JackStreicher Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 11 minutes ago, Jamopower said: I'd say that the flayed hauberk (and in general the option for taking armor, and possibility to not be a wizard, for your vampire) is the "blood dragon bloodline". Once that vamp carries a shield it can't cast once again. - It seems oddly intentional, yet not quite? A minor whining: Please gibe Blood Knights S5 back. It's not that relevant but bade them feel special! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogregut Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 33 minutes ago, Jamopower said: I'd say that the flayed hauberk (and in general the option for taking armor, and possibility to not be a wizard, for your vampire) is the "blood dragon bloodline". One thing that popped out, now that I have had time to read the rules properly, is the +1 CR from combat order. As it is now written, it looks like chariots and monsters get it as well (they have a special rule that specifically classes them to have close order). For single models (like last members of units) it's bit more ambiguous as there is mention about units of two or more, but also bread statement that all single models are units (and single models don't have their own rules). Having multiple chariots that disrupt ranks and each give stackable +1 to combat resolution sounds a bit broken. Now matter how difficult the maneuvering is for them now. They don't get +1 CR as they are a single model. You need at least 2 models to claim +1 CR. They reason they have the close order is to do with movement. They cannot move like they did in 8th edition and are now bound to the same rules as all other close order units with the exception that they can make a single turn of up to 90 degrees at the end of movement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, Ogregut said: order units with the exception that they can make a single turn of up to 90 degrees at the end of movement. Are you sure? I thought that 90 degree turn was only the restriction for heavy chariots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamopower Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Ogregut said: They don't get +1 CR as they are a single model. You need at least 2 models to claim +1 CR. They reason they have the close order is to do with movement. They cannot move like they did in 8th edition and are now bound to the same rules as all other close order units with the exception that they can make a single turn of up to 90 degrees at the end of movement. But currently there is nothing from stopping them from getting the +1CR. They are units because it says that all single models should be classed as units and they are in combat order because units of one have as many ranks as they have files (i.e. 1 of both). The chariots and monsters even have the lumbering rule that specifically says that they follow all the rules for close order (of which one is having the +1 CR from combat order). I don't think (or more so I hope) that it is intentional, but that's how it is now until there is an errata for that. Edited January 24 by Jamopower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Bosskelot said: There is an objective loss of flavour in the VC book but it still looks interesting. There's also the weird oversight of a Vampire being unable to cast while wearing armour which is a thing they've always been able to do. Otherwise I forsee every Vampire Lord wearing the Flayed Hauberk. I think that those legacy armylists were intented to still receive Arcane journals. Which would allow you to have a lvl 4 Vampire Wizard and etc.. 55 minutes ago, JackStreicher said: Once that vamp carries a shield it can't cast once again. - It seems oddly intentional, yet not quite? A minor whining: Please gibe Blood Knights S5 back. It's not that relevant but bade them feel special! I think my friend hasn't noticed it yet that his vampires can't cast with armour or with a shield. Anyway for our gaming VC characters can cast with armour and shield. It's an easy fix. Same for Death Hags, assassins and witch elves. They will use two hand weapons with Murderous. It are logical fixes. I only play with friends, but I can't imagine that there are people that would make a fuss about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcvs Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Jamopower said: The chariots and monsters even have the lumbering rule that specifically says that they follow all the rules for close order (of which one is having the +1 CR from combat order). Don't you need to be in a formation "that is wider than it is deep" in order to be in "Combat order" and get the CR bonus? (p.101) Edited January 24 by Marcvs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabush Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Can anyone help clarify something for me regarding Army Composition rules. When a unit says "0-1 per 1000pts", I need to play a 1000pts game or higher to be able to take one, right? I'm looking at playing a 750pts game with my old Dark Elves to learn the rules. But if it works the way I'm thinking it would limit my options a lot: No Dreadlord, no Cold One Knights, No Bolt Throwers, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamopower Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 16 minutes ago, Marcvs said: Don't you need to be in a formation "that is wider than it is deep" in order to be in "Combat order" and get the CR bonus? (p.101) If you read the second sentence in the combat order chapter, after the one you have underlined, it should be quite clear Now again it of course leaves room for argument if single model actually has ranks or files. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcvs Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Just now, Jamopower said: If you read the second sentence in the combat order chapter, after the one you have underlined, it should be quite clear dammit! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bosskelot said: There is an objective loss of flavour in the VC book but it still looks interesting. There's also the weird oversight of a Vampire being unable to cast while wearing armour which is a thing they've always been able to do. Otherwise I forsee every Vampire Lord wearing the Flayed Hauberk. As mentioned by others, this isn't the first edition where vampires have been forced to choose between armor and spellcasting. with their high initiative and 5+ regeneration a vampire might bank on not needing armor, especially if they invest in a ward save. On the other hand, a vampire who really wants to grind it out in combat might want better armor than the hauberk allows, and so choose to give up casting entirely. I like the variety of builds this implies, and how it plays into old bloodline archetypes, with combat king blood dragon types who eschew magic, von carstein esque balanced builds using the hauberk, lahmian builds that try to avoid the need for armor by relying on wards, beguile, and initiative, and necrarch builds that just buy up casting & support items & powers and mostly aim to avoid melee. Granted it would help if there were more powers available, for instance i don't think there are enough non combat options to make a necrarch style support vamp really worth running over a master necromancer*, but still the outline is there and i appreciate that. If vampires could cast in armor by default then you'd just get a singular do-everything build without these interesting trade offs. It's also worth pointing out that you might not want your fighty vampire lord to be a caster to begin with, so that you can pawn off the load bearing roll of army general to a back line necromancer. This will be especially relevant if 1999 ends up being the conpetitive standard instead of 2000 points, as it might be to avoid potential cannon spam, in which case you won't be able to field both a vampire lord and a necromancer lord at the same time. Then again, unless event organizers step in to make a direct exception, iirc 1999 would prevent lizardmen players from running a slaan, so maybe 2k will be more common after all. *frankly, If I had Necrarch vampires, I'd run them as necromancers. While we're referencing older editions, there's something very 'Warhammer Armies: Undead' about not letting vampires be level 4 wizards, creating a trade off where necros aren't just the inferior option to shave points, that I kind of like. It harkens back to a time when Arch Necromancers like Kemmler and Hellsnicht were every bit as feared in universe and faction defining on the table as big name vampires like Vlad or Mannfred. Edited January 24 by Sception 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Arthur Hotep Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 17 minutes ago, Sception said: This will be especially relevant if 1999 ends up being the conpetitive standard instead of 2000 points, as it might be to avoid potential cannon spam, in which case you won't be able to field both a vampire lord and a necromancer lord at the same time. Is there any good reason or historical precedent that 1999 might be the standard game size? Or is it just to depower lists that want to run two "0-1 per 1000 points" units? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Taylor Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 11 hours ago, Tonhel said: Are there people here from Europe that ordered from GW directly and still have their orders (the books) in the status "processing"? Contact Customer Services. From my personal experience ordering direct from GW before Christmas, it wasn't great and I think they are downplaying the supply chain issues they have at the moment getting stock made and sent out. 10 hours ago, Doko said: after study some of these i think in my opinion gw put zero effort to legacy armys and zero testing I'm pretty sure the legacy armies got playtested but they aren't designed to be perfectly balanced out of the box. They are lists to let you play with your models with The Old World. I'm fully expecting the community to do some sort of points adjustment in the future. Also the game has loads of cool tweaks to how things used to work, so I think there have been some design choices to change how effective some units used to be. 6 hours ago, Sception said: There was another thing I forgot. Saurus and temple guard are on 30mm squares now, and there is no 60x60 square base, so there's no base they could give the slaan that would neatly fit into the temple guard unit, forcing it out to the flank even if it /could/ join. Of course, there *should* be a 60 x 60 square, the slaan isn't the only model that wants one (eg, tomb scorpions would much rather be on a 60x60 than a sideways 50x75), but gw didn't want to make any actual new base sizes, so watcha gonna do. I think they just want the Slaan to work differently to how it used it. I was in the boat of why can't it go in a unit but after seeing the Temple Guard rules, I think they don't want it to go in units now. From what I've read about this edition of the game as well as the legacy lists, I'm very in favour of what they have done and I really like it. I can see me doing a Old World army this year. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said: Is there any good reason or historical precedent that 1999 might be the standard game size? Or is it just to depower lists that want to run two "0-1 per 1000 points" units? I think it's more to depower dwarf & empire lists that jump from 3 great cannons max to 6 at 2k points, rather than any of the 0-1 per 1k options. 6 great cannons isn't necessarily game breaking, but it does powerfully discourage otherwise cool & fun big centerpiece monsters. The 1999 talk is mostly just buzz & discussion I've been hearing from some youtube folks, nothing concrete. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some 1999 point events just to test it, though I currently expect 2k to win out. Personally I kind of prefer the harsher trade offs. Having to choose between fighty and magic lords just sounds more interesting for more factions than an easy default choice of one of each. A world where not every army has a level 4 wizard is also one where level 2 and 3 wizards can shine a bit more. But that's just me. Edited January 24 by Sception 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skreech Verminking Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 14 hours ago, Public Universal Duardin said: Shame for the one kid whose dad actually works for Games Workshop and everyone thinks he's a liar Absolutely, it's obvious that even the legacy pdfs are a product of love - I can't really say I felt the same thing reading the Bret rules for AoS all those years ago. It truly seems the different teams at GW compete against each other, because why would the same team that adds post-AoS units to legacy pdfs go 'nuh uh, don't you dare go and buy AoS minis'? Its all a shame because every model bought from GW is profit for them, and drives less people to third parties. Especially with TW:WH being so big it is and introducing new people to the setting, you'd think GW would rather have some Skaven fanatic purchase official Skaven models rather than some third party miniature named 'evil ratman'. But I digress, that topic has been talked to death already even before my milquetoast takes. You know while this legacy rules update for skaven is quit restricted, (and has some rules that apparently no skaven can use (very certain that’s a mistake) it actually feels like you are writing a list with skaven. in comparison to the current aos 3.0 book, this legacy pdf actually got some love for the skaven 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skreech Verminking Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Sabush said: Can anyone help clarify something for me regarding Army Composition rules. When a unit says "0-1 per 1000pts", I need to play a 1000pts game or higher to be able to take one, right? I'm looking at playing a 750pts game with my old Dark Elves to learn the rules. But if it works the way I'm thinking it would limit my options a lot: No Dreadlord, no Cold One Knights, No Bolt Throwers, etc. Officially yes…. But I don’t think that should be too much of a problem. for example me and my buds are holdimg of a 500points path to glory in aos, and basically chose to house rule the restrictions slighlty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcvs Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 10 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said: for example me and my buds are holdimg of a 500points path to glory in aos, and basically chose to house rule the restrictions slighlty same, we're playing a couple of 500-750 pts games of tOW to learn the rules next weekend and we're using the restrictions as if we were playing at 1000pts (but still respect the percentages) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamopower Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 43 minutes ago, Sception said: I think it's more to depower dwarf & empire lists that jump from 3 great cannons max to 6 at 2k points, rather than any of the 0-1 per 1k options. 6 great cannons isn't necessarily game breaking, but it does powerfully discourage otherwise cool & fun big centerpiece monsters. The 1999 talk is mostly just buzz & discussion I've been hearing from some youtube folks, nothing concrete. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some 1999 point events just to test it, though I currently expect 2k to win out. Personally I kind of prefer the harsher trade offs. Having to choose between fighty and magic lords just sounds more interesting for more factions than an easy default choice of one of each. A world where not every army has a level 4 wizard is also one where level 2 and 3 wizards can shine a bit more. But that's just me. I made my first list yesterday and feel that 1500 points would already be big enough for me 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordeus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 59 minutes ago, Sception said: Personally I kind of prefer the harsher trade offs. Having to choose between fighty and magic lords just sounds more interesting for more factions than an easy default choice of one of each. A world where not every army has a level 4 wizard is also one where level 2 and 3 wizards can shine a bit more. But that's just me. And that the beauty of this type of list building. When compared to AoS, you will have a large quantity of very different heroes based on the same original profile. Everyone running lv4 will take some of the charm away from it. I love to run different types of hero combo every game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doko Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 10 hours ago, The Red King said: Had to go back and check you are in fact talking about the Dark Elves with the easiest access to a 2+ armor save dragon who can also get a 5+ ward against weak attacks and a 4+ ward against anything that could actually hurt him (pendant of Khaelith which btw is only 10 points more than the standard 5+ ward magic item that literally everyone is taking) yes high elf dragon with +1 ws than dark elfs and +1 stomp sttack with save2 ward 5 and 5regen vs black dragon save 3(where are u finding the save 2?) ward 5 and no regen. i see worse the black dragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doko Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 10 hours ago, Bosskelot said: Cold One Knights with full plate are 2 points cheaper than dragon princes and have all of their attacks at S4 (remember, the mount exists and it has 2 attacks with armourbane). Not only are they deadlier in prolonged combat but the Knights themselves are