I think you could split ranked supporting attacks and step up between open order and close order infantry respectively. So you have to kill two ranks of cheaper troops with a looser formation allowing more space for the back ranks to attack, and elite close order troops have a chance to actually attack because they're in a tight formation that naturally fills in the gaps as they appear. It also makes sense from a real world historical combat perspective.
You could even go further by adding a modified Horde Rule that the second rank supporting attacks are only applicable to a limit of a 10 wide unit, to avoid just creating Double LineHammer. Combining with close order units now able to get their full attacks from the front rank with step up. You would essentially do away with LineHammer all together.
Having played warhammer since 2002, as well as 9th Age as well as Warhammer Armies Project, step up really hurt armies like elite infantry where it was better to just have lots of cheaper attacks. As well, it rendered initiative a fairly worthless stat as it didn't matter that someone's elves were quicker, they were still going to be receiving a bunch goblin attacks regardless how well they struck. I personally wouldn't want to see step up return, however I do feel like a good portion of infantry do need some help in the game. Fighting in two ranks feels like an 'easy win' but there may be more elegant solves. I think as well, the issue with monsters and their damage output compared to infantry is that wounds that infantry suffer affect their output and performance whereas monsters are as effective at one wound as they are at full - having some kind of scaling affecting the output of monsters as they suffer damage might help on this front too. Definitely agree re the goals you mentioned! I love it when armies on the tables 'look like' armies.
@@joshuabraddy6264 I think you're spot on! Although I prefer fighting in two ranks over step up, I don't think it's the best way to go. And I fully agree that a "degenerating" profile on monsters as they take wounds might be good.
Challenges need to change massively. They're so gamey. Move through cover should actually work for charges (don't drop the lowest dice) Skirmishers can't be over unit strength 12 (or else they must adopt open order formation) Infantry fights in 2 ranks but still no step up Make magic weapons cheaper so that they can be used to counter monster lords
@@michaciemniewski9791 hard disagree. It's how dragons avoid being killed. They use challenges defensively to protect themselves from being teamed up on
@@emcdunna dragons don't need challenges to stay alive xD - they have T6, and often double/triple layered saves and 9+ wounds! Oh, and they also generally go first and do enough damage that they aren't receiving many attacks anyway! Challenges are more often used as a way to beat dragons, via static combat res (and limiting their output to a maximum of +5)
Very good suggestions PUNKS. Although once we have performed this much needed makeover to Old World, an old friend will be staring back at us from the looking glass. 'Hello Gorgeous My name is Warhammer Fantasy Battles: 8th Edition. Welcome Back. XXXX''
@@DrBlaxill hey! The Road Warrior himself. They really only needed to modify 8th's rules rather then wind them back to 6th. This issue with infantry was present in 6th and 7th if I recall. I can't comment on anything older, but it was the reason 8th was changed the way it was. People had a distaste for not being able to do anything with their infantry. I recently had a game in which I brought a mostly infantry army vs a mostly cavalry army and I got utterly trounced cause of the advantages of cavalry in Old World. Lost 65 models and was rewarded with 4 knights. 2 of which died to dangerous terrain! Although my game was a special scenario we were playing so it didn't involve typical armies.
I think they're in the right direction with the magics but needs some tweaks. I like the concept of dueling wizards having a range, but range to dispel needs to be either the range to the caster OR the effect of the spell. I didn't like the old spell dice pool. It just got out of hand at higher levels of play with multiple wizards adding dice to the pool and every caster having access to that pool. If anything just making higher wizard levels more expensive because they are significantly more impactful due to the nature of the bell curve on a 2d6 roll. You pay a linear cost increase for a nonlinear probability distribution. You'd have to limit the pools per wizard and I think that's becoming too much to keep track of at some point. Maybe. If I was to test something It'd be somewhere along the lines of 1 or 2 base dice plus wizard level for the pool, can't share dice between wizards.
@@cedyeus Certainly interesting to think about. I like the idea of wizards doing a lot, but the constant +4s to cast and (especially) dispel feels oppressive. I think spells should be easier to cast and wizards should have to choose the best moment to use their casting/dispel bonus instead of just having a blanket area-denial effect. But there are a lot of possible solutions.
thats it, its about monsters, its warmonsters. skaven monsters are dogshit, every single one, dragons are good in every iteration, trolls can be good, but most are ded in the water. this game is shit af, no balance at all im a skaven main, and i will not play Age Of Shit, I want warhammer! and skaven arent in warhammer because of Age Of Shit, skaven slaves are gone because of rainbow lovers new world order. without slaves and the whole gameplay around them, skaven are just ratmen and have no porpuse. chaos dwarfes dont have "employees" aswell, so they miss out on gameplay too, but for skaven all rules according to the state and rank of an unit is removed, so all rats are euqal now, so every rat is dogshit and skaven will never win any battle, JUST LIKE THE RAINBOW INTENDED fuck warhammer.
Infantry: it's normal that they are slower, but one thing that coul be good, could be bringing back the 1h+shield armor bonus back Shooting: they should bring back the +1 to hit large targets
The problem with the 6+ block ward save was that it almost never paid off to take anything else. Now we have things like shieldwall that gives a bonus to hw/s, but a straight up ward save is too much. Large targets already can't benefit from cover, that's essentially a +1 to shoot in MANY situations. The various bonuses in TOW are generally more subtle than earlier games, and I quite like that.
@@TheVacationist that's incorrect. The parry save made sword and board useful. You could build an Anvil with that and even lowly skaven slaves would hold better. This also meant you could then build offensive infantry supports. As it stands right now, Shield wall is loosely applied and a good chunk of shield units don't get it, or have to buy an upgrade or only one unit gets the upgrade per set points. And usually shield wall is not dependent on hand weapons so you still buy spears any way.
We are homebrewing two ranks and three for spears. Extra ranks are support attacks. We don't do step up cause that hurts Elves, who rely on hitting first to counter their lower Toughness. Maximum width we use is double the unit strength for rank, so Heavy Infantry need 4, maximum equal 8.
Answering the video: 1. Step Up: The problem with this rule is it trivializes initiative. It is true things need to change with infantry but breaking the way a stat works is not the way imo. Step up may be something a infantry unit gets because of a special rule like an order, I would prefer stuff like increasing infantry base CR, or having more abilities that diminish or prevent the advantage of those who charge infantry (like Bretonnian stakes). Btw the problem with infantry in tOW is not with all infantry. Some infantry units are perfectly viable. The problem is specifically with elite and costly infantry which never repays its cost. 2. I like the spirit of the idea but… Making charges easier would actually make longer charges more likely. Far from helping infantry it would actually be yet another buff to cavalry and flying monsters. 3. Rob’s argument for 2 wounds elite cavalry seems to be his way to buff chosen chaos knights. Buffing cavalry is not what I would go. 4. I agree completely here. Swiftstride needs to be less widespread and flying monsters don’t need it. 5. Ethereal needs to go on the Green Knight, it being good in combat is not a problem and him coming back is thematic but the number he needs to come back could be tweaked. As a side note, people find all sort of things “annoying” or “unfun”, fact is for each of those people there’s someone who holds the exact opposite opinion. Bottom line is you need to evaluate units based on facts, not “feelings”. The Green Knight is problematic but not because some people “feel bad” about it. 6. Agreed on the pillar of fire. 7. Agreed on templates not needing to roll to see if they hit. 8. Agreed on screams not working in combat. 9. Agreed on skirmishers.
My playgroup has changed casting bonuses to: levels1-2 get a +1 Levels 3-4 get +2 and all spells are -1cost. This has made level 1-2 wizards and bound spell units like cauldron of blood much more fun. We've also just removed sqiftstride from all non light cav/infantry. Its really improved the game for us. I also love your idea of no step up for infantry in the front arc. That finally gives them a cool roll
On scoring points for behemoths , I don't think you score anything unless you kill it entirely. It's unit strength is it's starting wounds not its current wounds. For example if you have a seven wound monster, if it is reduced to 3 wounds, it still counts as unit strength 7. It doesn't loose it's close order bonus, it doesn't become out numbered by 5 man units. I think this holds for points at the end of the game, you calculate it's unit strength and it is still 7 even if it has lost wounds.
On the top of my head these are my biggest issues I want to change 1. Infantry being useless 2. Lvl4 maged being mandatory. Why even bother haveing lower level mages? 3. Riders on dragons being OP. Especially paying the same pts for a defensive magic Item is just silly. 30pts for 5++ on T3 W3, or 30pts for 5++ on T6 W9. 4. Tweaks and balances on the different kinds of magic.
Concerning infantry, I have a lot to disagree with your take on step-up. And I see a lot of your mindset comes from 8th edition with quasi unbreakable infantry block. I started playing in 4th up to 8th, and did quit mid 8th because the edition devalued tactic and flanking. I felt it was more akin to current 40k/AoS play style. To me, the best ruleset was 7th but plagued with massive power creep from army books. The most fun I had playing the game was at the start of 6th edition, when every army were balanced if a bit bland. They were only short list contained in the free Ravening Hordes supplement. As power was a lot lower, closer to basic imperial stats, you had more units on the field and manoeuvering was more important than bringing a big dragon. The idea that infantry can't charge is simply wrong, of course they don't get to dictate the flow of a battle, but counter charging, baiting and flanking were a huge part of the strategy. And I used to play a combat dwarf army, before dice roll could increase your charge range. As a dwarf (or infantry in general) you had to set up trap to flank charge an enemy unit. And I ended up charging quite a lot with my short legs. Your idea of bringing step up will make glass cannon bad. What would be the point of bringing Swordmaster or Wild Riders for example if they are going to be struck back no matter what you do? Here are a few ideas that, I think, would help infantry while performing more like a block. 1) bring back +1CR to outnumber 2) increase basic max rank bonus for infantry back to +3 3) Maybe bring back the +1 save for sword and board while fighting on your front (although this could impact spear/halberds and other weapon options. I remember back in the days it was either sword or great weapon, halberds were not used.) I also think another big factor to the perceived infantry uselessness is the dragon meta. If you reduce/remove the number of Stomp attack from these snakes, and/or remove close order, infantry will regain some more staying power. As for the width limitation, in previous edition, only models touching the opponent could fight. Maybe bring that back and put a minimum to 5. So if a unit charge a 25mm single model, at least 5 guys will swing and prevent congo line of fun! EDIT: I really like your take on heavy cavalry and swiftstride. Making heavy cav 2W but losing Swiftstride would make them feel heavier. And removing that to dragon would reduce (a bit) their almightlyness.
