GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

That calls for Necrons' tripods!

That'd be perfect if Triarch Stalkers actually had bases...

Of course you can give them bases, but it'd make it more difficult to set them up on areas of the battlefield with lots of obstacles.

But that certainly doesn't stop us from making Red Weed-encrusted scenery, along with the Creeping Vines GW also make.

 

[Canas]

https://www.warhammer-community.com...t-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/ I'm going off what's in this article. It doesn't mention anything about AOS and round bases, though I have heard rumors myself of a similar sort, though seeing that picture of the new saurus warriors on 30 mm squares has me doubting them now.

Closests I can find is this:



But I'd swear there was also an article where they explicitly stated that units that exist in both settings (E.g. lizardman/seraphon warriors) could be used in both games without any problems.

Ah well, we'll see I guess.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Next TOW preview is here! This time, Psychology:
https://www.warhammer-community.com...he-right-headspace-for-morale-and-psychology/

Fall back in good order is certainly interesting, and good to know that units in question can turn around to face their enemy again, otherwise the victorious unit could just charge such a unit in the rear and pretty much auto-win the next combat. As it is, it'll instead be a charge to the front which is fairer.

Unit Strength is making a return, makes sense when you consider how Fear and Terror are going to work. Hopefully this means you also won't Panic when a unit with lower Unit Strength is destroyed as well, as per 6th and 7th.

Fear is a bit of 6th/7th, and a bit like an idea I had suggested a while back in a hypothetical 9th Edition thread - take a Leadership test and if you fail, your attacks suffer a -1 penalty to Hit rolls. Sounds good to me.

Terror is like 6th/7th, but instead of pretty much auto-breaking if you lose a combat against a Fear/Terror causing unit, you just suffer a -1 penalty to your Leadership when taking the Break Test. Again, the balance seems right here.

I'm concerned that Animosity now looks to be a universal special rule, that's taking something unique away from Orcs and Goblins. They'd better not give it to my Beastmen, that certainly won't help them get away from the 'Chaos Greenskins' mantra that non-Beastman players like to give them.

EDIT: Alternatively, I have just looked through a copy of the 3rd Edition rulebook I have, and I wonder if the Animosity in TOW is going to be a hark back to a universal Animosity rule 3rd had, where units feel Animosity specifically toward other friendly units. This version specifically applied to Dwarfs (toward allied Elves), Greenskins (toward each other) and Norse humans and Dwarfs (toward each other). Beastmen didn't have this version, so they may be able to escape that after all.

 

[Canas]

Next TOW preview is here! This time, Psychology:
https://www.warhammer-community.com...he-right-headspace-for-morale-and-psychology/

Fall back in good order is certainly interesting, and good to know that units in question can turn around to face their enemy again, otherwise the victorious unit could just charge such a unit in the rear and pretty much auto-win the next combat. As it is, it'll instead be a charge to the front which is fairer.

It's fairer, but not by much. You already lost, so you'll probably perform worse in the follow up fight. On top of that charging gives some bonusses. And then you got units that gain a special charge bonus on top of that.

It very much seems like units that fall back in good order will still quickly get demolished, despite maintaining order. It kinda feels like there is something missing, like an anti-charge bonus for maintaining formation or something, at least versus the unit they just fought.

Also, it seems a bit silly to have someone continuously charge an orderly retreating unit. Like from a fluff/realism-point of view it seems like you shouldn't be able to constantly charge like that.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Next TOW preview is here! This time, Psychology:
https://www.warhammer-community.com...he-right-headspace-for-morale-and-psychology/

Fall back in good order is certainly interesting, and good to know that units in question can turn around to face their enemy again, otherwise the victorious unit could just charge such a unit in the rear and pretty much auto-win the next combat. As it is, it'll instead be a charge to the front which is fairer.

Unit Strength is making a return, makes sense when you consider how Fear and Terror are going to work. Hopefully this means you also won't Panic when a unit with lower Unit Strength is destroyed as well, as per 6th and 7th.

Fear is a bit of 6th/7th, and a bit like an idea I had suggested a while back in a hypothetical 9th Edition thread - take a Leadership test and if you fail, your attacks suffer a -1 penalty to Hit rolls. Sounds good to me.

