic back (get rid of fighting rank), allow additional rank bonuses maybe one more than current, and cap unit sizes across the board.
I guess you have to look at who benefits from the entire fighting rank being able to attack. As the answer is largely infantry then getting rid of it will only serve to make them even worse. I'm sure loads of people would prefer to go back to base-to-base, but it would require a full rewrite of the rules. Improvements to combat res of infantry (extra rank bonus, Close Order bonus only for infantry etc) are another matter as these could be done without causing obvious problems. As far as I can tell the experienced players seem to think it won't be enough to bring infantry back into the competitive game, but it would at least be a step in the right direction.
As a 6th player, i can easily say Tow is a better game as it has fixed the biggest issues we had (panic, fear for example). Of course with Storm of chaos we had a golden age with new armies ideas (Slaanesh cult, etc). For competitive play, 9th age will remain the game to play, and for casual play, 6th or TOW. In the end, it’s nice to play a supported game whatever we enjoy more…and i completely agree, base changes is the biggest mistake of tow..
I don't see any reason to lump 3d printing and contrast prints in with unpainted armies. I love the options! Contrast paints are just another tool in the box...
Gotta give my vote on the bigger bases. Definitely something they should just universally retcon into the older versions of the game. Simply nicer to build and mostly looks better with exception of some horde critters like goblins or zombies, but with those any reasonable person should be building large unit fillers that make up for it anyway. All that said I didn't -really- get to play the older versions so what do I know. All I'm saying is that we should look at some of these changes, like larger bases, and see that they were done for a reason.
1.56.00 - bigger bases I think are to convert with modern models. I've bought loads of AoS stuff to play ToW and believe me, Saurus aren't ranking up on 25mm bases. Bigger bases definitely the right call. And 8th games are impossible to find outside or major cities.
Unpopular Opinion: unit champions and heroes when in a unit should be able to be attacked only with a challenge. Not putting a couple hits on them and the others in the unit. Make it faster and simple and is charming thinking about duels on the battlefield. Your idea about it?
Possibly could work- challenges are definitely a highlight from a narrative perspective. However that would benefit the more elite armies more- would mean my chaos hero kills your empire one and your little guys can't gang up on me ;-)!
We have always played big uns as not applying to the boars. Given every ruling the FAQ that has been made has been that one ability or another does not impart to the mount, it seems clear that the boars do not get +1 str
Dr. Blaxill, could you elaborate a bit on how you think 8th ed fixed infantry? I only ever played 6th and 7th, and I agree it felt quite bad there. I'm wondering also because it's a recurrent theme not only in Warhammer but in many games (for example in Warhammer: Total War melee infantry is bad, too). It seems to me like the combination of being slow and melee is just too much of a disadvantage in a game with large maps where other units are ranged and/or fast. And thank you for these great videos and discussions, as someone with a wide interest in games I always love deep dives into specific systems, even if my last tabletop game was probably more than 15 years ago!
Mainly steadfast and step up. Step up meant that the infantry got to fight even if the front rank were all dead. For example you had 2 ranks of 5, 7 guys die, the 3 survivors 'step up' into the front rank and fight at their initiative step. Steadfast meant you tested on unmodified ld if you had more ranks (or even a single rank against monsters) remaining. Additionally, Magic was great for buffing infantry,
Side comment, smart of D6W man to keep a straight face during the opening liturgy of this pronouncement. The punks demand respect in their place of worship.
I really think it is annoying to not be allowed to activate your units in combat due to no step up. I play Empire and this is really true for Empire player: not as strong as Orcs, not as tough as Dwarves, not as quick as Elves and with garbage armor saves. It isn't fun to maybe put in like 70% of the painting time of an army on infantry that is utterly useless. For empire right now you are practically forced to run stanks, demigryphs and artillery...such a lack of viable options.. And what did they think when making the rules for the war altar...the difference in ability and flavour from 8th edition is mind boggling. I am so thoroughly disappointed by The Old World. I am going to play 8th for first time in a year in a few days, but with some modifications. For me it is 8th or I quit playing fantasy.
I am of two views regarding infantry. One is that the new launches are going to be heroes and that's what they'll be able to sell and easily stock. Given the large stock of virgin plastic from fantasy that is extant for purchase on ebay, etc it's gonna be hard for them to compete (ergo the lower relative price of the infantry kits that they are launching). That is my cynical side. My less cynical side views the intent of having a more chess like game with very powerful pieces on one end and cheap pawns on the other. The problem is that the pawns are too expensive to be expendable and not numerous enough to provide zone control. Not sure what a mass reduction of infantry costs would do to balance but it would at least increase the footprint of elite/alternative purpose infantry. By the same token you could increase the cost of big hitters (which would balance the game without exploding the number or units on the board, which I am a fan of but would reduce overall footprint maybe too much).
2h 02 and after is a bit uninformed. Faq states that you have to do everything to try to make the charge successful when charging due to frenzy or impetuous. You have to use the special rules to try to make the charge.
On drilled, yes you're quite right. as per the FAQ, you are compelled to use rules obtain some sort of a charge. But on Warband, I don't think you are obliged to accept the first roll on a charge for a unit if it 'gets in'. That roll might only result in a corner clipped charge, and the warband player might be rerolling in the 'hope' to get more models into combat with a higher roll...and then fail the roll completely (as he actually wanted to all along). Because they make you pay for your wheel during charge, there's not a binary of failed charge vs a 'fully maximised charge, but a sea of grey inbetween. They could say 'a charge is a charge' or say 'some charges are better than others'. That also applies for the drilled issues above. My khorne chosen are in 2 by 3 colum then have to charge- does their drilled compel them to go 6 by one so they all fight, or is 3 by 2 enough to satisfy the 'must charge and must use drilled' requirement?
@@jj_duke I don't think that's remotely true at all. Release wise, the game has pushed mass infantry, and has been very generous in the amount you get in boxes. These are the same boxes you can find on store shelves everywhere. Meanwhile, the monsters, the actual core of the game, are largely metals that can be hard to find in stock, and that you'll only ever find online or at a huge GW store. It's an awfully strange business plan, to supposedly design your rules to favor one unit type, and then make it supremely difficult to buy those units.
@@ndalum75 release wise it’s just pushing the old models, rule wise, it’s pushing monsters, cavalry and monstrous infantry. But you have that interview with Matt wars, that kinda eludes to how suits had input on design as such. Next edition they’ll nerf all the monsters and push the stuff that didn’t sell or is new. That’s how they’ve always been.
You touched a point I am honestly pissed about: comp and tournament rulings that only nerf the worst performing units or buff the most powerful armies. And then we have the nerve to complain about GW capacity to make rules, when the ToW community has only proved that when we try to change the rules, we only make things worse. In fact, I disagree with your proposal to increase the damage of cannons as a solution to dragons. This does not make the game more tactical, it makes it more random. Make dragons slower instead. This way you keep their survivability, but make it harder to get enough return from their points.
Something I find conspicuous, and maybe this is just how things are these days, is the sheer number of people who are talking about Old World and have very strong opinions about it compared to the number of people who actually play it. It feels like people doing apologetics for a lost cause or dead religion. I was surprised in your previous talk with Bard that he says he hasn’t played a game yet in spite of putting a lot of thought and excitement about all the news leading up to the release of the game.
Very good point. I think the truth is that you can have a great love of Warhammer without necessarily playing it. Much as how retired sportsmen often have views on the sport as it is now even though they retired long ago. It does I think depend a little on what views you hold. Bard, wise man as he is, has few opinions about the rules themselves, more the lore and general direction its taken. Although I do agree that in other quarters there are strong views about the game rules based on not very much. But likewise I think people have strong views on 8th ed based on very superficial impressions of what it was like in its first year of release that they still hold quite vehemently. However I do think you've hit upon something here, because I think the 'strong view but don't play' contingent is particularly large with Old World. As though something long ago was burned into popular psyche!
I have barely played it, only 2 games so far. I am extremely interested in it because I love Warhammer and it is the first official release in almost a decade. The fact that it is lacking in so many areas after so long is a huge disappointment. In addition, everyone has been playing modified versions of various editions for a while because official support ended, so there was nothing to wait for and incentive to modify the game so it was more fun for your particular hobby group. People are used to looking for what they need to tweak to make the game more fun, and now that official support is back, I think that hasn't changed much.
Just because 8th edition as a whole encouraged large infantry blocks, that doesn't mean that all the rules in 8th didn't innovate. Rules like step up, the movement rules for wheeling and reform, the charge measuring, the pursuit and fleeing rules were all superior in 8th to what we had previously and what we have now.
55.00-57.00 @d6wounds - Consider this a howl of rage at d6 wounds cannons. I play lizardmen. I like monsters without characters. I hated 8th for that reason. You make that change I can't bring Troglodons and bastiladons etc. anymore. Cannons will just level me. Characters on mounts need to be nerfed, thats the issue
My opinion is that it's a fine rule set for causal play, if you bring a mix of infantry, range, and a toned down lord it's great. Seemingly the comp system enforces that behaviour. Seeing these lines, darts, and ridiculous 850pt triple save lords... Nah, it doesn't look fun.