Hi and thanks for what I consider one of the best shows so far from you guys!! Lot's of things to say, so I am using bullets: - skirmishers - use the 6th edition rules Add one more thing - peg knights and similar flying skirmishers can only see and charge in the front arc - infantry - given how popular 6th edition still is, maybe bring back some more things from there. There should be 2 types of infantry: the anvil types which need combat resolution to fulfill its role so give them the 6th ed weapon and shield bonus plus the +1 max rank cr plus the outnumber bonus; and and the elite infantry: give them more initiative or step up or more attacks per model, make them able to kill stuff. don't give them the same bonuses as the anvil infantry - make infantry as a whole 1-3 points cheaper and cap de elite infantry to 20-25 and the anvil ones to 35-40. cap max rank to 10 - make spears fight in 2 ranks and gain -1ap against cav and monsters front rank charges - keep swiftstride on fast cav, units strength 1 flyers, light chariots and maybe some open order infantry units or some skirmish infantry units - make heavy cav 2 wounds as Rob said and keep the current saves, or make them save 2+ again - magic: level 3/4s have +2 to cast and dispel, level 1/2s have + 1 - magic: only one vortex in play for each wizard, when casting the second, the first automatically gets dispelled - let's say the mage has to focus on the new vortex and lose connection with the first one - magic: add the ability to lower Strenght/toughness to more lores - army comp: - bring back lord levels and hero levels, either drop the char % to 25-30 or make it lords 25% and hero 25% - scoring: I like what Val says, doable but tedious, however we could bring back the 6th ed way of doing it and add that only infantry above us 5 can get points for table quarters and also only the aforementioned inf unit can contest it - to make infantry viable - green knight - nerf it a bit as Val said - bring more magic weapons in the game. more -ap weapons, make no armor saves worth 50 points so that a hero level char could take it. - lords on dragons/other behemoths/greater demons should have armor save and wards save/or regeneration, not both ward save and regeneration - I agree with screams not being able to shoot in combat - only skaven should be able to do that as it is fluffy and could hit both friends or foe :) - make units shoot in 2 ranks - make shieldwall a rule for shields so only infantry with shields could benefit for this - make units test for terror when they charge a terror causing unit, test for fear when they cause fear and charge a terror causing unit - maybe make stupid units immune to psychology again, clarify how does a stupid unit move - do update the legacy lists, maybe put all lists into one medium sized book with just a page of fluff for each army and the army list and accept them into GW events My more than 2 cents:) @Rob - I am painting my dark elves and will see you mid November at the TSN Arena
I painted up my wizard,, I spent countless hours on that wizard to make it look the part.. Then I cast my plastic template called pillar of fire and it wreaked havoc on my opponent.. I truly believe that plastic template did so well at killing my opponent and slowing them down because of all of those countless hours painting that wizard.. So what I did was,, I spent many more hours paint up my other wizards and my army to look the part.. So now I could place sometimes 5 pillars of fire .. and then they all did a lot of work because my army looked the part (I also color coded each template to match each wizard casting) it became a hobby! ---- love you Rob :)
Only 20 mins in, proving Robs point, but I feel like the best way to help infantry is bring back Step Up but you apply a -1 to your hit roll when stepping up. Leaves an advantage to the charger, so getting an infantry vs infantry charge off is still valuable, but you will still get to roll some dice as the defender.
Nah. allow two ranks and you still lose attacks on being charged. 3 ranks for spears. instantly fixes the issue of losing the entire front rank and getting few to no attacks.
For The Green Knight: Developers should go back to the source material: The first time The Green Knight engages in combat, he has no armor save, only one wound, and strikes last. Once he is defeated, the players agree to play another game precisely one year hence at a haunted chapel deep in the woods. Skirmishes: Cannot charge or choose to stand against a charge, unless they are lone characters. Easy fix. This lets skirmishes do what they actually should be able to do, (harass flanks and stay hidden), and if you want to charge you need to reform them first.
25% Lords - it should be a game of army vs army, not "dragon + lvl4 & co" vs it's mirror. At 2000p games you should have to choose between a murderlord on dragon and a lvl 4+ wizard and not automatically being able to take both.
But this is so uneven for some armies. Chaos and Highelfs can get big bad dragon casters for under 500. Orcs and Goblins wyvern and level 4s. Lizardmen... now I have to chose do I want a carnosaur or a slann. And neither of those allow for a stegadon hero, which is a big thing for an army with 0 warmachines. 25% creates too much an imbalance between armies
@@evanvaldyke353 the game isn't balanced to begin with. Lizardmen do have artillery. Stegadons go in rare with the great bow, which acts as a bolt thrower. Like other artillery pieces, which aren't also a durable monster. Or the bastilladon which acts as magic artillery tanks.
On infantry, my thought is that, just as Val said, we really want to encourage depth in units. So rather than step up / supporting attacks I think there is a relatively simple tweak which says something along the line of you get supporting attacks equal to double the current rank bonus and increase the maximum rank bonus for infantry by 1. So a Horde unit could get 4 ranks, and have up to 8 supporting attacks if it were. This also neatly helps encourage flanking and gives First Charge its significant one off benefit.
I used the Green Knight once, and I was so happy to have the beautiful miniature all painted up, and now among my friends I will only play it after a string of defeats and with their permission. For me though, it works so well with a unit of knights called The Knights of the Hunt with the Antlers of the Great Hunt giving the ability to ride through forests with swarms of hunting dogs running in front of them. I believe that all special characters should need to be pre-approved by your opponents
Why did special characters suddenly become a thing in warhammer tournaments? Is it because they were allowed in 40k? I've only ever been to one tournament/event between 4th and 8th which allowed special characters and it was also themed and I took slayers.
I think getting rid of both step-up and supporting attacks was really frustrating, the speculation before the release of the rules should have shown how divisive it would be. No one thinks getting deprived of anything to do in the combat phase is fun.
Green knight - the main issue, I think, is that they can charge in the turn they are revealed. This goes against the unstated rule they seem to have been going for - no suprise charges! So ambushers can't do it, undead lost the ability to vanhels into combat, etc. If the green knight came on like a reserve (in the compulosory phase) I think that would deal with a lot of issues!
i was thinking on the infantry thing myself and if they want to keep initiative as important but allow infantry to have some actual bite i feel the best compromise is to allow 2 ranks of fighting and 3 for spears, but allow initial wounds to kill off attacks still. I've had some huge charges from cavalry decimate 15 models, so rarely you might still negate fighting back but it would be less common then it is now. This was an issue back in 6th and 7th if i recall. and 8th went too far in the opposite direction. Another thing they can do is restore the 3 rank combat res and give 4 for horde. to give infantry innate staying power. Maybe also have some rule that counters first charge.
Not sure how you did a 100min podcast on things that need to change, without addressing T6 monsters. I get it, you've mentioned it before. But everyone that has a T6 beastie modelled, is taking one... I think a solution could be more prevalent anti-toughness? Such as weapons or spells that get better against higher toughness. I'd also say that there needs to be more of a downside to magic. The miscast table is soo weak that 9/10 it feels like the outcome is 'cant cast again this phase.' The table should be a check on overinvesting into magic, and right now, I'm playing Tzeentch, dropping close to 1k by taking 3 wizards, casting 10 magic missles/vortex's per turn and feeling literally no downside.
I like the idea of no step up (because it makes initiative kind of irrelevant) but having fight/shoot in two ranks for non-monstrous close order infantry (3 for spears). It'd be a buff and make more sense than currently, but wouldn't go as far as in 8th. Having a max width tied to infantry type would be great too.
I'm not sure this would have the desired effect. If one rank of attackers is enough the demolish the front rank then attacking with the second will probably do the same to the supporting rank. The problem persists, at least for infantry v infantry scenarios. It'll help on the infantry v single entities front though.
Pillar of fire - When rolling to determine how far it moves, on a roll of a 6, the wizard loses control of the pillar and the opposing player decides on the direction of travel.
So many comments asking for step up to come back. Imo step up was awful. Theres currently an incentive on making the charge. Step up is a terrible idea imo
I agree step up was bad. If you keep initiative striking then there needs to be a way to make combat a little less lethal so that you get a chance to fight back though. Perhaps armor needs to be higher.
@@Chris_da_Waaagh it really wasn't but ideally they go half way and just restore the original fighting ranks. 2 + an extra for spears. There. Problem solved infantry gets to hit back.
@@skeith1543 I could get onboard with two fighting ranks for infantry but their price should then increase slightly. But imho step up, steadfast and the previous horde rule were terrible
my favourite unit in any army is always the elite heavy infantry. I haven't played a game yet, but it's a bit of a bummer how often people talk about large infantry units being useless
@@SquareBasedOldWorld Even greatswords? because I'd love for them to be the foundation of an army, but everyone seems to say they're not worth the points.
Challenges are probably the worst thing about the current game after skirmishers. They never produce cool epic moments where your heroes duel, it's always just to cowardly avoid attacks from the enemy and leverage your massive monster mount (or three buddies on your chariot) in the fight with you. Honestly I think they hurt the game a lot more than they help. Straight up deleting them, or making it so the penalty for declining the challenge is just -1 combat resolution or something would do a lot.
Part of the issue with heavy cavalry vs monstrous cavalry, is monstrous cavalry are CRIMINALLY undercosted. Monstrous cavalry is usually the best unit in the armylist that has access to it. I agree with 2 wounds for heavy cavalry, but that survive-ability should come at a cost of being less immediately killy though.
I built A LOT of Dwarf infantry units prior to the roll-out of Old World (all at 30 models). I can only really field about half of each unit. I also have to put magic banners and/or characters in each unit to make them viable. Step-up would rock.
Re: Infantry, I think an interesting idea is that you have to have a certain initiative bonus to be able to stop step up, say three higher than your opponent, and also get rid of the initiative bonus for pursuit. Then the initial charge may not have step up, but the subsequent rounds of combat give infantry the chance to fight back. I think that gives the best of both worlds where fast units can hit hard but they don't want to get stuck in protracted combats. This also makes the +1 initiative to spears when charged actually relevant lol.
Step up is a good rule but I would add the caveat that it should only take place if you have a rank bonus. Infantry charging is a mess. Infantry's movement is slower then ever and charge ranges are more random then ever before. The two d6 discarding the lowest , still keeps the movement distance so random as far as charges go that it does feel bad, so anything to help make a charge successful would be a great change. When it comes to heavy cav having more then one wound, that might be more appropriate for special/rare cav. Chose knights, Grail knights, Blood knights (this is terrifying though since they can be resurrected) yes it works. Your average empire knight or knight errant/ of the realm having 2 wounds is a bit much. Oddly enough if we see more ranks in big blocks of infantry the green knight gets weaker, I had him off the table the other day due to a block of 40 men @ arms. Bring back ranks and the green knight will lose some of his edge.
Lets not forget that FLEE as a charge reaction is always an option. It allows you to set up all sorts of shenanigans. You can also use chaff as bait, and to redirect your charge directions... Infantry is very playable but they need a little bit of thinking :)
Also… I think someone got the green knights rules wrong when you played against him. The one inch rule still applies to his “spawn”. If your unit is in some woods, or within one inch of the woods… the knight can’t spawn there. Love the idea of giving heavy cavalry 2 wounds
Note that when the Green Knight appears within a natural terrain feature, he must abide by the 1" rule. In other words, the Green Knight cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy unit. The enemy unit would need to take up a significant portion of the footprint of the terrain feature
@@valheffelfinger6521 hmm… idk then lol. Limiting his number of respawns sounds fair too. I just wanna try him out with my general carrying the morning star of fracasse one day lol
Pegasus knights need other fixes. They need to skirmish because the models physically cannot be ranked up. I did run a lance formation of pegasus knights once to great effect, but terrible tabletop practicality.
For max with, I thibk you make it double what you need for a Rank. So, Heavy Infantry need 4 models for 1 rank, so Max width = 8 models. Regular Infantry are 5 models for a rank, max width 10 models etc. It's clean, easy and simple and it scales with all units in the game
Agree with most of these. Leave the Green Knight alone. Pillar is pretty broken now and random movement puts it in line with the other vortexes and still good. I would add that lumbering should be removed from monsters and remain for behemoths. This helps to further distinguish the two, much like the difference between the chariots.
The problem with most tabletop wargames is they never depict a heavy cavalry charge correctly. The purpose of heavy cavalry is to break the ranks. The best defence for the defenders is to stand aside or to use weapons with a long reach to kill or deter the attackers. If contact is made, the defenders will either scatter or be knocked/trampled to the ground. However, it is what happens next that's important and never properly depicted in wargames. We're all familiar with the image of a knight armed with a couched lance. The trouble is, a couched lance is a one-hit weapon. It will either break on impact and/or be discarded as soon as contact with the enemy is made. The mounted attacker has to resort to a melee weapon to fend off the infantry at close quarters who will soon reform around them and try to bring him/her down. The problem with a wargame is the charge stops at the point of contact - with the attacker toe-to-toe (or hoof-to-toe) with the defending infantry. It's always the same outcome and leaves the attacker with a distinct advantage. What should happen is a) the attacker is killed/unhorsed by the defenders at the point of contact, b) the attacker breaks through the infantry and emerges behind them or c) the attacker makes it part way through the defenders and is then enveloped by them.
