@@oitoitoi1lol yes. Take it to Nottingham and set it up by that Stormcast eternal statue (installed as I recall pretty much on day 1 of AOS to symbolise the beginning of the new era) and start ranting until they listen!
@DrBaxill PLEASE. DO. THIS. Yes they set up that sigmarine abomination immediately in some sort of khmer rougesque attempt at year 0. They pulled down the space marine statue for it. Last time I checked aos sales are still barely 20% of 40k and that proportion is shrinking not growing. I like to think of AoS as some sort of populist demagogue, they achieve short term success that is inevitably followed by disaster.
I've found line hammer works great with small chaff, open order, quick shooters, like corsairs. A fast reform, 20 shot + 20 stand and shoots, plus 10 ensuing attacks dispatches cheap targets like zombies quite fast. I also saved 15% on car insurance since I started line-hammering... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Having lines of 10 thunderers or 10 crossbows isn’t only realistically typical, but also MORE necessary in this edition, as only the front rank can fire now. Historically and realistically, hand gunners should be allowed to fire in two ranks.
literally linehammer is hammerers with a runepriest because you want those buffed hammers and getting attacked in best case multicharged to even get more attacks. @@NateJones10
and then you realise, you just use something else because they are plain poop. 10 thunderers hit on 4+ (given optimal range) so you get only 5 hits, after wounding and armor you cna be happy to see 1 or 2 losses, and you usually will fire like 2x before some cavalry will arive or all targets are locked in battle, so you are better using Rangers, because for some mysterious reason, thunderers have lost their WS 4 to a WS 3. And so are just expensive points for your opponent to gathercompared to the 7th ed. Thunderers lost their #1 to hit modifier, (only have that when standing and shooting now) lost a WS making them weaker in melee. Yes they gained heavy armor, but this really does not help, because you need to cause casualties to win, which they now can do less than ebfore. Sure they are now much cheaper, but who cares? being able to field more does not work becaus there aren't more that can fight/hit/fire especialy given they now need 25x25 bases taking even more table space. @@mrsnakesmrnot8499
To borrow a videogame term, this is ludonarrative dissonance (at least to me). Tastes differ, but to me (and others im sure) the wargaming table is not just a bunch of playing pieces strategicly placed to beat an opponent, but an invitation to picture a fantastical war, heroics and all. Not only does it feel bad to loose to any kind of cheese (if you are not into that kind of play), you are constantly tempted to act against what feels right. I could lead a heroic charge into my enemy. Or i could cheese and win, fetch me my plank. I often choose the former. I also often loose 😂 House Rules fix most of the issues though. ToW has been fun so far, and your video especially great, even for your already high standard 😊
Absolutely- it creates incentives to do things that not only feel bad from a gaming/nice guy perspective, but also that look horrible. The way battlefields look (and photograph) matters a lot to me, and I don't like doing things that look awful. Online I have much less in the way of scrupples, but in person...
This is somewhat solved with my eternal theory: Warhammer -- of all types -- must be fun, fun, fun. It's innately an unbalanced, wacky game, built around D&D/Tolkienian armies with a splash of British humour, drowned in fog of war insanity, with the wider aim being quite clear -- sell those minis, men! Sell them! Unless you're a pro and have a pack of peanuts on the line, you need to assume that victory is a sinister illusion to be dismissed at all costs! But, joking aside, as you said: it's about the narrative and the actual act of playing with a guy. It really is unbalanced because the core aim is to sell many armies, which I think is a genius business model, and makes for a very fun game, with a heavy focus on narrative and painting (not just gameplay). If all the armies were balanced, selling armies would prove difficult -- and the game would very much become a simple game of tactics, boring, half the lore would make zero sense, and there wouldn't be the classic randomness/wackiness to it, either. The ruleset is clearly not built for balance. A small number of GW players have ever wanted that sort of game. There are other games for that. This is Warhammer, dammit! In short: since we've already thrown balance out the window, we should never demand victory. As a general rule, I might proclaim that every unbalanced game is built for the journey, not the victory. By definition, if you cannot actually predict or work towards consistent victory (say, 60-70% of the time), then how is it balanced/competitive? Why would you care about victory if it's actually just luck wrapped up in order? I'm convinced the only way to enjoy Warhammer is to forget about victory. You either win or you don't. It's about the Orc friends we make along the way. ;) Note: I would be interested to know how in Christ the Old World team came up with some of these weird choices that allows for linehammer to be so crushing. And I wonder if they'll ever re-write the rules to fix that in the future. P.S. Clearly, despite the fact I just said Warhammer is unbalanced and victory is without purpose, everybody still enjoys winning -- that's cool. On top of that, the game itself needs to be functional, and not force everybody into linehammer, to stick with the topic at hand. Even unbalanced, random, journey-based games need to be well-designed. Unbalanced doesn't mean unintelligent! There are some other things I dislike about the Old World rules, as well. But that's fine.
Normally I think avoiding cheese can be a good idea, but this is just one of many core rules issues with the game. It's unfortunately not house-rulable into balance. If you were to get rid of linehammer it would mess up the casualty yield curve. Everything that's not a deathstar doesn't kill stuff quickly enough to be worthwhile. So in order to kill stuff on schedule by turn 5, deathstars like bloodthirsters have to be undercosted at 355 pts. And chaff has to be overcosted in order to prevent it from being too difficult to mostly clear the table in 6 turns. There's no reason for GW to intentionally make a broken game. It's more fun if it's reasonably balanced. Both people who enjoy strategy games and people who want to have a few beers and pretzels will enjoy it more.
@illLoved the video! I love it when smart players deconstruct lousily written GW rules! After 7th ed of WFB (and a few years of 40k) I went on to play Warmachine, and oh boy! It was such a culture shock that everybody expects you to play rules as written and applauds you for using them in cunning, creative ways instead of screaming "foul!" whenever you do something completely legal but unexpected.
Fastest click when I saw this. Now with a ticket to the first TOW tournament at Warhammer World in April I will now be struck with the conundrum of whether to linehammer to the max in order show GW organisers how much it is broken, or reluctantly refuse to improve my opponent’s experience.
I think I'd take dwarves if I wanted to take the most pure and depressing form of linehammer to a tournement to prove a point. The problem with linehammer generally from a purely competitive angle is is that it mostly means taking melee infantry- which are pretty rubbish compared to monsters, heroes, skirmishers. You become quite dependent on linehammer tricks, as well as those teleport spells.
but be careful, dwarves low M may actually cause the reforming into a line more difficult since they actually CAN reach the limit of max 2xM during maneuvers. But surely some Ranger core with crowssbows and throwing axes + a runesmith/lord applying additional forgefire that also works on their ranged attacks may be fun. hammerers on the other hand are impressive too for that purpose but you still need to take a core. Binding a dragon with an oathstone wielding character may be a blast, but then you are low on Wounds compared to the shieldbearers. While slapping a dragon on your character is a pure enhancement, the question is which armor/weapon runes are best against a dragon. So many of them are situational getting T10? or denying multiple wounds? @@DrBlaxill T10 is dope, but denies most wepaon runes due to the costs. I would probably go with dragon slaying and 2x cleaving on a greatweapon. to reduce the armor as much as possible. and for armor it would be fortitude, preservation and Stone. Dwarven rune options really are great but so situational. I miss the 7th edition runes they were much better and allowed dwarves to compete with what others could do. Some core rule items are now much better and cheaper than what dwarves can craft, but their access is denied to them.
So far i have houseruled that only one model on each side of the unit with wider frontage can attack with one supporting attack. As for dragons, beside of the underpriced points value they were given (basically no difference since sixth edition perhaps even points reduction) i think their main issue is stomp attacks, which were introduced with horde formation and supporting ranks, and i think were intended to counterbalance large infantry units with monsters/monstrous infantry, so i just play without stomp attacks in a friendly environment. I like the overall survivability of ridden monsters, perhaps a few tweaks here and there. There was an issue a few years back regarding "rules as written" only the bearer of items with ward saves could benefit from the ward save and not the whole model, so no ward saves for characters on monsters, i'd guess one could interpret it this way again, although it is clearly written that ridden monsters can use the magic armor of their rider if didn't got it wrong. I love GW.
I agree stomp is not great. I would also propose that the reason for stomp and undercosted deathstars is that because of universal steadfast, you have to kill everything through kill stats. So in order to keep the 6 turn time table of most stuff dying, stuff has to be really killy or it lacks a purpose
Rank and flank becomes plank and flank. One thing of note is that a drilled reform before a charge is up for debate and is likely to be errata'd. I would say rules as written it does fly. Simple fix could be a limitations on how many models outside of base to base contact in the front rank can participate in the combat. I like the ideas pushing for wider frontages. The formation in effect would move to envelope. They could change the the combat reform on Fall backs to a redress the ranks instead. They could change the combat reform from overrun to a simple pivot, and maybe a redress the ranks, but it doesn't make sense that the unit has time to change formation after an overrun.
Great watch! Fantastic and funny critique of the pros and cons of linehammer - the reform at the end of a give ground is huge so I'm really glad you covered that. Wood Elves are my main faction and I must admit I've been partaking in some "skirmish-hammer" . Takes me back to how Wood Elves were back in the day. I am interested to see if you would use line hammer in a battle, maybe we will meet on the fields of UB sometime!
It is the opportunity to reform in enemy turns that is so powerful. That was of course always powerful in 8th, but now there are so many contexts where combats are broken so reforms are permitted- hence the 'spin and win' phenomenon. One thing I can certainly say about my own games (15 so far): I've never claimed a rank bonus and will be surprised if I ever do! Absolutely, happy to play you on UB. Drop me an email if you would like to arrange (it's on my profile or you can find with Google)
Where is written that a unit that "gives ground" can do a reform? A unit that fell back in good order can do a reform as it rallies after the movement but I do not find it in the rules that you can reform after giving ground.
enjoy the skirmish hammer, the woold elves now have some seriously dope, probably the best shooting options in the whole TOW. the character sniper bows, ther arrows, ohhh what nice things.
I think the linehammer debate is based on a superficial reading of the rules: reforming allow only to change formation type (close order, open order or skirmish) or adopt e different formation (like triangular for bretonnian cavalry). What @dr Luke does, is changing the shape of a unit that is feasible only with the manoeuvre “redress the ranks” that limits the amount of movable models to 5 and it is not applicable after a rally. I hope this explanation clarify and address the fear of linehammer in competitive games where the rules are supposed to be applied rigorously. Best
Reform allows you to "change its formation" (move your models around however you want) or "adopt a different formation" (change to lance, skirmish, open order, closed order). Reform is easy to to think of this way: move your models however you want but don't move more than double your movement to get there. All of the examples in this video are legal reforms.
Great video! IF I ever takes my tombkings to a tournament, I will bring a line of 20 Ushabti archers.. and hide a few lvl. 1 priest behind them to heal them. Good luck doing anything about that. this video grants you a subscription!
