GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

[Killer Angel]

you can still have a “horde” army represented by having more models on the field albeit in smaller units which brings its own advantages in terms of setting up flanks etc

Mmm... not so sure about it.
Horde armies are extremely weak when fielded in numerous but small groups.
Their only way to put up a fight is, well, the horde.
A deathstar, on the other side, is a completely different beast. Unrelated to the horde and Imo much more toxic.

Now i'm lost... are we talking about hordes or deathstars?

 

[Karnus]

Mmm... not so sure about it.
Horde armies are extremely weak when fielded in numerous but small groups.
Their only way to put up a fight is, well, the horde.
A deathstar, on the other side, is a completely different beast. Unrelated to the horde and Imo much more toxic.

Now i'm lost... are we talking about hordes or deathstars?

you are also talking within the framework of the rules of 8th edition. I was speculating mostly what I’d like to see changed/made viable.

for example you are 100% correct that there is little point fielding multiple, small, easy to kill units if you are a horde army in 8th edition, but it would be nice to have other options if a new rules framework allowed it.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I have faith it will be balanced out somehow - something like a minimum number of ranks with a minimum rank width would work. Meaning you could go for a unit with a 20 model wide frontage, but you have to take x number of ranks at 20 models per rank.

I personally would hope to see an end to the horde meta.

But the fact that it would still make a 20-wide frontage viable at all is still something of concern.

I think they need to employ a maximum frontage to stop this becoming the new Horde rule. Perhaps 8-wide as most TOW infantry units in the picture seem to be capped at 8 models wide...

Mmm... not so sure about it.
Horde armies are extremely weak when fielded in numerous but small groups.
Their only way to put up a fight is, well, the horde.
A deathstar, on the other side, is a completely different beast. Unrelated to the horde and Imo much more toxic.

Now i'm lost... are we talking about hordes or deathstars?

Deathstars are just hordes made up of elite units that have been cheesed up as much as possible.

The only way to make hordes balanced would be to give a 'Horde' special rule to units of weak troops that would be more likely to fight in hordes and would benefit from them without breaking the game.

Now...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

But if you have invested an army's worth of points into an army-sized unit, there would be so many models in the unit that I doubt you'd be able to have just a single rank lined across the table.

Take for example a unit of Dwarf Warriors - Dwarfs are 8 points per model, so if the game was 2000 points, for instance, the unit would be 250 Dwarfs strong, and if each was on a 20mm square base, those Dwarfs all lined up would reach a length of 5000mm, or 5m, which is certainly longer than most standard gaming tables are. That's not counting any scenery that may be in the way of the line horizontally, and that in TOW those Dwarfs will be on 25mm bases, making the line longer still. It would be pretty easy to get lots of standard non-Horde units into combat with this line, and the line would have its attacks divided between each of the enemy units engaged with it, allowing each enemy unit to take less of the flak while all the enemy units pour out their attacks on the same unit. Plus the enemy units will be able to rack up a huge combat resolution bonus for all the standards they will have, while the line will just have the one, and that it will only take one failed Break Test for the line and it's game over, whereas multiple enemy units can afford to break (and potentially rally and charge back into combat) while the rest still pour out their attacks on the line.

I don't fancy the line's chances, even if the Dwarf Warriors were replaced by a more powerful unit choice.

Chaos Warriors are on 25mm bases. One inch is equal to 25.4mm. Let's ignore the 0.4mm and assume that each Chaos Warrior base is 1 inch wide. On a 6 foot table, that allows you to go 72 models wide. If we use your much loathed MoK Chaos Warriors with AHW, that's 288 attacks, regardless of the frontage of the enemy. That's before you factor in a champion, supporting ranks, characters, spell effects, etc.


Let's consider a horde of 50 Witch Elves in 8th edition (fielded typically in a 10X5 formation). That unit gets 50 attacks (30 from the first rank, 10 supporting attacks from the second rank and 10 from the third rank due to the horde special rule). That same unit under TOW, with this special rule, fielded 50 wide, would get 150 attacks. I'd take an extra 100 attacks over rank bonus and steadfast any day.


These are all extreme examples to simply illustrate a point; namely that such a rule (in isolation) incentivizes larger and wider units. You are unlikely to see unit frontages approach such extremes, but you may see 15 or 20 model wide units (if no other rule negates or minimizes it). Units relying on small frontages (chariots, monsters, lone characters) would be severely impacted by such a rule.