Close Order Infantry: Fight in two ranks (and or or?) negate any initiative bonus if didn't charged/marched the previous turn. Open Order Infantry: add swiftstride
Pillar of Fire. In WWII wargames, sometimes the most effective tool is off-board artillery. It *might be* historically accurate, but it is so very unsatisfying to have miniatures destroyed by non-miniatures if terribly unsatisfying for miniature wargamers. Put those guns on the edge of the tabletop and I'll feel better. If they player with a pillar of fire had to bring a painted Pillar of Fire model that costs $60, would we feel better about it?
Step up - After the charging player has removed causalities, the defending player has the opportunity to step up. Take a leadership test (-1 if opponent causes fear, -2 if the opponent causes terror, -1 if more than 50% of the front rank is killed. +1 if close order and +1 for each full rank), if passed, troops from the 2nd rank can take the place of their fallen comrades and can attack. Due to witnessing their colleagues being killed and having to step over their bodies, any step up attack is at -1 to hit.
Without listening: 1. Magic: lvl 1-2 get +1 to cast/dispel, lvl 3-4 get +2 2. Characters riding monsters must use the monster’s armor 3. Flaming denies all regen not only on flammable opponents; flammable causes multiple wounds (2) when hit by a flaming attack 4. Infantry gets an extra +1 CR base 5. Skirmishers… well, rewrite the rules
1. This means total cost revaluation for casters and spell difficulty, 3. Flamming attacks - I agree. Flaming ATM is a drawback with several ward against fire.
@@michaciemniewski9791 I'm not sure about recosting wizards: they would still be plenty strong anyway imo. That said, if they end up being underpowered recosting them is the easiest fix anyway.
Something you didn't mention: Flaming attacks shouldn't be useless. Make it something worth having by making it a universal rule that it ignores both Regen saves and Ethereal in every instance.
@@skeith1543 they're vapors and mist, fire disrupts their incorporeal form, and I'm fairly certain in a past edition or two this was in the rules previously.
@@skeith1543 if this was the rule, now it might suddenly be worth it to start spending the 5pts on Flaming Swords for your unit champions, incase you run into banshees, trolls, trollhide trousers, etc. during a tournament. It would be especially nice if it weren't itself a magic item, but operated like a rune that you could attach to whatever common weapon the character/champion is wielding.
@@nklinef no. They are quite literally made up of Ethereal energy. Magic basically for the warhammer world, akin to Daemons but with even less material grip in tge material world. Which is why you need magic to hurt them. As it's established that magic can hurt magic. That's the reason daemons lose their ward and regen saves vs magic attacks. Mere fire isn't sufficient
interesting point about the Green Knight. You could kill him twice he comes back and then you get nothing? Getting the point on every kill is a nice reward and a nice risk for the controlling player as well
"If two opposing regiments are within 10"(maybe?) of each other they must use all movements they take to position themselves to line up so your front rank and their front rank are face to face ready to make any charges or meet any charges with as much of your front rank in base to base contact with their front rank as possible. When more than one enemy unit is within 10" you must position to make/meet the nearest enemy unit, if there is more than one unit the same distance away you must position ready to charge/meet the largest regiment. If more than one regiment of the same size is the same distance away you must position to charge/meet the unit closest to being directly in front of you." God that's wordy but my first attempt to explain what I mean as to how units should bump into each other properly.
I don't mind the lack of step up currently, but its clear infantry needs help in general - and some form of step up would help for sure. For step ups, maybe modify infantry profiles with something like: Regular Infantry: Up to the (majority) Initiative in the Unit may step up and fight Heavy Infantry: 1 model may step up and fight Monstrous Infantry: No step ups Or add a USR that could be points purchasable to grant the unit a reliable step up. If you have it, you can step up so long as you aren't first charged or disrupted
Thinking about bringing step up back shows you’re missing the point. It doesn’t solve the issue, just moves it elsewhere. It wrecks elite infantry and makes hordes of cheap models better. We’ve been there, it was called 8ed and it was bad. That’s why it got changed. Solution to infantry issue is exactly by allowing them to fight as static CR units, which is problematic when half the game seems to have either first charge (which should be totally rid off) or AP-2 weaponry making Light Armour+Shield combo useless. Game needs Outnumber CR, having initial rank bonus for all infantry stay at +3, with Horde upping it to +4 and Fighting rank Limit to up to 2 models over the BtB contact (one on each side). Skirmishers should see through models in their own units - that would solve the time wasting stupidity with positioning. Then, they should also have to stay within their own Ld distance from furthest models (so no model in a single unit can be further than 8-9ish inches from each other, making them operate very similar to normal units, but more mobile). Finally, magic in ToW is super non interactive and boring, so the only good mechanic 8ed had (excluding the actual spells ofc) should be borrowed and ToW should use 8ed magic mechanic. But it all basically rewrites the game and probably screws with somewhere else in the rules. It is ok, it’s just a game. ToW is fine.
I agree with everything here, except the 8th magic. Didn't play 8th, only played 6th, so I don't know how they did magic there. Also, if Cavalry is such an issue, giving Spears with a Shield Fight First when charged by Cavalry in the front, and giving back the +1 to armor in Melee for HW+S from 6th/7th would be nice.
@@mightyg4538 dude. Infantry just needs to get back fighting in 2 ranks and a third for spears. Problem solved. Infantry gets to hit back with a chunky amount of attacks and they'll still lose attacks when charged. You have a unit of 20 swordsmen in a block of 5x4. You get 10 attacks(11 with champion). Cavalry hits them and deals 6 wounds, the swordsmen still get to strike back with 5 attacks. It's a simple change but it makes all the difference. If you hit the flank or rear, you get a single row like normal unless you are elves, as they have rules for that.
I would change more turn 5 things. Max. 35% Characters. Min. 35% Core. Rule of 2 except non-shooting core units Magic Casts 1 cheaper, Level 1/2 Mages gets +1 to cast/dispel, Level 3/4 gets +2. Fated dispel is not limited to 1. Just 1 magic missile per mage per turn. Each Vortex may be only 1 time in game per side. MoCav Characters are not skirmishers any more. Stomp Attacks can be evaded with initiative. Split Profiles are using the worst initiative attribute instead the best. To skip linehammer and support R&F units: Kick the marching formation rule. All Units get rank bonuses with atleast 5 modells per rank. MoCav and MoInf 3 modells. Replace the support attack rule: All adjustant modells from Infantry to the front (frontline and 2nd rank) may do 1 supporting attack. With spears plus 1 rank. Panic is always break and flee and never FBIGO. Impact Hits are done before any other attacks (even First strike) and are always hitting the unit like shooting attacks. Skirmisher may always be charged in the ankle as the charging unit wants.
For skirmishers, they could do what star wars legion does, and have only the squad 'leader' count for distances, charges, facing, line of sight, etc. In old world this could be taken as a mandatory upgrade of one to a champion of sorts. The rest become glorified would counters. Once engaged in combat, they would 'collapse' into actual positions, to determine fighting attacks, enemys charging, etc; but once combat is done, they form back into a 'cloud', with the leader being the nucleus.
This would streamline movement a lot too, since you only have to precisely move one model, then the rest kinda cluster around that one point. Additionally, when friendly units move 'through' the cloud, you don't need to worry about interactions, as the skirmishers just move out of the way (Aside from the leader, theyre in a fixed position still).
IIRC, in 6th edition people felt infantry was too strong vs cavalry. So for 7th, GW buffed up cavalry to the point that players felt that infantry was way too weak. Then 8th came out and just turned infantry up to eleven. It’s anecdotal of course, but the general feeling with 7th was that GW had tweaked the rules to encourage people to change their lists to include more cavalry, perhaps to sell different (additional) models. Then when 8th came out it really, really felt like GW was just changing the game, encouraging huge tarpit infantry units, to drive sales, rather than improving the play. Having lived through the 6th-7th-8th process, I can definitely remember a general feeling that GW had started to blatantly focus on driving sales, at the expense of providing a quality game.
1. Maximum of 2 saves (no armor ward regen 2. No more skirmish for characters other than on foot or on horse (not flying horse) 3. Ethereal receives a 4+ ward vs non magical attacks 4. Infantry attacks from 2 ranks (or more in case of spears etc.) 5. Include scenarios that favour the use of infantry and the use of standards
So much to point 1. OR go hard like 40K and you get 1 save. Triple saves is dumb, or at least they should have been better on their testing to make sure that the most powerful and toughest pieces on the board offensively don't have access to the most defensive combos as well. There should be tradeoffs.
Another way to fix a lot of the problems in units not getting to strike at all, is for both units get to strike at the same time, and if say your fighting a unit that is fast like Elves, you can also have Step up like you said. So Attack at the same time and step up would fix a lot of problems.
I like the thought of somehow tying step-up attacks to the number of ranks in the unit. Empire Witch Hunters that kill a Wizard should get 2x VPs for it!
I think if you have the horde rule, if you have full ranks you can open the front rank arc to 180degrees. If you drop below max ranks you revert back to 90? For me this would help horde army’s actually horde stuff rather than just being out maneuvered and flanked, which is what currently what happens.
It would make the game more clunky but I have been experimenting with a more advanced set of rules that essentially revolve around base contact and removing the requirement for orthogonal contact. The aim is to add more flexibility and organic feel the way units move and interact with one another. Only models in base-to-base can attack, the angle of your charge stays, so if you charge a formed unit your unit forms around them to make contact. Models are removed as casualties from the front and can potentially cause a sort of breakthrough mechanic if you manage to split a small unit. Essentially you move the models as you would expect them to move in reality. You can do the wrap arounds and penetrate deeper into a formation. As I mentioned I understand it is clunky, but it could be introduced as an optional advanced ruleset. The idea of "closing the door" or "alignment" after a charge always seemed janky and gamey to me. That everything MUST form up into a square block further exasperates the issue. That unit trajectories and momentum is constantly disrupted by this weird 90 degree teleportion mechanic is constantly immersion breaking to the flow of a battle. Why not allow ANY unit to adopt ANY formation they choose? A heavy infantry unit could adopt a skirmish formation, but they loose the benefits of being heavy infantry. Adding some flexibility to the way you deploy your units in formations would add a lot of depth and play to the infantry game if you could do things like a chevron, or slightly fan the ranks to add some curvature to the battle line. Would also eliminate back corner swings when moving a unit with depth and have a more immersive and organic feel the movement of large units. The fall back rules need some tweaks too, like being unable to break a unit until its at least under half strength OR double outnumbered. Or if they do the unit can only cause the number of casualties that it has attacks. Something about a whole block being wiped by an unlucky roll by a single entity rubs me the wrong way. If FBIGO allows free reform so should Give Ground. Ultimately ToW/WFB has always had the issue of incremental costing. It seems in most cases a stat or special rule increase for a unit is valued at +1pt per model. Light armor is +1pt, a spear is +1point, veteran +1pt, +1WS or initiative is +1pt. In reality the increase from 5+ armor save to a 4+ is much more valuable than say +1pt when compared to giving 6+ save to a unit that had none given the limitations on AP being capped at -2 with anything greater being extremely rare. There's a lot of over costing for infantry models(especially low end) when it comes to adding optional equipment or special rules that creates disproportionate costing. Empire state troops are a prime example of this. You add a veteran swordsman with a shield is 8 points comparable to a dwarf warrior in points but lacking in T4(Which is a significant stat), down 2 leadership, and an armor save for a trade off of +1M and +1I. You could say those are good stats but if you look closely at the unit costing nobody's infantry are paying for extra I or M. Otherwise Elves and Skaven would be through the roof. An overhaul on point values needs to be conducted. Similar to how X-Wing Miniatures addressed balance by essentially doubling the thresholds. There are upgrades and design spaces between points that can be filled because a lot of addons are just not worth even the +1pt per model.