Terror is like 6th/7th, but instead of pretty much auto-breaking if you lose a combat against a Fear/Terror causing unit, you just suffer a -1 penalty to your Leadership when taking the Break Test. Again, the balance seems right here.

I'm concerned that Animosity now looks to be a universal special rule, that's taking something unique away from Orcs and Goblins. They'd better not give it to my Beastmen, that certainly won't help them get away from the 'Chaos Greenskins' mantra that non-Beastman players like to give them.

EDIT: Alternatively, I have just looked through a copy of the 3rd Edition rulebook I have, and I wonder if the Animosity in TOW is going to be a hark back to a universal Animosity rule 3rd had, where units feel Animosity specifically toward other friendly units. This version specifically applied to Dwarfs (toward allied Elves), Greenskins (toward each other) and Norse humans and Dwarfs (toward each other). Beastmen didn't have this version, so they may be able to escape that after all.

Not a huge fan of the re-emergence of unit strength, but what concerns me most is the Frenzy rule, specifically:
"A Frenzied unit, however, must always charge if able to and can never choose to Flee from a charge."

No mention of a leadership test to restrain Frenzied units. If that turns out to be the case, Frenzied units would be absolutely garbage. A savvy opponent would literally have more control over your own unit than you would. And the greater the movement value of the Frenzied unit, the worse off they would be. For instance, imagine how much of a liability a unit of Ripperdactyls would be.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Not a huge fan of the re-emergence of unit strength, but what concerns me most is the Frenzy rule, specifically:
"A Frenzied unit, however, must always charge if able to and can never choose to Flee from a charge."

No mention of a leadership test to restrain Frenzied units. If that turns out to be the case, Frenzied units would be absolutely garbage. A savvy opponent would literally have more control over your own unit than you would. And the greater the movement value of the Frenzied unit, the worse off they would be. For instance, imagine how much of a liability a unit of Ripperdactyls would be.

Note though that they don't have to charge the closest enemy unit, as opposed to 8th, so as long as you get the Frenzied unit into an area where there are a good few enemy units to choose from, then you can let them attack the enemy they'd be of most use against.

In the case of flying Frenzied units like Ripperdactyls, if you can time their movement to be able to fly-march over the main enemy battleline so that they then have no enemy units in their front arc, before wheeling them around the back of the enemy line to face the rear of the enemy unit you want them to trash, then the Frenzy rule won't affect their choice of target.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Not very well. A guy ranked them up on 30mm squares and its a very tight fit.

Alternatively use 50mm bases (if for 8th) or more if needed; Now each saurus counts as 4 warriors - fixed and it is now cheaper and faster to make an army. That's my plan at least.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Note though that they don't have to charge the closest enemy unit, as opposed to 8th, so as long as you get the Frenzied unit into an area where there are a good few enemy units to choose from, then you can let them attack the enemy they'd be of most use against.

A fair point, but picture this:

You're running a K'daai Destroyer (or any other expensive frenzied model/unit with a significant charge range) and your opponent drops a cheap quick chaff unit just inside your charge range and just inside your front arc. That frenzied model now must charge that enemy unit because nothing else is in range. The controlling player has no control over his model/unit, rendering it near useless. Additionally, that frenzied model may move into a position where it is now blocking the path of other units you may possess.

I'd much rather field a frenzied model under the 8th edition framework. At least you have some measure of control because of the leadership check to restrain. Position your general and BSB well and the Frenzy rule is very manageable.

In the case of flying Frenzied units like Ripperdactyls, if you can time their movement to be able to fly-march over the main enemy battleline so that they then have no enemy units in their front arc, before wheeling them around the back of the enemy line to face the rear of the enemy unit you want them to trash, then the Frenzy rule won't affect their choice of target.

Even with a 20" fly march that is going to be difficult to pull off. It's not easy to get into a position where you have sufficient movement to get behind the enemy lines without ever being in charge range in the first place.

With free reforms you can make it work by flipping your unit to face your own lines at the end of its movement, but that comes with a whole slew of problems too. Not to mention that it can only be employed by units with a large degree of freedom in terms of movement/reforming.