@@DrBlaxill My impression is that newer fantasy players like myself love it because it's our bit on the side that's not too serious. The old world is the cheapest big Battle game to buy into now.... 2000pt chaos army, £88 with shipping. 2000pt scaven army, two rat half's of the skaventide box. We play wacky scenario's, ignore rules we don't like, and give handy caps to weaker players (well... the poor scaven player with the AOS models!). A couple of friends think it's the best game GW have ever made. I can't defend the magic, the old system sounds way better. But the new system works fine.
I must say I don't really disagree. They inherited outstanding foundations and while they didn't ruin them, I would have hoped for something rather better than this.
@@DrBlaxillWell, that's what I said already back in Feb. after the first 3/4 battles ( 2.000 pts). They had 4 years time and 35 years plus only on WHFB Rules. Aside from 3 editions AoS, several editions of LotR AND certainly knowledge about all the various comp-systems used in tournament playing over the years. Not to forget fan based variations like WAP...throwing some ingridients from AoS, Warmaster, LotR and 4th.-6th. WHFB in a big pot and stir it up sounds interesting in the first place. But much like with stew, you have to taste sometimes until the mix is really tasty. This clearly hasn't happend to the necessary extend. With this in mind, I was rather disappointed about the result. Again, nothing stops players to turn to WAP or 8th.with certain comp rules. Finally : make infantry great again. In times of Airbrush and speedpaints, painting a few regiments of 20-30 guys shouldnt really be THAT problem. After all, painting minis to your own liking is a major part of the hobby....
On 3D printing.....I can't speak for anyone but me on this. I have felt pushed in that direction from GW not producing mini's and their constant price increases. Aside from their initial release, stuff I would have gladly paid them for has been, "sold out" for months on end. Or they just pull an entire army off their site (Beastmen)....And a core faction at that. How is one supposed to start an army that way? Luckily I had mine from 8th Ed....Then they ask you to pay $42 for an Ungrim model made of resin....Well, I'm not saying they aren't allowed to make money. Lord knows I want them to stay in business and bring us the best. But I know the cost of printing a dwarf (.25-.35 cents) with better resin than they use. I understand there are some other costs involved and it's not as simple as that. I just recognize there's a difference between making a good profit and juicing your player base. Between that and their lack of production, GW isn't helping matters, IMO. I can't even find Old World models at my local Warhammer store other than the big battalion boxes.
I think the biggest problems of the Old World are ... 1) Only parts of the army want to fight ... like heroes and strong units ... while core and rest of the army just hides 2) Wounded / weak units just want to run and hide rather then give up their points 3) Because there is nothing to fight for ... the fastest / more maneuverable army wins by picking fights they want
I couldn’t care if my opponent had 3d printed armies or models that are bigger or whatever , who really cares to be honest. Highlands miniatures look a lot better than the gw ones. I really only care if my opponent is a good person or not I couldn’t give a fuck otherwise
How they gonna FIX the game? You nailed it, until we get a new edition of the game you can't change that they gave big monsters triple saves. I like the idea of FBIGO, but agree the execution is a bit janky and it needs some tweaks.
Re: conversation about model scales and it breaking your immersion. Would you have the same feelings if i rocked up with my 4th orcs army and you had your 8th ed orcs army. Exact same situation, but i bet youd be ok with it because theyre both gw, and neither came from a dreaded 3d printer
I remember seeing someone with a Mantic elf army who looked utterly lost on their bases. At the end of the day it's only a single game at an event or it's your regular friend who you can either respect or bully appropriately.
I mean, he does say that some of his favorite models are older ones that are just too small to table anymore, because they just don’t look right next to more modern minis. Though, I believe he’s talking about dragons. Main concern seems to be collective immersion.
d6 cannons concern me. Yes they pressure the Dragons more but that buff will make all other monsters extint. No more Giants/Hags/Necrosphinxs, is just the laziest way to addres ridden monster problems imo.
Food for Thought: In all versions of Warhammer, archers essentially have step up because the causalities do not hinder the unit making attacks. This is one of the reasons combat units need step up too.
by the argument all editions of wfb have step up for melee, because the fighting rank fills out for the next turn. Shooting units aren't shooting at the same time they're receiving casualties, so of course they're ready to fire back when it's their turn. Melee are fighting at the same time and when you die actually matters in that instance. the opponent isn't waiting for you to step forward and hit him because he killed the guy in front.
@@hippiecheapskate Key difference is casualties taking attacks away. Shooting units never lose an attack until their front rank is shrinking. Step up from 8th allowed close combat to work the same way.
@NateJones10 they don't shoot until their next turm, so it's not equivalent. There's a whole bunch of time for them to get ready to shoot. Melee happens simultaneously so there is no time for them to move up and fight. If there was, then the enemy who struck first and is faster would also have time to move troops up after the opponent stepped up and killed some.
@@hippiecheapskate Its not about the turns themselves, it is about the ability to fight during each turn. It makes no sense that 5 fast warriors can hold off 50 slower warriors because they are killing their front rank. Those elite warriors are getting pressed. In historical regimental fighting the numbers push in and fill in the holes as soldiers die. Everyone is fighting more or less simultaneously. Initiative shouldn't cancel the ability to fight back entirely like that. Look at any reenactments, historical documentation, and experts on the matter. The only way smaller numbers can hold off larger numbers are with defenses like a choke point, barriers, trenches, or ramparts on a wall and other similar obstacles. in reality, a powerful warrior is going to cut down a small number of enemy warriors and then get swarmed and have to survive that. During that moment, those swarming warriors will be attacking too.
Make infantry great again.
What colour should our MIGA hats be?
Blue, like the book. But might get confused by the yanks. Maybe goblin green
When was infantry actually ever good? 4th and 5th were herohammer, 6th and 7th were dominated by cavalry in the competitive scene, 8th in the competitive scene they were only really good as points denial units in a few armies like Orcs, High Elves and Empire. The fundamental mechanics of any edition of Warhammer just do not favour infantry, particularly elite infantry. High Elf infantry has been good in some editions because they fundamentally ignored core mechanics of the game with rules like always strikes first.
Sixth was the best edition for infantry. People complained that cavalry was too weak and it got buffed in seventh.
The front rank should always fight regardless of casualties. I hated that in 5th, 6th and 7th my units would just not fight.
Really enjoyed listening to an engaging and active conversation. I thought it was great you both recognise the challenges implicit to finding answers to these problems. It's so easy to over-correct some of these issues.
I found myself agreeing the most with the core observation - how it is actually played doesn't match the way its depicted. It's not simple, but it feels like we should be able to get a bit closer.
You had me at “ALRIGHT PUNKS!”
Great video. You two should collaborate more often!
Dr. Blaxill, we are honored beyond measure to be your punks! Another excellent video! Greetings to you and Simon from the United States, from a fellow Warlord online!!!
@@Christian_Girl120 thanks Amy
I have played WFB since 3rd edition. I owned a game store and ran tournaments for 25 years all the way through 4th ed up through 8th. I played WFB with multiple armies that entire time. 6th edition was the first major revision that rebalanced the rank and file and characters, getting rid of Herohammer. 8th was the everything Dr. Blaxill has said it was. 8th did have issues at launch, it did seem like it was all deathstars, 6 diced spells and 2d6 charges. But once you got it down, it wasn't that way at all. 8th was the best rules set for rank and file, and tactical tournament play. Good players with balanced armies beat deathstars, 6 dicing and such all the time.
I must agree, being a good general beats cheese hands down most of the time.
Ah yes, I recall you mentioning this in an earlier comment. Well, a rich memory cache there to draw upon! Certainly I agree- 8th ed with comp and patching was really an outstanding game. Played well over 500 games and still encountering new stuff all the time and nobody ever really 'solved' the meta.
I found 6 dice deathstar guy does win quite a few games, but generally against other guys doing the same thing...
If you started since the 3rd and was forced to abandon them after the 8th you should be using the armies project or 9th age where the books are not made to sell models.
@@j.h.3851 I don't understand your logic. Playing Warhammer makes finding games easier. There is things WAP and 9thAge do I like and things I don't like, but finding people to play with is nice. This is why playing the current rules of a widely loved and played game that we all have a shared interest in is preferable.
@@DrBlaxill death stars tend to have weak and minimal support units that are is easy to clean up and then you can focus fire the deathstar with your entire army. Those players tend to be terrible at coordinating their units together too or supporting the frontline. We played uncomped 8th most of the time and death stars didn't last long against balanced but efficiently built armies. 8ths main issue (which I'm sure you know) is the early army lists (especially Tomb Kings) were so much weaker than the later ones.
17:10 100% agree! The early pictures look like Warhammer as we've known it for 3-4 decades. It does _not_ look like how TOW is being played. There must have either not been much communication between the marketing people and the designers, or the designers had no clue as to how their rules would encourage certain playstyles, list builds, unit formations, etc. I've noticed that they are gradually shifting towards images of wider units on the boxes. Like they're slowly discovering how the game is actually played on tables outside of the design studio vacuum.
It looks like TOW everywhere that isn’t a tournament. I assure you that the vast majority of players absolutely do not care about tournament play or the meta.
