The Future of Warhammer The Old World
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2024
- The Dwellers are backity back once again. This week Jabe, Chris and Nick discuss what Warhammer The Old World might have in store for us in the future. A remarkably on topic start is quickly derailed however, can our brave host get things back on track before the end of the episode?
#warhammer #podcast #theoldworld #warhammerfantasy
SIMPLY Fix infantry by allowing them to fight in two ranks while engaged in the front arc. Spears fight in three ranks, and then PIKES, with a high initiative, introduced in the Empire arcane journal, fight in four ranks in the front arc. A limit can be placed on the width of an infantry rank too (around a dozen or less), and emphasize base contact instead of allowing many unengaged models strung out in a long line to strike. These are not difficult updates to add within this current edition.
Does this really fix the issues though? For large infantry units a lot of the time the attacks are such low quality that even with more of them it doesn't make much difference...
@@TheDwellersBelow It’s a universal change that will promote blocks of infantry instead of linehammer. The issue that you raise is a fair one, and addressing the ridiculousness of monsters having armor, ward, AND regeneration saves is necessary, and something that needs nerfed for game balance reasons. That and allowing more ranks in the front arc of infantry blocks to fight will make a difference.
Hear me out on this... I infantry should (imo) only shine against other infantry or skirmishers... historically, any military development has been designed to fuck all over infantry... chariots, heavy cav, artillery... monsters and magic fulfilling those roles too. In a fantasy world, unsupported infantry should be as bad as they are and if not, why not?
I like that the game isn't ruled by blocks of 50 guys. Massive barrier to game entry and a nause to paint. That killed fantasy for me in 7th ed and twisted the knife in 8th.
But i do like the idea of rock-paper-scissoring with weapons... like the idea of infantry spears/pikes removing charge bonuses for cav seen in King's of War though.
Just a stream of consciousness for you 😂
@@SparksKnifecraft The historical analogy would then be that infantry tactics/equipment was developed to try to counter the cavalry... and then we invented tanks!
But I think that people want the game to be about infantry blocks because they like the vibes, not because it's how war would actually play out in the Old World. I don't feel that way myself (love me a dragon or two!) but there's a nice aesthetic to a unit of 20 peasants taking a charge from 5 Knights and then slowly grinding them down.
A quick fix would be Supporting Attacks (Step up would disrupt the overall game-set though it should always have been in there) and allow infantry to get 3+ (or 4!) rank bonus instead of the decreased 2. The reason infantry are weak is because this is delib Hero Hammer because someone ordered the new stuff to mostly be new monsters and big characters, that's why they sneakily reduced the combat res of infantry imo.
For the messed up primed minis from shitty black spray, same solution as when varnish goes frosty.
Bit of olive oil and a soft old paint brush, just paint it on like it's a layer paint. Not like a wash or shade where you soak it, just layer it on. Give it 15-30 mins, then using a soft old brush with soaked in water, gently brush the olive oil off like you're trying to soak up too much shade that's pooling on your mini. Rinse regularly like any other painting you'd be doing, otherwise you just smudge the olive oil round.
After you've got most of the olive oil off, let it dry for a bit then you can give them a rinse under tepid water. I thought this technique was bullshit but I tried it when Panicking to save some minsi that frosted up from Varnish and it saved them, also tried it when some rattlecan Grey Seer spat the same chunky crap out on my minis.
Also thanks for the episode guys, painting my Ogres never felt so easy with you guys in the background.
Cheers,
Jamie
Cheers Jamie! Great tip on the olive oil!
I think Parabellum and Corvus Beli have both proved that a free online rules and up to date army builder app works, alongside real hardback rule books. We all want the art, lore new book smell but we all want current and updatable rules.
If anything, a free to use army builder is only going to encourage miniature sales, which is where the 💰💰💰 is
Yeah lots of the smaller companies doing this better. Malifaux also has a great army builder with all the rules for free. Doubt we'd see that from GW but would result in more mini sales at least.
