@@ElmoMiniatures6PlusPlus well they’re pretty damn tough to get rid of because they can res back typically much more than any magical attacks but he uses the solo characters to either lock down monsters or to park infront of a unit to charge block. Move them up with the bus of spirit hosts and split them out getting them in the way everywhere.
I think the main thing I miss about previous editions is the spells that actually buff regular units to be able to take on stronger opponents. Things like okkam's mindrazor or even wyssans wildform (+1 S +1 T) made my lowly halberdiers amazing. I also just miss the lore of metal, because I'm a massive balthasar gelt fan. Spells that improved your own armor saves or AP on your weapons would be so useful in old world
Very much this, buff spells to characteristics are scarce even more for the good guys who can't pick Deamonology. My Lizardmen really miss Skink Priests running around with Wyssans Wildform to make the Saurus Warriors S5, S5 and grind through adversaries. Good times!
I don't know that they'll actually change this, but I'd love to have far fewer (but overall stronger) assailment spells in a re-tuned spell list. They range from unplayable to merely bad, with Spectral Doppelganger as a notable exception. There aren't many wizards that want to be in combat, and for the ones that do the assailments are mostly worse than magic missiles even for daemon princes and the like. I'd love to see more assailment spells shifted to signatures, especially faction signatures where it's something you can guarantee for low-level combat wizards in fun games (Bladesingers and Loremaster honour, for example) but don't clog up the spell lists as bad rolls for regular casters.
Lewis is dead on - I think if we're talking about what older editions had that was good, **none** of them had half the factions unsupported due to internal GW politics, and that puts TOW behind **all** of them regardless of the technical qualities of the rules. We're just too used to taking it for granted that we tend to jump straight to rules discussion when talking about how things could be better.
3rd ed had maybe 100 spells and magic points for wizards. No turn limit, slow slog across the board and was useless for tournaments what was all very cool
As an avid watcher of your channel I would like to say a big thank you! I have learnt a lot watching you and have tweaked my dark elves play style a lot. I also have one question or one example regarding the banner and unit rule: we have a pegasus knight unit with the banner that gives vanguard. They are joined by a character. Does the character also get vanguard?. There is an faq that says: " If a character without the Vanguard special rule joins a unit with it during deployment, can the character make a Vanguard move with the unit? No. What's more, if the unit is formed, it will not be able to make a Vanguard rule. However, if the unit is in Skirmish formation, it can make its Vanguard move as normal, leaving the character behind." -- however my opponents argue that the banner gives vanguard to everyone, including the character. I would like to know your opinion on this. Thank you!
Agreed regarding step up. I understand why people want to bring it back, but to my mind it both doesn't fit with the narrative (one if the things i love about TOW is it feels like it's trying to be more simulationalist compared to GW's mainline games, which feel more like games first), and it removes a dimension of play. I'd prefer to see other ways to improve infantry.
Infantry should get a few changes: max rank bonus to 4 (instead of 2). First charge USR should half rank bonus instead of removing it. On top of this, infantry is neither killy enough nor defensive enough. So something to buff that slightly (not much). Like bringing back the parry save.
I think Heavy at 2 is a good rule because they need less to make a rank and they can't lose their rank bonus to flanks/rear charges. Maybe Regular should get 3, and horde rules should get up to 4 (if regular infantry.) I've said the real issue that could be a massive swing back to infantry is let them count their rank bonus at the start of combat. Or maybe they get their rank bonus at the start when charged but not when doing the charging. I still don't think it's enough to save infantry, but it would certainly move the needle. Plus, single models getting +1 close order has never felt right and the monsters don't need the help. Even with these changes, that Lord on a Dragon still has a solid advantage because of Terror and Stomps. I miss the ol' hw+shield save.
Warhammer Past - I'm still not a fan of random charges, I like the guess work and skill of non-measured charging. As a cheeky secondary, the Lord/Hero system of characters
Please read the rules for leadbelchers one more time ;) I hear it second time here. Because what exactly is bad in a 24" range, S5, AP 2, Armour Bane 1 Multiple wounds 2 gun? The new empire ogres guns are silly in comparison.
My buddy Rob has been bringing 3 cairn wraiths, a banshee and a blob of 6 spirit hosts and been doing nasty things to our local meta!
Ooooh nice, what’s he using them for?
@@ElmoMiniatures6PlusPlus well they’re pretty damn tough to get rid of because they can res back typically much more than any magical attacks but he uses the solo characters to either lock down monsters or to park infront of a unit to charge block. Move them up with the bus of spirit hosts and split them out getting them in the way everywhere.
@@robertjelley-cj1ug oooh tasty!
I think the main thing I miss about previous editions is the spells that actually buff regular units to be able to take on stronger opponents. Things like okkam's mindrazor or even wyssans wildform (+1 S +1 T) made my lowly halberdiers amazing.
I also just miss the lore of metal, because I'm a massive balthasar gelt fan. Spells that improved your own armor saves or AP on your weapons would be so useful in old world
Spells like that would definitely make infantry more appealing!
