Topic: Possible Update for the Rules of The Old World ...

[Dazgrim]

What's wrong with Dark Coven?

[Dazgrim]

What's tmp?

Travel Mystical Pathways, the Elementalism conveyance spell that people have been abusing in tournaments. "If one corner of my huge poison archer block is still within 12" of where the block started..."

[Damar]

What's wrong with Dark Coven?

It adds +1 to castel/dispel rolls per friendly wizard within range so it sort of becomes useless when it's meant to buff your casting if I understand the Cap of +1 correctly.

Much needed change to impetuous there. And the close order unit strength thingy ( tho it does somewhat nerf my own strategy for state infantry).  I'm unimpressed by warband for state troopers. That's a rule for rabble, not disciplined troops!  Should be drilled all round as standard.

What's tmp?

Horde would have buffed the troops more since Empire is in fairly good spot when it comes to morale rolls anyhow. However, if they are willing to make point adjustments then they should have dropped State Trooper to 4pts or even 3pts

With that you would end up with spearmen that costs the same as Yeomen Guard with similiar stats and equipment (Though Yeomen Guards are still better if we skip the potential of detachments due to Shieldwall, Horde & Veteran)

[Perforated]

Close Order bonus for unit strength 10+ only

This will hit smaller units of elite infantry very hard and it is also making detachments worse. It also does nothing to curb the US 10 Chaos Dragon.

Only infantry and cavalry can get a 2+ armour save

Ok? But I don't think that the 2+ AS on big things is the problem, it's the ability to stack all the saves.

Supporting attacks can only be made within your base movement

This will not have as big of an impact as you think. If you are on 25mm bases and you are fighting a unit that is five models wide you can still rock a 13 model frontage (assuming M4).

Impetuous is now based on leadership

Good. But I do hope it will be units own leadership (or character in the unit) and that warband cannot influence this.

Chaos Dragon is now Impetuous

Ok, but if Impetuous is a Ld test this will be a minor nuisance at worst.

Empire State Troops get Warband

Does nothing to help state troops. Leadership is not their problem. If anything in the empire army should be getting warband it's the flagellants.

Cast/Dispel bonuses are capped at wizard level +1 (so no stacking Mortis engines)

Unless this is part of some bigger change (like reducing the base casting modifiers for level) then this seems odd.

Poison now +1 to wound not auto wound

Seems like a nerf, but I haven't done the math on it yet.

Pillar of fire now random move

As much as pillar of fire has been a great tool for me I think this is a change that is good.

TMP wholly within

Good. For those who do not know, TMP stands for Travel Mystical Pathway.

Ogre Blade now 75pts

Ok.

Chaos regen items now Cav+Infantry only

Save stacking should be removed via the core rules. IMO you can have all the saves but only ever use two of them (at your own discretion).

Royal Pegasus +10pts

Ok.

Pegasus Knights +4pts

Does nothing to curb Pegasus knights. They are still durable, hard-hitting and ultra-mobile with a 360 degree charge arc.

Skirmishers can only charge if over half the unit can draw line of sight to the target

Seems strange to me. It does nothing to hamper pegasus knights in all but the extreme edge cases. And for all others it's a general nerf.
Just replace the skirmish rules with those from 8th and be done with it.

Arcane urgency now one less to cast at 9+

Ok.

Stupidity prevents casting and shooting

Ok.

Skin wolf buffs don't affect characters

Ok.

Vortexes are now dispelled from the vortex not the wizard

Good, but I also fear that this might make high level wizards slightly more oppressive.

Impact hits happen before challenges are declared

Makes sense.

Trollhammer Torpedo is now Cumbersome and S5

Ok.

Trolls get motley crew

Why? You can't mix different trolls in the same unit and the only reasonable upgrade for them is great weapons as they have initiative 1.

Flails get armour bane (1) on the charge

Why? Seems entirely superfluous.

Halberds are AP +2 on the charge

Why?

infantry get +1 combat res if they outnumber their opponent

Good.

Infantry/Heavy infantry only, +1 armour in melee if using hand weapon + shield up to max 3+

This is a shit rule and I'll die on that hill. It will only serve to push out special weapons options as survivability is generally more valuable than a mediocre attack.