A few ideas on concessionary rules (some more restrictive than others): 1. Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks up to a number equal to their rank bonus - this is my favorite, so I posit it first. I like this because it incentivizes the classic rank and flank play-style we gentlemen have come to expect in the civilized world of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. It also allows units of hordes to pile in more attacks for being a massive block. It is, however, most restrictive, and would result in at most only 2 additional attacks in most cases. The benefit is also hard to achieve, as it requires your unit to have both deep columns and wide ranks 2. Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks up to a number equal to their movement value - least restrictive, but adds some verisimilitude to the rule. I am not sure however that this prevents the linehammer problem, as it does only add a small restriction to it for slower armies 3. Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks for each flank of the enemy unit that the fighting rank extends beyond base to base contact with - very restrictive (at most, 2 extra attacks) 4. Perhaps a slightly less restrictive rule could be a combination of 1 and 3, although this begins to become convoluted: Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks for each flank of the enemy unit that the fighting rank extends beyond base to base contact with. If a unit can make at least one supporting attack in this way, it may make additional supporting attacks equal to its rank bonus. edited for better clarity
I like that first one although I also find it quite funny how your big blob of one attack skeletons might have one really keen skeleton on the side who's just going ham with his spear!
I think your #1 option is the cleanest. What if the supporting attack bonus applies to *both sides* of the fighting rank not in base-to-base contact? Example (all bases 25x25): Unit A with a frontage of 4 models and 3 ranks, is engaged with Unit B whose frontage is 12, also with 3 ranks. Unit B has 6 models in base-to-base contact and +2 rank bonus. So, an additional 2 support attacks on *both ends* of its engaged models may strike for a total of 10 models attacking. This would allow the rule to still be in play but limit its use to units in a block formation. I suspect many opponents will run their units 7 wide, so to max out this rule tweak, a player may find he needs to run his unit at 13x3. Is it worth investing in 39+ models for the chance of 4 extra attacking models? In most cases, I think not - although seeing a 40 model block on the tabletop is impressive!
I like something along the lines of option 1 because it encourages ranks as you've said. I suggested something similar in the comments to Dr Blaxill's previous Linehammer video except I was proposing supporting attacks up to double the rank bonus and an extra 2 if in combat with a single model unit (for a bit of extra help for infantry against big monsters).
Dude, I don’t even care if you are right or wrong(but you are right), I just love all of it. The vibe, the delivery all of it feel like it was made just for me! It’s incredible. Please keep producing content.
Oh god, you really thought about every possibility! Yes, it's very bad, and not just for aesthetics. The case where someone makes a unit fly across the battlefield because you're too far away to dispel, it's another big case and deserves a video of his own.
"But until the priests are sent in, me and Satan are taking you on a one way trip to linear hell" Dr Luke, please write a book, specifically about line hammer. I will then read said book, laugh myself into a stupor before finally combusting into the remnants of a slightly dry pork scratching. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THINK OF LINEHAMMER!
I have already written a book as it happens (google my name) but I don't think its subject matter is quite as engaging as LINEHAMMER. The book will not take a conventional form however. It will be one long sentence with no line breaks, several hundred miles long.
Cool video but the example of a 5 by 4 becoming a little wouldn't be legal You can only add or subtract upto 5 models in your front rank with a refress the ranks. (Page 125)
I think the community should set a few gentleman's agreements about the line. I'd love to hear how you would solve linehammer without changing the rulebook
OK, so making the “base contact” house rule makes dragonhammer even more of a problem. Yeah, the more I think of it, to amend the “base contact only” rule, when a behemoth (dragon, hydra, etc.) is engaged in the front rank of regular infantry or cavalry, let’s say, for instance, that six models are in base contact with the behemoth. So, the infantry / cavalry unit may fight with two more ranks than it normally can, thus representing the behemoth wading into the unit, and the unit enveloping it. But not the entire rank necessarily can fight if the frontage is too wide. If six models in the front rank are in contact with the monster, then the supporting ranks may also provide six attacks from each extra rank. So, a spearmen unit that normally can fight in two ranks in certain situations could possibly fight in four ranks while the behemoth is to its front (not flank or rear). That would be 6 (base contact) multiplied by 4 (ranks total) equalling 24 attacks on the behemoth. This encourages formations with ranks. Spears are special, so most units would fight a behemoth with three ranks, but this should give incentive for pikemen to be added to the mix. (5 ranks?) --Thoughts?
Regarding who can fight in a unit. The rules states that any row, be it rank or file, with at least one model in base to base contact with an enemy, is a fighting rank. All models in a fighting rank may attack. A 5 by 4 unit that is in base to base contact with all models in the front rank should therefore be able to claim that all 5 files are fighting ranks, allowing all models to fight. Of course, I understand that that is not what is intended, but it's my literal interpretation of the "The Fighting Rank" paragraph on page 145.
Around 13:20 or so the line that wheels for its charge and causes the knight unit to close the door would be a disordered charge since the enemy unit had to move, so the warriors would not get the initiative bonus from charging, but are probably just fine in this case anyways since most knights are initiative 3. Great vid.
yes, although only a limited penalty. It's a shame certain situations doesn't cause the line to lose the side supporting attacks- but even if they're rear charged they still get the lot
Agreed. Oh, they undoubtedly were. I have framed it provocatively of course. However I think constructive criticism is the best approach. It makes it likelier they'll errata/houserules will become common and accepted
I agree the clearly superior and practical rule to linehammer is; base to base and allowing the second rank to contribute a single supporting attack, with spears fighting in 2 ranks normally and 3 ranks when charged. But I think there is a simple solution: creating a limit on the model count of unit width. For example: Only allowing ranks at a maximum of one base movement value from the central model. Now this would limit most normal M4 infantry to a 9 wide formation, M5 unarmored beastmen hordes to a 11 wide formation, and M3 dwarfs to a 7 wide formation. This would theoretically allow Monsterous infantry to form 13 wide lines, but would negate the effectiveness of their multiple attacks and generally be prohibitively expensive points-wise. This would also obviously allow cavalry to achieve long line formations, but seeing as they are generally acknowledged to be underpowered in this edition and that this is historically how cavalry would have been used in the real world, I consider this a non-issue. The one caveat is that there may be grumbling from dwarf players that this limits the effectiveness of their gunlines, though some allowance may be afforded to missile troops, I'm not sure that's necessary. There is also the option of simply limiting a maximum rank to 10 models period, problem solved. What are your thoughts? I have only just discovered your channel and am a big fan of your battle reports and in-depth analysis of the game. Thanks for the great videos I hope you make more!
Indeed, thanks. In my tournament we are limiting width to 10, although having it contingent on movement as you suggest adds a nice layer of realism to the mix. The broader problem is alas that removing linehammer makes infantry worse, which is the last thing I want to do. I just wish they placed some incentive to go deep and not wide. There *are* supporting attacks in OW- just sideways! Ditto, there *is* step up- but its step sideways! I am not sure what the creators had against putting combat potential backwards, and in favour of putting it sideways!
@@DrBlaxill I suspect there may have been a monetary incentive in that wide units require models where as deep units can employ unit filler bases to artificially inflate their numbers. But I'd wager that given the generally smaller table size, amount of terrain, and current propensity for a MSU meta that linehammer in practical terms is a non-issue as individual units don't usually if ever have the space to spread out across half the board at any given angle without terrain or other units making it impossible to achieve or maneuver. There is also a potential counter in the form of chariot spam allowing a multitude of impact hits striking first, attack density, at a longer charge range, and stacking close order combat resolution that you could fit in a wide frontage to overcome the potential wounds caused and lack of static combat resolution of a lined up 20 man unit that will have to split its attacks between targets with whatever is left after the charge to maximize wounds caused and minimize fight back. Also you mentioned that there were game breaking possibilities inherent in the Skirmishing rules, which seems very intriguing, and I was wondering if you may be releasing a video on that in the near future?
Rules Question: when you fall back in good you pivot away from the centre of the unit you are fleeing from. do you hover over enemies then flee or do you pivot as much as you can without overlaping other units?
BRING BACK BRICKS I SAY! I demand BLOCKS of Arabyan (counts as empire) spearmen! I wish to push base trays around and roll dice! Not push around long rulers!
I read the rules in a different language and thought it meant for "change formation" (6), with unfortunate wording, that the 5 model rule of "change ranks" (5) also applies to "change formation" (6).So (6) would be "You can either do an up to 180 turn and "change ranks" (5) OR do an up to 180 turn and change the core concept of the formation. Probably I'm wrong but it would fix some pain points... I guess.
The big problem with true base to base attacks is how they’ve gotten rid of the modified leadership break tests. It would make it so that you still get line hammer, but now every anvil unit is a Konga Line instead. In 8th edition, minimizing attacks into your stubborn units with this Konga Line was extremely powerful… But now every unit in the game is 8th edition stubborn.
Your mindset regarding breaking a game is exactly what one needs to be a successful QA-Tester for video games, its a very useful skill to have. If nothing else, it certainly is very entertaining :D
Dragonhammer is easier to counter, if dragons are always played you pick dragonslayer sword always, and one 6 and it's done. Linehammer on the other side requires but ton of terrain to limit line length or some gentelman rules, skirmished are simply AOS and if someone likes that go for aos I guess
But dragons counter lines due to breathweapon and flank charge stuff. I do hope gw does some rule to only allow 1 model on sides that are not in base to base contact to make the attacks. They could also easily add the third rank bonus back and hordes get 4 ofc.
@@cmxpiipl que the line from side to side bit. I don't know how people say that 1 line wide formations are easy to flank. 1 collumn formations sure, but 1 line wide, you have to first move to that flank which with 20 models wide can consume your whole movement, and then you need to hope that your enemy won't move in a way that your flank will becoem a rear charge, which is easy. Next breath weapon works best not in line but in square proper rank and file formation, as you simply can get more models under the cone. The biggest thing wit ranks not working here is that 3 extra kills are better than rank bonus, as not only you get extra points in combat resulution that way, your opponents have less models to attack you in next round. Even if they'd limit the amount of points you get by killing enemny you still want to maximize attacks simply by if there is no enemy there is noone to make you roll break tests. The only solution is to properly limit how many models in front rank can attack
I think GW where trying to simulate the “wrap around” mechanic of previous editions, it is kinda weird if you have 10 wide vs 5 wide the ones on the end just chill and don’t attack with the base to base of previous edition
You're right. If my chaos warriors were on the right bases (30mm not 25mm) their maximum line spawn would be reduced to 18 from 20. Not a huge change, but not irrelevant either.
Ok so I have officially played Old World Warhammer, and I played as Ogres against Wood Elves. My game was 1500 points begrudgingly because that's what my opponent brought. Since my units were small (never more than 5 wide) that's what I used because otherwise I would be at a disadvantage to my opponent WHO WAS USING LINEHAMMER!!! The 15-wide wildwood rangers with 30+ melee attacks, the 11-wide glade guard who sit in their little forests and pelt my units from afar! I can't win against it! Unless I have equal numbers (Which ogres will never have), defeating an army like this is impossible. Should've expected as much from a backstabbing knife-ear.
