Some 4th/5th/6th ed. questions

[Commissar Vaughn]

When people show up for a game and see only a dozen models on the opposite side of the table, they might get a little upset.

Not really, I always found that people who loaded up on the gadgets and gizmos tended to have wasted a huge amount of points just because they could ( though i think this tendency was worse in 40k), rather than spending it on stuff they actually needed. You can spend as many points as you like on a hero but you're best bet for avoiding decapitation by cannonball is plenty of friends to provide a "look out sir!" roll!

[Arnizipal]

Or you could Fly High and kill the cannon on turn 2

[Galadrin]

Or you could Fly High and kill the cannon on turn 2

Flying high is one of those things that we thought was impossible to defeat back in the day, but more veteraned eyes can see that it is actually almost never a good decision. For one, you waste two turns (remember... fully one third of all Warhammer battles have a 4 turn limit in 4th/5th... that means half the battle is wasted). Second, you can't pursue when you charge from the sky, which means the enemy can just flee as a charge reaction. The flyer might be able to destroy an abandoned cannon, but if he doesn't, he's just sitting there for a second turn of doing nothing. If there is another cannon in the battery (and why wouldn't there be, they are only 100 pts!), then he's free to rotate the gun towards the landed creature and blow him away! If the target doesn't flee (i.e., the defending unit thinks it has a good chance of taking down the flyer in melee), the flying creature is automatically placed in front of the unit (nope, no flank or rear charges from flying high). And if the flying creature loses combat (and he's gunna, since he probably doesn't have a standard unless they are Wood Elf Warhawk Riders, and they definitely do not have rank bonuses), then the flyer is driven off, which is bad, because now it's the opponent's turn and he can choose to shoot or charge the flyer as he pleases.

I remember plenty of armies that paired a tooled out Lord on a flying mount, backed up by a flying monster... stick to the 24" movement and it can work out OK. But flying high? You have to think about that move very carefully before doing it.

Besides, a character on a flying mount ranges from 300 (hero and cheap flyer) to 700 (lord on dragon). A cannon is only 100 points... I cannot think of any scenario where a character on flying mount can survive an equal number of cannons, save for atrociously bad luck with misfire rolls.

[Commissar Vaughn]

Flying high is one of those things that we thought was impossible to defeat back in the day, but more veteraned eyes can see that it is actually almost never a good decision. For one, you waste two turns (remember... fully one third of all Warhammer battles have a 4 turn limit in 4th/5th... that means half the battle is wasted). Second, you can't pursue when you charge from the sky, which means the enemy can just flee as a charge reaction. The flyer might be able to destroy an abandoned cannon, but if he doesn't, he's just sitting there for a second turn of doing nothing. If there is another cannon in the battery (and why wouldn't there be, they are only 100 pts!), then he's free to rotate the gun towards the landed creature and blow him away! If the target doesn't flee (i.e., the defending unit thinks it has a good chance of taking down the flyer in melee), the flying creature is automatically placed in front of the unit (nope, no flank or rear charges from flying high). And if the flying creature loses combat (and he's gunna, since he probably doesn't have a standard unless they are Wood Elf Warhawk Riders, and they definitely do not have rank bonuses), then the flyer is driven off, which is bad, because now it's the opponent's turn and he can choose to shoot or charge the flyer as he pleases.

I remember plenty of armies that paired a tooled out Lord on a flying mount, backed up by a flying monster... stick to the 24" movement and it can work out OK. But flying high? You have to think about that move very carefully before doing it.

Besides, a character on a flying mount ranges from 300 (hero and cheap flyer) to 700 (lord on dragon). A cannon is only 100 points... I cannot think of any scenario where a character on flying mount can survive an equal number of cannons, save for atrociously bad luck with misfire rolls.

TL;DR Everything in 5th has a counter. Except possibly Lord Kroak...who was just ridiculous.

Fly high and I'll kill your mount from under you and you don't have a parachute. Or Ill use an orb of thunder to make sure you stay there. Or greet your landing with a Talisman of Ravensdark..or covering fire from a Volley Gun or two.

[toonboy78]

TL;DR Everything in 5th has a counter. Except possibly Lord Kroak...who was just ridiculous.

Fly high and I'll kill your mount from under you and you don't have a parachute. Or Ill use an orb of thunder to make sure you stay there. Or greet your landing with a Talisman of Ravensdark..or covering fire from a Volley Gun or two.