[commandant]

On my phone so I will put my thoughts in green

Close Order bonus for unit strength 10+ only

This will hit smaller units of elite infantry very hard and it is also making detachments worse. It also does nothing to curb the US 10 Chaos Dragon.
I agree that this is a bad change. It basically limits the +1CR from close order to large infantry units and the chaos dragon. It is punishing for detachments (meaning that you'll need to take 15 or so in a combat detachment now) but it is also punishing for all cavalry which now need 5 models to keep their +1CR, all monsterous infantry that now need 3 models, all chariots etc. It will push people towards bigger units maybe but 8th edition showed that to be a mistake. I don't know what problem this is meant to solve.

Only infantry and cavalry can get a 2+ armour save

Ok? But I don't think that the 2+ AS on big things is the problem, it's the ability to stack all the saves.
I'm okay with this. A weakening of the saves on big monsters is good. Given that even the strongest AP is only generally 3 or so (with possible AB) this could impact the maths. Sure combing saves is still a problem but this is at least a step in the right direction

Supporting attacks can only be made within your base movement

This will not have as big of an impact as you think. If you are on 25mm bases and you are fighting a unit that is five models wide you can still rock a 13 model frontage (assuming M4).
I don't feel that supporting attacks were that big a problem. I like it for the consistency but I don't think its a massive change

Impetuous is now based on leadership

Good. But I do hope it will be units own leadership (or character in the unit) and that warband cannot influence this.
I think it would be fun if warband was a negative modifier to the Impetuous roll to show the confidence of numbers but I doubt that will happen. I hope it is units' own leadership not general's leadership as well.

Chaos Dragon is now Impetuous

Ok, but if Impetuous is a Ld test this will be a minor nuisance at worst.
agreed. Also doesn't the chaos dragon what to charge mostly.

Empire State Troops get Warband

Does nothing to help state troops. Leadership is not their problem. If anything in the empire army should be getting warband it's the flagellants.
agreed. I'd like to see something to reflect their professional nature. Drilled would be good but it would be fun if Empire parent units could charge through their detachments or something

Cast/Dispel bonuses are capped at wizard level +1 (so no stacking Mortis engines)

Unless this is part of some bigger change (like reducing the base casting modifiers for level) then this seems odd.
does this mean that a level 4 can only have a casting bonus of +5. (Wizard level +1). If so then I don't think it's that important.

Poison now +1 to wound not auto wound

Seems like a nerf, but I haven't done the math on it yet.
seems like a nerf. I realise that massive poison blocks were a thing against dragons and stuff in tournaments but did they really need to be nerfed?your dragon has to be afraid of something

Pillar of fire now random move

As much as pillar of fire has been a great tool for me I think this is a change that is good.
and brings it in line with other magical vortexs

TMP wholly within

Good. For those who do not know, TMP stands for Travel Mystical Pathway.
I feel like players should stop trying to abuse the rules but this is a good clarification

Ogre Blade now 75pts

Ok.

This means you can't have the Orge blade and a ward save. This seems a good change to me.

Chaos regen items now Cav+Infantry only

Save stacking should be removed via the core rules. IMO you can have all the saves but only ever use two of them (at your own discretion).


I agree

Royal Pegasus +10pts

Ok.
Is this the first time that there have been points changes? +10 points is quite a large increase. From 60-70 points. I wonder what gets dropped.

Pegasus Knights +4pts

Does nothing to curb Pegasus knights. They are still durable, hard-hitting and ultra-mobile with a 360 degree charge arc.


This is true but what is +4 points for a unit. Maybe +16 or +20 points. Combine that with the +10 points for the royal peggy and that unit is now 20 or 30 points more expensive. That is half a peggy knight. Something else will need to give at least a little. The change might be too small but a small step.

Skirmishers can only charge if over half the unit can draw line of sight to the target

Seems strange to me. It does nothing to hamper pegasus knights in all but the extreme edge cases. And for all others it's a general nerf.
Just replace the skirmish rules with those from 8th and be done with it.

Can we just get rid of skirmishers as single models. In a line battle game they make very limited sense.

Arcane urgency now one less to cast at 9+

Ok.

No thoughts

Stupidity prevents casting and shooting

Ok.

Sure. I don't know if the test is off your own leadership but if it isn't that would also be a good improvement.

Skin wolf buffs don't affect characters

Ok.

Sure.

Vortexes are now dispelled from the vortex not the wizard

Good, but I also fear that this might make high level wizards slightly more oppressive.

This is a good change. High level wizards are already good so we'll see how magic is changed.

Impact hits happen before challenges are declared

Makes sense.