A few things. First of all, I do think that the 'fighting rank' rule is weird, and needs addressing. I'd also like to say that I find myself mixing rules from 6 editions of Warhammer, so, PSA; I don't intend to be dismissive or attack you with this. I just find the entire Linehammer discussion tiring, especially after being happy that my fav TT game returned. Also, absolutely loving the spirited delivery. Keep it up! 1. Line applications. I agree that the free reform at the end of FBIGO is a bit much, especially seeing how the winner gets 'nothing' (unless they're drilled), but: It is my understanding of the rules that, during a reform, no model in the unit may move more than its M characteristic. There's page 124 that says no matter the maneuver, no model may move more than (2xM), but that doesn't mean that you get 2xM for every maneuver. The only case where you do is if the unit marches, and then it may not reform. So, all models in unit red here would have to get into their line-appropriate position with M4. And I think you'll find that hard to pull off. An inch is slightly more than 25mm, so at best you'd get a unit of 12 in rank 1, 8 in rank 2. Also, in tournaments you'd probably be required to mount these guys on 30mm squares. It would still put you in a significantly stronger position for subsequent turns. If I've missed a paragraph about you getting more movement during a reform, please, sincerely, let me know. 2. Conga Chaff. What I do now is declare a charge with all units onto the appropriate targets, resolving CC with the the dogs first and then pursuing into the line, fighting again with all units, and butchering the line. If you flee, I redirect charges. Yes, I need leadership checks to do that, but, on average, that shouldn't be an issue for most units that you want to declare charges with. And I don't assume that I have 5 times as many points as you have. I assume that the line occupies space in the form of a single front that is significantly higher than its own value, or, if we invented a measure like 'points per ince' (Popi for short), the line has a really low Popi score. The amount of Popi I can amass directly opposite to it is important. It's obviously not 'whole army against line', but assuming that you're facing 2 or 3 units, while your own units are stuck behind the line? That's very likely. 3. Flying picket line. Steed of Shadows doesn't allow you to charge. I'm not certain if that's what you're demonstrating there, and it's a very VERY strong spell, don't get me wrong. Not available to everyone, though. In any case, it's a conveyance spell that happens in the 'remaining moves' subphase after charges have been resolved (and after you had the chance to declare charges.) You can, obviously, park the line there, but then you'll get multi-charged. I'm just assuming I get something in return for you having a Lvl 4 wizard. Conveyance Spells are still a good way to surprise an enemy. 4. Fantasy Flanks: Yeah, okay, if you want to build a 72" long unit, sure. The multi-charge issue strikes again, and your army is stuck either behind or in front of it. In any case, charging the flank isn't the resolution to the line problem. It's either big monsters (for the armies that have them), or multicharges. In case of dwarves, you're screwed. 5. Driller Killer The facing you charge is determined the moment you declare a charge, not when you make a Charge move. You can't use a 'redress' to suddenly be in the flank. Page 127, paragraph 2.
Hello Luke and all the members of the community reading this. From my Empire players' community in Spain, we have certain doubts about the rules that we believe that the rulebook doesn't clarify, and maybe someone can help us. I'm going to list a set of doubts/questions to see if someone could answer. It would be of great help, and I would be very grateful. 1- **Wrath Of Winter:** Until your next Start of Turn sub-phase, this model, its mount, and any unit it has joined gain the Multiple Wounds (2) special rule. -- Does it affect shooting? 2- **Hochland Long Rifle:** A model armed with a Hochland long rifle can target a specific model within its target unit, such as a champion or a character. -- Can this model benefit from the "Look Out, Sir!" rule? In other editions, it didn't benefit, but it had -1 to hit. 3- **Steam Tank Turret:** Is it considered a breath weapon? -- Can it shoot 360 degrees? 4- **Hammer Of Sigmar:** Until your next Start of Turn sub-phase, this model, its mount, and a single friendly unit that is within its Command range when this Prayer is chanted may re-roll any rolls To Hit or To Wound of a natural 1 made during the Combat phase. -- Can it reroll both, or only one of them? 5- Can the tank cannon shoot shrapnel? I hope someone can help us. Thank you very much, and greetings to all.
At 24:30 or so you discuss how infantry has always been a lackluster unit type despite being in the forefront of marketing of Warhammer and this hit home so hard. When I played (start of 6th to end of 8th) that always bugged me more and more. The promise and reality don't match. A whole part of the game was always woefully underpowered. And that sucked. If they didn't fix that in Old World, I don't know what they really even went for.
With the example of Chaos Warriors vs Men at Arms it looks like you are reforming and charging in the same turn. If that's the case, that's an illegal move since charging units are not allowed to "perform a turn, move backwards, move sideways, redress the ranks or reform manoeuvre during its charge move,: (p.1216) Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I’m looking forward to putting down my 1813 Prussian Leipzig army…. Seems perfect for linehammer. I keep getting put off by getting deeper into ToW, I have played WHFB since 3rd edition, ToW just doesn’t seem well written, rules wise.
I think the tactic of falling back in good order from an unfavourable combat, then reforming into a line to go back in with more attacks is quite strategic. Maybe tournaments could comp lines at max 10.
Jank Heaven!! This was the purest of linehammer discussions. You could have gotten nasty and thrown in drilled. You don’t have to deploy in a line. You do not need to be a linehammer player. It’s not a play style. It’s situationally bonkers. You could march up in pretty ranks and then declare a charge and be able to see clear as day that you have room for 17 wide frontage after terrain / obstacles. 10 more models swinging vs 1 or two ranks of combat Rez doesn’t take much mathing out. Why not even go 15 wide with 5 supporting attacks giving you a rank anyway. Why would you do anything else? If you smash them into little pieces you are even rewarded with a reform. Never once exposing a line. I agree that we are collectively imagining that the game is a certain way and it’s very likely not. Once the tourneys start rolling we will find out pretty quick!! Shout out to the content creators for enjoying the game themselves and delivering quality content by giving the ppl what they want. Good clean fun. The Jank will come soon enough.
i think the intent behind eschewing base to base and instead just allowing the entire front rank to attack was a combination of simplification and, more importantly, to give infantry the ability to hit back at small base-size targets like chariots or monsters. now, the obvious answer to this would be to allow "base to base plus 1" (or two? idk, i'll leave that to the game designers to argue over) or to reintroduce some version of supporting attacks. but for one reason or another, GW seems intent on not doing either of those... and until they do so, it seems we're stuck in a bit of a pickle. another, softer, solution, could be to at least limit the free reforms to only being able to add/subtract a single rank (or column?) at a time. Not a complete fix, but better than nothing. and/or perhaps choosing between pivoting redressing ranks... but now we're reaching high levels of fiddly without really adressing the core issue.
Another excellent, insightful and provocative take on TOW. Many thanks! I agree Linehammer is probably more challenging to fix than Dragonhammer, which as you say is the most pressing issue and absolutely MUST be fixed soon.
This video fills my head with little thoughts... You know, strange as it sounds, I was thinking about how if I designed a wargame like Warhammer, a very non-serious, painting and modelling kind of hobby game, I would want it to have one stupid way to break the game that just dominates if you do it. Not something like, oh if you take a bunch of cannons you'll always win, not if you buy the new Necron codex and use their special Warlord Trait you'll always win, something like this, something like if you line your guys up in 4 foot wide units, you'll just dominate the game. Because then it becomes D&D and you're both the DM. Anyone at any time can just break the game and win, as long as they're willing to do something silly that just destroys the underlying story and fantasy. And then like D&D it inevitably becomes about something else besides winning. But also this Linehammer business reminds me of maybe the thing I hate the most in the game, and always kind of have, and that's how far removed from reality this "gaming" the unit is. It has no corollary in real life, in the Middle Ages you couldn't go to your peasant spearmen and be like, "Alright, we'll form you up ten wide to maximize your attacks because the wider the line the more attacks you get, that's how real spear fighting works, and five ranks deep, so during the battle you'll get a bonus to your psychology because you'll all look around you and see how many ranks you have, and you'll feel quite safe." It's all total nonsense, there's no dividing men into squares like that in real battles, both sides essentially had equal opportunity to attack, deaths apparently happened rather slowly between infantry units, and nobody felt braver or more cowardly based on the number of men in the small square he was told to stand with. Linehammer doesn't offend my eyes especially, because I already had my time to be outraged at the stupidity of deathstars. I don't know that there's any way to do unit based combat based around the individual soldier the way WFB does it, as opposed to just having the unit be the quanta used within the rules, that isn't really gamey and on some level stupid. I like the idea of all the soldiers in the front rank getting to fight, in that it's about recognizing the extreme unreality of the tight square of little guys with their feet stuck on bases, guys on the end would be able to lap around. But then if that's the case, the guys on the flanks of the less-wide-unit should be eligible to fight too, and the wider-unit shouldn't be able to get more attacks than that less-wide-unit has extra guys on the flanks to attack. Which might mitigate things a little. And also, just not letting units get beyond 25cm seems reasonable. Whether as a house rule, or just a standing gentleman's agreement, in addition to not taking dragons, and taking it easy with skirmishers. Though if that doesn't suit competitive players and they enjoy doing crazy things with lines of Chaos Warriors 8 feet wide, then that's another way to have fun.
Thank you Doctor is is good to talk about improving the old world rules as we all want a game we can play that is enjoyable and one we can play at a competitive level. Let’s hope we get response from GW.
Our tournaments here have started adding a limit of double your unit rank. Seems to have solved the issue rather quickly and makes the game quite good. So for example heavy infantry and cavalry are normally 4 - 8, Infantry are 5 - 10 and then monstrous infantry are 3 - 6.
so smallest unit is 8 models for heavy inf? 4 line, 2 deep? And normal inf is minimum 15 models? 5 front 3 deep. Feels like it make skirmishers a lot worse? And gun lines of 5 front and 2 deep won't be allowed anymore?
@@oitoitoi1He means that you can be maximum wide dubble the minimum width you can have to get rank bonus. 4 for heavy infantry, 5 for normal 3 for monstrous etc.
although you went through multiple situations, it seems like lines would be extremely easy to chaff. Have the lines actually been used effectifly in your games? In a 2000 Point game I imagine maneuvering lines to be quite challlenging. But especially the reform shenanigans seem very exploitable.
I actually quite like the look of lines, but I'm sure that is because I am one of those historical players entering Fantasy, and I definitely understand why people don't really like how it looks. It does however feel extremely strange that one guy 15 models away can swing the air and kill someone, but its so easy to just say "infantry can be a maximum of 10 wide" or something like that if they really wanted to keep it in for whatever reason, and selfishly I do hope they keep it in lol.
Linehammer rule just breaks the game, and it's a physical complete nonsense; it just proves they haven't play tested the game enough. Waiting to laugh at all those lines at tournaments XD
I have a new scenario of linehammer for you. 2 lines of 15+ marauders of slaanesh with flails are practically touching following each other. They get beat well and run over the top of the unit behind them and are now not catchable as seen on page 157 of the core book, and now the winner of the combat has to choose between a 1” pursuit charge bonus into this new unit of flails with a fresh strength bonus… or… they likely don’t have great options here… whether the first unit broke and fled or FBIGO, the next lines save them.
Yes. I like the idea of one line hard behind another to minimise the initiative bonus on the charge. This partially circumvents the obvious 'running out of space' problem with linehammer. The imperitive to actually physically touch pursuers rather than simply equal their flee roll is a very important (and bad in my opinion) change.
The more I hear… I believe I will stick on my 6th and 5th edition :) maybe adding the fall back rule on my 6th edition rules 😂 I still have 4 1/2 armies to finalize since my 5th edition lizardmen …
My god… so would he or … or would he!!! I can only wait in baited anticipation on who puts forth the video in which that question is answered. Now as for me… looking in those soulless black eyes… I would wager a horrific Yes!!!
