Warhammer - The Old World

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

Finished!

 

FullSizeRender.MOV

Very nice! How does he compare with an AoS Steelhelm and Bretonnian man-at-arms?

[Asbestress]

On 3/9/2024 at 12:07 PM, silverstu said:

This would have been so cool- a proper centrepiece unit for dwarfs. Peachy said it was in a similar design to the gyro bomber so the aesthetics would fit really well. There were always rumours about them redoing the Juggernaught from way back in 1st Ed WFB. This would have been some upgrade! I could see how the argument could be made that it was too much, but it would have added a bit of mobility to the army, a bit of a counter to other races big mounts and monsters and still very much in keeping with the dwarf ethos rather than adding cavalry/monsters.

Hopefully we might see it at some point in the old world, they talked about there being technology that may have been lost later being available, this fits the bill. If the Empire can have steam tanks I think we can have dwarf tanks. Love the Anvil of Doom option as well.  

(Also from the video)
One piece of the tank did make it into a kit.

Behold, the Tree Lord base:

Seems like it's part of the back around the steam engine.

[JackStreicher]

2 hours ago, Tonhel said:

Very nice! How does he compare with an AoS Steelhelm and Bretonnian man-at-arms?

 

[Milford]

Beautiful work @JackStreicher

I'm a fan of the circle on square base action!

[JackStreicher]

Question

 

Q: If a model with the Regeneration (X+) special rule passes
its Regeneration save against an attack with the Multiple Wounds (X) special rule, do I still need to roll the dice if the number of Multiple Wounds is generated by a dice roll?
A: Yes. Even though the wounds were saved, they will still count towards the combat result.

 

 

 

 

RAW I can roll this vs one wound models as well. I want to know if there’s an actual rule forbidding it.

 

Different example. You wield multi damage (D3) weapon. You attack a troll, the troll regenerates 2 wounds, you roll a 5 for the damage which counts directly towards combat res. The third wound he does not save and you deal 3 damage. So you‘ve scored a total of 8 combat res.

 

Rules that DO NOT clarify this: Challenges (has nothing to do with it since it isn’t overkill), Multiple Wounds (only covers spill over), DuH iT‘S a oNe WoUnD MoDeL (yeah, read the faq)

 

Your opinion?

I can see both, multi-combat-res by killing one wound models and not generating multiple combat res points by one wound models to have logical explanations. The former would work against hyper-tarpits as well ( Zombies, Skeletons etc.)

Edited March 11 by JackStreicher

[Ogregut]

My initial thought is you don't roll against 1 wound models as they can't take more than 1 wound. 

However, the troll in your example can't take 8 wounds so there is an argument to roll. 

If it were up to me, I would play it that you cannot cause more wounds then the model has (except in a challenge of course).

[JerekKruger]

Hmm... that's an interesting situation isn't it. To my mind, it should work like this: if you successfully make a regeneration save against a multiple wounds attack, the opponent still rolls the die to determine the number of wounds that would have been inflicted had you failed. I would consider the hard cap on that being your remaining wounds since, had you failed the save, that's the maximum you could have suffered (so for one wound models, you can skip the roll altogether).

In your example @JackStreicher if say yes, 8 wounds are counted towards combat resolution. Technically I would argue that attacks should be resolved one by one, and determine the effect of the multiple wounds rule based on the remaining wounds at the time when the regeneration save is made

e.g. let's say you have a 4 wound model which is not by two multiple wounds (d3) attacks and fails any armour and ward saves they might have. If they fail their first regeneration save and the attacker rolls 5 for wounds caused then they only have 1 wound remaining upon resolving the second attack, and thus can suffer a maximum of 1 more combat resolution (whether or not they make their regen save). However if they succeed their first regeneration save, and the attacker rolls 5 for wounds, because they still have 4 wound remaining when resolving the second attack they can suffer more than 1 wound and so you might end up with as much as 6 combat res.

However I realise this might be unsatisfying to some people because it feels like it's losing verisimilitude (personally I don't entirely agree, but that's another matter). More importantly, it adds complexity to the game which shows down an already slow game, so I don't think most people are going to go it.

I don't quite know what the correct solution should be if you don't single roll regeneration saves. If probably be inclined to cap combat resolution to the wounds characteristic if the target model, because otherwise you have a potential for absurdly high combat resolutions that couldn't occur against non-regenerating minis (there's supposed to be some downside to regen compared to ward saves, 5+ extra combat res feels too harsh).