@@TheDwellersBelow I think they even just took *away* the army builder for AoS, so GW don't seem to agree!
Huge agree with Chris' take about avoiding changes to the rules in community comps as much as possible. Sometimes the "straightforward" fix like giving infantry step up or whatever doesn't exactly address the other problems with the rule sets
Yeah working around the rules rather than on them is more elegant a lot of the time
Old World plays great, most of the rules are fine. It really just needs a little boost to infantry, something like a step-up attack. And probably a revision of skirmisher rules. The games I've played and watched mostly go pretty well, without anything being completely broken.
Game is definitely good! I like those ideas
Chris, I really appreciate the value you bring to this podcast. Just saying. Thank you :)
Setting 25% for heroes/commanders ,and 25% for heroes only would fix the whole meta, which currently revolves around the big character mounts. With such constraints people would try to cut out expenses on their characters, and we would see more characters on foot or horse. Then, it would be necessary to use infantry and cavalry units just as a place to hide these characters
They do seem to have gone very light on restrictions within lists, a bit more delineation would help a lot (or something like the wolves of the sea where you can only have one lord level character no matter what)
Not sure if someone else has commented on Jabe's question, as far as I understand it, due to Bound Spells not being cast with the potential to Miscast like normal wizard spells, you can just cast all of your Bound magic first, and then move on to your wizard spells. That way you maximize your output/efficiency, and it works regardless of the ruling from GW or differing interpretations from individuals.
That's a good approach that we definitely hadn't considered
Love the chat lads. Agree that MSU/monster meta shows that infantry are pointless. My pal and I have general comp that helps infantry get back into the game.
A) Change army comp characters down to 35% and core up to 35%.
B) Double most inft unit size minums except for skirmishers and detachments. All monstrous inft units have a minimum of 3+
C) A skirmishers unit cap - can't have skirmishers unit than Close/Open order units that receive rank bonuses
D) Infantry (non-monstrous) receives supporting attacks (1A per model in the second rank) and enable shooting units to shoot in 2 ranks. Finally a fighting rank cap of 8 wide.
E) Implement the swift stride rule you guys mentioned for flyers and heavy cav.
F) Then maybe inft close and open order units receive an extra rank bonus.
Easy rules to implement and broadly speaking add more opportunity cost to picking characters, reduce MSU potential, and give infantry more potential. In my opinion, some infantry units are overcosted but changing points always becomes much more fiddly.
I think some of these are really good and easy to implement (like the % changes) and translate really well to pick-up games.
any specific reasons you guys comp to help infantry but choose to still shaft monstruous?
Some good ideas here!
Great Change!
But but I would make some changes:
C) Skirmish needs to be reworked. TOW is a rank&file game, isn't it? 6th Edition already reworked skirmishers and got rid of skirmishing cavalry (in 5th Edition) and instead created the Fast Cavalry rule. Great move! Just introduce something very similar to infantry and cavalry. How to do it?
Remove the skirmisher rule. Create the Fast Infantry and Fast Cavalry rules. The main rule is to have free reforms. Fast Units are put on the table like any other "base to base" unit, have flanks and rear with a 90 degree line of sight, have no rank bonuses in combat, fast infantry has a -1 to hit modifier.
E) Increased movement range of cavalry and flying units is a sufficient bonus. Swift Stride rule should not have heavy units, such as: heavy cavalry, monstrous cavalry, monster creatures and behemoths. It is enough that they are fast and/or fly. Swift stride rule D3 or D6 (but also e.g. D3+1) should have light and agile units, such as Fast Cavalry and Fast Infantry.
@@chriscousens111 Thanks. Even that change alone changes the dynamic of list construction and usually prevents you from having all the monsters and wizards.
Over the last week I learned that you need to hit the gym for a couple of weeks to get the strength to paint an assembled Marauder Giant!!!! Damn it’s heavy!!!
The joys of pinning metal models again..