Based off of what (admittedly) little we have seen, would you be willing to field a frenzied unit in TOW? I wouldn't.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Alternatively use 50mm bases (if for 8th) or more if needed; Now each saurus counts as 4 warriors - fixed and it is now cheaper and faster to make an army. That's my plan at least.

An interesting thought. A few wound counters and it could work. Definitely post some pictures once you've formed your unit, I'd love to see how it turns out.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

An interesting thought. A few wound counters and it could work. Definitely post some pictures once you've formed your unit, I'd love to see how it turns out.

Aye aye cap'n

 

[Canas]

An interesting thought. A few wound counters and it could work. Definitely post some pictures once you've formed your unit, I'd love to see how it turns out.

Honestly, it kinda surprises me that this isn't already common practise. Given how expensive the hobby is, and how fiddly it can be to rank models up nicely you'd think this would've been done before.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Honestly, it kinda surprises me that this isn't already common practise. Given how expensive the hobby is, and how fiddly it can be to rank models up nicely you'd think this would've been done before.

It's an intriguing thought. Not without its downsides, but undeniable upsides as well.

 

[Krox_v.2]

https://www.warhammer-community.com...ow-magic-brings-a-sparkle-to-the-battlefield/

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Honestly, it kinda surprises me that this isn't already common practise. Given how expensive the hobby is, and how fiddly it can be to rank models up nicely you'd think this would've been done before.

Convenience maybe.
It's not like it hasn't been or isn't being done, it's just not common (which is also what you said, I know ). My guess is that most just don't think too much about doing it, and at least where I get my miniatures, bases are not sold separately (that or have been hidden well) so you would need to get the bigger bases from a 3rd party, and so it is easier to just use what comes in the box with your miniatures.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

https://www.warhammer-community.com...ow-magic-brings-a-sparkle-to-the-battlefield/

Have just read it now.

Again, very interesting indeed - fans of power and dispel pools won't be happy to see it replaced by AoS style casting on 2D6, but the Miscast table is back and correctly returned to occurring only on snakies, and now Dispelling Wizards have to roll on it on a double-1 as well as casters, which, alongside there being a required range at which you can dispel, will still give dispelling its fair share of challenges.

Also the full list of universal lores is interesting - High and Dark Magic make sense and have been integral even in 8th Edition lore, and Battle, Illusionist, Elementalist, Daemonic and Necromantic magic are all big imports from 3rd Edition (and probably previous). The only one that doesn't make sense being a universal lore is Waaagh! Magic, which will only ever be used by the Orcs and Goblins army (unless they bring out Chaos Dwarfs in the future and allow a Hobgoblin Wizard character to use it as well) and really feels like they couldn't think of one other 'generic' magic lore which is a bit disappointing. Also it sounds like this means Orc and Goblin Wizards won't get their own separate lores anymore.

Monstrous Cavalry (and likely standard Cavalry) mounts now no longer have a separate Toughness or Wounds value but add additional Wounds to their riders and have separate Attacks of their own - makes sense given that the Toughness and Wounds values of those mounts were never used (though this wouldn't work for full-on Monsters, as it'd be stupid for a Griffon or Dragon to have human or Elf-level Toughness).

All exciting stuff once again. Still recognisably Fantasy, which should mean it'll still be good fun to have a go at. I'm still up for grabbing the rulebook when it comes out.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Again, very interesting indeed - fans of power and dispel pools won't be happy to see it replaced by AoS style casting on 2D6, but the Miscast table is back and correctly returned to occurring only on snakies, and now Dispelling Wizards have to roll on it on a double-1 as well as casters, which, alongside there being a required range at which you can dispel, will still give dispelling its fair share of challenges.

Up until now, the rules revealed for TOW have been very interesting and showed quite a bit of promise (at least at a very superficial level based on what little we know). This is TOW's first big miss! The 8th edition magic system is far superior to this simplified crap. This system strips all the skill and nuance out of magic. Weighing the risks and benefits of how many dice to allocate to a spell cast/dispel, choosing which spells to cast (and when), baiting your opponent's dispel dice and coming up with a strategy in each magic phase was the best part. Outside of having to place your wizard in the correct position on the battlefield (which is movement strategy, not a magic strategy) this seems like straightforward dimwitted dice rolling.