With all that said, there is absolutely nothing to worry about at this point (for those of you interested in TOW). We know so very little. I doubt even GW would make such an obvious blunder. There are probably rules in place to minimize, neutralize, forbid or otherwise account for such strategies. This is just a bit of speculative fun.

Ever hopeful that I will eschew TOW and stick to 8th I see

Since I am sticking with 8th, you by default will choose the opposite. (in reality you'll simply dabble in both as well as a whole slew of other games).

 

[Karnus]

You guys run the risk of showing no reasonable discussion can be had here ha

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

You guys run the risk of showing no reasonable discussion can be had here ha

How so? We are exploring the potential impact of a specific rule while acknowledging that without access to the full picture, our analysis is limited to speculation at best.

What kind of reasonable discussion were you hoping for?

 

[Karnus]

How so? We are exploring the potential impact of a specific rule while acknowledging that without access to the full picture, our analysis is limited to speculation at best.

What kind of reasonable discussion were you hoping for?

I guess I assumed there would be more positivity on the whole, and to expand on that I mean every discussion is shrouded in a deep deep skepticism which is probably granted by the past behaviour of the company but the very fact it’s being reversed should be cause for celebration

 

[Canas]

I'm pretty sure Wizards having to be in range to dispel was already a thing in AoS (unless they removed it from 3rd, I really couldn't care about 3rd after all its rules bureaucracy killed the small amount of interest I had accrued in AoS through 2nd Edition). As for magic being usable in any phase, they already did that with Command Abilities I believe, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to do the same for magic and prayers.

Yeah, always have had to be in range. Except for the Slann who got a board-wide dispell.

Kind of like with Adeptus Titanicus, I wager that it's both ease of early model support and laziness on their part in the pursuit of profit. You've got a game in which 23 factions realistically pull models from 5-6 different ranges, of which 18 factions are supported by just one of them. As such, GW doesn't need to fabricate anywhere near as many casting dies to provide early model support when pumping out new product, and with space marines already being the posterboys of 40k and Horus Heresy as a whole it's a no-brainer for them to be pushing them as one of the introductory armies in NuEpic.

With that said, it still beats me as to why they haven't invested in expanding their manufacturing capability with their COVID booster shot.

I mean, sure, they can use the space marines as the starter faction, but they can still put it in "modern" 40K and slowly expand it.
Especially for Adeptus titanicus it's weird given that they don't need to deal with as much variations since you only have to worry about titans and knights so you should probably be able to reuse some assets relativly easily.

Depending on the quantity and type of terrain, for sure. Also depends on who has the range advantage... if the opponent has to come to you because they are outranged, it doesn't really matter at all.


They better get their entire army into your army sized unit... even then it is still 50/50.


Of course there might exist a multitude of rules that negate such a strategy, but speaking from the CC tournament results, being able to utilize your entire front rank regardless of enemy unit width, would be a game changer. That is of course in the context of 8th edition though, this game might run completely differently.

I'm just speculating that if you're a person who hates the 8th edition horde rule, this could end up being the same thing but worse. People would throw gigantic numbers of models into a horde for an extra rank of supporting attacks (limited to 1 or 3 per model), now imagine a horde-like unit where the player can utilize their model's full compliment of attacks (if that happens to be the case in the new game).


Obviously, with what little we know of the rules, all of this is HIGHLY speculative.

I'd assume they just make a max width for units, that's the obvious and easiest solution.
Then again, it's GW, so who knows how they screw it up

Mmm... not so sure about it.
Horde armies are extremely weak when fielded in numerous but small groups.
Their only way to put up a fight is, well, the horde.
A deathstar, on the other side, is a completely different beast. Unrelated to the horde and Imo much more toxic.

Now i'm lost... are we talking about hordes or deathstars?

Honestly, horde units should just get a bonus for total models on the field, not for total models within a unit.
As long as horde-like rules are done on a unit-basis they'll always encourage deathstar-like behaviour.

 

[Karnus]

But the fact that it would still make a 20-wide frontage viable at all is still something of concern

Just because the framework of the rules allows you to do something does not make it necessarily viable.

 

[Canas]

Just because the framework of the rules allows you to do something does not make it necessarily viable.