@@TheDwellersBelow ….I’ve been lucky in that Gorilla glue hasn’t failed me yet :) (And neither did two part epoxy back in the distant days :) )
@@allancarey2604 right up to the point you bump your giant and he plunges to the ground and shatters because you didn't pin him.
@@auretioustaak6579 I guess so....but I'll have make sure I haven't broken my foot first *grins*
I don't know if you can get it in Australia, but Duplicolor Sandable Primer is the way to go. I've been using it for 17 years now, and it has NEVER fuzzed on me. (And I live in super humid New Jersey!)
Might have to look into it, but not something I've heard of here unfortunately
@@TheDwellersBelow "Duplicolor" is the brand name. They sell it at auto supply stores here in the States. They have a whole range of different sprays and primers, but the one called "Sandable Primer" is what you're looking for. It's actually getting harder to come by here as well; the local auto shops used to always have it, but now never seem to stock it.
Infantry fixes:
1) +3 Rank Bonus / +4 for Horde
2) +1 Combat Res for Outnumbering
3) +1 Bonus Attacks per rank _instead_ of the current Fighting Rank (because wide lines of troops with no ranks looks stupid)
4) Thrusting Spears always strike no later than same Initiative as chargers
5) Remove +1 Close Order combat res boost (replaced by Outnumbering)
Think the static rules would go a long way, stop those monsters and characters just ploughing through, put a bit more risk back into it. Spears would be really interesting as well, give those units a bit more of a role than currently.
@@TheDwellersBelow Yeah, I like adding way more static CR to infantry and taking it away from monsters.
Terrain that affects movement and combat results, infantry fighting 2 ranks deep will fix TOW.
I like the arcane journals and would like to see ‘historical’ lists like the War of the Beard, the rise of Nagash, Araby Crusades, etc
War of the Beard would be awesome!
More static combat res for infantry and some charge resistance if charged in the front arc and ranked up enough would do a lot
If you want less small units, make the win condition: whoever defeats more units of their opponents' army wins. So it's like every unit is worth the same VPs. Bigger blocks are harder to defeat and are now worth the same as a small diverter unit
Bolt action already does this by default, most of their missions are 1 point per unit destroyed
Could be worth exploring but probably has big ramifications
I think it skews balance pretty hard depending on armies. Some factions like Warriors or High Elves are happy to go deep on a couple of dragon-mounted characters and then a big block of core troops, whereas Beastmen or Wood Elves inherently don't want big blocks 500+ point characters to the same degree.
I could see if they'd built the game around that (like in Bolt Action), but in ToW I feel like it just encourages death stars to deny points.
Great content as always!
Appreciate it!
Fall back in good order popping through until still cause panic. It isn't completely safe...
although unless the unit is less than half strength, they will also fall back in good order from that panic rather than actually fleeing, which can situationally be a free reform before your turn.
There is that, or it could ruin your plans for a backup charge!
The beat fix to the game should be fixed unit size. Ex: dwarf warriors ca be in files of 6, 5 or 4 and 1, 2 or 3 ranks. Also, models with more than 5 wounds should use the best save they have/phase. Arm 3+, ward 4 and regen monster attacked by ap-2 attacks, use ward, etc
I was about to ask for Danny but a few seconds later you said he didn't show up.
Danny you're bringing down the team, I clicked to hear about your empire state troop army.
One day he'll be back!
An army book for the New World would be nice with the legacy armies in. They could just copy/print the PDFs for free money! (With some balance fixes…)
So what I am hearing from you is amazons and sea elves coming soon?
You know what improves Infantry? Meaningful terrain. Something Infantry do very well is take up space. If there's meaningful terrain when you take up space you can force unfavorable engagements.
I think terrain in general could play a bigger part in the game, but we might need different rules for it as well as more of it (e.g. difficult terrain not slowing Swiftstride means more difficult terrain just makes the disparity between infantry and cavalry even bigger!).
They can be good to block up gaps between terrain, but the larger unit sizes and slower speed mean they are also more negatively affected by terrain as well compared to smaller faster units
kind of manipulative tho, to try and set the terrain up so that it benefits you.