I don't mind. I like the idea of the challenger moving out from the unit bellowing his challenge but I don't think its that big a deal except for the fact that it nerfs slightly using challenges as a method of limiting CR.

Trollhammer Torpedo is now Cumbersome and S5

Ok.

Trolls get motley crew

Why? You can't mix different trolls in the same unit and the only reasonable upgrade for them is great weapons as they have initiative 1.


If you are I1 there is no downside to greatweapons so why not take them.

Flails get armour bane (1) on the charge

Why? Seems entirely superfluous.


Makes them hit harder I suppose. It'll make them really good against the new higher armour save infantry.

Halberds are AP +2 on the charge

Why?

I think this is to balance out the new higher armour save infantry. If you get an extra +1 for sword and board then men-at-arms with sword and board have a 4+ save. This makes handweapon and shield an obvious choice and gives them a good advantage against halberdiers. Now that halberdiers have +2AP and Armour bane (assuming this doesn't go away) the previous balance is somewhat restored.


This is quite a useful change for the empire I think as we have access to cheap halberdiers. Given that none of the state troops have any armour against halberdiers (greatswords aside) it doesn't hurt us at all in infantry confrontations but will help against more armoured foes.
This also make halberdiers a lot more dangerous against knights and other heavily armoured things. A 2+ save is twice as good as a 3+ save. I think a 3+ save is 33% better than a 5+ save and so on.  I think this could be a big but reasonably hidden buff.

infantry get +1 combat res if they outnumber their opponent

Good.


I see the ghost of 6th edition is back. This gives an advantage to cheap units though it is an advantage for detachments as well due to their ability to concentrate bodies.

Infantry/Heavy infantry only, +1 armour in melee if using hand weapon + shield up to max 3+

This is a shit rule and I'll die on that hill. It will only serve to push out special weapons options as survivability is generally more valuable than a mediocre attack.


We'll see how this works, combined with the change to halberds. This is another ghost of 6th edition. In 6th swordsmen were the go to choice for the WS4 and 4+ save. However the fact that halberdiers and spearmen can be WS4 and halberds are now AP2 means the choice won't be that clear cut. This is if anything (for us) a nerf to spears who will see greater levels of armour with no greater levels of killing power.
However if this pushes a lot of races towards sword and board and strength 3 attacks the T3 of humans will be less of a weakness and the 5+ AS of the spears will be better.
Could be terrible, could be good. We'll need to wait an see.


I would have liked all infantry in close order to get +1AS but that is just me.

[commandant]

Some of my thoughts didn't colour green. I'll fix it when I get home and onto my computer

[PowerSeries]

Warband

However, a Warband cannot use this modifier to its Leadership should it ever choose to make a Restraint test

Sure sounds like restraining the unit from charging would count as a restraint test.

[Perforated]

Warband

However, a Warband cannot use this modifier to its Leadership should it ever choose to make a Restraint test

Sure sounds like restraining the unit from charging would count as a restraint test.

Technically it's not. But they might reword it that way.

[PowerSeries]

I do wish you phrased that slightly less argumentatively.  Of course it's technically not applied to impetuous, as that's not in the rulebook yet.  But I agree, I think the existing warband rule's wording will be adjusted to fit with the impetuous rule.

[commandant]

Or Impetuous adjusted to fit the warband rule

[Syn Ace]

Maybe the front fighting rank can attack no matter the casualties via step up rule, provided there is enough bodies to refill the fighting rank. This benefit would not affect the flanks and rear casualties inflicted.

I was annoyed when they didn't include that from 8th.

[Dazgrim]

That was something I'm glad they got rid of. Infantry fighting in two ranks as standard would be something I'd like to see brought in.

[Damar]

I went to local store to ask about upcoming Matched Play Guide.

They told me I could pre-order it next sunday and the actual book release would be on 5th of July.

This is probably the time when next FAQ/Errata is expected to hit.

[commandant]

That was something I'm glad they got rid of. Infantry fighting in two ranks as standard would be something I'd like to see brought in.

This debate sort of strikes to the core of what you want the game to be in reality.   

Infantry fighting in two ranks would be good against other infantry (and possibly low numbers of cavalry) and that is about it.   It would have very limited impact against the things that infantry struggle against because the core problem is the survivability of those things and lethality of those things.