And I say that as an avid tournament player who’s been playing since 4th ed. I have never seen linehammer in any friendly game, only tournament and tournament prep games.
Tourney play will turn everything to 11. Generally I think the idea is to make it look bigger. The base sizes elude to this to me. I don’t think tournaments were factored in when designing, but high level play will bring high level BS to any game. Hopefully now with more direct feed back from the community from chaps from this show and others we will get a tighter rule set next edition, it’s re setting a game is not easy especially for the likes of GW
@@Stonehorn With no disrespect to your assurances or claims of knowledge of how TOW looks "everywhere that isn't a tournament", experiences vary 😉 And I say that as an avid casual player who’s been playing since 4th ed.
Exactly the same as with Blizzard and Warcraft, they have an idea, no clue how it will work and then release it as a full game to then be play tested by the public, a year later they have something that eventually gets close to working.
As someone who played and loved 6th, but was out of the hobby for 7th and 8th, I must admit my nostalgia kicks in and I'm reflexively against the rules changes 8th edition brought in. That said, in actively working against that bias: the way I played 6th is not at all representative of modern tournament party, and I suspect that much of what I enjoyed with 6th games would not be there in truly competitive 6th edition games.
I'm still instinctively against step up, but letting infantry fight in two ranks (three of they have spears) would definitely be appreciated. I also feel like spears should give a bonus against charging cavalry (bonus to initiative and strength).
My biggest issue, other than infantry just not having a place, is magic. I don't mind it being weaker, or being spread across phases, but the 2d6+level system is bad thanks to the distribution of a 2d6 roll. High level wizards are almost undispellable, and can also easily dispell almost anything a low level wizard puts out, which makes taking a level 4 almost a requirement and makes magic very interactive.
How would I fix that? I don't know. But it needs to change.
One lord level character. Lvl 4 wizard? No mellee lord.
@@robnoel9306 I don’t think thats the solution. From a game perspective its good if you can play all of your toys.
It's a shame that there were so many unpainted armies at that event. The hobbyist players may not be taken seriously in a some circles but given an unpainted army that goes 5-0 and a heavily converted, well painted and based army that goes 0-5, people new to the game will swarm towards the latter. Great discussion, thanks for posting!
Yeah… your right.
@@Hax268 I think it depends on the organizers
If I were a tournament organiser I just wouldn’t allow someone to bring a flying stand with no model and call it a Phoenix!
@@The_Captain40k Given how cheap you can buy sculpts on etsy, I agree. 30 years ago the hobby was way more expensive than it is today
Another factor that favors Simon's point about cannon damage is that an increase only serves to harm the upper echelon of durable models. It increases the average wounds dealt from 3 to 3.5. Most troops simply don't care about that difference-the damage floor of a single wound is enough to splatter them. It's a simple-but-elegant little control to the ecosystem that I think Old World would benefit from.
I played in a 6th edition tournament last summer at Ropecon, Helsinki. We had a disagreement about fleeing skirmishers so we asked ne neighbouring table. We didn't like their ruling, so we asked the TO. Didn't like that either, but then we spotted a wild Tuomas Pirinen who gave us the official ruling, which I don't think was how the rule was written but whatever. It made the most sense.
Try to do that with a game written by a "Games Workshop(tm) rules team"
@@PaintsAreOp Ask Tuomas, lol! Well that's a pretty cool option if available.
Certainly I liked how the designers in the past were given full credit and really owned their creation!
@@DrBlaxill agree!
Regarding the stepping up, I want a middle ground between 6th and 8th. It's amazing, that killing the enemy faster gives a bit of protection. It is strange that the protection can be 100% when charging ranked up Infantry. I'd give regular and heavy Infantry 2 attacks per rank after the first they had at the beginning of the combat, that can be struck to the front. Maybe like a stomp.
So interesting the discussion about 3D printed and contrast painted models and whether they fit. Personally I don't have a problem as long as it "feels" old world. I use lots of AoS models for my orcs and goblins and lizardmen and some incredible 3D prints for my marked chaos warriors. But all the models I use are just attempts to recreate what I have in my mind's eye, or what I've seen in the artwork which doesn't always match the official miniatures. But one of my regular opponents is happy to go really rogue. He's used AoS kharadron overlords as chaos dwarfs, 40k daemon engines as his war machines, 3D printed arabic warriors for an "Araby" army using empire rules, and 3D printed "empire" miniatures as a "tomb kings" army. I play him because it gets me more games in and we're friends, but it does ruin the immersion for me. I also use lots of contrast paint on my armies because it means I can get them on the table quicker and also paint lots more armies! I think it can look really good in the hands of a competent painter. I don't really have a problem with it and it's great that it's made the game more accessible to people.
With the greatest of respect Dr Blaxill your predjudice against speed/transparent paints is contradictory with your aversion to seeing bare plastic/metal on the table as well as being quite gate keepery. This style of paint has made painting more democratic and accessible to newbies, enabling them to paint decent looking models early in their painting journey. As a result more people are able to get more models painted which means more fully armies on the tabletop. hopefully those newbie painters will look to develop their skills over time and learn about the joy of layering, highlighting, blending etc. I know that has been my journey since re-entering the hobby.
Edit. just got to your conversation about gate keeping :)
Yeah but they are also abused by people who have no intention of engaging with the hobby aspect and are only interested in WAAC metahammer. In this way, contrast paints become the lipstick on the pig if you get my metaphor?
To clarify- I don't mean contrast/speed paints per se, but specifically them as an accessory to a particular sort of play style (WAAC metahammeingr as @idiotproofdalek writes below). Ditto 3D printing. Nothing wrong with it in itself, but its also important to recognise its a great tool for the 'army in a weekend' meta rider.
@DrBlaxill that makes sense, thank you for your clarification. I guess I dont really think about metahammer as i am very much a narrative wargamer who puts theme, story and aesthetic first. Yes I still want my army to function and give me a chance of winning but it is not my primary concern, neither is it for most of the gamers that I play with. Thanks also for another really interesting video.
I remember when people used to say the same about ‘dipping’ and even Devlan mud - before it became earth shade. If you turned up with a fully dipped army these days you’d probably win best painted it sounds like.
@@adamsboringvids Spray, Dip, Done!
It seems contrast paint killed the brief dipping renaissance.
When contrast paint arrived I said 'We need a bigger Gate'
Really nice debate and I really like the videos. Agree on most thing except the D6 wounds for canons. The problem ain’t monsters but character mounted on monsters. It is fun that Giants or other 6 wounds monster are now a little more viable than in previous edition where they could be one shot by artillery. Characters on monsters with 3 saves need adjustment but not at the cost of 6 wound monsters with no save ;)
@@jesuisroux yes to riderless monsters the canons are quite well balanced now
There is an easy nerf for characters on dragons or monstrous cavalry: if you do enough wounds to kill the mount, the mount is killed and you get the points for it. The rider is now a pedestrian and might be feeling rather lonely.
I'd really like it if in challenges, characters swung at the rider's wounds alone. That, coupled with maybe stomps and mount attacks having to go into the unit, would give foot characters an actual niche, where they can deal with wild dragons.
I must admit nothing ever beat the thrill of 4th/5th ed killing a monster flying high and then rider plummeting to his doom!
There is a pretty big issue of having to have the on foot model as well as the mounted version. Also, allot of these dragons that are 8/9 wounds have two wounds on character. A dragon with 7 wounds and all the bells and whistles is still basically as big an issue as the 9 wound dragon for most lists.
@pigzy9807 It's a dual issue of mounted lords having both superior durability and damage dealing. Stomp attacks absolutely break challenges, and ensure even the most durable lord can only last 2-3 turns in a challenge. During this time, it is almost statistically impossible for even the best combat character to kill a fully kitted dragon, unless he has access to monster slayer (which if the dragon has a significant ward, the odds are still in the dragon's favor). There's simply no path to balancing dragons in this ed while stomps remain a thing in challenges, and dragons stay at 10 wounds.
@pigzy9807 On the subject of avoiding needing a separate foot model. My idea was to have only the character be capable of being killed separately, not the mount. If the mount dies they both die, it the character dies, the mount would go "berserk" and gain frenzy, auto tie combat for that round. If the mount itself ever lost combat, the mount would auto flee, or be given a very low, separate leadership value to achieve this same purpose.
I like what I am reading about how combat works in Oathmark. Once units come into combat, both sides fighting is resolved together.
in the end of the video in regards to bases, do the old GW rule still hold true that every model on its base it was "born" whit is tournament legal?
My only counter to phoenix and dragons being next to each other is that they could quite easily be at different heights.
Yes- although they were all at the same height when my Duke had finished with them!
An idea for comp I have never heard is to have something like your character allowance equals the points in core you bring (still make core min 25%or something). It seems like this would help to keep armies looking about right.
I think I floated this on one of the FB groups but no one really responded. Instead of core being a straight tax it opens up your character allowance… but if you want to use that 50% character limit then the other 50% will have to be core. Or you could build a more balanced list.
@@aaronsomerville2124 I actually really like the idea, but in the current state of the game, it would be catastrophic for some armies. For instance, HE's core units absolutely suck, while Orc and Goblins have amazing core units. Would make the game even more unbalanced. Core has to be more balanced strength wise for this idea to work.