Just a little thing to add back to infantry - rank bonus is calculated before any blows are struck (which was the rule pre 7th I believe and one I still play), this can be for CR and the suggested double rank bonus equals number of supporting attacks proposal. Also, magic needs some resource management like all the other editions in one form or another to stop all this spamming (and to inject the fun back into magic). Maybe a pool of magic cards or dice (cards be easier to manage) is generated at the start of your turn to use throughout your turn (and opponents for dispelling with the cards/dice).
Great video as always, lot of good suggestions. We need to make infantry matters, cause the game is supposed to represent that. Also, specific chaos topics : How is possible that a chaos marauder has "shieldwall" while warriors of chaos needs to be chosen to get "stubborn" ? Why do warriors of chaos lack of "shieldwall" rule? In fact, why do warriors of chaos lack any special rule ? Cause marks of chaos costs points, is not like you can choose for freever or whatever so you get a heavy infantry unit with a purpose. Is not supposed to be the central piece of a warriors of chaos army anyway? I dont have any reason to play them at their cost in points ! And if u want to get a "full geared" chosen unit with full plate and drilled u spend like 21 points on a single wound infantry model, 23 if u want it marked. 24+ if u want it with shield or other weapons. Also, why do Skinwolves doesnt have "fear" rule ? They are like 3 meters tall wolves... They are classified as "monstruous infantry", so why are they the only one that doesnt inspire fear on enemies ? :/
Big believer that infantry needs help. I did make a post on Reddit about it but was told I need to L2P and also that old world is not a competitive game and so infantry should be bad? Reddit fucking blows man.
Haha. Last year when we were starting out they'd take down my posts because someone objected to us having a patreon. It was a running gag on the show for a while
Dunno if anyone mentioned already but for example in Warhammer Armies Project's Nippon Roster there are Komainu Riders which are heavy Cavalry with 2 wounds and they feel and work perfectly fine.
i get a lot of people don't want to return to steadfast masses , to solve this what not give setup as a special rule to elite infantry, like call it martial trainint , chaos warrior and the ilk could have it and it stops silly cheap infantry becoming a issue
Everything Robb wants is just to nerf the Brets lol. The Green Knight is basically Bretonnians "monster/dragon" since they dont get any monsters. Val, the issue with just getting kill points per the cost of the model will lead to certain things not being taken or over taken. Your getting into an area where people could make list as "points per wound". Example, a T3 State Troop with a 5+ save vs a T6 Character with a 3+/5++/5+++.
I think the way we think about cavalry charges has been heavily influenced by Hollywood. As I understand it, horses don't actually want to charge close-formation infantry and are better for flanking and running folks down. It makes sense as horses are themselves reasonably vulnerable. Perhaps to buff infantry and represent this, nerf cavalry charges made into the front rank of close order infantry. Impose either a disordered charge and/or missing out on impact attacks etc... This could help encourage infantry, specialise the role of cavalry and enhance realism.
Regarding melee, I think that a limited step up could work. If you kill my first rank the second will retaliate. If you kill more than my first rank less will retaliate. This way unita that can barely kill 5 models won't be as strong if they get the charge and elite units that can kill a lot of light infantry are still safe if they get the charge and feel stronger
I am planning on running an event in south germany with the following rules: 1. Size matters: A unit can only use either a ward or a regeneration save, chose the best 2. Max width 10 3. Pillar of Fire moves randomly, no duplicate spells except for bound spells Changes to Dark Elves legacy army: 1. Murderous also counts for all non magical weapons used used by Witch Elves, Har Garneth Executioners and Hags. 2. Hekartii‘s Blessing can be used once per turn instead of once per game. 3. The Cauldron of Blood loses the heavy chariot and dragged along rules. Increase its movement to 5. One that's still being debated: Killing blow and monster slayer is no instant kill it deals wounds/2 rounding up damage. Victory points: For Monsters and Characters: On a per wound bases (rounding up) I‘d love to add some kind of the step up rules but I assume changing the rules too much would make people not attend. Some day I might add supporting attacks (no step up): Any unit can always use the second rank for supporting attacks. when a unit directs supporting attacks to the front add one attack per model for each rank the unit has not including the second rank. If the unit did not charge add 1 to each attack if the unit is armed with spears, add 2 if the unit is armed with pikes. -Worst case: Rank one dies and you miss out on those attacks - fair advantage for charging imo What do you think? I agree on the Cavalry with 2 wounds (Blood Knights, Chosen Chaos Knights, Cold one Knights, Grail Knights, Dragon Princes) the second wound would also nerf the Blood Knight recursion :D Swift Stride: Light Cav gets one D6, all of the rest gets one D3. Would fix it? If screaming isn't allowed into combat then I want units of wraiths back! :D
Nerf monsters and monstrous elements, want roll more dice? Go to aos. No to step up, no to step up. 8th is trash. Remove stomps, remove some dmg from cav and monsters, reduce cost of infantry. The best balance was on 6th edition.
Before I get to the end I'm hearing about this bombshell and I'm assuming Rob and Louise are adopting Val, so in advance congratulations! the 5 things that need changing in The Old World, there needs to be Dwarfs in the top 5 section of any tier list
Just taking a glance at the CHAPTERS list let me know that I probably agree with you on all points. I would also add the need for better Army Composition rules and limitations on stuff that crucially needs to be reined in without going overboard (wouldn't want TOW to turn into one of those extremely tourney-sterilized and "streamlined" WHFB pretenders out there) Everything else is so good in TOW that once these issues (hopefully) get ironed out, this game can and will take off like crazy. If the Specialist Games Studio can compose masterpieces of game design like MESBG and Kill Team, they should also be able to hone TOW to (near) perfection in the (near) future.
1:26:16 rob if you miscast and get a template over you, you're under the hole so you're hit automatically. Guys under the hole "risk being hit" but that means they're always hit
I agree - they should completely change the skirmishers rule. Since the 6th edition of WFB we have the fast cavalry rule. It is enough to adapt it to the needs of skirmishers (infantry and cavalry). In this way we get an agile unit, but with a standard line of sight, ranks, flanks and rear. Just please no return to the absurd 12.5 mm distance rule in the 8th edition. A standard formation of light infantry and cavalry with free reforms will be enough.
Having finally settled on WoC as my first army, I looked at Chosen Knights and came to the conclusion that there's no basis for choosing them. Too many points for too few wounds, especially in a land where Dragon Ogres are a thing. "Training the Lib out of you" - how do we get Val to read Dumitru Bacu's "The Anti-Humans"? That will completely cure him.
Maybe you could do an initiative dependent stepup rule. I would also like the idea of 4/5 wide get +1 extra rank bonus and in horde formation 8/10 wide get fight in extra rank instead. Also, as an empire infantry lover, I am hoping for the buff wagons to return with the arcane journal in January.
I think if a unit can step up it should be able to hit, however if you have strikes last and no units can step up that’s when you lose attacks. I think units that step up should have a -1 to hit, however give certain units like slayers rules like “if a slayer steps up re reoll missed hits and ignore the -1 to hit step up rule”. You can give certain elite units bonuses when they step up and weaker chaff units disadvantages to not just promote bigger marauder blocks over elite infantry. Since this is also a nerf to line hammer (since the play style benefits from all your units being able to attack) I think this rule brings the game more in lines with the themes of the warhammer world and makes infantry more viable. Also I might even say infantry should just get a plus 1 to their movement across the board. Make them more mobile why not
About the adjusting charges and line up melee...I had an idea, but we needs ToW2 for that: adding and entire Turn-Step where you just line up everything on the board and nothing else. Like just press pause button during the turn and line up everything. I don't know 'when' to put this phase, maybe end of turn, but yes something like that would be nice.
If The Old World is GW’s attempt at doing a “real wargame”, then “linehammer” is more realistic from an historical perspective. If you really want to see more infantry in the game, I’d certainly look to 6th edition as an example, rather than 8th. There has to be some solution other than “step-up” or an unrealistic “fights in ranks”. I think that allowing all the models in the front rank to fight, even if not in base to base, was an attempt to give infantry more opportunities to actually hit back, without going back to step-up.
I am enjoying the old world, but I hope some balanced improvements are made to infantry. I really enjoy the larger base sizes, as models rank up better. Movement trays are easier than ever to get.
I’ve not watched the video or played a game. But in my correct opinion, troops need to matter
I think you could split ranked supporting attacks and step up between open order and close order infantry respectively. So you have to kill two ranks of cheaper troops with a looser formation allowing more space for the back ranks to attack, and elite close order troops have a chance to actually attack because they're in a tight formation that naturally fills in the gaps as they appear. It also makes sense from a real world historical combat perspective.
You could even go further by adding a modified Horde Rule that the second rank supporting attacks are only applicable to a limit of a 10 wide unit, to avoid just creating Double LineHammer. Combining with close order units now able to get their full attacks from the front rank with step up. You would essentially do away with LineHammer all together.
Having played warhammer since 2002, as well as 9th Age as well as Warhammer Armies Project, step up really hurt armies like elite infantry where it was better to just have lots of cheaper attacks. As well, it rendered initiative a fairly worthless stat as it didn't matter that someone's elves were quicker, they were still going to be receiving a bunch goblin attacks regardless how well they struck. I personally wouldn't want to see step up return, however I do feel like a good portion of infantry do need some help in the game. Fighting in two ranks feels like an 'easy win' but there may be more elegant solves.
I think as well, the issue with monsters and their damage output compared to infantry is that wounds that infantry suffer affect their output and performance whereas monsters are as effective at one wound as they are at full - having some kind of scaling affecting the output of monsters as they suffer damage might help on this front too.
Definitely agree re the goals you mentioned! I love it when armies on the tables 'look like' armies.
@@joshuabraddy6264 I think you're spot on!
Although I prefer fighting in two ranks over step up, I don't think it's the best way to go.
And I fully agree that a "degenerating" profile on monsters as they take wounds might be good.
Challenges need to change massively. They're so gamey.
Move through cover should actually work for charges (don't drop the lowest dice)
Skirmishers can't be over unit strength 12 (or else they must adopt open order formation)
Infantry fights in 2 ranks but still no step up
Make magic weapons cheaper so that they can be used to counter monster lords
Challanges are gamey but this is how you beat Dragons. I like how they change combat calculations.
@@michaciemniewski9791 yes that totally sounds like a fun, well designed, immersive way to counter dragons
I hate step up, but infantry fighting in two ranks if they're closed order might be great.
@@michaciemniewski9791 hard disagree. It's how dragons avoid being killed. They use challenges defensively to protect themselves from being teamed up on
@@emcdunna dragons don't need challenges to stay alive xD - they have T6, and often double/triple layered saves and 9+ wounds! Oh, and they also generally go first and do enough damage that they aren't receiving many attacks anyway! Challenges are more often used as a way to beat dragons, via static combat res (and limiting their output to a maximum of +5)
Very good suggestions PUNKS. Although once we have performed this much needed makeover to Old World, an old friend will be staring back at us from the looking glass.
'Hello Gorgeous
My name is Warhammer Fantasy Battles: 8th Edition.
Welcome Back.
XXXX''
Haha my thoughts exactly
That is me, but instead with 6th
@@DrBlaxill hey! The Road Warrior himself. They really only needed to modify 8th's rules rather then wind them back to 6th.