Very much this, buff spells to characteristics are scarce even more for the good guys who can't pick Deamonology. My Lizardmen really miss Skink Priests running around with Wyssans Wildform to make the Saurus Warriors S5, S5 and grind through adversaries. Good times!
Great chat boys
Glad you enjoyed it bud
I don't know that they'll actually change this, but I'd love to have far fewer (but overall stronger) assailment spells in a re-tuned spell list. They range from unplayable to merely bad, with Spectral Doppelganger as a notable exception. There aren't many wizards that want to be in combat, and for the ones that do the assailments are mostly worse than magic missiles even for daemon princes and the like. I'd love to see more assailment spells shifted to signatures, especially faction signatures where it's something you can guarantee for low-level combat wizards in fun games (Bladesingers and Loremaster honour, for example) but don't clog up the spell lists as bad rolls for regular casters.
Hell yeah, I love a good battle wizard
Warhammer Present - The combat system is great and only needs a few tweaks to fix silly outcomes to be amazing
100%
Lewis is dead on - I think if we're talking about what older editions had that was good, **none** of them had half the factions unsupported due to internal GW politics, and that puts TOW behind **all** of them regardless of the technical qualities of the rules.
We're just too used to taking it for granted that we tend to jump straight to rules discussion when talking about how things could be better.
For sure, don’t get me wrong, TOW is more fun with Fantasy than I ever had before, would just love to see GW embrace it!
3rd ed had maybe 100 spells and magic points for wizards. No turn limit, slow slog across the board and was useless for tournaments what was all very cool
We are getting a VC arcane journal?? Where can I read about this?
Haha I wish!
100% agree with going back to the 6th edition character format
1 lord and 3 heroes felt right
As someone who likes to play goblins I feel this is a lot harder on horde armies with cheap but mediocre characters.
@ I can see that but I’m almost positive they had rules where goblin characters counted as a half for those restrictions for that reason
As an avid watcher of your channel I would like to say a big thank you! I have learnt a lot watching you and have tweaked my dark elves play style a lot. I also have one question or one example regarding the banner and unit rule: we have a pegasus knight unit with the banner that gives vanguard. They are joined by a character. Does the character also get vanguard?. There is an faq that says: " If a character without the Vanguard special rule joins a unit with it during deployment, can the character make a Vanguard move with the unit?
No. What's more, if the unit is formed, it will not be able to make a Vanguard rule. However, if the unit is in Skirmish formation, it can make its Vanguard move as normal, leaving the character behind." -- however my opponents argue that the banner gives vanguard to everyone, including the character. I would like to know your opinion on this. Thank you!
Thanks!
I believe the banner gives it to the unit, since the character has joined the unit.
@@CloseOrder thank you! Happy New Year! :)
Warhammer Future - Its gotta be playable Daemons... And probs changing the slan base to 60x60
Agreed regarding step up. I understand why people want to bring it back, but to my mind it both doesn't fit with the narrative (one if the things i love about TOW is it feels like it's trying to be more simulationalist compared to GW's mainline games, which feel more like games first), and it removes a dimension of play. I'd prefer to see other ways to improve infantry.
0:28 izabela is not that bad
If that was neferata or oder lamia that wold ba aproblem with whats the plan ;]
Haha she’s a sweetie really amirite!
The correct answer to Winslow’s 2nd question is the Maw Grunta - the gigantic boar. 🐗
Would be amazing in Old World.
Yesss!!!
I love the model! Hence why it's a BlOrc Chariot in my army
@ I use the gore gruntaz as chariots and they’re already pretty big - that’s huge!
There's a shot in this short, I should really document my models somewhere ruclips.net/user/shortskWdAjN2sYbw?si=A2zbwDoE8AkxbM6g
I also use the Gore Gruntas for my BlOrc Chariots without characters on
Infantry should get a few changes:
max rank bonus to 4 (instead of 2).
First charge USR should half rank bonus instead of removing it.
On top of this, infantry is neither killy enough nor defensive enough. So something to buff that slightly (not much). Like bringing back the parry save.
I think Heavy at 2 is a good rule because they need less to make a rank and they can't lose their rank bonus to flanks/rear charges. Maybe Regular should get 3, and horde rules should get up to 4 (if regular infantry.) I've said the real issue that could be a massive swing back to infantry is let them count their rank bonus at the start of combat. Or maybe they get their rank bonus at the start when charged but not when doing the charging. I still don't think it's enough to save infantry, but it would certainly move the needle. Plus, single models getting +1 close order has never felt right and the monsters don't need the help. Even with these changes, that Lord on a Dragon still has a solid advantage because of Terror and Stomps. I miss the ol' hw+shield save.
Warhammer Past - I'm still not a fan of random charges, I like the guess work and skill of non-measured charging. As a cheeky secondary, the Lord/Hero system of characters
Please read the rules for leadbelchers one more time ;) I hear it second time here. Because what exactly is bad in a 24" range, S5, AP 2, Armour Bane 1 Multiple wounds 2 gun? The new empire ogres guns are silly in comparison.