Garbage.

All exciting stuff once again. Still recognisably Fantasy, which should mean it'll still be good fun to have a go at. I'm still up for grabbing the rulebook when it comes out.

This ultimately doesn't change my decision to play or not play the game. As soon as they revealed that they were axing (nearly) all of my favourite armies I decided to stick with 8th. That said, seeing all the interesting rules being revealed did peak some small level of interest, but this helps kill that altogether.

As I see it, there is no reason to give up a:

• flagship game (even a discontinued one) for a specialist game
• a game featuring all the best armies for a game focusing on nine more boring ones (IMHO)
• a better and more complicated ruleset for a watered down version. (especially when the watering down was done to my favourite phase of the game)

Others may feel differently (and that is okay), but that is how I see it. I was beginning to worry that TOW's ruleset could contend with 8th edition. Happily that is not the case. There is still only one Warhammer Proper!

makes sense given that the Toughness and Wounds values of those mounts were never used

That's not true. In the case of Monstrous Cavalry you got to choose the higher of the toughness and wound values between the rider and mount. That's why a WoC Exalted Hero on a Daemonic Mount got to use the mount's T5 and 3 wounds instead of the T4 and 2 wounds found on his profile.

 

[Killer Angel]

Up until now, the rules revealed for TOW have been very interesting and showed quite a bit of promise (at least at a very superficial level based on what little we know). This is TOW's first big miss! The 8th edition magic system is far superior to this simplified crap. This system strips all the skill and nuance out of magic. Weighing the risks and benefits of how many dice to allocate to a spell cast/dispel, choosing which spells to cast (and when), baiting your opponent's dispel dice and coming up with a strategy in each magic phase was the best part. Outside of having to place your wizard in the correct position on the battlefield (which is movement strategy, not a magic strategy) this seems like straightforward dimwitted dice rolling.

Garbage.

Despite being a "hater" of the excessive amount of power held by magic in 8th, i completely agree on the sistem foundation. 8th magic dice pool was MUCH more interesting.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Despite being a "hater" of the excessive amount of power held by magic in 8th, i completely agree on the sistem foundation. 8th magic dice pool was MUCH more interesting.

The 8th edition magic system could benefit from couple of simple tweaks and it would be damn near perfect. It wouldn't take very much. Instead they completely overhauled it and simplified it down to AoS levels .

Also, it would appear that they made level 4 wizards even more of an auto-include. That extra bonus to dispel, extended dispel range and the fact that only a single "Fated Dispel" can be attempted per turn makes the level 4 even more necessary than it was in 8th.

 

[Canas]

The 8th edition magic system could benefit from couple of simple tweaks and it would be damn near perfect. It wouldn't take very much. Instead they completely overhauled it and simplified it down to AoS levels .

Meh, the issue with magic in AoS isn't that it's simple to cast & dispell. That base mechanic is at least sort of fine. The casting bonus nonsense from wizard levels and magic items is definitly not something that should be copied though. Too easy to get in a situation where minor wizards are so horribly outclassed certain factions might as well not bring their wizards.

Anyways the bigger issue is that the spells in AoS aren't particularly interesting, and especially minor wizards don't really get to do much of anything besides there 1, usually somewhat underwhelming, spellcast. Which is made worse by the fact that non-wizards can often to the exact same things using prayers/command abilities/random normal abilities. There's very little that's actually unique or particularly interesting about most minor wizards in AoS.

The old world already avoids some of those issues by allowing the minor wizards to constantly buff the unit they are in with auras and whatnot, ensuring they at least get to do something. Plus, the spells are more interesting since they actually have some variables to tweak (strength, number of hits, AP, etc.), and aren't just stuck with "D3 mortal wounds" on basicly everything.

So definitly an improvement over what AoS is currenlty stuck with

 

[Killer Angel]

The 8th edition magic system could benefit from couple of simple tweaks and it would be damn near perfect. It wouldn't take very much. Instead they completely overhauled it and simplified it down to AoS levels .

Well, it's not the system per se. It works fine.
It's the power of certain spells.