This issue with infantry was present in 6th and 7th if I recall. I can't comment on anything older, but it was the reason 8th was changed the way it was. People had a distaste for not being able to do anything with their infantry.
I recently had a game in which I brought a mostly infantry army vs a mostly cavalry army and I got utterly trounced cause of the advantages of cavalry in Old World. Lost 65 models and was rewarded with 4 knights. 2 of which died to dangerous terrain!
Although my game was a special scenario we were playing so it didn't involve typical armies.
Static rank bonus should go higher to make infantry worthwhile, and Impetuous should be a leadership test, its a textbook leadership issue!
problem is that JTY has valued the cost of +1CR at 25 points (war banner). If you are paying more that 5 ppm, you are "losing points".
@@cedyeus That just means diminishing returns on it, its not like you can just buy multiple war banners, but you can buy loads more grunts.
The number one change needed is magic economy. Lvl 4 required and able to cast every spell you have every turn is crazy.
What if you only add your casting level to ONE spell cast per turn?
I think they're in the right direction with the magics but needs some tweaks. I like the concept of dueling wizards having a range, but range to dispel needs to be either the range to the caster OR the effect of the spell.
I didn't like the old spell dice pool. It just got out of hand at higher levels of play with multiple wizards adding dice to the pool and every caster having access to that pool. If anything just making higher wizard levels more expensive because they are significantly more impactful due to the nature of the bell curve on a 2d6 roll. You pay a linear cost increase for a nonlinear probability distribution. You'd have to limit the pools per wizard and I think that's becoming too much to keep track of at some point. Maybe. If I was to test something It'd be somewhere along the lines of 1 or 2 base dice plus wizard level for the pool, can't share dice between wizards.
@@dietrichknauth9305 what about a wizard only able to cast one spell per phase, and also only make one dispel attempt per phase?
@@cedyeus Certainly interesting to think about.
I like the idea of wizards doing a lot, but the constant +4s to cast and (especially) dispel feels oppressive. I think spells should be easier to cast and wizards should have to choose the best moment to use their casting/dispel bonus instead of just having a blanket area-denial effect. But there are a lot of possible solutions.
Rank and Flank game that doesnt encourage ranking or flanking was a choice.
Make Infantry Great Again!
thats it, its about monsters, its warmonsters.
skaven monsters are dogshit, every single one, dragons are good in every iteration,
trolls can be good, but most are ded in the water.
this game is shit af,
no balance at all
im a skaven main, and i will not play Age Of Shit,
I want warhammer!
and skaven arent in warhammer because of Age Of Shit,
skaven slaves are gone because of rainbow lovers new world order.
without slaves and the whole gameplay around them, skaven are just ratmen and have no porpuse.
chaos dwarfes dont have "employees" aswell, so they miss out on gameplay too,
but for skaven all rules according to the state and rank of an unit is removed,
so all rats are euqal now, so every rat is dogshit and skaven will never win any battle,
JUST LIKE THE RAINBOW INTENDED
fuck warhammer.
You think getting charged in the flank is fine in ToW?
Infantry: it's normal that they are slower, but one thing that coul be good, could be bringing back the 1h+shield armor bonus back
Shooting: they should bring back the +1 to hit large targets
The problem with the 6+ block ward save was that it almost never paid off to take anything else. Now we have things like shieldwall that gives a bonus to hw/s, but a straight up ward save is too much.
Large targets already can't benefit from cover, that's essentially a +1 to shoot in MANY situations.
The various bonuses in TOW are generally more subtle than earlier games, and I quite like that.
@@TheVacationist i mean the bonus to armor save that was in 6th and 7th , not the bonus of 8th
@@TheVacationist that's incorrect. The parry save made sword and board useful. You could build an Anvil with that and even lowly skaven slaves would hold better. This also meant you could then build offensive infantry supports.
As it stands right now, Shield wall is loosely applied and a good chunk of shield units don't get it, or have to buy an upgrade or only one unit gets the upgrade per set points. And usually shield wall is not dependent on hand weapons so you still buy spears any way.
We are homebrewing two ranks and three for spears. Extra ranks are support attacks.
We don't do step up cause that hurts Elves, who rely on hitting first to counter their lower Toughness.
Maximum width we use is double the unit strength for rank, so Heavy Infantry need 4, maximum equal 8.
Top 5 things that need to change in TOW:
1. SB needs to do a Bretonnia army review
As well as a Tomb Kings deep dive!!
Lol. Touché fellas
Val needs to go on the great European tour and hit all the warhammer podcasts that go on there
Answering the video:
1. Step Up: The problem with this rule is it trivializes initiative. It is true things need to change with infantry but breaking the way a stat works is not the way imo. Step up may be something a infantry unit gets because of a special rule like an order, I would prefer stuff like increasing infantry base CR, or having more abilities that diminish or prevent the advantage of those who charge infantry (like Bretonnian stakes). Btw the problem with infantry in tOW is not with all infantry. Some infantry units are perfectly viable. The problem is specifically with elite and costly infantry which never repays its cost.
2. I like the spirit of the idea but… Making charges easier would actually make longer charges more likely. Far from helping infantry it would actually be yet another buff to cavalry and flying monsters.
3. Rob’s argument for 2 wounds elite cavalry seems to be his way to buff chosen chaos knights. Buffing cavalry is not what I would go.
4. I agree completely here. Swiftstride needs to be less widespread and flying monsters don’t need it.
5. Ethereal needs to go on the Green Knight, it being good in combat is not a problem and him coming back is thematic but the number he needs to come back could be tweaked. As a side note, people find all sort of things “annoying” or “unfun”, fact is for each of those people there’s someone who holds the exact opposite opinion. Bottom line is you need to evaluate units based on facts, not “feelings”. The Green Knight is problematic but not because some people “feel bad” about it.
6. Agreed on the pillar of fire.
7. Agreed on templates not needing to roll to see if they hit.
8. Agreed on screams not working in combat.
9. Agreed on skirmishers.
My playgroup has changed casting bonuses to: levels1-2 get a +1
Levels 3-4 get +2 and all spells are -1cost. This has made level 1-2 wizards and bound spell units like cauldron of blood much more fun. We've also just removed sqiftstride from all non light cav/infantry. Its really improved the game for us. I also love your idea of no step up for infantry in the front arc. That finally gives them a cool roll
On scoring points for behemoths , I don't think you score anything unless you kill it entirely. It's unit strength is it's starting wounds not its current wounds. For example if you have a seven wound monster, if it is reduced to 3 wounds, it still counts as unit strength 7. It doesn't loose it's close order bonus, it doesn't become out numbered by 5 man units. I think this holds for points at the end of the game, you calculate it's unit strength and it is still 7 even if it has lost wounds.
On the top of my head these are my biggest issues I want to change
1. Infantry being useless
2. Lvl4 maged being mandatory.
Why even bother haveing lower level mages?
3. Riders on dragons being OP.
Especially paying the same pts for a defensive magic Item is just silly. 30pts for 5++ on T3 W3, or 30pts for 5++ on T6 W9.
4. Tweaks and balances on the different kinds of magic.
5 things that need to be fixed
1- Slann Cost
2- Saurus Cost
3- cold blooded not working on stupidity
4- Bastilidon unit Strength of 4
5- salamanders
As lizardmend just agree and would had 4+ armour save for the carnosaur/oldblood
Concerning infantry, I have a lot to disagree with your take on step-up. And I see a lot of your mindset comes from 8th edition with quasi unbreakable infantry block. I started playing in 4th up to 8th, and did quit mid 8th because the edition devalued tactic and flanking. I felt it was more akin to current 40k/AoS play style. To me, the best ruleset was 7th but plagued with massive power creep from army books. The most fun I had playing the game was at the start of 6th edition, when every army were balanced if a bit bland. They were only short list contained in the free Ravening Hordes supplement. As power was a lot lower, closer to basic imperial stats, you had more units on the field and manoeuvering was more important than bringing a big dragon.
The idea that infantry can't charge is simply wrong, of course they don't get to dictate the flow of a battle, but counter charging, baiting and flanking were a huge part of the strategy. And I used to play a combat dwarf army, before dice roll could increase your charge range. As a dwarf (or infantry in general) you had to set up trap to flank charge an enemy unit. And I ended up charging quite a lot with my short legs.
Your idea of bringing step up will make glass cannon bad. What would be the point of bringing Swordmaster or Wild Riders for example if they are going to be struck back no matter what you do? Here are a few ideas that, I think, would help infantry while performing more like a block.
1) bring back +1CR to outnumber
2) increase basic max rank bonus for infantry back to +3
3) Maybe bring back the +1 save for sword and board while fighting on your front (although this could impact spear/halberds and other weapon options. I remember back in the days it was either sword or great weapon, halberds were not used.)
I also think another big factor to the perceived infantry uselessness is the dragon meta. If you reduce/remove the number of Stomp attack from these snakes, and/or remove close order, infantry will regain some more staying power.
As for the width limitation, in previous edition, only models touching the opponent could fight. Maybe bring that back and put a minimum to 5. So if a unit charge a 25mm single model, at least 5 guys will swing and prevent congo line of fun!
EDIT: I really like your take on heavy cavalry and swiftstride. Making heavy cav 2W but losing Swiftstride would make them feel heavier. And removing that to dragon would reduce (a bit) their almightlyness.
Hi and thanks for what I consider one of the best shows so far from you guys!!
Lot's of things to say, so I am using bullets:
- skirmishers - use the 6th edition rules Add one more thing - peg knights and similar flying skirmishers can only see and charge in the front arc
- infantry - given how popular 6th edition still is, maybe bring back some more things from there. There should be 2 types of infantry: the anvil types which need combat resolution to fulfill its role so give them the 6th ed weapon and shield bonus plus the +1 max rank cr plus the outnumber bonus; and and the elite infantry: give them more initiative or step up or more attacks per model, make them able to kill stuff. don't give them the same bonuses as the anvil infantry
- make infantry as a whole 1-3 points cheaper and cap de elite infantry to 20-25 and the anvil ones to 35-40. cap max rank to 10
- make spears fight in 2 ranks and gain -1ap against cav and monsters front rank charges
- keep swiftstride on fast cav, units strength 1 flyers, light chariots and maybe some open order infantry units or some skirmish infantry units
- make heavy cav 2 wounds as Rob said and keep the current saves, or make them save 2+ again
- magic: level 3/4s have +2 to cast and dispel, level 1/2s have + 1
- magic: only one vortex in play for each wizard, when casting the second, the first automatically gets dispelled - let's say the mage has to focus on the new vortex and lose connection with the first one
- magic: add the ability to lower Strenght/toughness to more lores
- army comp: - bring back lord levels and hero levels, either drop the char % to 25-30 or make it lords 25% and hero 25%
- scoring: I like what Val says, doable but tedious, however we could bring back the 6th ed way of doing it and add that only infantry above us 5 can get points for table quarters and also only the aforementioned inf unit can contest it - to make infantry viable
- green knight - nerf it a bit as Val said
- bring more magic weapons in the game. more -ap weapons, make no armor saves worth 50 points so that a hero level char could take it.