@@toptopplayer-f7n Kind of the opposite? I'm suggesting setting up your units to take advantage of the terrain layout. Not the other way around.
What kind of unfavourable engagements would come up though if most fast killy units can front-charge infantry and run them over?
I would love if the Old World pushed Narrative Campaigns and Siege battles!
I think that's up to players/event organisers. I know the scene in Inverness is more focused on narrative events than elsewhere, for example.
Time for Mortal Empires to come out again. Old World Fanatics is doing great stuff on a 6th ed campaign they are running, time for some more in Old World
On GW's communication being untrustworthy to say the least. In the last preview when talking about Legions Imperialis they flat out stated they would be focussing on SMs and Solar Auxilia for a while with new armies further down the road. A month later they have just announced Mechanicum being added, probably fairly immenantly.
Classic GW!
You can take 2 units instead of one of chosen knights.
nah hearlds can take multiple chosen charriots, but still only one chosen knight per list
I run a pure infantry/cavalry Khorne WoC army, only mortals. So I have 0 magic, and 0 monsters. Call me crazy! It is definitely sub-optimal, but it can absolutely still win and it's heaps of fun
I don't think Games Workshop is ever going to all the legacy armies. The goal is to keep those armies and their models in AoS. The proof is look at the attention and new models those armies have gotten in AoS, especially with the new release of AoS 4. Skaven just got more new models for AoS than we have gotten anything new for Old World.
All the podcasts I've been listening to trying toa ddress infantry issues refer exclusively to warhammer fantasy 8th edition...that was the edition that bled players something fierce, it was in that time period where GW wrote rules forcing people to buy crap tonnes of models to have a hope in heck of being competitive and it was also the edition many refer to as Purple Sun edition. It wasn't a good edition and if you played in it and it was your one big edition of whfb then cool, but there were better ones.
Take a step back to 6th ed whfb, it lasted 6 whole years before 7th edition came out. Yes, it was in an era where there wasn't this stupid 3 year edition cycle that brings outa new edition even if the rules don't need a new edition, but 6th ed was also the longest running whfb edition and for many good reasons. A lot of rules are seen in TOW but TOW is also a product of a newer rules set - dragons/mounts combining profiles with their riders instead of being separate is a huge issue because it makes them so much more dominant and extremely hard to kill off.
Here's a rather radical approach to balancing Monstrous Mounts - what if you change the rules such that once the number of wounds that the mount in question gives are lost, then that mount is dead and the rider is now on foot for the rest of the game?
You're still able to stack saves etc but most dragons etc that are dominating the meta, will have significant power drop off after 4 to 6 wounds have been lost. Suddenly you have characters on foot that want to probably be supporting or supported by infantry. I've not seen this idea bandied about, but it's very much like older editions of whfb where once a mount was killed the rider was on foot, it worked back then, it can work again.
I think all of us have played since 5th/6th so did run through the previous ones. I think we all enjoyed different editions for different things, but also played through the horrors of demons and fear causing cav buses auto breaking things in 7th. I liked 8th more than 7th, and at least as much as 6th partly because it did have a lot of infantry come out and it looked great.
The mixed profile suggestion would be really interesting, would certainly allow more play into the dragons, and a better chance to get through them eventually!
@@TheDwellersBelow Technically my first game was 4th ed whfb then the next time we saw our mate in primary school he had discovered 40k and we got hooked cracking in with the end of 2nd ed 40k, played 5th ed whfb here and there but 6th ed fantasy was the one I played the most as it coincided with highschool so every weekend and even paper hammer at school, it does occur to me that playing pure night goblins and once in a blue moon working in some orcs, and vs Dwarves (my bff had perfect guess range but eventually ended up going pure combat dwarves, he went from losing 80% of the time {even with perfect artillery} to about 50/50 with the combat dwarves). Played a lot of 7th but 8th did not gel well with me, it was that era where GW went through a phase of crappy CEO who forced the make rules to sell a lot more models regardless of the quality rather than make good games then the models will sell regardless.