Dwarf lord: talisman of obsidian (immune to all magic) master rune of gromril (T10) and some crazy rune weapon (auto wound, D6 wounds +1A) lots of points (500pts+) but a good counter to Kroak, and nagash and i think a bloodthirster as that was wounding on 6s (i think S8)

[Galadrin]

Dwarf lord: talisman of obsidian (immune to all magic) master rune of gromril (T10) and some crazy rune weapon (auto wound, D6 wounds +1A) lots of points (500pts+) but a good counter to Kroak, and nagash and i think a bloodthirster as that was wounding on 6s (i think S8)

Nearly 600 points, actually! (575 to be precise, plus a few points for armour.) This also shows the inevitable downside of the super-tooled up character... more than a quarter of your 2,000 point army in a single model on a 20mm by 20mm base with... wait for it... Movement 3. You can't kill him easily (not entirely true... a single cannonball will do it), but he can't do anything either. It's like locking away a quarter of your points in a vault so that you technically cannot lose them. If you give him a bodyguard unit (and you'd better, because it only takes 200 pts worth of cannonballs to make sure he's dead on turn 1), then you are running a double-jeopardy... either you are just increasing the point cost of the thing that the opponent was planning to avoid anyway, or you are giving the enemy the perfect opportunity to destroy that Dwarf Lord... just smack the unit in close combat with a nasty regiment, kill a boatload of the bodyguards, force the Dwarf regiment to flee from sheer combat resolution and overrun the Stunties' 2d6-1 flee distance. Bam, 600 point lord and 300+ point bodyguard vaporized in one turn. A Crown of Command fixes the latter, but it also means you give up the Talisman of Obsidian, the rune armour or the rune weapon...

At least with the wizard characters, you can hurl some pretty nasty spells around, but even then a Level 4 Wizard is not nearly as efficient as a Level 2 or 3, as far as point cost goes. You rarely get enough power cards to charge more than two little spells, so why go over a Level 2, considering the massive point cost of Level 4 Wizards (wizard point values increase exponentially with level).

Anyway, I still favor the Bloodthirster in that matchup. The Dwarf Lord will only be dealing 3 wounds per turn (the Bloodthirster has 10), while the Bloodthirster will be dealing out 2 wounds per turn (the Dwarf Lord has 3). That's a round 2 knockout for the poor little Dwarf! Meanwhile, for fewer than 75 points, you could have a Dwarf Champion "Black Gem of Gnar" that nasty Bloodthirster into oblivion.

[Commissar Vaughn]

Dwarf lord: talisman of obsidian (immune to all magic) master rune of gromril (T10) and some crazy rune weapon (auto wound, D6 wounds +1A) lots of points (500pts+) but a good counter to Kroak, and nagash and i think a bloodthirster as that was wounding on 6s (i think S8)

Yeah but that doesn't work against kroak as he has a sword that negates all your magical toys, and leaves you trying to wound T8 (IIRC) with just s4. At least with these being runic items you still get the benefits of the mundane armour, so you don't have to fight him in your underwear.

You know I'm not sure if I'm thinking of kroak or mazdamundi now, and I no longer have the book...one of them was tough, the other insane.

Still, there are ways. Anything that kills with initiative (cockatrices, gorgons etc, certain grey magic spells) could do it, Slann usually had a low initiative.

[Galadrin]

Yeah but that doesn't work against kroak as he has a sword that negates all your magical toys, and leaves you trying to wound T8 (IIRC) with just s4. At least with these being runic items you still get the benefits of the mundane armour, so you don't have to fight him in your underwear.

You know I'm not sure if I'm thinking of kroak or mazdamundi now, and I no longer have the book...one of them was tough, the other insane.

Still, there are ways. Anything that kills with initiative (cockatrices, gorgons etc, certain grey magic spells) could do it, Slann usually had a low initiative.

Kroak's Mace negates enemy magic weapons, but not the armour or Talisman of Obsidian. Surprisingly, the old toad has Initiative 6 (but "only" 5 Toughness and 8 Wounds). If it's any consolation, Kroak would be entirely unable to wound the Dwarf Lord (but it would take a while for the Dwarf Lord to whittle down Lord Kroak's wounds... about one wound every three rounds!). If the Dwarf player was smart, he gave the Dwarf Lord a great weapon, which would double the amount of damage he was dealing to Kroak each turn, but honestly Kroak is a tough cookie. My answer to big, bad models is always artillery (conversely, I counter artillery with tough infantry regiments and lots of scouts and flyers... and I counter scouts and flyers with archers! Everything has a counter!). The Dwarf Volley Gun is particularly useful here, since at least one attack will get through his 3+ special save.

But to be perfectly honest, I didn't like the 5e army books for exactly this reason (there were 5: Bretonnia, Vampire Counts, High Elves, Lizardman and Dogs of War). Dogs of War was fine, but all the others vastly ramped up the power of their armies at the same time they added in tons of special rules to do so. Compare the 1993 4e High Elves book to the 1997 5e High Elves book... they went from no special rules to what, five or six? They now rerolled Leadership tests vs Dark Elves, fought in three ranks with spears, shot in two ranks with bows, didn't suffer movement penalties for heavy armour, had a bonus for dragons... Swordmasters and White Lions got more special rules, I think Dragon Princes got a free standard bearer or something. It was intentional rules bloat in order to create intentional power creep... bad on bad. And the new army books just seemed more bland. The "red phase" at GW was coming to an end and instead of colourful models we got mono or dual colour scheme studio armies. The Vampire Counts was an especially bad example, with black and white models (and the army became much less interesting... no more blocks of wraiths, mummies, demons riding carrion etc.) Bretonnians lost their cool volley gun that they had in 4th (although I still take it, in the form of an Empire-allied Helblaster, regardless of the Lady's Blessing). The 4e army book reprints were still golden in 5e, but the new 5e army books seemed to add a lot more power while taking out a lot of the flavour and fun. Of course, I only feel that way in retrospect. At the time, we were just dumb kids and always assumed "newer = better".