I'm glad I don't play in tourneys or with WAAC players.... Ooooof this is disgusting, hoping as the video plays on you have a suggestion for fixing the rules.
I play another rank/flank called Conquest, and it says that when you reform a unit you can't move a stand (model) more than half its movement in the shuffle. I feel something like that and base-to-base fighting would entirely solve the issue for Old World?
All jokes aside , line hammer is pretty dumb. I’d rather have step up back. Oh and crossbow men and handgunners should be able to shoot in two ranks. They should add that.
So I'm yet to play my first game of TOW, but you can't argue with the maths behind Linehammer being inherently the way to go in certain situations. Whether that's a good or bad thing yet I have no idea, but I'm already planning to take 30 Spearmen in a 10x3 formation rather than the usual 5x6 as it's just going to hit so much harder and allow so many more attacks back when my front rank inevitably get obliterated when charged. Kudos on coining a phrase that I'm not seeing all over the internet Dr Luke! Linehammer is here to stay :P
Yes- the way the term 'linehammer' has taken fire is interesting- thats gone far further than those who saw my videos. I don't have a resolution, but there is some debate on whether the spearman who die as casulties beyond the front ranks (overspill into second) are effected by 'no step up' or not. Just something a spearman player should be aware of if you are not already.
I love the terrain debate because it does work, especially when you roleplay a destroyed town, and there’s literally no space to put your models as you have to constantly reform to get through walkways and through corridors, like an invasion or a siege
I thought of deploying a line along the entire board this morning coincidentally, before watching this video. I was thinking 73 Bretoninnian peasant archers with defensive stakes to cancel out enemy rank bonus or force dangerous terrain tests in some stuff. Hopefully GW will tone down Linehammer some in an update as it is too good currently.
In your point about why Linehammer was brought into being, as a consequence of models in the front rank being able to attack regardless of base contact, I think it is important to consider Games Workshop's previous statements about the game. During development, it was stressed that returning players would be able to play The Old World with old Fantasy armies, and that rebasing was not necessary to do this (even against armies on the new larger base sizes). Obviously, this was misguided at best and deceptive at worst as we now know that several aspects of the rules change depending on what sized bases models are on. Linehammer, however, and the removal of base-to-base contact requirements for combat, does correspond to this idea that you can play with mismatched bases sizes. GW just didn't consider how far-ranging the implications of this change would reach.
There are a lot of clues the core rules changed many times over the course of development (as they would naturally during the development of a game), but artifacts of older versions have snuck through to the published rulebook. Thanks to some insider talk we know the whole "can marching ordered units charge?" and "can a drilled unit reform and charge in the same turn" debates are the result of GW not being careful and clean when writing the final version of the core rules - these are artifacts from older versions of the game when these things were likely explicitly permitted.
Maybe standard chaos warriors aren't supposed to have good odds to kill dragons. Maybe a character who invests 50 points in a dragon slaying sword is the one that lady luck is expected to favour. Bit of a pain that cannons and the like have become so poor at that role though. The supremacy of longer lines simulates the real world supermacy of longer lines. If WH players are ignorant of that (and clearly at least some are), it's too bad and I think you're right, many will find it frustrating and inscrutible, but it certainly does simulate something sensible. If you're standing at the end of a line of ten men, with a one metre spacing and you bump into a hostile line of twelve men, with a one metre spacing, you are outnumbered two to one. The guy standing next to you is about to be outnumbered three to one. The next guy, four to one. Next, five to one. That's the end of the line. The idea that those extra two guys should sit the combat out, when in reality, they're the ones who would win it decisively, is quite silly. I think you're right that these units may still be weak compared to skirmishers. There's some possibility that GW did test it extensively and found that skirmishers were so busted at a high level that they had to remove the base to base rule for rank and file blocks in order to have them see competitive play at all.
but back in fourth edition when i used to play i ALWAYS had a line of archers, suddenly my old tactics i used in fourth having a single line archer unit, and now il be hated lol
~14:00 This one doesn't actually work. Charge arc is determined when the charge is declared, not when the unit moves. Since the Chosen were in the front arc at the time of declaring their charge while in the conga-line, then even if drilled works (debate/FAQ still up in the air), that would be a front charge even if the redress puts them in a position that would otherwise have called for a flank charge.
... Because GW knows that we'll all pay top $$ to be their beta testers, what is the business case to properly stress test thier games? Hell, we'll buy tow anyway.
I am partial to the fighting rank concept as it was one of my own ideas from some years back when I was trying to address that bugbear of arbitrarily prescribed ranks in Warhammer. In other words, how do we make a rank of 6 better, and not actually worse, than a rank of 5? Matt Ward's answer was to give you an extra rank of supporting attacks, but only once you reach a frontage of 10. Another artificial prescription. I thought: why not simply allow everyone in the front rank to attack? Wider frontages would automatically become better in a progressive fashion without the need of a contrived horde rule. Obviously, I did not think through all the ways such a rule might be gamed and abused-as you have done so deftly and thoroughly-but it did seem a good idea at the time.
I don't know if you are right, but you are certainly entretaining! btw there is certainly no reason to have more than 3 ranks unless you are a horde isn't it? so linehammer holds at least in a softer form in any case.
How, Drilled allows you to march within 8" and increase frontage by 5 models only before you move. You don't get a reform.@@alexandergoldnatznworeptil9652
I knew instantly when reading the rules that linehammer would happen, but it happening is in some cases a sort of necessaty. The causes are not only that each model in the first Rank can attack, it is more necessary by the problem of striking back. The rule of "stepping forward" basically denies many armies that have slower Initiative or generally weaker combatants to strike back due to casualties. And if you cannot even roll for attacks, how are you suppsed to win a melee? The meager passive combat result points won't even that out. So even if models without base contact would not been allowed to attack, you still want to be wide, because models replacing others in the rank sideways are still allowed to strike back. Even if they walk half a mile from the battlefield to the center,compared to just stepping over a dead body. So you need to caclulate the casualties you take into how wide do I need to still get enough attacks into the opponents to even those casualties out. Some armies cannot make support attacks at all. They cannot rely on the second rank doing anything. I am visually wise not against lines in Warhammer. In Total War, lines are my entirely to go "deniers" a line is a great way to protect the troops behind them. Reforming wide shortly before the enemy arrives to deny access to shooters or warmachines behind them is still a nice tactial and valid move. One that TOW does allow now to be much easier to do. And two long lines battling it out is also quite a nice view on the battlefield. But those extra attacks from all front models really is a bad design choice. Removing that and removing the stepping forward rule would be a much better move to fix that weird thing. It would still allow lines to exist and having a purpose to deny access. I would also like to see crowssbows and handguns being able to shoot from the second rank (except repeater handguns). To give those ranged units some usability again. Basically, the first rank kneeling down to shoot whil the second one stays standing and shooting over their battlecomrades. but right now, with handguns having less range than crowssbows and on 25mm bases, standing 10 wide to even get some wounds across the board is so putiful useless that it makes me cry. Dwarven Thunderers lost their +1 to hit modifier(7th ed) and kept their BS 3. they are now the worst handgunners out there. slow, hardly hit anything (low amount of shots and 3BS), pretty short range and all that with such Profile. A major reason why Dragons became so good is that Warmachines became so bad and their HP melt into their rider. No engineers for warmachines anymore enhancing BS, so you now have BS3 as the basic non improvable crew, that usually hits on 5 on long range on 5 and with any sort of cover and only on 6 if both applies. Shooting anything than volley based missile weapons is a waste of points unless that shooting unit is something elite like dwarven rangers who also can properly fight in melee or having repeater handguns. Not shooing from 2 ranks makes any non volley missile unit not being a BS5 now absolutely horrible useless just taking valid points and space on the battlefield for better options. The only threat were previously those ranged units modyfing armor significantly, but those units have now lost a lot value due to not shooting from a second rank anymore. And the mobility of dragons now easily lets you outmaneuver those units because they usually have short blackpowder based ranges. I have yet not seen any game where shooting such weapons made any sort of proper impact. Organ guns now also needing to hit (with BS3) after determining shots makes even them weak with their short range. So what do you use against dragons at all? Surely not shooting. the "best" option is anything that nullifies another roll to wound or armor, like poison. May be a dwarven ballista with Rune of skewering as it ignores armor. But truly working shoopting options are a very rare option only for a few armies with specialists able to.
The silent stock footage of 2x4’s being produced was comedy gold.
The grinding sawmill of doom! Ruthlessly mechanising the linehammerisation of the world!
@@DrBlaxill
Reminded me of Twin Peaks. Intentional?
Really had some great twin peaks vibes
The most important debate of our age.
Yes- take it to the market square!
@@DrBlaxill I think next time you need to do the video standing on a literal soapbox
@@oitoitoi1lol yes. Take it to Nottingham and set it up by that Stormcast eternal statue (installed as I recall pretty much on day 1 of AOS to symbolise the beginning of the new era) and start ranting until they listen!
@DrBaxill PLEASE. DO. THIS.
Yes they set up that sigmarine abomination immediately in some sort of khmer rougesque attempt at year 0. They pulled down the space marine statue for it. Last time I checked aos sales are still barely 20% of 40k and that proportion is shrinking not growing.
I like to think of AoS as some sort of populist demagogue, they achieve short term success that is inevitably followed by disaster.
I've found line hammer works great with small chaff, open order, quick shooters, like corsairs. A fast reform, 20 shot + 20 stand and shoots, plus 10 ensuing attacks dispatches cheap targets like zombies quite fast. I also saved 15% on car insurance since I started line-hammering...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wasn’t convinced that line-hammer was a thing until I realized (and as you mentioned) how easy it is to reform.
Except you can never move more than twice your movement when reforming.
"Critics lining up " *dies*
We’ll see if the critics of line hammer “lineup” they would ironically be unbeatable
"read the small print when you play me Punks!" - GOLD
my Dwarf gun line army keeps getting confused with a line hammer army
If you take great weapons you are a linehammer army too!
Having lines of 10 thunderers or 10 crossbows isn’t only realistically typical, but also MORE necessary in this edition, as only the front rank can fire now. Historically and realistically, hand gunners should be allowed to fire in two ranks.
@@mrsnakesmrnot8499 Totally agree. It's a shame, too.😢
literally linehammer is hammerers with a runepriest because you want those buffed hammers and getting attacked in best case multicharged to even get more attacks. @@NateJones10
and then you realise, you just use something else because they are plain poop. 10 thunderers hit on 4+ (given optimal range) so you get only 5 hits, after wounding and armor you cna be happy to see 1 or 2 losses, and you usually will fire like 2x before some cavalry will arive or all targets are locked in battle, so you are better using Rangers, because for some mysterious reason, thunderers have lost their WS 4 to a WS 3. And so are just expensive points for your opponent to gathercompared to the 7th ed. Thunderers lost their #1 to hit modifier, (only have that when standing and shooting now) lost a WS making them weaker in melee. Yes they gained heavy armor, but this really does not help, because you need to cause casualties to win, which they now can do less than ebfore. Sure they are now much cheaper, but who cares? being able to field more does not work becaus there aren't more that can fight/hit/fire especialy given they now need 25x25 bases taking even more table space. @@mrsnakesmrnot8499
To borrow a videogame term, this is ludonarrative dissonance (at least to me).