25mm bases, for models that can otherwise only rank up diagonally, are a welcome change. My big hat chaos dwarf warriors are very content on their 25mm's.
I did base them for OW, but have not rebased my odd 7000pts worth of 8th edition Skaven.
The decision to change base sizes seems to have been a mix of allowing bigger/more awkward models to rank up easier, and to nudge old players to start a new army. That's what I did.
Good video chaps, interesting perspective on it all. I think I agreed with all the issues, but not all the solutions (and that tied into your point about which edition was the favourite before!)
Coming from more 6th (although a bit of 8th in the last couple of years) there are lots of things I like about Old World. However, there are some things that I would adopt from 8th:
1- Skirmish rules - much cleaner in 8th, and speeds up the game
2 - flee/chase - the dice off, then move approach seems much cleaner, and helps to avoid any disputes over ting % of a degree in flee direction and movement (as it will always be a little out in a game like Warhammer!)
Thinking further, could 8th Ed step up be a special rule for some elite infantry? This would allow the 6th Ed style ranks, outnumbered etc to boost cheap infantry and tar pits. Then elite infantry would get to do more fighting (perhaps with a minus to hit)
Love these fireside chats ! And the truth about old world. More please !
I hate how skirmishers played in 8th. That said, if there is a need to stop 360° charge arcs, don't go back to 8th, but create a rule "Follow the leader" that basically says that the skirmishers can move shoot and cast spells in 360°, but to charge, the charged unit has to be in the 90° vision arc of the leader (either the champion or another designated model). You can then outmaneuver the skirmishers by trying to get out of the leaders vision arc, but the unit will still have the advantage of 360° movement and sight for the other stuff.
I think that would be a very acceptable solution. Making a distinction between casting spells/shooting being 360 - and charging (and being charged) in arc. They have that principle already with wizards in chariots.
I'm a bit of a 6th ed man myself, not exactly by choice more that they blew up the world before I could get around to getting 40 dwarf warriors with great weapons together. One thing that pops into my head when people talk about how to make Infantry better, is to count the models on the flanks of the unit as part of the front fighting rank sort of like the 'lapping round' rule they used to have in 6th. That way Infantry gets more attacks while simultaneously making deeper ranked formations closer to the linehammer volume of attacks without the actual line. I think you wouldn't get them if you were being flanked, nor if you were in marching column
I think that in a future edition, infantry should have a kind of rock paper scissors effect; spear infantry much better against cav, maybe +1S when charged by cav or cause fear or dosrupted charge, something like that. Inf with other weapons more effective for dealing with spears, and cav would be great for dealing with infantry without the spears still.
I think in addition to that, infantry equipment options need to matter a bit more. Spears in particular never have felt impactful enough- apart from in 9th age where they had -2 AP if charged, +3 initiative, and fight in extra rank.
A recommend from the Dr is enough for me - subscribed to Mr D6.
As someone who never got into the table top hobby while it was supported but has long loved the Warhammer Fantasy setting (through novels and PC games) I've been following TOW news and commentary with a lot of excitement.
I reall appreciate your work in articulating the differences between editions, styles of play, and approaches to how Warhammer can be played on the table top in addition to making the case for your own preferences.
I have to say that after everything I've looked into so far I'm actually more in favor of HeroHammer kind of narrative games and am most interested in giving a go with TOW and the fourth and fifth editions; if I can find a group that plays them.
These videos are always very informative and very entertaining, I look forward to more punk annihilating commentary!
As mainly a 6th edition player, I think my improvements to the old world would be to include the free swing into combat, step up, more combat res for ranks, attacks base to base only with a wrap around rule for infantry units
Is it worth bearing in mind this was a first stab at the rules after a big break? I think it would be too much to expect them getting it right at the first attempt.
You're a generous man Thomas! I think had they consulted with some tournament players they would have avoided many of the problems. I don't think they were interested in doing that, unfortunately. However- tournament proofing a game is only one part of it, and I'm much less critical on their other decisions. However, I do agree with you that subsequent attempts are likely to build on this one.
I'm still listening!
I have never understood why GW never made a wheel measurement widget....Great show gents!
Step up with -1 to hit will work i think
Initiative (and charge) will important, but there is a chance to strike back
-1 to hit is a huge mechanic though. -1 WS might be better?
@@idiotproofdalek may be, but i think -1 will be easy to calculate and faster. And not so hard as now)
I.e:
Your Hammerers under charge by Bretonnian Knights, lance of 8 knights, you have 6 wide 12 models unit. With fcg it will 213 points for both
Firstly 6 knights with champ will make 8 attacks 4+/3+ with no armour (-2 ap). After - horses, 7 attacks 4+/5+ against 5+ armour. 3,44 wounds, so at least 3 dead hammerers.
They will answer. 2 hammerers with champ - 7 attacks: 3+ / on 6+ no armour, 2,3,4,5 against 5+/ against 5+ ward. If we add 6 attacks with fixed (-1 to hit ) step up, it will be 4+ to hit. Totally 3.12 wounds
Knights still winning in worst charge situation (single charge on front, without any buff). initiative and charge still matters, but not so bad situation for elite infantry
In real life knights will choose better charge possibilities
The focus of most UA-camrs at the moment seems to be heavily skewed towards competitive play. This is leading the discussion on where the rules should be going. Where is the focus on playing so called "narrative" games? Where are the channels documenting the struggle of a couple of border princes and their rag tag mercenary armies, interesting characters, involving scenarios based on a story and a development of a campaign. This is an equally awarding approach and should be as widely fanfared as 3d printed, unpainted, cookie cutter list bashing.
I agree entirely. There's a lot of room for this and it the supply isn't really meeting it. There's a 5.5 hour video of me discussing lore with the Bard on this channel, and I hope to do more non competitive stuff. I'm a big admirer of Nigel Stillman, even though I'm not a Stillmaniac
@DrBlaxill I watched your Lore vid (not in one sitting, the family would have killed me) and really enjoyed the discussion. I myself have decided to paint up two opposing forces that can act as antagonists and as forces to allow me to indoctrinate friends. I really like the idea of slowly developing the forces and building a story.
@@coljmuzz you can also get friends to play with pre chosen lists too. There's much to be said for that, as if you pick both sides you can get great balance in a game and also make the command of the armies really important (as opposed to list building).
I'm toying with doing an introduction video on my own characters as personalities.
@DrBlaxill I'm used to building games (for historical sets) with both sides and corresponding scenery and scenarios and then laying the game on for others so building up two armies (with mostly 3rd edition figures from the stash) should be straight forward.
Mountain Miniatures doesnt exactly do narrative play, but they do use non competative lists.
Like all treefolk wood elves (+1 mandatory unit of Glade guards).
My own take is to talk to my opponent.
"Hey man. You bringing a dragon? No? Cool. Then I wont either."
"Oh you have only played two games? Then ill skip Sisters of the Thorn and bring Wardancers instead."
"Oh. It's miss Tournament-player? Say no more. Ill take all the cheese I can bring."
56:00 totally agree, i miss d6 wounds on my cannons
Interesting that you released this today, GW have released their pack for Throne of Skulls at Nottingham:
- Max cost of a single model is 500pts
- 0-1 level 3 per 1000pts
- 0-1 level 4 per 2000pts
No restriction on level 1 and 2s.
Named characters are exempt from these restrictions (maybe a hint at what's coming with Empire?).
It does seem GW are recognising there are some issues with the rules!
@Infernal_Puppet I think fanatic spam has sort of been taken care of by the faq tbh. Regarding the others though, yes I think they are a little behind the meta.
Ah, we would most certainly have covered that had we known! GW put in the 0-3 outside of core quite early, so they've added in some more very light comp there.
@@DrBlaxill You did sort of predict it though! Interestingly they seem to have abandoned the 0-3 rule, it's not mentioned at all, perhaps they think the fanatic issue has been resolved. I do wonder if we will see independent tournaments adopt this like they did the 0-3 rule.
@@oitoitoi1 Well I think the real Armageddon list they they should have been terrified of was 20 single Gyrocopters...
Right so I can only take a Slann in 2000 point games? We don't even have level 3 wizards, so that's a bit of nerf to us, particularly given how bad we already are at magic
I'm enjoying how TOW has become a cautionary tale for tabletop game developers, not least because of your guys' reports and analysis (in that context I'd also like to include Andy2D6 for his videos). I'm sure current and future generations of game designers will refer back to them.
@@subedai well we can but hope. They had all of the expertise of the 9th Age (a pro community) and didn't use it all. The moment their creation was exposed to competitive play, much of it broke and the meta became as flat as a pancake
They could dig out the monster goes berserk table from older editions. It would need reworking for the modern stat line but it would raise the randomness and risk levels. How you make a medium size infantry unit good, not so sure.
Yes. They would need to detach the rider from monster to do that of course. Part of the reason monsters are great is that the profiles are merged- this also got rid of the monster reaction table as well.
You could have an alternative trigger, such as dropping to X wounds or losing X wounds in a turn or failing to kill Y figures in a turn. The narrative of the table would have to change but it's workable.