[Tonhel]

Regeneration saves count to the combat result. So if you have a multiple wound (2) weapon and do three attacks which all wound, but the enemy manages to roll 3 times the regeneration save. You add 6 points to the Combat resolution. It doesn't matter if it's one one wound or multiple wound model that is attacked.

If he only saves 2 regeneration saves and the target is a 1 wound model. The unsaved wound bonus for the CR is 5. 

In short, if he doesn't survive the attack. You count all the wounds (for multiple wound weapons, you count the number in the bracket) that he saved with his regeneration save. But for the attack that killed the target. You only count the wounds that were needed to bring it to 0 wounds.

 

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, JerekKruger said:

In your example @JackStreicher if say yes, 8 wounds are counted towards combat resolution. Technically I would argue that attacks should be resolved one by one, and determine the effect of the multiple wounds rule based on the remaining wounds at the time when the regeneration save is made

indeed, however there is no such rule (that's the whole issue I believe)

It would be sensible to say that the combat score, per attack, taht is generated by regeneration cannot exceed a target models wound characteristic.

However I am fine with it either way, it's a rather niche non-issue

 

On the contrary the way it works right now adds a lot more thought to regeneration as a whole (and tbf regeneration saves don't seem to cost much at all)

 

 

Edited March 12 by JackStreicher

[Wnerva]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

Regeneration saves count to the combat result. So if you have a multiple wound (2) weapon and do three attacks which all wound, but the enemy manages to roll 3 times the regeneration save. You add 6 points to the Combat resolution. It doesn't matter if it's one one wound or multiple wound model that is attacked.

If he only saves 2 regeneration saves and the target is a 1 wound model. The unsaved wound bonus for the CR is 5. 

In short, if he doesn't survive the attack. You count all the wounds (for multiple wound weapons, you count the number in the bracket) that he saved with his regeneration save. But for the attack that killed the target. You only count the wounds that were needed to bring it to 0 wounds.

 

yyyy... i cant take 2 wounds if i have 1 wound on my profile. It would be madness. Its not a challenge, so there is no overkill.

[JackStreicher]

6 minutes ago, Wnerva said:

yyyy... i cant take 2 wounds if i have 1 wound on my profile. It would be madness. Its not a challenge, so there is no overkill.

You do not take a wound, that's the thing (regeneration prevents that). Regeneration does not talk about wounds, it says "add the DAMABGE" to the combat res. So all arguments concerning wounds are null and void. ^^

 

I am 100% certain that it works the way @Tonhel described judging by the rules.

Edited March 12 by JackStreicher

[Tonhel]

8 minutes ago, Wnerva said:

yyyy... i cant take 2 wounds if i have 1 wound on my profile. It would be madness. Its not a challenge, so there is no overkill.

If a Bretonnian paladin fights against zombies. That paladin has the Giant Blade (multiple wounds (2)).

The paladin has 3 attacks, all three attacks hit and wound against the zombies. Buth the zombies have a very good regeneration roll and roll 3 sixes with the regeneration saves. Than the paladin hasn't killed any zombies, but adds 6 to the combat resolution.

When the zombies succeed in two regeneration saves. 1 zombie is dead and 5 is added to the combat resolution.

If the zombies fail all the regeneration saves. 3 zombies are dead and only 3 is added to the combat resolution. 

[JackStreicher]

Exactly.

 

It's not overkill, it's not spill over it's not even lost wounds. It's a direct Combat Resolution Modifier.

[Wnerva]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

When the zombies succeed in two regeneration saves. 1 zombie is dead and 5 is added to the combat resolution.

If the zombies fail all the regeneration saves. 3 zombies are dead and only 3 is added to the combat resolution. 

It doesn't have any logic whatsoever. Just none.

But hey, im all for it ;]

[Tonhel]

I  kinda see the logic in it. The wound is still caused, even when you are regenerating the wound. The damage is done and you are weakend, regenerating takes its time. It's not an armour save or ward save. It's a nice bonus to have, but it isn't as poweful as a ward and has an impact on CR.

Also for undead it has a huge impact on the unstable rule. Either way lots of dead zombies. 🙂

[JackStreicher]

21 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I  kinda see the logic in it. The wound is still caused, even when you are regenerating the wound. The damage is done and you are weakend, regenerating takes its time. It's not an armour save or ward save. It's a nice bonus to have, but it isn't as poweful as a ward and has an impact on CR.

Also for undead it has a huge impact on the unstable rule. Either way lots of dead zombies. 🙂

Indeed.
That's why I think there's good arguments for how it works narratively in both cases.

 

I imagine that the attack hits with such force that it's actively driving back surrounding models creating the "superiority" advantage for the combat resolution.