hitting at S6 on the charge which is a much more important breakpoint than S5 on the charge. Not to mention Black Guard have Stubborn and Immune to Psychology compared to Fear (not super useful on a unit like PG) and Veteran. yes sure lets see: cold ones: in total: 2 attacks at ws3 s4 0rend +1 attack ws5 s6 rend 2 high elfs: in total: 1 attack ws 3 s3 0 rend + 2 attacks ws 5 s5 rend 2 you think dark elfs are better? because i think highs elfs are better in every situation and also ignoring that dark elfs have stupidity that is the worse rule in tow. also you cant compare stubborn that is useless in tow and imnume psy(that isnt bad) to fear that is the best stat in tow and veteran that again is one of the best stats and also having ward6 better too. im not saying dark elfs are unplayables,but are just plain downgrades of high elfs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Doko said: yes high elf dragon with +1 ws than dark elfs and +1 stomp sttack with save2 ward 5 and 5regen vs black dragon save 3(where are u finding the save 2?) ward 5 and no regen. i see worse the black dragon Doesn't have the black dragon a better breath attack and 1 better attack (serrated maw)? What do you want that the Black dragon is an exact copy of a Star dragon? I don't see the problem at all with the 3 types of HE dragons vs the Black dragon. I certainly don't see the Black dragon as weaker than teh Star Dragon. Edit: Maybe I am missing something, but the damage output plus a very good breath attack makes the Black dragon even a bit stronger than the Star dragon against various unit types. Edited January 24 by Tonhel 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyra Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 BTW what the general stance about STUPIDITY rule? watched a video of something saying once u fail the check 1 time, u are stupid for the remaining game..... since the rule dont say anithing about being stupid untill the end of the turn only. Of course i wont ever play it like that, since rule is bad enough allready but noone can think than a unit being totally useless only for failling 1 check would be fair. i try to read it as, even despite u fail the check, since u have to do the check on every turn, if u pass it on next turn ur stupidity "get cured". And the stance on breath atacks. what is his use???? sure it sound really powerfull and good, a flametrower on a big block of units !! but in reality with new bases, it wont hit so many models, and if u do the breath atack ur big dragon will be there doing nothing more, i think breath atacks should have been allowed to be made in melee or before a charge. since i wont ever choose to do my breath atack instead doing my 10+ atacks of my dragon+ hero. maybe good only in case my dragon hero have only 1-2w remaining and im scared of getting him into melee? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doko Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tonhel said: Doesn't have the black dragon a better breath attack and 1 better attack (serrated maw)? What do you want that the Black dragon is an exact copy of a Star dragon? I don't see the problem at all with the 3 types of HE dragons vs the Black dragon. I certainly don't see the Black dragon as weaker than teh Star Dragon. Edit: Maybe I am missing something, but the damage output plus a very good breath attack makes the Black dragon even a bit stronger than the Star dragon against various unit types. in fact serrated maw is a downgrade because you must waste one attack of ap2 in one maw with same s but 0 ap. yes black dragon have better breath,but i think NOBODY gonna waste 500 points in a dragon to do breaths attacks and dont go to melle. also the wyches who was my favourite units,have lost everything. -they have lost the ward(now the cauldron have a 10% chance to give it when before was 100%) -they have lost the reroll wounds rolls -they lost 2ws -lost 2 initiative and attack first(in some editions) in general the wyches have gone from be hard to play(frenzy) and with bad defense(ws 6,attack first and ward5) but with huge damage that killed everything that they touch(3 attacks rerrolling all misses and all the wounds rolls with attack first i6 and ws6 ) to be the worst defense of tow with 1w t3 and 0 saves and also weak attack with no rerrolings,worse ws and while having same problem of frenzy. the nerfs to wyches plus the huge nerfs to the cauldron have killed the wytches. old cauldron was a allways with zero counterplay or chance,a ward plus rerollimg wounds. new cauldron must choose betwen the ward or others buffs and now must do a spell with around a 50 % chance to cast and then the enemy have a 75% chance to cancell it with his lvl4 mage doing in practice useless this cauldron. who tougth that have bound spells in models that arent wizards is balanced when enemy can cancell them with +4 bonus? these bound spells mustnt can be cancelled or change it to a leadership test as empire priests or khemri so enemy cant cancell it. rigth now everyone is starting to do numbers and see that is imposible do these bound spells with only +2 models while enemy have +4 to cancell it Edited January 24 by Doko 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrac Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 7 minutes ago, alyra said: BTW what the general stance about STUPIDITY rule? watched a video of something saying once u fail the check 1 time, u are stupid for the remaining game..... since the rule dont say anithing about being stupid untill the end of the turn only. Man, so many memes about the Internet that I can make here... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrac Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 I find honestly refreshing when a multimillonary company is honest about what they won't do, but this interaction is just so funny "-Can I have these books? -No" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.