|
Post by mottdon on Nov 14, 2023 14:45:55 GMT
Also remember 25mm is the smallest base size. So most ten man units of missile troops are now two inches wider (single rank of ten guys wide), making them more unwieldy to position and maneuver on the battlefield.
Yeah, I'm not doing that. I have a small group of friends that I play with, and it's always for beer n' pretzels. I never play tournaments because I will inevitably have to play that competitive jerk that nobody else wants to play. So, no, not going to change base sizes for no apparent reason at all. We'll try a few of the "new rules" to begin with (like shooting from only one rank) but seriously doubt we'll be adopting things like that. The rest, like breaking up magic over various phases, seems to be acceptable. Not sure I want magic to be "dumbed down" to one or two lores, but we'll see when we have more info.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Nov 14, 2023 15:31:30 GMT
Looks like I was right, it's Tomb Kings! This is going to be good.
|
|
|
Post by mcnuggs on Nov 14, 2023 16:02:15 GMT
Also remember 25mm is the smallest base size. So most ten man units of missile troops are now two inches wider (single rank of ten guys wide), making them more unwieldy to position and maneuver on the battlefield. Yeah, I'm not doing that. I have a small group of friends that I play with, and it's always for beer n' pretzels. I never play tournaments because I will inevitably have to play that competitive jerk that nobody else wants to play. So, no, not going to change base sizes for no apparent reason at all. We'll try a few of the "new rules" to begin with (like shooting from only one rank) but seriously doubt we'll be adopting things like that. The rest, like breaking up magic over various phases, seems to be acceptable. Not sure I want magic to be "dumbed down" to one or two lores, but we'll see when we have more info. I’m going through a similar conflict… no way in hell am I rebasing any of my projects, and I think it will be fine to play on “old” base sizes against my friends with armies from previous eds. My concern is playing against new bloods at the LGS. These are the people that I’m trying to get in touch with and get excited about rank and file Warhammer, and I don’t want to be the grognard who shows up with incorrect base sizes and whines about how magic used to be better. Even if I really want to do so! But then what’s the solution? Movement trays that space your dudes out more?
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Nov 14, 2023 16:06:10 GMT
Also remember 25mm is the smallest base size. So most ten man units of missile troops are now two inches wider (single rank of ten guys wide), making them more unwieldy to position and maneuver on the battlefield. Yeah, I'm not doing that. I have a small group of friends that I play with, and it's always for beer n' pretzels. I never play tournaments because I will inevitably have to play that competitive jerk that nobody else wants to play. So, no, not going to change base sizes for no apparent reason at all. We'll try a few of the "new rules" to begin with (like shooting from only one rank) but seriously doubt we'll be adopting things like that. The rest, like breaking up magic over various phases, seems to be acceptable. Not sure I want magic to be "dumbed down" to one or two lores, but we'll see when we have more info. I’m going through a similar conflict… no way in hell am I rebasing any of my projects, and I think it will be fine to play on “old” base sizes against my friends with armies from previous eds. My concern is playing against new bloods at the LGS. These are the people that I’m trying to get in touch with and get excited about rank and file Warhammer, and I don’t want to be the grognard who shows up with incorrect base sizes and whines about how magic used to be better. Even if I really want to do so! But then what’s the solution? Movement trays that space your dudes out more? Either that or (my preferred method) base adaptors - either make your own out of card or thin Renedra 25mm square bases with sprue bits as the base sides (as my own home-made ones are), or Green Stuff World sell 25mm square bases that happen to have gaps in them large enough to hold a 20mm square base:
|
|
|
Post by herjan1987 on Nov 14, 2023 16:15:29 GMT
I’m going through a similar conflict… no way in hell am I rebasing any of my projects, and I think it will be fine to play on “old” base sizes against my friends with armies from previous eds. My concern is playing against new bloods at the LGS. These are the people that I’m trying to get in touch with and get excited about rank and file Warhammer, and I don’t want to be the grognard who shows up with incorrect base sizes and whines about how magic used to be better. Even if I really want to do so! But then what’s the solution? Movement trays that space your dudes out more? Either that or (my preferred method) base adaptors - either make your own out of card or thin Renedra 25mm square bases with sprue bits as the base sides (as my own home-made ones are), or Green Stuff World sell 25mm square bases that happen to have gaps in them large enough to hold a 20mm square base: Spacer bases for the win at the momment for me. I asked GW about this, and they said they wont be making spacer trays or bases. But you know this GW they are some times blind to see the gold mine.
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Nov 14, 2023 16:30:00 GMT
Spacer bases for the win at the momment for me. I asked GW about this, and they said they wont be making spacer trays or bases. But you know this GW they are some times blind to see the gold mine. There are many times GW have missed opportunities that would have been great for both the customer base and their business alike - the most recent one being Legions Imperialis - why release an Epic Battles game based on the Horus Heresy, an incredibly niche and dull piece of 40K history, when it would have made far more business sense and been appealing to many more customers to do one for 40K proper, a setting with that much bigger a fanbase? But that is GW for you.
|
|
|
Post by herjan1987 on Nov 14, 2023 17:03:39 GMT
There are many times GW have missed opportunities that would have been great for both the customer base and their business alike - the most recent one being Legions Imperialis - why release an Epic Battles game based on the Horus Heresy, an incredibly niche and dull piece of 40K history, when it would have made far more business sense and been appealing to many more customers to do one for 40K proper, a setting with that much bigger a fanbase? But that is GW for you. I can do better! They sqautted Warhammer Fantasy just, before CA released Total War: Warhammer.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Nov 14, 2023 20:13:08 GMT
Looks like I was right, it's Tomb Kings! This is going to be good. Don't go jumping to conclusions. The sand, scarab beetles, and skeletal hands could mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by thorpyuk on Nov 14, 2023 20:52:30 GMT
Annoyed that shooting is down to just the first rank... feels like a massive step backwards when shooting is already a bit pants for most armies. I play both dwarfs & empire, and in the current 8th edition rules, both armies suck if trying to use purely BS shooting only. Disappointing
|
|
|
Post by herjan1987 on Nov 14, 2023 21:07:41 GMT
Looks like I was right, it's Tomb Kings! This is going to be good. Don't go jumping to conclusions. The sand, scarab beetles, and skeletal hands could mean anything. Your right Fishmen confirmed!
|
|
|
Post by bastardfromhell on Nov 15, 2023 7:21:04 GMT
Looking back at the 'To Wound' chart. It seems you need to have T7+ in order to not get wounded by S1 Weapons and so on. The list goes up to T10. I wonder if they reworked the stats of all monsters.