It isn't important if it's viable competitivly.
What's important is that it's possible at all, and now someone has to deal with silly congaline nonsense, and all the potentially frustrating scenarios (and potentially degenerate gameplay) that comes with it.

It's kind of a stupid discussion though. Just put in a sensible limit on the width of a unit and prevent any problems from occuring to begin with.

 

[Killer Angel]

I guess I assumed there would be more positivity on the whole, and to expand on that I mean every discussion is shrouded in a deep deep skepticism which is probably granted by the past behaviour of the company but the very fact it’s being reversed should be cause for celebration

mmm... i see your point, but let's put it this way:
1 - ToW announcement: the hype was real
2 - waiting time: long. too long. Despite covid, it went far longer than the already long prediction. Not a great thing for excitement
3 - Factions: the announcement that only a handful of the hystorical armies will be the focus of the game. Yeah, every one will be supported, but we all know how it went with AoS.

it's pretty easy to go from "optimistic" to "cautiously optimistic" to "cautious"

 

[ChapterAquila92]

I mean, sure, they can use the space marines as the starter faction, but they can still put it in "modern" 40K and slowly expand it.
Especially for Adeptus titanicus it's weird given that they don't need to deal with as much variations since you only have to worry about titans and knights so you should probably be able to reuse some assets relatively easily.

Like I said, they're doing the minimal effort stuff first. It's for the same reason that Horus Heresy players got annoyed by the deluge of plastic tank and dreadnought releases since the start of 2.0 - it's cheaper and easier to spam variations of the same modular tank kit over and over again than it is to pump out new infantry models ("Plastic breacher squads when?" "Plastic recon squads when?" "Plastic Mk III/IV/VI assault squads when?"), despite vehicles being a limited quantity tabletop-wise even in mechanized and armoured lists.

AT at least has the excuse that you're only playing with the modular kits, but its problem is more about being an experimental test-bed for NuEpic first and foremost, and the fact that it had already been slapped with the Horus Heresy label likely hadn't helped matters in their decision-making. The writing was also on the wall for Aeronautica Imperialis the moment that GW released the Horus Heresy supplement, despite AI's potential to be an interesting specialist side game to vanilla 40k on its own.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

You guys run the risk of showing no reasonable discussion can be had here ha

How so? We are exploring the potential impact of a specific rule while acknowledging that without access to the full picture, our analysis is limited to speculation at best.

What kind of reasonable discussion were you hoping for?

I guess I assumed there would be more positivity on the whole, and to expand on that I mean every discussion is shrouded in a deep deep skepticism which is probably granted by the past behaviour of the company but the very fact it’s being reversed should be cause for celebration

I think analyzing a topic based on the evidence available (while acknowledging the limitations from information that is unavailable) is the most reasonable approach to any discussion. My philosophy is to let the data guide the tone of the discussion, whether that be positive, negative or somewhere in between.

I've never been a fan of the mindset that a discussion must remain positive regardless of the information at hand. In this case though, the discussion wasn't even all that negative as the consensus seemed to be "this rule runs the risk of being problematic, however there is much that we don't know and there are probably rules in place to inhibit misuse".

Overall, I have become soured toward TOW. However, it isn't due to this potential "super horde" rule, but rather GW not fully supporting most of my favourite factions.

skepticism which is probably granted by the past behaviour of the company

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

@Killer Angel is correct and summed it up perfectly...

3 - Factions: the announcement that only a handful of the hystorical armies will be the focus of the game. Yeah, every one will be supported, but we all know how it went with AoS.

 

[Imrahil]

The new Vanguard box is announced:

https://www.warhammer-community.com...-for-the-throat-in-a-display-of-saurian-fury/

Carnosaur, Kroxigors and Saurus Warriors... good stuff to get more of. Wonder what the pricing will be like.

Grrr, !mrahil

 

[Killer Angel]

The new Vanguard box is announced:

https://www.warhammer-community.com...-for-the-throat-in-a-display-of-saurian-fury/

Carnosaur, Kroxigors and Saurus Warriors... good stuff to get more of. Wonder what the pricing will be like.

Grrr, !mrahil

ohhh, that's interesting!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Wonder what the pricing will be like.

 

[Killer Angel]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Lord-Marcus]

If it's like the other vanguard boxes were looking roughly $120

 

[Karnus]