- lords on dragons/other behemoths/greater demons should have armor save and wards save/or regeneration, not both ward save and regeneration
- I agree with screams not being able to shoot in combat - only skaven should be able to do that as it is fluffy and could hit both friends or foe :)
- make units shoot in 2 ranks
- make shieldwall a rule for shields so only infantry with shields could benefit for this
- make units test for terror when they charge a terror causing unit, test for fear when they cause fear and charge a terror causing unit
- maybe make stupid units immune to psychology again, clarify how does a stupid unit move
- do update the legacy lists, maybe put all lists into one medium sized book with just a page of fluff for each army and the army list and accept them into GW events
My more than 2 cents:)
@Rob - I am painting my dark elves and will see you mid November at the TSN Arena
I painted up my wizard,, I spent countless hours on that wizard to make it look the part.. Then I cast my plastic template called pillar of fire and it wreaked havoc on my opponent.. I truly believe that plastic template did so well at killing my opponent and slowing them down because of all of those countless hours painting that wizard.. So what I did was,, I spent many more hours paint up my other wizards and my army to look the part.. So now I could place sometimes 5 pillars of fire .. and then they all did a lot of work because my army looked the part (I also color coded each template to match each wizard casting) it became a hobby!
---- love you Rob :)
Only 20 mins in, proving Robs point, but I feel like the best way to help infantry is bring back Step Up but you apply a -1 to your hit roll when stepping up. Leaves an advantage to the charger, so getting an infantry vs infantry charge off is still valuable, but you will still get to roll some dice as the defender.
Nah. allow two ranks and you still lose attacks on being charged. 3 ranks for spears. instantly fixes the issue of losing the entire front rank and getting few to no attacks.
For The Green Knight:
Developers should go back to the source material:
The first time The Green Knight engages in combat, he has no armor save, only one wound, and strikes last.
Once he is defeated, the players agree to play another game precisely one year hence at a haunted chapel deep in the woods.
Skirmishes:
Cannot charge or choose to stand against a charge, unless they are lone characters.
Easy fix. This lets skirmishes do what they actually should be able to do, (harass flanks and stay hidden), and if you want to charge you need to reform them first.
By jove you've got it!
25% Lords - it should be a game of army vs army, not "dragon + lvl4 & co" vs it's mirror. At 2000p games you should have to choose between a murderlord on dragon and a lvl 4+ wizard and not automatically being able to take both.
the rumoured army comp that they were playtesting does this kind of... so excited to see what they actually do with the rules : )
25% lords and heroes. it worked just fine in previous editions.
@skeith1543 I agree, at the tournaments I organize, I also ban all named characters - GW or other source.
But this is so uneven for some armies. Chaos and Highelfs can get big bad dragon casters for under 500. Orcs and Goblins wyvern and level 4s.
Lizardmen... now I have to chose do I want a carnosaur or a slann. And neither of those allow for a stegadon hero, which is a big thing for an army with 0 warmachines.
25% creates too much an imbalance between armies
@@evanvaldyke353 the game isn't balanced to begin with. Lizardmen do have artillery. Stegadons go in rare with the great bow, which acts as a bolt thrower. Like other artillery pieces, which aren't also a durable monster. Or the bastilladon which acts as magic artillery tanks.
On infantry, my thought is that, just as Val said, we really want to encourage depth in units. So rather than step up / supporting attacks I think there is a relatively simple tweak which says something along the line of you get supporting attacks equal to double the current rank bonus and increase the maximum rank bonus for infantry by 1. So a Horde unit could get 4 ranks, and have up to 8 supporting attacks if it were. This also neatly helps encourage flanking and gives First Charge its significant one off benefit.
Y'all, this is so fun. Let's go get stuck in. Square and Nurgle Blessed.
Hugs from Slaanesh too
I used the Green Knight once, and I was so happy to have the beautiful miniature all painted up, and now among my friends I will only play it after a string of defeats and with their permission. For me though, it works so well with a unit of knights called The Knights of the Hunt with the Antlers of the Great Hunt giving the ability to ride through forests with swarms of hunting dogs running in front of them. I believe that all special characters should need to be pre-approved by your opponents
Why did special characters suddenly become a thing in warhammer tournaments? Is it because they were allowed in 40k?
I've only ever been to one tournament/event between 4th and 8th which allowed special characters and it was also themed and I took slayers.
I think getting rid of both step-up and supporting attacks was really frustrating, the speculation before the release of the rules should have shown how divisive it would be. No one thinks getting deprived of anything to do in the combat phase is fun.
Warhammer didn't have step up from 1st til 7th edition.
If you think that is frustrating, you should have seen how garbage they made the game overnight when they were introduced.
Green knight - the main issue, I think, is that they can charge in the turn they are revealed. This goes against the unstated rule they seem to have been going for - no suprise charges! So ambushers can't do it, undead lost the ability to vanhels into combat, etc.
If the green knight came on like a reserve (in the compulosory phase) I think that would deal with a lot of issues!
i was thinking on the infantry thing myself and if they want to keep initiative as important but allow infantry to have some actual bite i feel the best compromise is to allow 2 ranks of fighting and 3 for spears, but allow initial wounds to kill off attacks still. I've had some huge charges from cavalry decimate 15 models, so rarely you might still negate fighting back but it would be less common then it is now.
This was an issue back in 6th and 7th if i recall. and 8th went too far in the opposite direction.
Another thing they can do is restore the 3 rank combat res and give 4 for horde. to give infantry innate staying power. Maybe also have some rule that counters first charge.
IMO spells should be limited to 1 per 1000 points. It prevents spam at normal points values, but allows for magic heavy armies to scale.
Not sure how you did a 100min podcast on things that need to change, without addressing T6 monsters. I get it, you've mentioned it before. But everyone that has a T6 beastie modelled, is taking one... I think a solution could be more prevalent anti-toughness? Such as weapons or spells that get better against higher toughness.
I'd also say that there needs to be more of a downside to magic. The miscast table is soo weak that 9/10 it feels like the outcome is 'cant cast again this phase.' The table should be a check on overinvesting into magic, and right now, I'm playing Tzeentch, dropping close to 1k by taking 3 wizards, casting 10 magic missles/vortex's per turn and feeling literally no downside.
I like the idea of no step up (because it makes initiative kind of irrelevant) but having fight/shoot in two ranks for non-monstrous close order infantry (3 for spears). It'd be a buff and make more sense than currently, but wouldn't go as far as in 8th. Having a max width tied to infantry type would be great too.
This is the right amount of change. I completely agree.
I'm not sure this would have the desired effect. If one rank of attackers is enough the demolish the front rank then attacking with the second will probably do the same to the supporting rank. The problem persists, at least for infantry v infantry scenarios. It'll help on the infantry v single entities front though.
Pillar of fire - When rolling to determine how far it moves, on a roll of a 6, the wizard loses control of the pillar and the opposing player decides on the direction of travel.
So many comments asking for step up to come back. Imo step up was awful. Theres currently an incentive on making the charge. Step up is a terrible idea imo
I agree step up was bad. If you keep initiative striking then there needs to be a way to make combat a little less lethal so that you get a chance to fight back though. Perhaps armor needs to be higher.
@@Chris_da_Waaagh it really wasn't but ideally they go half way and just restore the original fighting ranks. 2 + an extra for spears. There. Problem solved infantry gets to hit back.
@@skeith1543 I could get onboard with two fighting ranks for infantry but their price should then increase slightly. But imho step up, steadfast and the previous horde rule were terrible
my favourite unit in any army is always the elite heavy infantry. I haven't played a game yet, but it's a bit of a bummer how often people talk about large infantry units being useless
Elite heavy infantry would be some examples of infantry that does work a bit. Core infantry is on hard times tho
@@SquareBasedOldWorld Even greatswords? because I'd love for them to be the foundation of an army, but everyone seems to say they're not worth the points.
@@GR1MG0R Alas Greatswords are awful
@@GR1MG0R No they are as bad as they are in every edition. Nothing can help them without a real rework unfortunately.
@@morerobotwarscontent1476 They were good in WAP, 8 points with light armour, 1 point for medium armour and 3 point for heavy armour.
Add to Drilled: If a Drilled unit is either Light Infantry or Heavy Infantry the unit can perform a redress the ranks as a charge reaction.
Challenges are probably the worst thing about the current game after skirmishers. They never produce cool epic moments where your heroes duel, it's always just to cowardly avoid attacks from the enemy and leverage your massive monster mount (or three buddies on your chariot) in the fight with you. Honestly I think they hurt the game a lot more than they help. Straight up deleting them, or making it so the penalty for declining the challenge is just -1 combat resolution or something would do a lot.
Heavy Cav is like the Terminators of Fantasy. Definitely need that extra wound
Part of the issue with heavy cavalry vs monstrous cavalry, is monstrous cavalry are CRIMINALLY undercosted. Monstrous cavalry is usually the best unit in the armylist that has access to it. I agree with 2 wounds for heavy cavalry, but that survive-ability should come at a cost of being less immediately killy though.
I built A LOT of Dwarf infantry units prior to the roll-out of Old World (all at 30 models). I can only really field about half of each unit. I also have to put magic banners and/or characters in each unit to make them viable. Step-up would rock.
Re: Infantry, I think an interesting idea is that you have to have a certain initiative bonus to be able to stop step up, say three higher than your opponent, and also get rid of the initiative bonus for pursuit. Then the initial charge may not have step up, but the subsequent rounds of combat give infantry the chance to fight back. I think that gives the best of both worlds where fast units can hit hard but they don't want to get stuck in protracted combats. This also makes the +1 initiative to spears when charged actually relevant lol.
Infantry need step up / supporting attacks. Aside from that , not all sure , some magical changes I’d also imagine.
Step up is a good rule but I would add the caveat that it should only take place if you have a rank bonus. Infantry charging is a mess. Infantry's movement is slower then ever and charge ranges are more random then ever before. The two d6 discarding the lowest , still keeps the movement distance so random as far as charges go that it does feel bad, so anything to help make a charge successful would be a great change. When it comes to heavy cav having more then one wound, that might be more appropriate for special/rare cav. Chose knights, Grail knights, Blood knights (this is terrifying though since they can be resurrected) yes it works. Your average empire knight or knight errant/ of the realm having 2 wounds is a bit much. Oddly enough if we see more ranks in big blocks of infantry the green knight gets weaker, I had him off the table the other day due to a block of 40 men @ arms. Bring back ranks and the green knight will lose some of his edge.
Lets not forget that FLEE as a charge reaction is always an option. It allows you to set up all sorts of shenanigans.
You can also use chaff as bait, and to redirect your charge directions...
Infantry is very playable but they need a little bit of thinking :)
Also… I think someone got the green knights rules wrong when you played against him.
The one inch rule still applies to his “spawn”. If your unit is in some woods, or within one inch of the woods… the knight can’t spawn there.
Love the idea of giving heavy cavalry 2 wounds
Note that when the Green Knight appears within a natural terrain feature, he must abide by the 1" rule. In other words, the Green Knight cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy unit.
The enemy unit would need to take up a significant portion of the footprint of the terrain feature
@@valheffelfinger6521 hmm… idk then lol. Limiting his number of respawns sounds fair too.
I just wanna try him out with my general carrying the morning star of fracasse one day lol
Pegasus knights can't be skirmish
Make Lizardmen great again
Gyrocopters cap
Infantry can step up
Skirmish cap
Are the Gyrocopter dwarfs running the tournament scene where you play? Because they are almost not a factor in eastern US/canada
Pretty sure Pegasus Knights have a 0% chance of putting the physical models in rank and file so they are stuck as skirmishers
Pegasus knights need other fixes. They need to skirmish because the models physically cannot be ranked up. I did run a lance formation of pegasus knights once to great effect, but terrible tabletop practicality.
For max with, I thibk you make it double what you need for a Rank. So, Heavy Infantry need 4 models for 1 rank, so Max width = 8 models. Regular Infantry are 5 models for a rank, max width 10 models etc. It's clean, easy and simple and it scales with all units in the game
Agree with most of these.
Leave the Green Knight alone.
Pillar is pretty broken now and random movement puts it in line with the other vortexes and still good.
I would add that lumbering should be removed from monsters and remain for behemoths. This helps to further distinguish the two, much like the difference between the chariots.