The difficulty is that something that moves faster than infantry and hits harder than infantry (like most heavy cavalry or monsters) is still going to punch out 5+ of your infantrymen in the first round of combat  (particularly with stomp attacks).   Infantry fighting in two ranks will have no real impact on this unless they are deployed very wide.

8th edition proved that requiring infantry to be deployed 10 wide was not a winning formula, I would rather hope that GW doesn't follow its old mistakes.

Maybe the front fighting rank can attack no matter the casualties via step up rule, provided there is enough bodies to refill the fighting rank. This benefit would not affect the flanks and rear casualties inflicted.

I was annoyed when they didn't include that from 8th.

The difficulty with this rule is that it seriously lowers the tactical element of the game so long as your units are large enough.   It would help armies with cheap and decent infantry like (the Empire) but it would hinder armies with really cheap but not great infantry (like bertonnians) and armies with really good but not cheap infantry (like the High Elves)

I think that if you want to alter the power balance of the different possible elements then you don't need to buff infantry so much as nerf behemoths and monsters.   The removal of stomp (or at least making stop to hit instead of auto hit) would be a good start.   You could also increase their prices but I don't think having massively expensive stuff is a great idea.   Maybe a dragon should only offer +2 toughness and +4 wounds instead of +3 and +6.     

[Footpatrol2]

Heavy cav and monsters should counter I infantry. I think maybe the problem is the amount the opposition can take. One monster & one heavy cav unit of reasonable size is fine. A monster mash list and a pure heavy cav list makes Infantry very sub optimal choices.

There is too much freedom in army composition.

[Dazgrim]

Hear hear.

What composition requirements would you put in?

[Footpatrol2]

You get like one monster per army 2k points. Maybe you can take heavy cav per core infantry choice. Something like that.

The arcane journals although fluffy, really skew lists.

Unless your list can handle that specific skew list, skew lists can be not fun to play against. If it's your counter list, at best your looking for a draw. Monster mash & heavy cavalry are skew lists.

I also think these elite units that sneak into core need to go. Like 0-1 black orcs or 0-1 tomb guard. It promotes model sales and also skew lists. Keep core units as core.

[commandant]

So by far the easiest way to do it (and I think there is zero chance of this happening) would be to move all monsterous cav, and monsterous infantry (leaving aside something like ogres where the entire army is monsterous infantry) to at least special and then say that 50% of your points needs to be spent on core.

[Warlord]

I have entirely different thoughts around choices - and it more aligns towards 6th and 7th ed list building, rather than 4th, 5th and 8th.
Slots rather than percentages.

Add an additional category 'Support' which do not count towards core, but have no upper limit like Core.


At a minimum though, big monsters should ONLY be in Rare. All these 'X big monster is 0-1 in special and then in Rare as well' is too much. THESE are a big cause of monster creep into the game.

[commandant]

Personally I think 6th eds 1 lord and 3 heros per 2000 points was quite good.   I would limit special to 1 per 1000 points and rare to 1 per 2000 points.

Obviously all large monsters should be rare. I would also limit dragons or whatever to 1 per army.

However I think that given the current rules you could get much the same effect by increase the core requirement to 50%

[Damar]

Matched play book has several "composition" in the index.

What I expect to happen is that GW says that "in our events we will use (for example) combined arms format".

It is then safe to assume that such composition soon becomes a "default setting" in most games.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/azlyvdkm/the-old-world-matched-play-guide-new-ways-to-play-in-the-world-of-legend/

[commandant]

It'll be interesting to see what they are.

[Damar]

It'll be interesting to see what they are.

Looks like you will see it today. Square Based is leaking it about an hour and 45 minutes from this moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wss05Vr-tZ8

00:00 Introduction
05:15 New Army Composition Rules
17:33 Changes to Victory Points
24:14 GWs Scoring for Tournaments

34:17 Matched Play Scenario Rules
37:42 Secondary Objectives!
1:10:00 Secret Objectives!
1:17:48 Missions and Deployments!
1:31:41 Wrap Up!

[Dazgrim]

Do we know how Square Based can so reliably preempt the NDA date?

[Damar]

Do we know how Square Based can so reliably preempt the NDA date?

It seems everyone leaked it at the same time anyways.

However, there is nothing in the book really that is worthwhile. I know the formats, Open War is as now, Combined Arms is "limits on composition but actually only in theory" while the Grand Melee with wizard and point cost limitations is only suitably different format (and I am not saying it's a bad one).

Waiting for a FAQ next.