Tastes differ, but to me (and others im sure) the wargaming table is not just a bunch of playing pieces strategicly placed to beat an opponent, but an invitation to picture a fantastical war, heroics and all.
Not only does it feel bad to loose to any kind of cheese (if you are not into that kind of play), you are constantly tempted to act against what feels right. I could lead a heroic charge into my enemy. Or i could cheese and win, fetch me my plank. I often choose the former. I also often loose 😂
House Rules fix most of the issues though. ToW has been fun so far, and your video especially great, even for your already high standard 😊
Absolutely- it creates incentives to do things that not only feel bad from a gaming/nice guy perspective, but also that look horrible. The way battlefields look (and photograph) matters a lot to me, and I don't like doing things that look awful. Online I have much less in the way of scrupples, but in person...
This is somewhat solved with my eternal theory: Warhammer -- of all types -- must be fun, fun, fun. It's innately an unbalanced, wacky game, built around D&D/Tolkienian armies with a splash of British humour, drowned in fog of war insanity, with the wider aim being quite clear -- sell those minis, men! Sell them!
Unless you're a pro and have a pack of peanuts on the line, you need to assume that victory is a sinister illusion to be dismissed at all costs!
But, joking aside, as you said: it's about the narrative and the actual act of playing with a guy. It really is unbalanced because the core aim is to sell many armies, which I think is a genius business model, and makes for a very fun game, with a heavy focus on narrative and painting (not just gameplay). If all the armies were balanced, selling armies would prove difficult -- and the game would very much become a simple game of tactics, boring, half the lore would make zero sense, and there wouldn't be the classic randomness/wackiness to it, either. The ruleset is clearly not built for balance. A small number of GW players have ever wanted that sort of game. There are other games for that. This is Warhammer, dammit!
In short: since we've already thrown balance out the window, we should never demand victory. As a general rule, I might proclaim that every unbalanced game is built for the journey, not the victory. By definition, if you cannot actually predict or work towards consistent victory (say, 60-70% of the time), then how is it balanced/competitive? Why would you care about victory if it's actually just luck wrapped up in order?
I'm convinced the only way to enjoy Warhammer is to forget about victory. You either win or you don't. It's about the Orc friends we make along the way. ;)
Note: I would be interested to know how in Christ the Old World team came up with some of these weird choices that allows for linehammer to be so crushing. And I wonder if they'll ever re-write the rules to fix that in the future.
P.S. Clearly, despite the fact I just said Warhammer is unbalanced and victory is without purpose, everybody still enjoys winning -- that's cool. On top of that, the game itself needs to be functional, and not force everybody into linehammer, to stick with the topic at hand. Even unbalanced, random, journey-based games need to be well-designed. Unbalanced doesn't mean unintelligent! There are some other things I dislike about the Old World rules, as well. But that's fine.
@SwitchTalkChannel warhammer is a pretty balanced game, GW unfortunately just lost any desire to make it reasonably balanced a couple editions ago.
Normally I think avoiding cheese can be a good idea, but this is just one of many core rules issues with the game. It's unfortunately not house-rulable into balance. If you were to get rid of linehammer it would mess up the casualty yield curve. Everything that's not a deathstar doesn't kill stuff quickly enough to be worthwhile. So in order to kill stuff on schedule by turn 5, deathstars like bloodthirsters have to be undercosted at 355 pts. And chaff has to be overcosted in order to prevent it from being too difficult to mostly clear the table in 6 turns.
There's no reason for GW to intentionally make a broken game. It's more fun if it's reasonably balanced. Both people who enjoy strategy games and people who want to have a few beers and pretzels will enjoy it more.
@illLoved the video! I love it when smart players deconstruct lousily written GW rules! After 7th ed of WFB (and a few years of 40k) I went on to play Warmachine, and oh boy! It was such a culture shock that everybody expects you to play rules as written and applauds you for using them in cunning, creative ways instead of screaming "foul!" whenever you do something completely legal but unexpected.
5:58 the TABLE SHATTERING Slam of the fist down on the table was quite funny.
Fastest click when I saw this. Now with a ticket to the first TOW tournament at Warhammer World in April I will now be struck with the conundrum of whether to linehammer to the max in order show GW organisers how much it is broken, or reluctantly refuse to improve my opponent’s experience.
I think I'd take dwarves if I wanted to take the most pure and depressing form of linehammer to a tournement to prove a point.
The problem with linehammer generally from a purely competitive angle is is that it mostly means taking melee infantry- which are pretty rubbish compared to monsters, heroes, skirmishers. You become quite dependent on linehammer tricks, as well as those teleport spells.
Its a tournament its OK to be cheesy an abuse the rules to the maximum. Especially use it when falling back. GW needs to see this.
@@DrBlaxill Dwarves with their purity and depression proving a point?
Sounds like perfect Warhammer to me.
Static. Combat. Resolution.
but be careful, dwarves low M may actually cause the reforming into a line more difficult since they actually CAN reach the limit of max 2xM during maneuvers. But surely some Ranger core with crowssbows and throwing axes + a runesmith/lord applying additional forgefire that also works on their ranged attacks may be fun. hammerers on the other hand are impressive too for that purpose but you still need to take a core. Binding a dragon with an oathstone wielding character may be a blast, but then you are low on Wounds compared to the shieldbearers. While slapping a dragon on your character is a pure enhancement, the question is which armor/weapon runes are best against a dragon. So many of them are situational getting T10? or denying multiple wounds? @@DrBlaxill T10 is dope, but denies most wepaon runes due to the costs. I would probably go with dragon slaying and 2x cleaving on a greatweapon. to reduce the armor as much as possible. and for armor it would be fortitude, preservation and Stone. Dwarven rune options really are great but so situational. I miss the 7th edition runes they were much better and allowed dwarves to compete with what others could do. Some core rule items are now much better and cheaper than what dwarves can craft, but their access is denied to them.
So far i have houseruled that only one model on each side of the unit with wider frontage can attack with one supporting attack. As for dragons, beside of the underpriced points value they were given (basically no difference since sixth edition perhaps even points reduction) i think their main issue is stomp attacks, which were introduced with horde formation and supporting ranks, and i think were intended to counterbalance large infantry units with monsters/monstrous infantry, so i just play without stomp attacks in a friendly environment. I like the overall survivability of ridden monsters, perhaps a few tweaks here and there. There was an issue a few years back regarding "rules as written" only the bearer of items with ward saves could benefit from the ward save and not the whole model, so no ward saves for characters on monsters, i'd guess one could interpret it this way again, although it is clearly written that ridden monsters can use the magic armor of their rider if didn't got it wrong. I love GW.
I agree stomp is not great. I would also propose that the reason for stomp and undercosted deathstars is that because of universal steadfast, you have to kill everything through kill stats. So in order to keep the 6 turn time table of most stuff dying, stuff has to be really killy or it lacks a purpose
Inspiring stuff, ordering my 10500x30mm movement trays right away!
Rank and flank becomes plank and flank. One thing of note is that a drilled reform before a charge is up for debate and is likely to be errata'd. I would say rules as written it does fly.
Simple fix could be a limitations on how many models outside of base to base contact in the front rank can participate in the combat. I like the ideas pushing for wider frontages. The formation in effect would move to envelope.
They could change the the combat reform on Fall backs to a redress the ranks instead. They could change the combat reform from overrun to a simple pivot, and maybe a redress the ranks, but it doesn't make sense that the unit has time to change formation after an overrun.
It's only up for debate if in marching column. If you're in a regular formation, you could surely go into a line.
Great watch! Fantastic and funny critique of the pros and cons of linehammer - the reform at the end of a give ground is huge so I'm really glad you covered that. Wood Elves are my main faction and I must admit I've been partaking in some "skirmish-hammer" . Takes me back to how Wood Elves were back in the day. I am interested to see if you would use line hammer in a battle, maybe we will meet on the fields of UB sometime!
It is the opportunity to reform in enemy turns that is so powerful. That was of course always powerful in 8th, but now there are so many contexts where combats are broken so reforms are permitted- hence the 'spin and win' phenomenon.
One thing I can certainly say about my own games (15 so far): I've never claimed a rank bonus and will be surprised if I ever do!
Absolutely, happy to play you on UB. Drop me an email if you would like to arrange (it's on my profile or you can find with Google)
Where is written that a unit that "gives ground" can do a reform? A unit that fell back in good order can do a reform as it rallies after the movement but I do not find it in the rules that you can reform after giving ground.
@@richardpagel6959the unit that gives ground can't. But the victor can choose to follow up or restrain and reform.
@@DrBlaxill Yes right in that situation the victor can do the reform.
enjoy the skirmish hammer, the woold elves now have some seriously dope, probably the best shooting options in the whole TOW. the character sniper bows, ther arrows, ohhh what nice things.
I think the linehammer debate is based on a superficial reading of the rules: reforming allow only to change formation type (close order, open order or skirmish) or adopt e different formation (like triangular for bretonnian cavalry). What @dr Luke does, is changing the shape of a unit that is feasible only with the manoeuvre “redress the ranks” that limits the amount of movable models to 5 and it is not applicable after a rally. I hope this explanation clarify and address the fear of linehammer in competitive games where the rules are supposed to be applied rigorously. Best
Reform allows you to "change its formation" (move your models around however you want) or "adopt a different formation" (change to lance, skirmish, open order, closed order). Reform is easy to to think of this way: move your models however you want but don't move more than double your movement to get there. All of the examples in this video are legal reforms.
@@SanFranSicko I can’t find it, where it is stated in the book?
Great video as always. Humerous, nuanced and extensive. Expecting to see some live games of you taking on some line denying challengers ;)
Yes, it's time to do some OW battle reports.
Great video! IF I ever takes my tombkings to a tournament, I will bring a line of 20 Ushabti archers.. and hide a few lvl. 1 priest behind them to heal them. Good luck doing anything about that. this video grants you a subscription!
All you needed to say in support of your point of view is "Goonhammer disagrees".
Ogres love the line hammer.
That's the only way they can play with that few models haha
A few ideas on concessionary rules (some more restrictive than others):
1. Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks up to a number equal to their rank bonus - this is my favorite, so I posit it first. I like this because it incentivizes the classic rank and flank play-style we gentlemen have come to expect in the civilized world of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. It also allows units of hordes to pile in more attacks for being a massive block. It is, however, most restrictive, and would result in at most only 2 additional attacks in most cases. The benefit is also hard to achieve, as it requires your unit to have both deep columns and wide ranks
2. Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks up to a number equal to their movement value - least restrictive, but adds some verisimilitude to the rule. I am not sure however that this prevents the linehammer problem, as it does only add a small restriction to it for slower armies
3. Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks for each flank of the enemy unit that the fighting rank extends beyond base to base contact with - very restrictive (at most, 2 extra attacks)
4. Perhaps a slightly less restrictive rule could be a combination of 1 and 3, although this begins to become convoluted: Models in the fighting rank that are not in base to base contact with an enemy can make supporting attacks for each flank of the enemy unit that the fighting rank extends beyond base to base contact with. If a unit can make at least one supporting attack in this way, it may make additional supporting attacks equal to its rank bonus.
edited for better clarity
I like that first one although I also find it quite funny how your big blob of one attack skeletons might have one really keen skeleton on the side who's just going ham with his spear!