@@EarlofChutney Agreed! Dropping to X wounds I think would work best.
Step up is a poor rule in the paradigm that WFB uses. It's not designed around the mechanics that WFB uses. WFB is built, balanced and pointed around initiative being a valuable stat, because it gives you the advantage of reducing strike backs. Charging being a valuable strategy, by giving you the default highest initiative in that round.
Step up makes initiative pointless, you will always strike with the same number of attacks, until you've lost most of your regiment. So no points values will be balanced when you strip one core stat out of the game. When you remove the advantage of the charge (advantage in reducing strike back), you also penalise low initiative armies and make them not want to charge.
The best way to make dwarfs even more of a gunline is to tell them that the really difficult charge they managed to pull off now gives them no combat advantage at all.
Improving infantry is fine, but it has to be done within the rules paradigm that exists, unless you're going to rewrite the whole game to remove initiative. ToW and WFB4-7 are all built around initiative being a core stat that costs points. Anything that undermines that requires rebalancing the whole game.
The issue 8th had was it took 7th ed balance and stripped initiative out with Step up, immediately unbalancing the game. If they were going to sideline initiative, they should have written the game from the ground up with that in mind, not slapped it on top.
Initiative is valuable because you get to attack first. With the right alpha strike, you can remove certain threats or even wipe a unit. What step up rewards are units with staying power either through armor, toughness, wounds or numbers. It makes it dangerous to send in small elite units up against huge blocks of troops. Step up makes more units have greater value because the worth of a unit is beyond its ability to kill first. Step up gives value back to the core units and makes the formations of your infantry important to the game play.
@NateJones10 it makes dwarfs even more of a gun line by providing no incentive whatsoever for getting off a charge. It lets people be completely sloppy with their manoeuvring because no one cares if they get charged because they will always get max attacks back. it means initiative is an irrelevant stat that should be removed as it will only ever come into play when you've lost 80% of a unit.
It fundamentally does not work in the paradigm that wfb was and is built with. It is a blunt tool to solve a perceived problem that create more issue with melee than it solves. Tow didn't use it for these reasons and it won't come back because it breaks a core aspect to the game.
The only way it would ever work is if you rewrote the whole game around it. Currently the wfb system in no way supports both combatants making identical attacks every round.
My fear with 8th edition is a return to the big blocks of Infantry because they just weren't fun to paint/collect and there's just no onramp where you tell a potential new player that they need to paint/assemble 60 spearmen.
The current best list is 190 skeleton archers. We have already gone back to the single unit brick
Yeah true, I admit I like my current lizardmen army. Last night at 2000 I had a single 24 block of Saurus along with two monsters, cowboy, Slann, krox, skink, rippers etc. It wouldn't be complete without a large block of infantry but it looked pretty awesome with just one...
@@jgascoine011 That's only one list, and it's only good because it's a hard counter to another, very skewed, list. Which is different to *every* list.
@ except that what you just said is total nonsense.
I reckon just having max unit sizes fixes that eh? I think they did it with zombies.
I think a huge factor of brettonia being over represented is not only they are strong, it is they are also the first army to be released with minis and an arcane journal plus easy proxyable units.
Yep. Also low model count too.
33:20 I feel your frustration, but I for one is guilty as charged, I enjoy the new magic system. And at least it works. One advantage to the simple system is that Old World wont need the dedication needed for 40k today, which I had to shelf due to being a casual.
The issue with it is because it's so simplified, strong magic buffs have few counters. You need that level 4 wizard every game (mentioned in the rulebook as being incredibly rare). You can't do much against that Chaos guy with +7 to cast and forcing you to basically reroll your casting attempts. You need that lore familiar every time, because half the spells are situational to useless, and 1/6 of them are OP and strangely don't cost much to cast. Even on the merits of the system itself, the details they chose end up breaking that system.
@ndalum75 my local gaming group hasnt discovered these things yet. I can only see this as a tourney issue I guess
@thecappeningchannel515 The +7 thing is a bit of a gross combo, but rerolling casting is just a base arcane item for Chaos, Infernal Puppet. The design intent of covering the board with lower level casters simply doesn't work either, because +2 over is a big bonus, and because 18 in is way too short a dispell range. That's practically charge range for most cavalry, exactly where your caster does not want to be!
I agree that the design philosophy behind the system, while not everyone's cup of tea, is fine, and has some huge benefits in improving the game's flow. But the system as is not balanced, even at a basic casual level. You'd need changes like everyone has 24 in dispel range, level 1s and 2s have a +1 to cast/dispell, level 3s and 4 a +2, non random spells, maybe get signature spells for free, and ideally a rework of some of the spells lore by lore, changing casting values/adding new spells to replace the weaker ones.
@@ndalum75 IMO if they did casting and dispelling is on 3d6 and you get +1 for level 3 and 4s be a more balance system.
Infernal Puppet would be on 4d6 drop highest as normal.
The core rules don't need to be changed to buff cannons. Since TOW is in the past relative to earlier editions, just introduce an optional technological advancement of newer more powerful gun powder(or newer cannons ) to bring them to the newly invented higher power of earlier editions.
+10 points 'experimental power gunpowder'= D6 wounds and +1 on the misfire chart!
The cannons are perfect now, I'll die on this hill. I like running monsters without characters. Those damn lords are giving us a bad name ..
Watched the entire video, a lot of great points.
On the subject if making Infantry better, I think simultaneous combat would help, however it would require some slight changes to how combat works. Mainly to do with Initiative and charging. Keep the Initiative bonus for charging, and have either the to hit roll being Weapon Skill Vs Initiative, or those with a higher Initiative get a re-roll.
Missions are vital! Love the idea of standards making units a scoring unit. Units should have standards, makes the game look better!
25% Lord and 25% hero is an obvious one that will I think still allow Goblins to take a lot of characters, while stop the silliness of 2 Dragons in 2,000pts games.
I am surprised there was no talk of Stone Throwers as it is they are just not worth it, whereas they should be amazing things. Big hit was due to the rules for partially hit, and the bigger base sizes. Again, the pendulum swung too far.
On the subject of 8th, it worked really well in bigger games. Used to play 5,000 -6,000pts very regularly, and a lot of the issues vanished. It smoothed out the über spells and Death Stars.
I have to say I am always amazed at how it feels like Blaxhill and myself are reading from the same page. I am a gatekeeper, but I have been playing since 4th... so was in the field long before these upstart 3d printers and contrast paints! On WYSIWYG, I am a purest. If the model has a great wespon, that is what the model has. The spirit of Stillmania lives on in my forces.
8ed had the best magic system so far. The spells were busted and it made it bad, but basic system was about ok. It could get upgraded with “can’t cast with more dice than wizard level” to make it even less of a “I roll 6 dice looking for IF”.
If we’re keeping the ToW casting mechanic, a simple Lvl1&2 should add +1 to casts and dispels, Lvl3&4 should add +2 to casts and dispels would help. That would help the “need lvl4 wizard” syndrome. Obviously all spells need to get their difficulty dropped by 2.
Infantry needs to be winning by static CR as it always was. Step up is the wrong direction and will kill the game again as it did before. But issue is - with FBIGO, winning by CR often means nothing as enemy just bounces and can’t be pursued down. Capping rank bonus at +2 and removing Outnumber was a mistake.
Also, overall this is a fun game with no balance. Adding balance somewhere will inevitably unbalance something else. Let’s just enjoy drinking beer while pushing toys about. 😂
It hit me a while back that The Old World has the feel of a fan rules project, but a fan rules project that wasn't a big collaborative one with a lot of perspectives and a clear objective of This Thing But Better at the core. Rather, the more typical solo passion project kind of development. And apparently there wasn't that much more than that going on in terms of development resources assigned to it at GW? In that it really was largely the work of one man with a plan and whoever they could rope in for playtesting?
But it really has all that kind of 'this thing personally annoyed me so I'll tweak that', 'I like that bit of this thing so I'll throw that in' kind of approach that characterises such projects without a grand plan overview.
As a major TO on the East Coast of the USA I would love to work with anyone on a new version of comp like we had in 8th to balance tournament Warhammer.
@@poxous3854 I think given another 6 months I can see one emerging and commanding widespread respect. Bookmark my details, maybe one day we can chat about it
Enjoyed the conversation. Nevertheless I can't help feeling some of the 6th vs 8th stuff discussed betrays your prejudices (I suspect you might put your hands up to that anyway). When I first saw a game of 8th the first things I noticed about it that really struck me as the game having changed significantly from how I remembered Warhammer were random charges and pre-measuring. Both of those are of course still there. Now I get that it's less random in TOW and rules like countercharge and swiftstride often make the charge rolls less exciting and important as quite often the risk isn't there to the same extent, but that's not got much to do with older editions. I was already familiar with the 6th Ed magic and while a bit different (I think better) 8th Ed magic is obviously pretty similar and the new system has little to do with either.
On flee and pursue I'm pretty sure that if you roll higher with your pursuit in 6th you catch them no matter what so I think you're also not quite right to blame the messiness of the new system on 6th Ed on that front.