Currently a O&G Giant has a toughness value of 5, Stone Trolls T4, same as a Dwarf or an Ogre. I did not find any T10 Monster. Sure it would be possible to have a magic item or spell which increases the toughness. I know, the 8th edition chart goes to T10 as well, but why would they change all those 6+ to N/A if almost no monster goes to T7 and beyond?
My hopes are GW is increasing the toughness of monsters. This is what they did for WH40k in it's 10th edition. A basic Tank has T11, and it feels more like a tank now. 10th ed has many flaws, but this is a welcoming change.
|
|
|
Post by herjan1987 on Nov 15, 2023 9:48:56 GMT
Looking back at the 'To Wound' chart. It seems you need to have T7+ in order to not get wounded by S1 Weapons and so on. The list goes up to T10. I wonder if they reworked the stats of all monsters. Currently a O&G Giant has a toughness value of 5, Stone Trolls T4, same as a Dwarf or an Ogre. I did not find any T10 Monster. Sure it would be possible to have a magic item or spell which increases the toughness. I know, the 8th edition chart goes to T10 as well, but why would they change all those 6+ to N/A if almost no monster goes to T7 and beyond? My hopes are GW is increasing the toughness of monsters. This is what they did for WH40k in it's 10th edition. A basic Tank has T11, and it feels more like a tank now. 10th ed has many flaws, but this is a welcoming change. What about dragons, hydras and wyvwerns?
|
|
|
Post by bastardfromhell on Nov 15, 2023 10:09:25 GMT
Looking back at the 'To Wound' chart. It seems you need to have T7+ in order to not get wounded by S1 Weapons and so on. The list goes up to T10. I wonder if they reworked the stats of all monsters. Currently a O&G Giant has a toughness value of 5, Stone Trolls T4, same as a Dwarf or an Ogre. I did not find any T10 Monster. Sure it would be possible to have a magic item or spell which increases the toughness. I know, the 8th edition chart goes to T10 as well, but why would they change all those 6+ to N/A if almost no monster goes to T7 and beyond? My hopes are GW is increasing the toughness of monsters. This is what they did for WH40k in it's 10th edition. A basic Tank has T11, and it feels more like a tank now. 10th ed has many flaws, but this is a welcoming change. What about dragons, hydras and wyvwerns? I did only name a few examples. Yes, those should all get a higher Toughness in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Nov 15, 2023 13:01:16 GMT
Looking back at the 'To Wound' chart. It seems you need to have T7+ in order to not get wounded by S1 Weapons and so on. The list goes up to T10. I wonder if they reworked the stats of all monsters. Currently a O&G Giant has a toughness value of 5, Stone Trolls T4, same as a Dwarf or an Ogre. I did not find any T10 Monster. Sure it would be possible to have a magic item or spell which increases the toughness. I know, the 8th edition chart goes to T10 as well, but why would they change all those 6+ to N/A if almost no monster goes to T7 and beyond? My hopes are GW is increasing the toughness of monsters. This is what they did for WH40k in it's 10th edition. A basic Tank has T11, and it feels more like a tank now. 10th ed has many flaws, but this is a welcoming change. Off the top of my head the Steam Tank is the only thing to ever have T10 on the base statline. edit: Casket of Souls has also been T10. IDK, how good the change was in 40K. It seemed good at first. But weapons also got strength boosts. The end result is almost no actual change to the dice rolls. 40K also gave a lot of basic troops multiple wounds. But they also made a lot of weapons cause multiple wounds. So again there was nearly no actual change.
|
|
|
Post by bastardfromhell on Nov 15, 2023 13:20:51 GMT
Looking back at the 'To Wound' chart. It seems you need to have T7+ in order to not get wounded by S1 Weapons and so on. The list goes up to T10. I wonder if they reworked the stats of all monsters. Currently a O&G Giant has a toughness value of 5, Stone Trolls T4, same as a Dwarf or an Ogre. I did not find any T10 Monster. Sure it would be possible to have a magic item or spell which increases the toughness. I know, the 8th edition chart goes to T10 as well, but why would they change all those 6+ to N/A if almost no monster goes to T7 and beyond? My hopes are GW is increasing the toughness of monsters. This is what they did for WH40k in it's 10th edition. A basic Tank has T11, and it feels more like a tank now. 10th ed has many flaws, but this is a welcoming change. Off the top of my head the Steam Tank is the only thing to ever have T10 on the base statline. IDK, how good the change was in 40K. It seemed good at first. But weapons also got strength boosts. The end result is almost no actual change to the dice rolls. 40K also gave a lot of basic troops multiple wounds. But they also made a lot of weapons cause multiple wounds. So again there was nearly no actual change. That describes 9th edition pretty well. 10th ed gave monsters and vehicles a reliability boost. I am not saying 10th is perfect, but a step in the right direction in this matter. Vehicles were mostly a useless pointsink in 9th. Oh, I did not check the stank. I have one at home but it did not see any battle yet.
|
|