I think your #1 option is the cleanest.
What if the supporting attack bonus applies to *both sides* of the fighting rank not in base-to-base contact?
Example (all bases 25x25): Unit A with a frontage of 4 models and 3 ranks, is engaged with Unit B whose frontage is 12, also with 3 ranks. Unit B has 6 models in base-to-base contact and +2 rank bonus. So, an additional 2 support attacks on *both ends* of its engaged models may strike for a total of 10 models attacking.
This would allow the rule to still be in play but limit its use to units in a block formation. I suspect many opponents will run their units 7 wide, so to max out this rule tweak, a player may find he needs to run his unit at 13x3. Is it worth investing in 39+ models for the chance of 4 extra attacking models? In most cases, I think not - although seeing a 40 model block on the tabletop is impressive!
I like something along the lines of option 1 because it encourages ranks as you've said. I suggested something similar in the comments to Dr Blaxill's previous Linehammer video except I was proposing supporting attacks up to double the rank bonus and an extra 2 if in combat with a single model unit (for a bit of extra help for infantry against big monsters).
Love the he idea of #1. I would just double it.
@@brett7773 In one sentence, you said my 3 paragraphs. 🤦🏻😂
Dude, I don’t even care if you are right or wrong(but you are right), I just love all of it. The vibe, the delivery all of it feel like it was made just for me! It’s incredible. Please keep producing content.
This was so hilarious.
Oh god, you really thought about every possibility! Yes, it's very bad, and not just for aesthetics. The case where someone makes a unit fly across the battlefield because you're too far away to dispel, it's another big case and deserves a video of his own.
"But until the priests are sent in, me and Satan are taking you on a one way trip to linear hell"
Dr Luke, please write a book, specifically about line hammer.
I will then read said book, laugh myself into a stupor before finally combusting into the remnants of a slightly dry pork scratching. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THINK OF LINEHAMMER!
I have already written a book as it happens (google my name) but I don't think its subject matter is quite as engaging as LINEHAMMER.
The book will not take a conventional form however. It will be one long sentence with no line breaks, several hundred miles long.
Cool video but the example of a 5 by 4 becoming a little wouldn't be legal
You can only add or subtract upto 5 models in your front rank with a refress the ranks.
(Page 125)
That's a redress. A reform doesn't have that limit, just double the movement.
Which time stamp in the video? As far as I saw he performed reforms. Reforms are not redress the ranks, and don't have a 5 model limit.
@@DrBlaxill cheers good to know. I just assumed reform played by the same rules
I think the community should set a few gentleman's agreements about the line. I'd love to hear how you would solve linehammer without changing the rulebook
I am sure we will see top tables in GT's running linehammer and it will be the same guys who said it was easy to beat. 😂
OK, so making the “base contact” house rule makes dragonhammer even more of a problem. Yeah, the more I think of it, to amend the “base contact only” rule, when a behemoth (dragon, hydra, etc.) is engaged in the front rank of regular infantry or cavalry, let’s say, for instance, that six models are in base contact with the behemoth. So, the infantry / cavalry unit may fight with two more ranks than it normally can, thus representing the behemoth wading into the unit, and the unit enveloping it. But not the entire rank necessarily can fight if the frontage is too wide. If six models in the front rank are in contact with the monster, then the supporting ranks may also provide six attacks from each extra rank. So, a spearmen unit that normally can fight in two ranks in certain situations could possibly fight in four ranks while the behemoth is to its front (not flank or rear). That would be 6 (base contact) multiplied by 4 (ranks total) equalling 24 attacks on the behemoth. This encourages formations with ranks. Spears are special, so most units would fight a behemoth with three ranks, but this should give incentive for pikemen to be added to the mix. (5 ranks?) --Thoughts?
Good god, luke, careful with those miniatures, 😂
Regarding who can fight in a unit. The rules states that any row, be it rank or file, with at least one model in base to base contact with an enemy, is a fighting rank. All models in a fighting rank may attack. A 5 by 4 unit that is in base to base contact with all models in the front rank should therefore be able to claim that all 5 files are fighting ranks, allowing all models to fight. Of course, I understand that that is not what is intended, but it's my literal interpretation of the "The Fighting Rank" paragraph on page 145.
Around 13:20 or so the line that wheels for its charge and causes the knight unit to close the door would be a disordered charge since the enemy unit had to move, so the warriors would not get the initiative bonus from charging, but are probably just fine in this case anyways since most knights are initiative 3. Great vid.
yes, although only a limited penalty. It's a shame certain situations doesn't cause the line to lose the side supporting attacks- but even if they're rear charged they still get the lot
I love how you’re trying to break the game and that people might get upset about it, simple to fix with a few house rules though
Agreed. Oh, they undoubtedly were. I have framed it provocatively of course. However I think constructive criticism is the best approach. It makes it likelier they'll errata/houserules will become common and accepted
How can we manufacture more activist content creators like Dr. Blaxill? These videos are too good.
I agree the clearly superior and practical rule to linehammer is; base to base and allowing the second rank to contribute a single supporting attack, with spears fighting in 2 ranks normally and 3 ranks when charged.
But I think there is a simple solution: creating a limit on the model count of unit width.
For example:
Only allowing ranks at a maximum of one base movement value from the central model.
Now this would limit most normal M4 infantry to a 9 wide formation, M5 unarmored beastmen hordes to a 11 wide formation, and M3 dwarfs to a 7 wide formation.
This would theoretically allow Monsterous infantry to form 13 wide lines, but would negate the effectiveness of their multiple attacks and generally be prohibitively expensive points-wise.
This would also obviously allow cavalry to achieve long line formations, but seeing as they are generally acknowledged to be underpowered in this edition and that this is historically how cavalry would have been used in the real world, I consider this a non-issue.
The one caveat is that there may be grumbling from dwarf players that this limits the effectiveness of their gunlines, though some allowance may be afforded to missile troops, I'm not sure that's necessary.
There is also the option of simply limiting a maximum rank to 10 models period, problem solved.
What are your thoughts?
I have only just discovered your channel and am a big fan of your battle reports and in-depth analysis of the game.
Thanks for the great videos I hope you make more!
Indeed, thanks. In my tournament we are limiting width to 10, although having it contingent on movement as you suggest adds a nice layer of realism to the mix.
The broader problem is alas that removing linehammer makes infantry worse, which is the last thing I want to do. I just wish they placed some incentive to go deep and not wide. There *are* supporting attacks in OW- just sideways! Ditto, there *is* step up- but its step sideways!
I am not sure what the creators had against putting combat potential backwards, and in favour of putting it sideways!
@@DrBlaxill I suspect there may have been a monetary incentive in that wide units require models where as deep units can employ unit filler bases to artificially inflate their numbers.
But I'd wager that given the generally smaller table size, amount of terrain, and current propensity for a MSU meta that linehammer in practical terms is a non-issue as individual units don't usually if ever have the space to spread out across half the board at any given angle without terrain or other units making it impossible to achieve or maneuver. There is also a potential counter in the form of chariot spam allowing a multitude of impact hits striking first, attack density, at a longer charge range, and stacking close order combat resolution that you could fit in a wide frontage to overcome the potential wounds caused and lack of static combat resolution of a lined up 20 man unit that will have to split its attacks between targets with whatever is left after the charge to maximize wounds caused and minimize fight back.
Also you mentioned that there were game breaking possibilities inherent in the Skirmishing rules, which seems very intriguing, and I was wondering if you may be releasing a video on that in the near future?
Rules Question: when you fall back in good you pivot away from the centre of the unit you are fleeing from. do you hover over enemies then flee or do you pivot as much as you can without overlaping other units?
BRING BACK BRICKS I SAY! I demand BLOCKS of Arabyan (counts as empire) spearmen! I wish to push base trays around and roll dice! Not push around long rulers!
Yes- BRICKHAMMER! A symbol of rebellion! Men who have TAKEN THE BRICK
lmao how did this get passed playtesting?
I read the rules in a different language and thought it meant for "change formation" (6), with unfortunate wording, that the 5 model rule of "change ranks" (5) also applies to "change formation" (6).So (6) would be "You can either do an up to 180 turn and "change ranks" (5) OR do an up to 180 turn and change the core concept of the formation.
Probably I'm wrong but it would fix some pain points... I guess.
The big problem with true base to base attacks is how they’ve gotten rid of the modified leadership break tests. It would make it so that you still get line hammer, but now every anvil unit is a Konga Line instead. In 8th edition, minimizing attacks into your stubborn units with this Konga Line was extremely powerful… But now every unit in the game is 8th edition stubborn.
"Well...Good luck finding a flank, PUNK"
that was the moment I died 😂
Your mindset regarding breaking a game is exactly what one needs to be a successful QA-Tester for video games, its a very useful skill to have. If nothing else, it certainly is very entertaining :D
Nice to see you back 👍
I tried a linehammer with chaos warriors and managed to wipe a heavy chariot. Covered flank with a house ^^. Efficient indeed
Indeed- a Linehammer coming of age story!
Dragonhammer is easier to counter, if dragons are always played you pick dragonslayer sword always, and one 6 and it's done.
Linehammer on the other side requires but ton of terrain to limit line length or some gentelman rules, skirmished are simply AOS and if someone likes that go for aos I guess
One six... and you have to deal with a 4+ ward save...
But dragons counter lines due to breathweapon and flank charge stuff. I do hope gw does some rule to only allow 1 model on sides that are not in base to base contact to make the attacks. They could also easily add the third rank bonus back and hordes get 4 ofc.
@@cmxpiipl que the line from side to side bit. I don't know how people say that 1 line wide formations are easy to flank. 1 collumn formations sure, but 1 line wide, you have to first move to that flank which with 20 models wide can consume your whole movement, and then you need to hope that your enemy won't move in a way that your flank will becoem a rear charge, which is easy. Next breath weapon works best not in line but in square proper rank and file formation, as you simply can get more models under the cone.
The biggest thing wit ranks not working here is that 3 extra kills are better than rank bonus, as not only you get extra points in combat resulution that way, your opponents have less models to attack you in next round. Even if they'd limit the amount of points you get by killing enemny you still want to maximize attacks simply by if there is no enemy there is noone to make you roll break tests. The only solution is to properly limit how many models in front rank can attack
I think GW where trying to simulate the “wrap around” mechanic of previous editions, it is kinda weird if you have 10 wide vs 5 wide the ones on the end just chill and don’t attack with the base to base of previous edition
Hilarious and informative
Well it worked for Wellington.
If they ever remake Knightmare or the Crystal Maze you should be the dungeon master.
Your models still on old, small, bases? Would help explain why the (lack of) terrain isn't getting in the way
You're right. If my chaos warriors were on the right bases (30mm not 25mm) their maximum line spawn would be reduced to 18 from 20. Not a huge change, but not irrelevant either.