There's a lot of talk about objectives/missions etc and while these seem to me to be a good way of improving gameplay, variety of unit types etc they do quite often feel a bit arbitrary or contrived and not very meaningful. Not sure how you get around that though.
Think you might also be a bit unfair to the 3D printing types as a lot of them do seem to paint their armies very well. I normally don't like the models (think you're much too generous to Highland Dwarfs for example), but then I don't like many models made this century unless they go out of their way to look like they weren't.
Well, I think we are fairly open with that. Nonetheless, the 8th vs 6th perspective is critical to the way OW is perceived amongst a large portion of the player base, and I've never seen a 6th ed person complaining OW is too much like 8th (despite premeasuring) and plenty the reverse.
I don't find charging in OW especially interesting, both due to the point you make there about the swiftstride and also the fact that the maximum declarable range is less than the actual range, meaning that you usually get a charge if you can make it. Also I don't like that fleeing is resolved at the end of all the charges rather than being declared immediately per charge, which removes a whole tactical minigame within the charge phase (I keep forgetting to complain about this point!)
Quite right on the pursuits, I just checked the 6th ed rulebook and that abstraction was already in. I don't have 5th ed to hand, but I presume that they are reverting to that. Be good to check though, because if pursuit is still 'roll higher and kill on the spot' there, then it would make this clunckfest they introduced here even more inexplicable.
With the missions, you can introduce some fluff to it. For example 'capture loot', 'destroy a baggage train'. or 'break through' that can give them a semblance of military fluff. The only problem I find with it is that it seems odd both sides would be doing the same mission at the same time, rather than (for example) one attacking an objective and the other defending it.
@@DrBlaxill The impression I get on 6th vs 8th is that 8th players tend to suggest 8th based changes to try to fix some of the game's problems and 6th players often reject them because they don't like 8th. The problems themselves are not necessarily 6th Ed problems though - 'Herohammer', getting rid of base-to-base, weird outcomes from the new push back/FBIGO system certainly aren't for starters. I can see that there's a return to some clunkiness that is more reminiscent of older editions and that 6th Ed players are more comfortable with that than 8th Ed ones, whether that's because the 8th group are proportionally more competitive and therefore more likely to feel the need for a cleaner game or if it's because those changes are specifically a return to 6th I'm not sure? Could easily be wrong on all fronts though!
I thought the difference in declarable and actual charge range looked interesting when I first saw it, but it seems to be the opposite in practice.
Can't remember how 4th and 5th did the pursuits. I remember the 'Free Hack' from way back when though!
I can see that it's possible to introduce some fluff to the missions, but I suspect there will be a lot of meaningless markers on tables and 'control' of points on the field being rewarded on a turn-by-turn basis without any reason to ever have thought it was meaningful.
Great debate and some very valid points. I am wondering if these aforementioned mission packs are available somewhere? I'm keen to try them out and see if they can shift some attention and relevance to infantry and more core units.
@@Bernhard9240 email me if you would like me to send you the one we used...my address is in the info tab
I don't think there's any single fix for infantry - it's definitely a range of small tweaks to bring things back into line.
I've got a bevy of house rules that I'd like to start testing in my friend group.
Firstly is Step Up attacks should be returned but made at -1. Let's your infantry roll some dice, but is unlikely to let weak goblin spears tear down swordmasters.
Secondly, First Charge shouldn't fully negate ranks - instead every 3-4 unit strength in the charger should negate one extra rank besides the first. If you have three additional ranks the charging unit would need unit strength 9 to fully negate all rank bonuses.
Thirdly, if a single model is fighting a ranked unit then it should be subject to a Surrounded special rule and the ranked unit should get an extra rank of attacks. This would apply to infantry, cav and monsters alike.
Fourthly, crossbows and handguns (and possibly other missile weapons) should be able to fire in two ranks, at least in the shooting phase. The extra S and AP of a handgun over a bow means nothing when you're probably shooting 5 or 6 shots on 5+. Weight of fire needs to be upped somehow on these units.
Finally, not so much related to increasing the value of infantry, the Impetuous rule should be Impetuous(X), and rely on a leadership test with the number in the brackets added to your roll. This let's it tie back into the overall Leadership system while allowing for granularity with some units being more unreliably Impetuous than others.
There are some clear winners in balance, but I don't think we have seen the extent of what the game is capable of. Many many folks are still struggling to get models on the table, and there are some great builds that require a lot of discipline and skill to work. What we need is GW to have enough stock! 3D Printing or having old models in the closet are the only way folks are getting stuff on the table. Always glad to hear your thoughts Dr Blaxill
Enjoyed your Bretonnian chat on Richy's channel the other day, it was highly stimuating!
Certainly, the n number is still very small. Young game, not a huge number of players, and - as you say - supply issues with getting models to tabletp[. All of these are limiting the evolution of the meta somewhat. I personally am sceptical we'll see enormously more diversity than what we have now (or anything like what we had in 8th) but I'd love to be proven wrong! Occasionally someone is inventing something of course, like the poison bow block (an old idea from 8th but not seen so far in OW). Or my favoured theorylist idea which would be about 25 gyros/scout gyros/bombers with the expeditionary force with those fire and flee/move and fire guns.
Great discussion guys! Old World magic is flat compared to 8th, all wizards have been stricken with stupidity. I also agree with Simon's point on the DRAGON being way too overweighted in durability combined with power and maneuverability as piece on the board. I've left my chaos dragon in a box in deep slumber when it comes to Old World since it takes the fun out of the game. The dragon has become a titan from the 40k world, where one would need to also take a piece like this to challenge it or set aside a significant amount of points to counter or sufficiently slow it down. Still hopeful that Old World has future revisions that build from past successes.
17:40 This ^ very on point.
Making cannons 1D6 wounds would really upset the balance in the game in the wrong way, that is not a feasably way. The issue is how armour and ward saves effect the combined profile of the rider and mount. There are a very easy fix that would make this way more balance without needing much thought and would not upset the balance of pretty much anything else. All ridden monsters would fall to the rule of reducing the ward and regen saves by one point as it now has the be shared between the two and the max armour save you can have with a rider and monster is 3+ and not 2+. Then call it a day. The best you can get is 3+ armour rave and then 6+, 6+ regen and ward. That would reflect ther points cost allot better and would not upset any other balance. You can still ride monstrous cavalry with the full benefits but they are not broken. Dragon riders would still be very good but nor broken.
The math really work with this and i really think this would "fix" all riden monsters being too points effective.
I think I agree, step up and fight in extra ranks for infantry would seriously help the game.
To bring new customed missions is a great way for the community to allow more gameplays without risking to break the whole coherency.
Locally we are giving infantry a free supporting rank attack, removing swiftstride from flying behemoths, and Heavy Calvary get 2 wounds.
We give them free attack in in second rank.
I’m glad you touch a little upon rather terrible incomplete 3D printed unpainted armies chasing meta in the tourneys.
As someone who leans a little bit more towards stillmania with fully painted armies of the old sculpts I loved, steeped in lore that I like. (GW’s terrible stocking issue and price hikes doesn’t help this)
It feels a little bit disparaging to see armies treated with the care of how fast they can get them out to interact with the meta. It’s just not really my style and not really fun to take photos of, or let my imagination run wild of the armies. When it’s always fighting the grey tide.
But if you want to dip your toe into competitive tourneys that’s what you’re dealing with. It’s hard to get the best of both worlds without the TO enforcing fully painted 3 color min armies.
I can 3D print but I am a puritan in that I will only buy official Old World miniatures for my games; I will even shy away from buying AoS miniatures as they have too much of a modern look for The Old World minis. I will only go to 3D printing if I'm absolutely desperate for something and there's just no way to obtain it.
Even my terrain is official Old World as I'm building a small village using loads of hose Chapel of Sigmar / Empire Watch Towers + Fortified Manor (they cost me a pretty penny but the modularity of them is incredible and you can easily kitbash several different buildings from just a few of these pieces.
I prefer the GW models myself, but I think this problem is as much on GW itself as anyone. Many armies simply don't have their models available (unless you want to deal with scalpers on eBay or the like).
I started a new Beastmen army in ToW and almost nothing in my roster is even on the GW website, let alone in stock. But my options are 1) Wait for several months to maybe see reprints, 2) Buy 3d-printed miniatures, or 3) Play a different list.
@@The_Winslow GW absolutely shares blame I mentioned it in my original post. I’m more complaining about the state of unpainted armies, or in Dr.Blaxil’s case just encounter proxy sticks.
I have encountered things like that in tourneys too where we’re not even getting 3D printed models representative of what’s being taken just loose approximations.
Can we at least paint the stick?
@@RolandoRatas Right, don’t get me wrong I’m not against 3D printing in general. I’m more annoyed hordes of unpainted grey tides that barely fit the silhouette of what they’re supposed to be representing. Emphasis on unpainted and uncared for.
But I also grew up on those old gw sculpts as they evoke a certain look and feel. I think there’s still a hunger for those official gw sculpts too even with its price and stock issues.
@@DrogmirThat's more than fair. My army is only half-painted at the moment, and it doesn't feel great to deploy across from someone's fully painted list. Like coming to a wedding in a t-shirt.