The problem with most tabletop wargames is they never depict a heavy cavalry charge correctly. The purpose of heavy cavalry is to break the ranks. The best defence for the defenders is to stand aside or to use weapons with a long reach to kill or deter the attackers. If contact is made, the defenders will either scatter or be knocked/trampled to the ground. However, it is what happens next that's important and never properly depicted in wargames.
We're all familiar with the image of a knight armed with a couched lance. The trouble is, a couched lance is a one-hit weapon. It will either break on impact and/or be discarded as soon as contact with the enemy is made. The mounted attacker has to resort to a melee weapon to fend off the infantry at close quarters who will soon reform around them and try to bring him/her down.
The problem with a wargame is the charge stops at the point of contact - with the attacker toe-to-toe (or hoof-to-toe) with the defending infantry. It's always the same outcome and leaves the attacker with a distinct advantage. What should happen is a) the attacker is killed/unhorsed by the defenders at the point of contact, b) the attacker breaks through the infantry and emerges behind them or c) the attacker makes it part way through the defenders and is then enveloped by them.
Close Order Infantry: Fight in two ranks (and or or?) negate any initiative bonus if didn't charged/marched the previous turn.
Open Order Infantry: add swiftstride
Pillar of Fire. In WWII wargames, sometimes the most effective tool is off-board artillery. It *might be* historically accurate, but it is so very unsatisfying to have miniatures destroyed by non-miniatures if terribly unsatisfying for miniature wargamers. Put those guns on the edge of the tabletop and I'll feel better. If they player with a pillar of fire had to bring a painted Pillar of Fire model that costs $60, would we feel better about it?
That is current Age of Sigmar 4th. Every army gets a free terrain feature and thus every army costs $60 more
Infantry need a couple of benefits : calculate rank bonus pre - casualty. Allow step up on a leadership test if led by a achampion.
Step up - After the charging player has removed causalities, the defending player has the opportunity to step up. Take a leadership test (-1 if opponent causes fear, -2 if the opponent causes terror, -1 if more than 50% of the front rank is killed. +1 if close order and +1 for each full rank), if passed, troops from the 2nd rank can take the place of their fallen comrades and can attack. Due to witnessing their colleagues being killed and having to step over their bodies, any step up attack is at -1 to hit.
too complicated
Without listening:
1. Magic: lvl 1-2 get +1 to cast/dispel, lvl 3-4 get +2
2. Characters riding monsters must use the monster’s armor
3. Flaming denies all regen not only on flammable opponents; flammable causes multiple wounds (2) when hit by a flaming attack
4. Infantry gets an extra +1 CR base
5. Skirmishers… well, rewrite the rules
Some good ones in there!
1. This means total cost revaluation for casters and spell difficulty,
3. Flamming attacks - I agree. Flaming ATM is a drawback with several ward against fire.
@@michaciemniewski9791 I'm not sure about recosting wizards: they would still be plenty strong anyway imo. That said, if they end up being underpowered recosting them is the easiest fix anyway.
Everything that they changed from 6th/7th edition were not great changes. 😊
Am I the only one wishing they bring back the ability to kill the mount or rider. These combined profiles are simplistic but super janky.
Something you didn't mention:
Flaming attacks shouldn't be useless. Make it something worth having by making it a universal rule that it ignores both Regen saves and Ethereal in every instance.
@@nklinef why would fire hurt a ghost?
@@skeith1543 they're vapors and mist, fire disrupts their incorporeal form, and I'm fairly certain in a past edition or two this was in the rules previously.
@@skeith1543 mostly though it's just a good way to have it apply to more things so it's less of a niche ability literally no one pays for currently.
@@skeith1543 if this was the rule, now it might suddenly be worth it to start spending the 5pts on Flaming Swords for your unit champions, incase you run into banshees, trolls, trollhide trousers, etc. during a tournament.
It would be especially nice if it weren't itself a magic item, but operated like a rune that you could attach to whatever common weapon the character/champion is wielding.
@@nklinef no. They are quite literally made up of Ethereal energy. Magic basically for the warhammer world, akin to Daemons but with even less material grip in tge material world.
Which is why you need magic to hurt them. As it's established that magic can hurt magic. That's the reason daemons lose their ward and regen saves vs magic attacks. Mere fire isn't sufficient
interesting point about the Green Knight. You could kill him twice he comes back and then you get nothing? Getting the point on every kill is a nice reward and a nice risk for the controlling player as well
"If two opposing regiments are within 10"(maybe?) of each other they must use all movements they take to position themselves to line up so your front rank and their front rank are face to face ready to make any charges or meet any charges with as much of your front rank in base to base contact with their front rank as possible. When more than one enemy unit is within 10" you must position to make/meet the nearest enemy unit, if there is more than one unit the same distance away you must position ready to charge/meet the largest regiment. If more than one regiment of the same size is the same distance away you must position to charge/meet the unit closest to being directly in front of you." God that's wordy but my first attempt to explain what I mean as to how units should bump into each other properly.
I don't mind the lack of step up currently, but its clear infantry needs help in general - and some form of step up would help for sure.
For step ups, maybe modify infantry profiles with something like:
Regular Infantry: Up to the (majority) Initiative in the Unit may step up and fight
Heavy Infantry: 1 model may step up and fight
Monstrous Infantry: No step ups
Or add a USR that could be points purchasable to grant the unit a reliable step up. If you have it, you can step up so long as you aren't first charged or disrupted
Thinking about bringing step up back shows you’re missing the point. It doesn’t solve the issue, just moves it elsewhere. It wrecks elite infantry and makes hordes of cheap models better. We’ve been there, it was called 8ed and it was bad. That’s why it got changed.
Solution to infantry issue is exactly by allowing them to fight as static CR units, which is problematic when half the game seems to have either first charge (which should be totally rid off) or AP-2 weaponry making Light Armour+Shield combo useless. Game needs Outnumber CR, having initial rank bonus for all infantry stay at +3, with Horde upping it to +4 and Fighting rank Limit to up to 2 models over the BtB contact (one on each side).
Skirmishers should see through models in their own units - that would solve the time wasting stupidity with positioning. Then, they should also have to stay within their own Ld distance from furthest models (so no model in a single unit can be further than 8-9ish inches from each other, making them operate very similar to normal units, but more mobile).
Finally, magic in ToW is super non interactive and boring, so the only good mechanic 8ed had (excluding the actual spells ofc) should be borrowed and ToW should use 8ed magic mechanic.
But it all basically rewrites the game and probably screws with somewhere else in the rules. It is ok, it’s just a game. ToW is fine.
I agree with everything here, except the 8th magic. Didn't play 8th, only played 6th, so I don't know how they did magic there.
Also, if Cavalry is such an issue, giving Spears with a Shield Fight First when charged by Cavalry in the front, and giving back the +1 to armor in Melee for HW+S from 6th/7th would be nice.
@@mightyg4538 dude. Infantry just needs to get back fighting in 2 ranks and a third for spears. Problem solved.
Infantry gets to hit back with a chunky amount of attacks and they'll still lose attacks when charged.
You have a unit of 20 swordsmen in a block of 5x4. You get 10 attacks(11 with champion). Cavalry hits them and deals 6 wounds, the swordsmen still get to strike back with 5 attacks. It's a simple change but it makes all the difference.
If you hit the flank or rear, you get a single row like normal unless you are elves, as they have rules for that.
I would change more turn 5 things.
Max. 35% Characters.
Min. 35% Core.
Rule of 2 except non-shooting core units
Magic Casts 1 cheaper, Level 1/2 Mages gets +1 to cast/dispel, Level 3/4 gets +2. Fated dispel is not limited to 1.
Just 1 magic missile per mage per turn.
Each Vortex may be only 1 time in game per side.
MoCav Characters are not skirmishers any more.
Stomp Attacks can be evaded with initiative.
Split Profiles are using the worst initiative attribute instead the best.
To skip linehammer and support R&F units:
Kick the marching formation rule.
All Units get rank bonuses with atleast 5 modells per rank.
MoCav and MoInf 3 modells.
Replace the support attack rule:
All adjustant modells from Infantry to the front (frontline and 2nd rank) may do 1 supporting attack. With spears plus 1 rank.
Panic is always break and flee and never FBIGO.
Impact Hits are done before any other attacks (even First strike) and are always hitting the unit like shooting attacks.
Skirmisher may always be charged in the ankle as the charging unit wants.
For skirmishers, they could do what star wars legion does, and have only the squad 'leader' count for distances, charges, facing, line of sight, etc. In old world this could be taken as a mandatory upgrade of one to a champion of sorts. The rest become glorified would counters. Once engaged in combat, they would 'collapse' into actual positions, to determine fighting attacks, enemys charging, etc; but once combat is done, they form back into a 'cloud', with the leader being the nucleus.
This would streamline movement a lot too, since you only have to precisely move one model, then the rest kinda cluster around that one point. Additionally, when friendly units move 'through' the cloud, you don't need to worry about interactions, as the skirmishers just move out of the way (Aside from the leader, theyre in a fixed position still).
I would find a decent solution to the "Step Up" and unit depth problem be that you can have as many models step up as you have ranks.
IIRC, in 6th edition people felt infantry was too strong vs cavalry. So for 7th, GW buffed up cavalry to the point that players felt that infantry was way too weak. Then 8th came out and just turned infantry up to eleven. It’s anecdotal of course, but the general feeling with 7th was that GW had tweaked the rules to encourage people to change their lists to include more cavalry, perhaps to sell different (additional) models. Then when 8th came out it really, really felt like GW was just changing the game, encouraging huge tarpit infantry units, to drive sales, rather than improving the play. Having lived through the 6th-7th-8th process, I can definitely remember a general feeling that GW had started to blatantly focus on driving sales, at the expense of providing a quality game.
1. Maximum of 2 saves (no armor ward regen
2. No more skirmish for characters other than on foot or on horse (not flying horse)
3. Ethereal receives a 4+ ward vs non magical attacks
4. Infantry attacks from 2 ranks (or more in case of spears etc.)
5. Include scenarios that favour the use of infantry and the use of standards
So much to point 1. OR go hard like 40K and you get 1 save. Triple saves is dumb, or at least they should have been better on their testing to make sure that the most powerful and toughest pieces on the board offensively don't have access to the most defensive combos as well. There should be tradeoffs.
I think a small step that would make a difference would be to drop characters to 33%.
Another way to fix a lot of the problems in units not getting to strike at all, is for both units get to strike at the same time, and if say your fighting a unit that is fast like Elves, you can also have Step up like you said. So Attack at the same time and step up would fix a lot of problems.
I like the thought of somehow tying step-up attacks to the number of ranks in the unit.
Empire Witch Hunters that kill a Wizard should get 2x VPs for it!
I think if you have the horde rule, if you have full ranks you can open the front rank arc to 180degrees. If you drop below max ranks you revert back to 90? For me this would help horde army’s actually horde stuff rather than just being out maneuvered and flanked, which is what currently what happens.
It would make the game more clunky but I have been experimenting with a more advanced set of rules that essentially revolve around base contact and removing the requirement for orthogonal contact. The aim is to add more flexibility and organic feel the way units move and interact with one another.
Only models in base-to-base can attack, the angle of your charge stays, so if you charge a formed unit your unit forms around them to make contact. Models are removed as casualties from the front and can potentially cause a sort of breakthrough mechanic if you manage to split a small unit.
Essentially you move the models as you would expect them to move in reality. You can do the wrap arounds and penetrate deeper into a formation.