Ok so I have officially played Old World Warhammer, and I played as Ogres against Wood Elves. My game was 1500 points begrudgingly because that's what my opponent brought. Since my units were small (never more than 5 wide) that's what I used because otherwise I would be at a disadvantage to my opponent WHO WAS USING LINEHAMMER!!! The 15-wide wildwood rangers with 30+ melee attacks, the 11-wide glade guard who sit in their little forests and pelt my units from afar! I can't win against it! Unless I have equal numbers (Which ogres will never have), defeating an army like this is impossible. Should've expected as much from a backstabbing knife-ear.
Another rule I was thinking is making close order bonus only available when in atleast 2 ranks.
And a further +1 if you have more ranks period.
A few things. First of all, I do think that the 'fighting rank' rule is weird, and needs addressing. I'd also like to say that I find myself mixing rules from 6 editions of Warhammer, so, PSA; I don't intend to be dismissive or attack you with this. I just find the entire Linehammer discussion tiring, especially after being happy that my fav TT game returned.
Also, absolutely loving the spirited delivery. Keep it up!
1. Line applications.
I agree that the free reform at the end of FBIGO is a bit much, especially seeing how the winner gets 'nothing' (unless they're drilled), but:
It is my understanding of the rules that, during a reform, no model in the unit may move more than its M characteristic. There's page 124 that says no matter the maneuver, no model may move more than (2xM), but that doesn't mean that you get 2xM for every maneuver. The only case where you do is if the unit marches, and then it may not reform. So, all models in unit red here would have to get into their line-appropriate position with M4. And I think you'll find that hard to pull off. An inch is slightly more than 25mm, so at best you'd get a unit of 12 in rank 1, 8 in rank 2. Also, in tournaments you'd probably be required to mount these guys on 30mm squares.
It would still put you in a significantly stronger position for subsequent turns.
If I've missed a paragraph about you getting more movement during a reform, please, sincerely, let me know.
2. Conga Chaff.
What I do now is declare a charge with all units onto the appropriate targets, resolving CC with the the dogs first and then pursuing into the line, fighting again with all units, and butchering the line. If you flee, I redirect charges. Yes, I need leadership checks to do that, but, on average, that shouldn't be an issue for most units that you want to declare charges with.
And I don't assume that I have 5 times as many points as you have. I assume that the line occupies space in the form of a single front that is significantly higher than its own value, or, if we invented a measure like 'points per ince' (Popi for short), the line has a really low Popi score. The amount of Popi I can amass directly opposite to it is important. It's obviously not 'whole army against line', but assuming that you're facing 2 or 3 units, while your own units are stuck behind the line? That's very likely.
3. Flying picket line.
Steed of Shadows doesn't allow you to charge. I'm not certain if that's what you're demonstrating there, and it's a very VERY strong spell, don't get me wrong. Not available to everyone, though. In any case, it's a conveyance spell that happens in the 'remaining moves' subphase after charges have been resolved (and after you had the chance to declare charges.) You can, obviously, park the line there, but then you'll get multi-charged. I'm just assuming I get something in return for you having a Lvl 4 wizard. Conveyance Spells are still a good way to surprise an enemy.
4. Fantasy Flanks:
Yeah, okay, if you want to build a 72" long unit, sure. The multi-charge issue strikes again, and your army is stuck either behind or in front of it. In any case, charging the flank isn't the resolution to the line problem. It's either big monsters (for the armies that have them), or multicharges. In case of dwarves, you're screwed.
5. Driller Killer
The facing you charge is determined the moment you declare a charge, not when you make a Charge move. You can't use a 'redress' to suddenly be in the flank. Page 127, paragraph 2.
Hello Luke and all the members of the community reading this.
From my Empire players' community in Spain, we have certain doubts about the rules that we believe that the rulebook doesn't clarify, and maybe someone can help us. I'm going to list a set of doubts/questions to see if someone could answer. It would be of great help, and I would be very grateful.
1- **Wrath Of Winter:** Until your next Start of Turn sub-phase, this model, its mount, and any unit it has joined gain the Multiple Wounds (2) special rule. -- Does it affect shooting?
2- **Hochland Long Rifle:** A model armed with a Hochland long rifle can target a specific model within its target unit, such as a champion or a character. -- Can this model benefit from the "Look Out, Sir!" rule? In other editions, it didn't benefit, but it had -1 to hit.
3- **Steam Tank Turret:** Is it considered a breath weapon? -- Can it shoot 360 degrees?
4- **Hammer Of Sigmar:** Until your next Start of Turn sub-phase, this model, its mount, and a single friendly unit that is within its Command range when this Prayer is chanted may re-roll any rolls To Hit or To Wound of a natural 1 made during the Combat phase. -- Can it reroll both, or only one of them?
5- Can the tank cannon shoot shrapnel?
I hope someone can help us. Thank you very much, and greetings to all.
At 24:30 or so you discuss how infantry has always been a lackluster unit type despite being in the forefront of marketing of Warhammer and this hit home so hard. When I played (start of 6th to end of 8th) that always bugged me more and more. The promise and reality don't match. A whole part of the game was always woefully underpowered.
And that sucked. If they didn't fix that in Old World, I don't know what they really even went for.
With the example of Chaos Warriors vs Men at Arms it looks like you are reforming and charging in the same turn. If that's the case, that's an illegal move since charging units are not allowed to "perform a turn, move backwards, move sideways, redress the ranks or reform manoeuvre during its charge move,: (p.1216) Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Chariot Guy: WOT
I’m looking forward to putting down my 1813 Prussian Leipzig army…. Seems perfect for linehammer.
I keep getting put off by getting deeper into ToW, I have played WHFB since 3rd edition, ToW just doesn’t seem well written, rules wise.
I think the tactic of falling back in good order from an unfavourable combat, then reforming into a line to go back in with more attacks is quite strategic. Maybe tournaments could comp lines at max 10.
Jank Heaven!!
This was the purest of linehammer discussions. You could have gotten nasty and thrown in drilled.
You don’t have to deploy in a line. You do not need to be a linehammer player. It’s not a play style. It’s situationally bonkers.
You could march up in pretty ranks and then declare a charge and be able to see clear as day that you have room for 17 wide frontage after terrain / obstacles. 10 more models swinging vs 1 or two ranks of combat Rez doesn’t take much mathing out. Why not even go 15 wide with 5 supporting attacks giving you a rank anyway. Why would you do anything else?
If you smash them into little pieces you are even rewarded with a reform. Never once exposing a line.
I agree that we are collectively imagining that the game is a certain way and it’s very likely not. Once the tourneys start rolling we will find out pretty quick!!
Shout out to the content creators for enjoying the game themselves and delivering quality content by giving the ppl what they want. Good clean fun.
The Jank will come soon enough.
i think the intent behind eschewing base to base and instead just allowing the entire front rank to attack was a combination of simplification and, more importantly, to give infantry the ability to hit back at small base-size targets like chariots or monsters.
now, the obvious answer to this would be to allow "base to base plus 1" (or two? idk, i'll leave that to the game designers to argue over) or to reintroduce some version of supporting attacks.
but for one reason or another, GW seems intent on not doing either of those... and until they do so, it seems we're stuck in a bit of a pickle.
another, softer, solution, could be to at least limit the free reforms to only being able to add/subtract a single rank (or column?) at a time. Not a complete fix, but better than nothing. and/or perhaps choosing between pivoting redressing ranks... but now we're reaching high levels of fiddly without really adressing the core issue.
Another excellent, insightful and provocative take on TOW. Many thanks! I agree Linehammer is probably more challenging to fix than Dragonhammer, which as you say is the most pressing issue and absolutely MUST be fixed soon.
This video fills my head with little thoughts... You know, strange as it sounds, I was thinking about how if I designed a wargame like Warhammer, a very non-serious, painting and modelling kind of hobby game, I would want it to have one stupid way to break the game that just dominates if you do it. Not something like, oh if you take a bunch of cannons you'll always win, not if you buy the new Necron codex and use their special Warlord Trait you'll always win, something like this, something like if you line your guys up in 4 foot wide units, you'll just dominate the game. Because then it becomes D&D and you're both the DM. Anyone at any time can just break the game and win, as long as they're willing to do something silly that just destroys the underlying story and fantasy. And then like D&D it inevitably becomes about something else besides winning.
But also this Linehammer business reminds me of maybe the thing I hate the most in the game, and always kind of have, and that's how far removed from reality this "gaming" the unit is. It has no corollary in real life, in the Middle Ages you couldn't go to your peasant spearmen and be like, "Alright, we'll form you up ten wide to maximize your attacks because the wider the line the more attacks you get, that's how real spear fighting works, and five ranks deep, so during the battle you'll get a bonus to your psychology because you'll all look around you and see how many ranks you have, and you'll feel quite safe." It's all total nonsense, there's no dividing men into squares like that in real battles, both sides essentially had equal opportunity to attack, deaths apparently happened rather slowly between infantry units, and nobody felt braver or more cowardly based on the number of men in the small square he was told to stand with. Linehammer doesn't offend my eyes especially, because I already had my time to be outraged at the stupidity of deathstars. I don't know that there's any way to do unit based combat based around the individual soldier the way WFB does it, as opposed to just having the unit be the quanta used within the rules, that isn't really gamey and on some level stupid.
I like the idea of all the soldiers in the front rank getting to fight, in that it's about recognizing the extreme unreality of the tight square of little guys with their feet stuck on bases, guys on the end would be able to lap around. But then if that's the case, the guys on the flanks of the less-wide-unit should be eligible to fight too, and the wider-unit shouldn't be able to get more attacks than that less-wide-unit has extra guys on the flanks to attack. Which might mitigate things a little. And also, just not letting units get beyond 25cm seems reasonable. Whether as a house rule, or just a standing gentleman's agreement, in addition to not taking dragons, and taking it easy with skirmishers. Though if that doesn't suit competitive players and they enjoy doing crazy things with lines of Chaos Warriors 8 feet wide, then that's another way to have fun.
Thank you Doctor is is good to talk about improving the old world rules as we all want a game we can play that is enjoyable and one we can play at a competitive level. Let’s hope we get response from GW.
Our tournaments here have started adding a limit of double your unit rank. Seems to have solved the issue rather quickly and makes the game quite good. So for example heavy infantry and cavalry are normally 4 - 8, Infantry are 5 - 10 and then monstrous infantry are 3 - 6.
so smallest unit is 8 models for heavy inf? 4 line, 2 deep? And normal inf is minimum 15 models? 5 front 3 deep. Feels like it make skirmishers a lot worse? And gun lines of 5 front and 2 deep won't be allowed anymore?
Simple and yet elegant solution. We'll try that one out.
hang on what do you mean double your "unit rank"? what's a unit rank? what you've said doesn't make sense.
@@oitoitoi1He means that you can be maximum wide dubble the minimum width you can have to get rank bonus. 4 for heavy infantry, 5 for normal 3 for monstrous etc.
@@nkari8971Where does he mention rank "bonus"? He just wrote ranks
I think im in love
although you went through multiple situations, it seems like lines would be extremely easy to chaff. Have the lines actually been used effectifly in your games? In a 2000 Point game I imagine maneuvering lines to be quite challlenging. But especially the reform shenanigans seem very exploitable.