At the same time, I can see why TO's are being more lenient, since plenty of people simply don't have painted lists at the moment. With the community being fairly small (especially here in the US), I can understand them not wanting to exclude.
But for a proper GT, having a minimum paint requirement isn't unreasonable. I think that's a pretty standard expectation from the community, and there are plenty of local events to play while you're still completing your army.
Its a great video and I think more will follow. By todays standard and the many wargames we've seen through the years TOW isn't the best wargame by a longshot. It does have WFB still holding it up, thanks to the many WFB fans. Despite the many issues several WFB editions also worked with.
In the end we hoped GW was able to make TOW the best variant of WFB, really aiming to include the best of all editions. Sadly this isn't the case. Perhaps it will in a future edition of TOW, but in order to really expect that we'd need a really good games designer, which GW usually doesn't have, or if they are there often leave the compagny after a short period.
I'd like to see certain weapons just work in two ranks for infantry. Spears, Halberds, Pikes. I also think this would slightly buff their use. I'd also love to see more Drilled, but indeed capping the maximum attacks of the front rank alongside it. Cannons should be D6 wounds and whilst Dragons should have their role, more Monster Slayer should be available in several armies to balance this out. But a lot of the TOW design just isn't that good.
Impetuosity being a 50/50 was a response to Frenzy tests being too easy to pass in 8th
I find it interesting that I’m not hearing many people suggest a return to “base-to-base” fighting. I would say to make infantry good again, bring this mechanic back (get rid of fighting rank), allow additional rank bonuses maybe one more than current, and cap unit sizes across the board.
I guess you have to look at who benefits from the entire fighting rank being able to attack. As the answer is largely infantry then getting rid of it will only serve to make them even worse. I'm sure loads of people would prefer to go back to base-to-base, but it would require a full rewrite of the rules.
Improvements to combat res of infantry (extra rank bonus, Close Order bonus only for infantry etc) are another matter as these could be done without causing obvious problems. As far as I can tell the experienced players seem to think it won't be enough to bring infantry back into the competitive game, but it would at least be a step in the right direction.
I think its because that without linehammer - perverse and stupid as it is - infantry would be even worse than they already are.
As a 6th player, i can easily say Tow is a better game as it has fixed the biggest issues we had (panic, fear for example). Of course with Storm of chaos we had a golden age with new armies ideas (Slaanesh cult, etc).
For competitive play, 9th age will remain the game to play, and for casual play, 6th or TOW.
In the end, it’s nice to play a supported game whatever we enjoy more…and i completely agree, base changes is the biggest mistake of tow..
orcs and goblins with fanatics are one of the only factions off top of my head who would take more core
I don't see any reason to lump 3d printing and contrast prints in with unpainted armies. I love the options! Contrast paints are just another tool in the box...
lol, quite right! We showed our true colours (layer) there!
Agree. Collecting lizardmen for a first time in a long time and they are a blessing on our scales.
8th ed is a t-shirt, Old World is a shirt with a sweater vest.
Gotta give my vote on the bigger bases. Definitely something they should just universally retcon into the older versions of the game.
Simply nicer to build and mostly looks better with exception of some horde critters like goblins or zombies, but with those any reasonable person should be building large unit fillers that make up for it anyway.
All that said I didn't -really- get to play the older versions so what do I know. All I'm saying is that we should look at some of these changes, like larger bases, and see that they were done for a reason.
1.56.00 - bigger bases I think are to convert with modern models. I've bought loads of AoS stuff to play ToW and believe me, Saurus aren't ranking up on 25mm bases. Bigger bases definitely the right call. And 8th games are impossible to find outside or major cities.
Unpopular Opinion: unit champions and heroes when in a unit should be able to be attacked only with a challenge. Not putting a couple hits on them and the others in the unit. Make it faster and simple and is charming thinking about duels on the battlefield.
Your idea about it?
Possibly could work- challenges are definitely a highlight from a narrative perspective. However that would benefit the more elite armies more- would mean my chaos hero kills your empire one and your little guys can't gang up on me ;-)!
Awsome ideas love it. Tempted to offer to paint the linehammer army just to watch the world burn xD
I feel like Simon lost the thumbnail point off pretty badly.
We have always played big uns as not applying to the boars. Given every ruling the FAQ that has been made has been that one ability or another does not impart to the mount, it seems clear that the boars do not get +1 str
Didn't expect a segment where gatekeeping isn't outright dismissed and ridiculed. Thats quite nice actually.
Dr. Blaxill, could you elaborate a bit on how you think 8th ed fixed infantry? I only ever played 6th and 7th, and I agree it felt quite bad there. I'm wondering also because it's a recurrent theme not only in Warhammer but in many games (for example in Warhammer: Total War melee infantry is bad, too). It seems to me like the combination of being slow and melee is just too much of a disadvantage in a game with large maps where other units are ranged and/or fast.
And thank you for these great videos and discussions, as someone with a wide interest in games I always love deep dives into specific systems, even if my last tabletop game was probably more than 15 years ago!
Mainly steadfast and step up. Step up meant that the infantry got to fight even if the front rank were all dead. For example you had 2 ranks of 5, 7 guys die, the 3 survivors 'step up' into the front rank and fight at their initiative step.
Steadfast meant you tested on unmodified ld if you had more ranks (or even a single rank against monsters) remaining.
Additionally, Magic was great for buffing infantry,
My friend from the First French Empire has described it perfectly!
Many thanks to both of you!
Side comment, smart of D6W man to keep a straight face during the opening liturgy of this pronouncement. The punks demand respect in their place of worship.
I really think it is annoying to not be allowed to activate your units in combat due to no step up. I play Empire and this is really true for Empire player: not as strong as Orcs, not as tough as Dwarves, not as quick as Elves and with garbage armor saves.
It isn't fun to maybe put in like 70% of the painting time of an army on infantry that is utterly useless.
For empire right now you are practically forced to run stanks, demigryphs and artillery...such a lack of viable options..
And what did they think when making the rules for the war altar...the difference in ability and flavour from 8th edition is mind boggling.
I am so thoroughly disappointed by The Old World.
I am going to play 8th for first time in a year in a few days, but with some modifications.
For me it is 8th or I quit playing fantasy.
I am of two views regarding infantry. One is that the new launches are going to be heroes and that's what they'll be able to sell and easily stock. Given the large stock of virgin plastic from fantasy that is extant for purchase on ebay, etc it's gonna be hard for them to compete (ergo the lower relative price of the infantry kits that they are launching). That is my cynical side. My less cynical side views the intent of having a more chess like game with very powerful pieces on one end and cheap pawns on the other. The problem is that the pawns are too expensive to be expendable and not numerous enough to provide zone control. Not sure what a mass reduction of infantry costs would do to balance but it would at least increase the footprint of elite/alternative purpose infantry. By the same token you could increase the cost of big hitters (which would balance the game without exploding the number or units on the board, which I am a fan of but would reduce overall footprint maybe too much).
2h 02 and after is a bit uninformed. Faq states that you have to do everything to try to make the charge successful when charging due to frenzy or impetuous. You have to use the special rules to try to make the charge.
On drilled, yes you're quite right. as per the FAQ, you are compelled to use rules obtain some sort of a charge.
But on Warband, I don't think you are obliged to accept the first roll on a charge for a unit if it 'gets in'. That roll might only result in a corner clipped charge, and the warband player might be rerolling in the 'hope' to get more models into combat with a higher roll...and then fail the roll completely (as he actually wanted to all along). Because they make you pay for your wheel during charge, there's not a binary of failed charge vs a 'fully maximised charge, but a sea of grey inbetween. They could say 'a charge is a charge' or say 'some charges are better than others'. That also applies for the drilled issues above. My khorne chosen are in 2 by 3 colum then have to charge- does their drilled compel them to go 6 by one so they all fight, or is 3 by 2 enough to satisfy the 'must charge and must use drilled' requirement?
I think it was designed by someone who didn't understand the issues of 8th, with some suits demanding certain units got pushed.
@@jj_duke I don't think that's remotely true at all. Release wise, the game has pushed mass infantry, and has been very generous in the amount you get in boxes. These are the same boxes you can find on store shelves everywhere. Meanwhile, the monsters, the actual core of the game, are largely metals that can be hard to find in stock, and that you'll only ever find online or at a huge GW store. It's an awfully strange business plan, to supposedly design your rules to favor one unit type, and then make it supremely difficult to buy those units.
@@ndalum75 release wise it’s just pushing the old models, rule wise, it’s pushing monsters, cavalry and monstrous infantry. But you have that interview with Matt wars, that kinda eludes to how suits had input on design as such. Next edition they’ll nerf all the monsters and push the stuff that didn’t sell or is new. That’s how they’ve always been.
You touched a point I am honestly pissed about: comp and tournament rulings that only nerf the worst performing units or buff the most powerful armies.
And then we have the nerve to complain about GW capacity to make rules, when the ToW community has only proved that when we try to change the rules, we only make things worse.