As I mentioned I understand it is clunky, but it could be introduced as an optional advanced ruleset. The idea of "closing the door" or "alignment" after a charge always seemed janky and gamey to me. That everything MUST form up into a square block further exasperates the issue. That unit trajectories and momentum is constantly disrupted by this weird 90 degree teleportion mechanic is constantly immersion breaking to the flow of a battle.
Why not allow ANY unit to adopt ANY formation they choose? A heavy infantry unit could adopt a skirmish formation, but they loose the benefits of being heavy infantry.
Adding some flexibility to the way you deploy your units in formations would add a lot of depth and play to the infantry game if you could do things like a chevron, or slightly fan the ranks to add some curvature to the battle line. Would also eliminate back corner swings when moving a unit with depth and have a more immersive and organic feel the movement of large units.
The fall back rules need some tweaks too, like being unable to break a unit until its at least under half strength OR double outnumbered. Or if they do the unit can only cause the number of casualties that it has attacks. Something about a whole block being wiped by an unlucky roll by a single entity rubs me the wrong way. If FBIGO allows free reform so should Give Ground.
Ultimately ToW/WFB has always had the issue of incremental costing. It seems in most cases a stat or special rule increase for a unit is valued at +1pt per model. Light armor is +1pt, a spear is +1point, veteran +1pt, +1WS or initiative is +1pt. In reality the increase from 5+ armor save to a 4+ is much more valuable than say +1pt when compared to giving 6+ save to a unit that had none given the limitations on AP being capped at -2 with anything greater being extremely rare. There's a lot of over costing for infantry models(especially low end) when it comes to adding optional equipment or special rules that creates disproportionate costing. Empire state troops are a prime example of this. You add a veteran swordsman with a shield is 8 points comparable to a dwarf warrior in points but lacking in T4(Which is a significant stat), down 2 leadership, and an armor save for a trade off of +1M and +1I. You could say those are good stats but if you look closely at the unit costing nobody's infantry are paying for extra I or M. Otherwise Elves and Skaven would be through the roof.
An overhaul on point values needs to be conducted. Similar to how X-Wing Miniatures addressed balance by essentially doubling the thresholds. There are upgrades and design spaces between points that can be filled because a lot of addons are just not worth even the +1pt per model.
Just a little thing to add back to infantry - rank bonus is calculated before any blows are struck (which was the rule pre 7th I believe and one I still play), this can be for CR and the suggested double rank bonus equals number of supporting attacks proposal.
Also, magic needs some resource management like all the other editions in one form or another to stop all this spamming (and to inject the fun back into magic).
Maybe a pool of magic cards or dice (cards be easier to manage) is generated at the start of your turn to use throughout your turn (and opponents for dispelling with the cards/dice).
Great video as always, lot of good suggestions. We need to make infantry matters, cause the game is supposed to represent that.
Also, specific chaos topics : How is possible that a chaos marauder has "shieldwall" while warriors of chaos needs to be chosen to get "stubborn" ? Why do warriors of chaos lack of "shieldwall" rule? In fact, why do warriors of chaos lack any special rule ? Cause marks of chaos costs points, is not like you can choose for freever or whatever so you get a heavy infantry unit with a purpose.
Is not supposed to be the central piece of a warriors of chaos army anyway? I dont have any reason to play them at their cost in points ! And if u want to get a "full geared" chosen unit with full plate and drilled u spend like 21 points on a single wound infantry model, 23 if u want it marked. 24+ if u want it with shield or other weapons.
Also, why do Skinwolves doesnt have "fear" rule ? They are like 3 meters tall wolves... They are classified as "monstruous infantry", so why are they the only one that doesnt inspire fear on enemies ? :/
Big believer that infantry needs help. I did make a post on Reddit about it but was told I need to L2P and also that old world is not a competitive game and so infantry should be bad? Reddit fucking blows man.
Still better than the Old World FB group tho. At least they let me post on Reddit.
@@SquareBasedOldWorldI have yet to stray into Facebook and I have no desire to haha!
@@SquareBasedOldWorldyou cant post on the old world Facebook group?
Haha. Last year when we were starting out they'd take down my posts because someone objected to us having a patreon. It was a running gag on the show for a while
Personal i love not having step up, i do think infantry needs fight in extra rank as default to give it a much need power up
Dunno if anyone mentioned already but for example in Warhammer Armies Project's Nippon Roster there are Komainu Riders which are heavy Cavalry with 2 wounds and they feel and work perfectly fine.
Challenge change: if a side is reduced to only the model in the challenge, then excess damage can spill into it.
i get a lot of people don't want to return to steadfast masses , to solve this what not give setup as a special rule to elite infantry, like call it martial trainint , chaos warrior and the ilk could have it and it stops silly cheap infantry becoming a issue
Everything Robb wants is just to nerf the Brets lol.
The Green Knight is basically Bretonnians "monster/dragon" since they dont get any monsters.
Val, the issue with just getting kill points per the cost of the model will lead to certain things not being taken or over taken. Your getting into an area where people could make list as "points per wound". Example, a T3 State Troop with a 5+ save vs a T6 Character with a 3+/5++/5+++.
I think the way we think about cavalry charges has been heavily influenced by Hollywood. As I understand it, horses don't actually want to charge close-formation infantry and are better for flanking and running folks down. It makes sense as horses are themselves reasonably vulnerable. Perhaps to buff infantry and represent this, nerf cavalry charges made into the front rank of close order infantry. Impose either a disordered charge and/or missing out on impact attacks etc...
This could help encourage infantry, specialise the role of cavalry and enhance realism.
Regarding melee, I think that a limited step up could work. If you kill my first rank the second will retaliate. If you kill more than my first rank less will retaliate.
This way unita that can barely kill 5 models won't be as strong if they get the charge and elite units that can kill a lot of light infantry are still safe if they get the charge and feel stronger
For the max width, it could be double what their troop type min is. So for heavy inf it’d be max 8, and 10 for reg inf.
I am planning on running an event in south germany with the following rules:
1. Size matters: A unit can only use either a ward or a regeneration save, chose the best
2. Max width 10
3. Pillar of Fire moves randomly, no duplicate spells except for bound spells
Changes to Dark Elves legacy army:
1. Murderous also counts for all non magical weapons used used by Witch Elves, Har Garneth Executioners and Hags.
2. Hekartii‘s Blessing can be used once per turn instead of once per game.
3. The Cauldron of Blood loses the heavy chariot and dragged along rules. Increase its movement to 5.
One that's still being debated: Killing blow and monster slayer is no instant kill it deals wounds/2 rounding up damage.
Victory points: For Monsters and Characters: On a per wound bases (rounding up)
I‘d love to add some kind of the step up rules but I assume changing the rules too much would make people not attend.
Some day I might add supporting attacks (no step up):
Any unit can always use the second rank for supporting attacks. when a unit directs supporting attacks to the front add one attack per model for each rank the unit has not including the second rank. If the unit did not charge add 1 to each attack if the unit is armed with spears, add 2 if the unit is armed with pikes.
-Worst case: Rank one dies and you miss out on those attacks - fair advantage for charging imo
What do you think?
I agree on the Cavalry with 2 wounds (Blood Knights, Chosen Chaos Knights, Cold one Knights, Grail Knights, Dragon Princes)
the second wound would also nerf the Blood Knight recursion :D
Swift Stride: Light Cav gets one D6, all of the rest gets one D3. Would fix it?
If screaming isn't allowed into combat then I want units of wraiths back! :D
Sounds bad
@@dakotah7683 why?
It’s like saying „no“ as feedback, it has no value.
Dr. Blaxill has been pointing to these issues since launch.
Nerf monsters and monstrous elements, want roll more dice? Go to aos. No to step up, no to step up. 8th is trash. Remove stomps, remove some dmg from cav and monsters, reduce cost of infantry. The best balance was on 6th edition.
Damn straight!!
Before I get to the end I'm hearing about this bombshell and I'm assuming Rob and Louise are adopting Val, so in advance congratulations!
the 5 things that need changing in The Old World, there needs to be Dwarfs in the top 5 section of any tier list
I'd change step up by using a roll vs initiative to allow a figure in the 2nd rank to step up. That allows initiative to remain important.
Just taking a glance at the CHAPTERS list let me know that I probably agree with you on all points. I would also add the need for better Army Composition rules and limitations on stuff that crucially needs to be reined in without going overboard (wouldn't want TOW to turn into one of those extremely tourney-sterilized and "streamlined" WHFB pretenders out there)
Everything else is so good in TOW that once these issues (hopefully) get ironed out, this game can and will take off like crazy. If the Specialist Games Studio can compose masterpieces of game design like MESBG and Kill Team, they should also be able to hone TOW to (near) perfection in the (near) future.
I agree !
1:26:16 rob if you miscast and get a template over you, you're under the hole so you're hit automatically. Guys under the hole "risk being hit" but that means they're always hit
Maybe don't take swiftstride from heavy cav, but give them d3 instead of d6.
I agree - they should completely change the skirmishers rule. Since the 6th edition of WFB we have the fast cavalry rule. It is enough to adapt it to the needs of skirmishers (infantry and cavalry). In this way we get an agile unit, but with a standard line of sight, ranks, flanks and rear. Just please no return to the absurd 12.5 mm distance rule in the 8th edition. A standard formation of light infantry and cavalry with free reforms will be enough.
Having finally settled on WoC as my first army, I looked at Chosen Knights and came to the conclusion that there's no basis for choosing them. Too many points for too few wounds, especially in a land where Dragon Ogres are a thing. "Training the Lib out of you" - how do we get Val to read Dumitru Bacu's "The Anti-Humans"? That will completely cure him.
As a Dawi, we need to make infantry useful again
Maybe you could do an initiative dependent stepup rule. I would also like the idea of 4/5 wide get +1 extra rank bonus and in horde formation 8/10 wide get fight in extra rank instead. Also, as an empire infantry lover, I am hoping for the buff wagons to return with the arcane journal in January.
Second row striking back at initiative 1 would also be ok since they have to step over their dead comrates.
I think if a unit can step up it should be able to hit, however if you have strikes last and no units can step up that’s when you lose attacks. I think units that step up should have a -1 to hit, however give certain units like slayers rules like “if a slayer steps up re reoll missed hits and ignore the -1 to hit step up rule”. You can give certain elite units bonuses when they step up and weaker chaff units disadvantages to not just promote bigger marauder blocks over elite infantry. Since this is also a nerf to line hammer (since the play style benefits from all your units being able to attack) I think this rule brings the game more in lines with the themes of the warhammer world and makes infantry more viable. Also I might even say infantry should just get a plus 1 to their movement across the board. Make them more mobile why not
About the adjusting charges and line up melee...I had an idea, but we needs ToW2 for that: adding and entire Turn-Step where you just line up everything on the board and nothing else. Like just press pause button during the turn and line up everything. I don't know 'when' to put this phase, maybe end of turn, but yes something like that would be nice.
Bro I watch to the end every time I’m the guy in your analytics with the perfect record lol
My infantry solution is to allow Step Up (but it’s negated if attacked from flank or rear) and an extra rank bonus for combat res.
Wait. Wait. Wait. RUclips plays VIDEOS?!?!! I thought I was just commenting on pictures with titles all this time!
If The Old World is GW’s attempt at doing a “real wargame”, then “linehammer” is more realistic from an historical perspective. If you really want to see more infantry in the game, I’d certainly look to 6th edition as an example, rather than 8th. There has to be some solution other than “step-up” or an unrealistic “fights in ranks”. I think that allowing all the models in the front rank to fight, even if not in base to base, was an attempt to give infantry more opportunities to actually hit back, without going back to step-up.
Pillar of Fire would be better if it was just movable on the master's turn.
I am enjoying the old world, but I hope some balanced improvements are made to infantry. I really enjoy the larger base sizes, as models rank up better. Movement trays are easier than ever to get.