I actually quite like the look of lines, but I'm sure that is because I am one of those historical players entering Fantasy, and I definitely understand why people don't really like how it looks. It does however feel extremely strange that one guy 15 models away can swing the air and kill someone, but its so easy to just say "infantry can be a maximum of 10 wide" or something like that if they really wanted to keep it in for whatever reason, and selfishly I do hope they keep it in lol.
Linehammer rule just breaks the game, and it's a physical complete nonsense; it just proves they haven't play tested the game enough. Waiting to laugh at all those lines at tournaments XD
I have a new scenario of linehammer for you. 2 lines of 15+ marauders of slaanesh with flails are practically touching following each other. They get beat well and run over the top of the unit behind them and are now not catchable as seen on page 157 of the core book, and now the winner of the combat has to choose between a 1” pursuit charge bonus into this new unit of flails with a fresh strength bonus… or… they likely don’t have great options here… whether the first unit broke and fled or FBIGO, the next lines save them.
With the added fact that the broken unit will be back on the next turn right behind its old friends 😂
Yes. I like the idea of one line hard behind another to minimise the initiative bonus on the charge. This partially circumvents the obvious 'running out of space' problem with linehammer. The imperitive to actually physically touch pursuers rather than simply equal their flee roll is a very important (and bad in my opinion) change.
The more I hear… I believe I will stick on my 6th and 5th edition :) maybe adding the fall back rule on my 6th edition rules 😂 I still have 4 1/2 armies to finalize since my 5th edition lizardmen …
My god… so would he or … or would he!!! I can only wait in baited anticipation on who puts forth the video in which that question is answered. Now as for me… looking in those soulless black eyes… I would wager a horrific Yes!!!
I'm glad I don't play in tourneys or with WAAC players....
Ooooof this is disgusting, hoping as the video plays on you have a suggestion for fixing the rules.
I play another rank/flank called Conquest, and it says that when you reform a unit you can't move a stand (model) more than half its movement in the shuffle. I feel something like that and base-to-base fighting would entirely solve the issue for Old World?
All jokes aside , line hammer is pretty dumb. I’d rather have step up back.
Oh and crossbow men and handgunners should be able to shoot in two ranks. They should add that.
So I'm yet to play my first game of TOW, but you can't argue with the maths behind Linehammer being inherently the way to go in certain situations. Whether that's a good or bad thing yet I have no idea, but I'm already planning to take 30 Spearmen in a 10x3 formation rather than the usual 5x6 as it's just going to hit so much harder and allow so many more attacks back when my front rank inevitably get obliterated when charged. Kudos on coining a phrase that I'm not seeing all over the internet Dr Luke! Linehammer is here to stay :P
Yes- the way the term 'linehammer' has taken fire is interesting- thats gone far further than those who saw my videos.
I don't have a resolution, but there is some debate on whether the spearman who die as casulties beyond the front ranks (overspill into second) are effected by 'no step up' or not. Just something a spearman player should be aware of if you are not already.
I love the terrain debate because it does work, especially when you roleplay a destroyed town, and there’s literally no space to put your models as you have to constantly reform to get through walkways and through corridors, like an invasion or a siege
I thought of deploying a line along the entire board this morning coincidentally, before watching this video. I was thinking 73 Bretoninnian peasant archers with defensive stakes to cancel out enemy rank bonus or force dangerous terrain tests in some stuff.
Hopefully GW will tone down Linehammer some in an update as it is too good currently.
In your point about why Linehammer was brought into being, as a consequence of models in the front rank being able to attack regardless of base contact, I think it is important to consider Games Workshop's previous statements about the game. During development, it was stressed that returning players would be able to play The Old World with old Fantasy armies, and that rebasing was not necessary to do this (even against armies on the new larger base sizes). Obviously, this was misguided at best and deceptive at worst as we now know that several aspects of the rules change depending on what sized bases models are on. Linehammer, however, and the removal of base-to-base contact requirements for combat, does correspond to this idea that you can play with mismatched bases sizes. GW just didn't consider how far-ranging the implications of this change would reach.
There are a lot of clues the core rules changed many times over the course of development (as they would naturally during the development of a game), but artifacts of older versions have snuck through to the published rulebook. Thanks to some insider talk we know the whole "can marching ordered units charge?" and "can a drilled unit reform and charge in the same turn" debates are the result of GW not being careful and clean when writing the final version of the core rules - these are artifacts from older versions of the game when these things were likely explicitly permitted.
I'd bring my 3 dragons list and ask nicely to refrain from your punky linehammer shenanigans! I'd even offer to do the same! Noble elf that I am!
Maybe standard chaos warriors aren't supposed to have good odds to kill dragons.
Maybe a character who invests 50 points in a dragon slaying sword is the one that lady luck is expected to favour.
Bit of a pain that cannons and the like have become so poor at that role though.
The supremacy of longer lines simulates the real world supermacy of longer lines. If WH players are ignorant of that (and clearly at least some are), it's too bad and I think you're right, many will find it frustrating and inscrutible, but it certainly does simulate something sensible. If you're standing at the end of a line of ten men, with a one metre spacing and you bump into a hostile line of twelve men, with a one metre spacing, you are outnumbered two to one. The guy standing next to you is about to be outnumbered three to one. The next guy, four to one. Next, five to one. That's the end of the line. The idea that those extra two guys should sit the combat out, when in reality, they're the ones who would win it decisively, is quite silly.
I think you're right that these units may still be weak compared to skirmishers. There's some possibility that GW did test it extensively and found that skirmishers were so busted at a high level that they had to remove the base to base rule for rank and file blocks in order to have them see competitive play at all.
Bravo. Your tactics are on point. Personally I hope GW modify so we can fight with bricks and ranks. Nice Video
Great video Dr. Blaxill. I agree with you 100%. James Workshop always takes 2 steps back and 1 step forward when designing their games.
but back in fourth edition when i used to play i ALWAYS had a line of archers, suddenly my old tactics i used in fourth having a single line archer unit, and now il be hated lol
Dwarf Army list: Engineer with handgun. A line with 161 Thunderer´s with great weapons. Thats 1990 points :).
~14:00 This one doesn't actually work. Charge arc is determined when the charge is declared, not when the unit moves. Since the Chosen were in the front arc at the time of declaring their charge while in the conga-line, then even if drilled works (debate/FAQ still up in the air), that would be a front charge even if the redress puts them in a position that would otherwise have called for a flank charge.
... Because GW knows that we'll all pay top $$ to be their beta testers, what is the business case to properly stress test thier games? Hell, we'll buy tow anyway.
I am partial to the fighting rank concept as it was one of my own ideas from some years back when I was trying to address that bugbear of arbitrarily prescribed ranks in Warhammer. In other words, how do we make a rank of 6 better, and not actually worse, than a rank of 5? Matt Ward's answer was to give you an extra rank of supporting attacks, but only once you reach a frontage of 10. Another artificial prescription. I thought: why not simply allow everyone in the front rank to attack? Wider frontages would automatically become better in a progressive fashion without the need of a contrived horde rule. Obviously, I did not think through all the ways such a rule might be gamed and abused-as you have done so deftly and thoroughly-but it did seem a good idea at the time.
I don't know if you are right, but you are certainly entretaining! btw there is certainly no reason to have more than 3 ranks unless you are a horde isn't it? so linehammer holds at least in a softer form in any case.
You can triple march and charge as a line formation, if driled, though.
How, Drilled allows you to march within 8" and increase frontage by 5 models only before you move. You don't get a reform.@@alexandergoldnatznworeptil9652
I knew instantly when reading the rules that linehammer would happen, but it happening is in some cases a sort of necessaty. The causes are not only that each model in the first Rank can attack, it is more necessary by the problem of striking back. The rule of "stepping forward" basically denies many armies that have slower Initiative or generally weaker combatants to strike back due to casualties. And if you cannot even roll for attacks, how are you suppsed to win a melee? The meager passive combat result points won't even that out. So even if models without base contact would not been allowed to attack, you still want to be wide, because models replacing others in the rank sideways are still allowed to strike back. Even if they walk half a mile from the battlefield to the center,compared to just stepping over a dead body. So you need to caclulate the casualties you take into how wide do I need to still get enough attacks into the opponents to even those casualties out. Some armies cannot make support attacks at all. They cannot rely on the second rank doing anything.
I am visually wise not against lines in Warhammer. In Total War, lines are my entirely to go "deniers" a line is a great way to protect the troops behind them. Reforming wide shortly before the enemy arrives to deny access to shooters or warmachines behind them is still a nice tactial and valid move. One that TOW does allow now to be much easier to do. And two long lines battling it out is also quite a nice view on the battlefield. But those extra attacks from all front models really is a bad design choice. Removing that and removing the stepping forward rule would be a much better move to fix that weird thing. It would still allow lines to exist and having a purpose to deny access. I would also like to see crowssbows and handguns being able to shoot from the second rank (except repeater handguns). To give those ranged units some usability again. Basically, the first rank kneeling down to shoot whil the second one stays standing and shooting over their battlecomrades. but right now, with handguns having less range than crowssbows and on 25mm bases, standing 10 wide to even get some wounds across the board is so putiful useless that it makes me cry. Dwarven Thunderers lost their +1 to hit modifier(7th ed) and kept their BS 3. they are now the worst handgunners out there. slow, hardly hit anything (low amount of shots and 3BS), pretty short range and all that with such Profile.
A major reason why Dragons became so good is that Warmachines became so bad and their HP melt into their rider. No engineers for warmachines anymore enhancing BS, so you now have BS3 as the basic non improvable crew, that usually hits on 5 on long range on 5 and with any sort of cover and only on 6 if both applies. Shooting anything than volley based missile weapons is a waste of points unless that shooting unit is something elite like dwarven rangers who also can properly fight in melee or having repeater handguns. Not shooing from 2 ranks makes any non volley missile unit not being a BS5 now absolutely horrible useless just taking valid points and space on the battlefield for better options. The only threat were previously those ranged units modyfing armor significantly, but those units have now lost a lot value due to not shooting from a second rank anymore. And the mobility of dragons now easily lets you outmaneuver those units because they usually have short blackpowder based ranges. I have yet not seen any game where shooting such weapons made any sort of proper impact. Organ guns now also needing to hit (with BS3) after determining shots makes even them weak with their short range. So what do you use against dragons at all? Surely not shooting. the "best" option is anything that nullifies another roll to wound or armor, like poison. May be a dwarven ballista with Rune of skewering as it ignores armor. But truly working shoopting options are a very rare option only for a few armies with specialists able to.
Meanwhile lines and congas are getting removed from Ninth Age 3rd Edition, good news ;)
Dr. Blaxill's Mr. Hyde is slowly taking over. I approve!
I don't know what I like about you, but I need more of it. Keep making the videos!
Honestly I would love to see some games where players were playing just to win and using linehammer to the greatest effect.
Linehammer is easily crushed with the supporting attacks of the ultimate double linehammer
Just ran into this channel, and your 80s Chaos army is absolutely delightful!
Yet another nice benefit of linehammer- defense against template weapons. Puke!
I can't see your flank from here 😂
Playing "Linehammer" is clearly an exploitation of the rules and not in the spirit in which they are intended.
Clearly lie hammer was incorporated into the rules in order to maximize sales of knights of the realm on foot!
This should be preserved in the Library of Congress.
I’ve been restricted unit width to 10-12 and the game has been really fun.