In fact, I disagree with your proposal to increase the damage of cannons as a solution to dragons. This does not make the game more tactical, it makes it more random. Make dragons slower instead. This way you keep their survivability, but make it harder to get enough return from their points.
perhaps d3 +2 rather than +1 for cannons
1:36:17 - Except the ‘historical’ unit of Dragon princes from War of the Beard! Those punks fight in ranks with dragons!
@@PRAISE_HASHUT maybe that will be their answer to 'making ranks great again'- ranks of dragons!
@ dragon infantry, dragon cavalry, dragon heroes riding dragons in ranks and dragon cannons firing dragons.
Something I find conspicuous, and maybe this is just how things are these days, is the sheer number of people who are talking about Old World and have very strong opinions about it compared to the number of people who actually play it. It feels like people doing apologetics for a lost cause or dead religion. I was surprised in your previous talk with Bard that he says he hasn’t played a game yet in spite of putting a lot of thought and excitement about all the news leading up to the release of the game.
Very good point. I think the truth is that you can have a great love of Warhammer without necessarily playing it. Much as how retired sportsmen often have views on the sport as it is now even though they retired long ago.
It does I think depend a little on what views you hold. Bard, wise man as he is, has few opinions about the rules themselves, more the lore and general direction its taken. Although I do agree that in other quarters there are strong views about the game rules based on not very much. But likewise I think people have strong views on 8th ed based on very superficial impressions of what it was like in its first year of release that they still hold quite vehemently.
However I do think you've hit upon something here, because I think the 'strong view but don't play' contingent is particularly large with Old World. As though something long ago was burned into popular psyche!
I have barely played it, only 2 games so far. I am extremely interested in it because I love Warhammer and it is the first official release in almost a decade. The fact that it is lacking in so many areas after so long is a huge disappointment. In addition, everyone has been playing modified versions of various editions for a while because official support ended, so there was nothing to wait for and incentive to modify the game so it was more fun for your particular hobby group. People are used to looking for what they need to tweak to make the game more fun, and now that official support is back, I think that hasn't changed much.
Down with 3d printed armies and contrast paint! Metal, GW OG models for life!!!😊
Just because 8th edition as a whole encouraged large infantry blocks, that doesn't mean that all the rules in 8th didn't innovate. Rules like step up, the movement rules for wheeling and reform, the charge measuring, the pursuit and fleeing rules were all superior in 8th to what we had previously and what we have now.
55.00-57.00 @d6wounds - Consider this a howl of rage at d6 wounds cannons. I play lizardmen. I like monsters without characters. I hated 8th for that reason. You make that change I can't bring Troglodons and bastiladons etc. anymore. Cannons will just level me.
Characters on mounts need to be nerfed, thats the issue
Yes that’s another good point - there’s a massive difference between the ridden and unridden monsters.
Decent portion of our old worlders are 3rd-4th editioners!
My opinion is that it's a fine rule set for causal play, if you bring a mix of infantry, range, and a toned down lord it's great. Seemingly the comp system enforces that behaviour. Seeing these lines, darts, and ridiculous 850pt triple save lords... Nah, it doesn't look fun.
Yep- it's much better with pre-selected balanced lists. Really good, actually- although even then I still think the magic is a bit dull.
@@DrBlaxill My impression is that newer fantasy players like myself love it because it's our bit on the side that's not too serious. The old world is the cheapest big Battle game to buy into now.... 2000pt chaos army, £88 with shipping. 2000pt scaven army, two rat half's of the skaventide box. We play wacky scenario's, ignore rules we don't like, and give handy caps to weaker players (well... the poor scaven player with the AOS models!). A couple of friends think it's the best game GW have ever made. I can't defend the magic, the old system sounds way better. But the new system works fine.
GW has years to write these rules, 8 editions from which to draw inspiration, and they shat the bed.
I must say I don't really disagree. They inherited outstanding foundations and while they didn't ruin them, I would have hoped for something rather better than this.
@@DrBlaxillWell, that's what I said already back in Feb. after the first 3/4 battles ( 2.000 pts). They had 4 years time and 35 years plus only on WHFB Rules. Aside from 3 editions AoS, several editions of LotR AND certainly knowledge about all the various comp-systems used in tournament playing over the years. Not to forget fan based variations like WAP...throwing some ingridients from AoS, Warmaster, LotR and 4th.-6th. WHFB in a big pot and stir it up sounds interesting in the first place. But much like with stew, you have to taste sometimes until the mix is really tasty. This clearly hasn't happend to the necessary extend. With this in mind, I was rather disappointed about the result. Again, nothing stops players to turn to WAP or 8th.with certain comp rules. Finally : make infantry great again. In times of Airbrush and speedpaints, painting a few regiments of 20-30 guys shouldnt really be THAT problem. After all, painting minis to your own liking is a major part of the hobby....
@@DrBlaxillabsolutely, there’s the makings for a great game in there.
On 3D printing.....I can't speak for anyone but me on this. I have felt pushed in that direction from GW not producing mini's and their constant price increases. Aside from their initial release, stuff I would have gladly paid them for has been, "sold out" for months on end. Or they just pull an entire army off their site (Beastmen)....And a core faction at that. How is one supposed to start an army that way? Luckily I had mine from 8th Ed....Then they ask you to pay $42 for an Ungrim model made of resin....Well, I'm not saying they aren't allowed to make money. Lord knows I want them to stay in business and bring us the best. But I know the cost of printing a dwarf (.25-.35 cents) with better resin than they use. I understand there are some other costs involved and it's not as simple as that. I just recognize there's a difference between making a good profit and juicing your player base. Between that and their lack of production, GW isn't helping matters, IMO. I can't even find Old World models at my local Warhammer store other than the big battalion boxes.
I think the biggest problems of the Old World are ...
1) Only parts of the army want to fight ... like heroes and strong units ... while core and rest of the army just hides
2) Wounded / weak units just want to run and hide rather then give up their points
3) Because there is nothing to fight for ... the fastest / more maneuverable army wins by picking fights they want
I couldn’t care if my opponent had 3d printed armies or models that are bigger or whatever , who really cares to be honest. Highlands miniatures look a lot better than the gw ones. I really only care if my opponent is a good person or not I couldn’t give a fuck otherwise
YES! ALRIGHT PUNKS!!
How they gonna FIX the game? You nailed it, until we get a new edition of the game you can't change that they gave big monsters triple saves.
I like the idea of FBIGO, but agree the execution is a bit janky and it needs some tweaks.
Cannons should do 2d3 wounds.
Re: conversation about model scales and it breaking your immersion.
Would you have the same feelings if i rocked up with my 4th orcs army and you had your 8th ed orcs army. Exact same situation, but i bet youd be ok with it because theyre both gw, and neither came from a dreaded 3d printer
I’m always ‘ok with it’ regardless of where the models are from. You’re right that GW models have got bigger over the years. All orcs are BigUns now!
I remember seeing someone with a Mantic elf army who looked utterly lost on their bases. At the end of the day it's only a single game at an event or it's your regular friend who you can either respect or bully appropriately.
I mean, he does say that some of his favorite models are older ones that are just too small to table anymore, because they just don’t look right next to more modern minis. Though, I believe he’s talking about dragons. Main concern seems to be collective immersion.
Highland Minis HAVE to be printed at 90%
Dr Blaxill is streaming right from silent hill
d6 cannons concern me. Yes they pressure the Dragons more but that buff will make all other monsters extint. No more Giants/Hags/Necrosphinxs, is just the laziest way to addres ridden monster problems imo.
Food for Thought: In all versions of Warhammer, archers essentially have step up because the causalities do not hinder the unit making attacks. This is one of the reasons combat units need step up too.
by the argument all editions of wfb have step up for melee, because the fighting rank fills out for the next turn. Shooting units aren't shooting at the same time they're receiving casualties, so of course they're ready to fire back when it's their turn. Melee are fighting at the same time and when you die actually matters in that instance. the opponent isn't waiting for you to step forward and hit him because he killed the guy in front.
@@hippiecheapskate Key difference is casualties taking attacks away. Shooting units never lose an attack until their front rank is shrinking. Step up from 8th allowed close combat to work the same way.
@NateJones10 they don't shoot until their next turm, so it's not equivalent. There's a whole bunch of time for them to get ready to shoot. Melee happens simultaneously so there is no time for them to move up and fight. If there was, then the enemy who struck first and is faster would also have time to move troops up after the opponent stepped up and killed some.
@@hippiecheapskate Its not about the turns themselves, it is about the ability to fight during each turn. It makes no sense that 5 fast warriors can hold off 50 slower warriors because they are killing their front rank. Those elite warriors are getting pressed. In historical regimental fighting the numbers push in and fill in the holes as soldiers die. Everyone is fighting more or less simultaneously. Initiative shouldn't cancel the ability to fight back entirely like that. Look at any reenactments, historical documentation, and experts on the matter. The only way smaller numbers can hold off larger numbers are with defenses like a choke point, barriers, trenches, or ramparts on a wall and other similar obstacles. in reality, a powerful warrior is going to cut down a small number of enemy warriors and then get swarmed and have to survive that. During that moment, those swarming warriors will be attacking too.
1.31.00 - so all my ripperdactyls die turn 1 as none of the bloody things can skirmish 1" apart? 😂😂😂