But yeah, I can get why strength modifiers are out and armour piercing is in instead, but why combine profiles of monsters and riders, it's not as characterful and has very obviously lead to massive imbalances. It's much more 4th/5th ed whfb and how that could very easily be Herohammer in nature.
Revenue goes on the profit and loss, not the balance sheet 😉
Don't use facts to ruin our whinging!
We have a lot of smart people on the show but none of them are even close to being accountants 🤣
After hearing your conversation, the idea of a living ruleset with a paid subscription sounds like a bad idea.
Right now we have beautiful books with a decent ruleset, not only would those be invalidated, we would also enter the exact treadmill many 40k players hate with passion.
On top of that we would have to pay a fee.
This sounds like a pretty bad proposition for any outsider, whos vaguely interesed in TOW and also to everyone who is playing beer and bretzel wargaming at a local level.
Also I fear, that any system with ruleschanges and "improvements" mid- edition would put the ruleswriters in a position, where they have to introduce major changes to an already "patched" ruleset just because they have to release a new edition.
Under those circumstance, we might end not only with a treadmill, but also with a worse ruleset in the next edition.
My proposition/ hope therefore would be for GW to release FAQ on a regular basis and taking notes and feedback while the edition is in its cylce. Then they should be in position the do meaningful improvements in a new rulebook.
Agree with pretty much all of this! Love the books
I don't think a subscription is a good idea; free living PDF for rules, books for cools.
New ep 🎉
Hope you enjoy it!
I've played since 3rd edition. I lived through hero hammer. 6th edition had issues, but it was focused on regiments of cavalry and infantry. 7th had broken army books and power creep. 8th was mostly tight and easily the best core rules, focused on the regiments and mass armies. The failing of 8th was mostly the cost of armies. Just a single 50 model Witch Elf core regiment cost 300.00 USD. Starting WFB had to many barriers to entry in cost and learning curve. GW can fix that by making regiment models more accessible and affordable. The game can have simple base rules. Personally, Age of Sigmar was a mistake as it destroy the lore and setting. There was a way forward that could have streamlined Fantasy rules, reboot the setting with many of the AoS elements, but keep the Old World as a setting and game system. If Old World had a warband level of play for new players and a rank and flank level for veterans or large scale games. I would of dragged out End Times and instead of destroying the setting bring in the upheaval of the Old World instead.
Not all infantry is bad in tOW. Elite infantry is bad, cheap stuff like Bretonnian peasants is not half bad, TK skeletons are not half bad, black orcs are not bad at all. What’s bad is stuff like warriors of chaos that need to cost 300+ pts to get mass and will never deliver at that point cost.
There are definitely some exceptions, but for the most part I think infantry aren't a great option and would like to see more of it on the table.
@@TheDwellersBelow I kind of agree with both - *some* armies get to play with infantry and normal-looking forces that are still very competitive (Orcs and Goblins and Vampires probably the main ones), but it feels like they're the odd ones out. On the other hand, I think people are mostly not utilising the super cheap options very much yet (Gnoblars, Men at Arms, etc), so there's scope for some of the lack of infantry to be fixed by more experiementation.
Infantry in older editions were often points sinks to be used as denial. Sure a 400pt unit with a character can quickly go above 500 - is it going to make those points back? unlikely. Is the opponent going to win those points? Also unlikely if the unit is tough enough. Infantry are the anvil in general, not the hammer
Night goblin Jabe coming out of his mushroom hole with the hood on
I don't even think he was doing a bit. Such a gobbo
The original ruleset they were working on should be re-introduced and this absurd ruleset thrown away. The rules need to be 20 pages at MOST not 100, and certainly not 160. There are so many "darlings you didn't kill" and fat in this game.
There were so many quality-of-life fixes in 8th that they didn't add in TOW.