 

Or imagine someone hitting the Troll your right with such force that this massive creature is thrown backwards - That's breaking morale right there!

 

Edited March 12 by JackStreicher

[JerekKruger]

28 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I  kinda see the logic in it. The wound is still caused, even when you are regenerating the wound. The damage is done and you are weakend, regenerating takes its time.

Not only that, in the case of non-undead things, there's still the psychological damage of seeing your opponent successfully inflict a nasty wound, even if it is then regenerated. Combat resolution is meant to measure the balance of morale on each side of a fight, the thoughts of those in the rear ranks about whether it's time to bail on the fight before it's too late, and seeing your opponent chopping into the front ranks is not going to help.

[Jator]

What's everyone expecting for Adepticon? I mean, dwarfs is what all of us assume, but besides the awaited King on shield which else could we expect? Is plastic slayers too much to hope for?

[JerekKruger]

Okay, here's my issue with this whole situation. The Multiple Wounds (X) rule states that "each unsaved wound inflicted by an attack with this special rule is multiplied by the number in the brackets...", and the Regeneration (X+) rule states that "models with this special rule can make a "Regeneration" save", but in the "Roll To Wound & Make Armour Save" it states that "if the result is less than the model’s armour value, the model’s armour has proved ineffective and the wound is ‘unsaved’".

So if a Paladin with the Giant Blade attacks a unit of zombies, hits 3 times, wounds 3 times, but the zombies somehow make all 3 regeneration saves then, according to the rules on combat those three wounds are not unsaved and hence are not multiplied by 2. To put it another way:

• Only unsaved wounds are multiplied,
• Regeneration saves are saves,
• Wounds which are saved by regeneration saves are not unsaved wounds,
• Therefore wounds saved by regeneration saves should not my multiplied.

To my mind, the rules as written were not ambiguous, although admittedly parsing through the rules is a non-trivial task.

The issue however is that the FAQ contradicts the above reasoning. To my mind, the FAQ contradicts the rules as written.

Given the FAQ, I think @Tonhel's interpretation is reasonable, though I personally disagree with it. The Regeneration rule states that "any wounds saved by a Regeneration save are still counted for the purposes of calculating the combat result", but the "Calculate Combat Result" specifically talks about unsaved wounds, not wounds. To my mind, the natural thing to do in this case is to calculate how the saved wound would have impacted the combat result if it hadn't been saved. In the case of zombies this would mean a single point of combat resolution since, had the wound not been saved by their regeneration save, it would only have contributed 1 point to the combat result. In the case of Trolls I'd say the Multiple Wounds (X) rule should be applied, with a cap of the base wounds value of the Troll in question.

But ultimately I do think this technically needs further clarification, even though it's a pretty niche situation.

[silverstu]

21 minutes ago, Jator said:

What's everyone expecting for Adepticon? I mean, dwarfs is what all of us assume, but besides the awaited King on shield which else could we expect? Is plastic slayers too much to hope for?

Yeah I think resin Lord on Shield Bearers and maybe another resin sculpt. Hoping to see what cool things they are bringing back. I love the current Hammerers and Iron Breaker kits but I'd love some more of the old metal longbeards and miners by Colin Dixon. His war machines were pretty cool as well. Those I would guess would be MTO.  Maybe Bugman's Rangers? I'd say there will be a good few classic character sculpts brought back, we were well served in the character model department. 

I think new plastic kits might be limited to any future second wave releases. Don't think they have the capacity to produce new stuff alongside trying to bring back entire ranges for the factions at this stage. 

[Ejecutor]

30 minutes ago, Jator said:

What's everyone expecting for Adepticon? I mean, dwarfs is what all of us assume, but besides the awaited King on shield which else could we expect? Is plastic slayers too much to hope for?

I expect the full range of old minis announced and 2-3 new resin heroes.

[Wnerva]

got it boys!

 

[Marcvs]

22 minutes ago, Wnerva said:

got it boys!

 

IMHO, and unfortunately, this does not clarify the issue. The sentence is about suffering wounds, but the FAQ is about wounds that were saved anyway (so, not suffered).

[Wnerva]

It does for my discord group. Its after a coma. IMO it counts.

[JerekKruger]

59 minutes ago, Wnerva said:

It does for my discord group. Its after a coma. IMO it counts.

To my mind the comma doesn't change anything since, if a model makes a regeneration save it doesn't suffer a wound (or any wounds, in the case of multiple wound attacks), so the clause about not suffering more wounds than it has on its profile doesn't kick in. After all, 0 wounds suffered is not more than the model has on its profile.