I should never be measuring pivot angles and inches in 2024. These are small groups of 10 or so men, not legions of 100. They got this.
Lol no.
Yeah that's a no from me dawg
@@morerobotwarscontent1476 lol enjoy your dead game then. There's a reason Warhammer Fantasy sadly died and why Old World is sinking: it's because you think 160 pages of rules is somehow perfectly OK
To be fair, TOW isn't designed with modernity in mind. It's meant to be a niche game within the specialist design studio.
8th was overall a better set of rules than many of its detractors realize. The game had a weird learning curve that made first impressions seem it was all deathstars, mega spells and random charges. In actually, the armies that were used in tournaments and by veterans of the system had realistic armies with large blocks of infantry. The magic was better as support all over the board. The random charge was in reality a bell curve charge that lead to baiting movement and risky charges out of your opponents. Step up is still one of the best rules that WFB had and I do not understand why they left it out of Old World.
Infantry need the 8th edition Step Up mechanic and Rank Bonus should be increased for Close Order to +3. Supporting Attacks should be the rank behind again, not the whole fighting rank.
Definitely not a living rulebook please, I prefer the errata, give me a hardback book and few changes. I'd hate constantly updated books which is why I avoid 40k. Book, arcane journals is the way for me.
Issue is they aren't really sticking with "a few changes". Definitely agree it would be better of they nailed it the first time...
Yeah, I don't mind faqs though, easy to download a couple of pages and bring along to tournaments :)
making a rules change sounds a lot like starting a cult
Offshoot fan edition in 3...2...
It doesn´t have much of a future without an exciting Magic phase and armies that look like Warhammer armies of old. Not this AoS nonsense witha couple monsters and some minimal units doing fakk all..
There is very little reason for me to play TOW over 6th Ed now.
Definitely agree it would be nice to look more rank and flanky and have more of a focus on units rather than characters.
AoS actually emphasizes infantry a lot more than TOW does. There are infantry unit sizes of up to 40 models in AoS games.
I don't know if you've tried it but it is a super fun game. I play it more than 3 times a month. Also it really depends on your gaming group, my group are very chill and we don't spam big monsters and still take infantry.
I wish this wasn't the case, but I think Old World had a couple of objectives that is counter to getting back Warhammer Fantasy in its full glory. 1) Divert the WFB fans away from complaining about AoS. 2) Make money off of the Old World models that do not work in AoS, keeping the best stuff from Old World in AoS. 3) Make players rather play AoS than Old World. This is meant to gather us, quiet us down and make money off us using models and factions that are less interesting than the ones we lost.
The reason games take long and are hard to learn is the rules are messy, counter-intuitive, contradictive in a few parts and way to much cross-referencing.
It's called The End Times.
Hahaha! Plz no
Hate to break it to you lads, but GW are desperate to squat Old World. They've done everything but throw the kitchen sink to try to kill sales of the game. The AoS faction is winning despite poor sales. Old World just isn't cutting it and that's not the IPs fault, it's the price (and rules). Who can afford this stuff? It was unaffordable on release and GW slapped on a 10% price hike this year on Old World just to make sure even less of the stuff is sold. It's deliberate. Premium prices for old tat from 1999 and 2003.... lol.
Where's the new plastic kit released for Greenskins? Where are the Resin and new plastic kit for Chaos? I mean we can WAGER that new plastic Forsaken have been produced but where are they? They have no respect.
Meanwhile Skaventide can't be given away.
Not sure I buy that they want to squat it. They essentially already did that one. It's not like they were under any obligation to bring it back...
@@TheDwellersBelow I think there is a lot of internal politics within GW and different factions including the newer blood who consider Fantasy Battles a joke.
AoS doesn't have poor sales. You can't dismiss 9 years of consistent growth. TOW is as affordable as it gets for GW army games too. One issue is that rank and flank games aren't as popular in todays era of tabletop gaming.
We are 8 months in chill. Stop doing the same videos as everybody else.
Why don't they stop doing the same videos as us?
What videos would you like to see?