Let me be clear though, those four army books aside, 5e as a ruleset is beautifully illustrated, clearly organized and edited, and finely-tuned. I can't help but feel a nostalgic pull to 4e, but I will admit they are basically the same game and it is much easier to impress new players with the shiny 5e rulebook than the black and white 4e rulebook.

Oh, and Mazdamundi didn't have any crazy magic items... they were mostly pretty reaonable "one use only" things. Mazdamundi himself, however, was terrifying!

[Commissar Vaughn]

Kroak's Mace negates enemy magic weapons, but not the armour or Talisman of Obsidian. Surprisingly, the old toad has Initiative 6 (but "only" 5 Toughness and 8 Wounds). If it's any consolation, Kroak would be entirely unable to wound the Dwarf Lord (but it would take a while for the Dwarf Lord to whittle down Lord Kroak's wounds... about one wound every three rounds!). If the Dwarf player was smart, he gave the Dwarf Lord a great weapon, which would double the amount of damage he was dealing to Kroak each turn, but honestly Kroak is a tough cookie. My answer to big, bad models is always artillery (conversely, I counter artillery with tough infantry regiments and lots of scouts and flyers... and I counter scouts and flyers with archers! Everything has a counter!). The Dwarf Volley Gun is particularly useful here, since at least one attack will get through his 3+ special save.

But to be perfectly honest, I didn't like the 5e army books for exactly this reason (there were 5: Bretonnia, Vampire Counts, High Elves, Lizardman and Dogs of War). Dogs of War was fine, but all the others vastly ramped up the power of their armies at the same time they added in tons of special rules to do so. Compare the 1993 4e High Elves book to the 1997 5e High Elves book... they went from no special rules to what, five or six? They now rerolled Leadership tests vs Dark Elves, fought in three ranks with spears, shot in two ranks with bows, didn't suffer movement penalties for heavy armour, had a bonus for dragons... Swordmasters and White Lions got more special rules, I think Dragon Princes got a free standard bearer or something. It was intentional rules bloat in order to create intentional power creep... bad on bad. And the new army books just seemed more bland. The "red phase" at GW was coming to an end and instead of colourful models we got mono or dual colour scheme studio armies. The Vampire Counts was an especially bad example, with black and white models (and the army became much less interesting... no more blocks of wraiths, mummies, demons riding carrion etc.) Bretonnians lost their cool volley gun that they had in 4th (although I still take it, in the form of an Empire-allied Helblaster, regardless of the Lady's Blessing). The 4e army book reprints were still golden in 5e, but the new 5e army books seemed to add a lot more power while taking out a lot of the flavour and fun. Of course, I only feel that way in retrospect. At the time, we were just dumb kids and always assumed "newer = better".

Let me be clear though, those four army books aside, 5e as a ruleset is beautifully illustrated, clearly organized and edited, and finely-tuned. I can't help but feel a nostalgic pull to 4e, but I will admit they are basically the same game and it is much easier to impress new players with the shiny 5e rulebook than the black and white 4e rulebook.

Oh, and Mazdamundi didn't have any crazy magic items... they were mostly pretty reaonable "one use only" things. Mazdamundi himself, however, was terrifying!

There is a lot there that i agree with.

Maybe my memory is playing tricks- i was sure one of those two had the blade of cococila (?) which negated all magic items in base contact, meaning anyone fighting the giant fat frog in melee was going to have to beat it to death nothing more than his fists. A bit of a tall order- 8W, t6 you say? plus the inate ward, and then a pile of magical toys on top to add further protection as if it were needed?

[Yowzo]

really? i thought 4th/5th tournament rule set was 2000pts??

with a lot of WD battle reports at 3000pts

Might be a regional thing. I don't recall any 2K tournament until 6th

[toonboy78]

Kroak's Mace negates enemy magic weapons, but not the armour or Talisman of Obsidian. Surprisingly, the old toad has Initiative 6 (but "only" 5 Toughness and 8 Wounds). If it's any consolation, Kroak would be entirely unable to wound the Dwarf Lord (but it would take a while for the Dwarf Lord to whittle down Lord Kroak's wounds... about one wound every three rounds!). If the Dwarf player was smart, he gave the Dwarf Lord a great weapon, which would double the amount of damage he was dealing to Kroak each turn, but honestly Kroak is a tough cookie. My answer to big, bad models is always artillery (conversely, I counter artillery with tough infantry regiments and lots of scouts and flyers... and I counter scouts and flyers with archers! Everything has a counter!). The Dwarf Volley Gun is particularly useful here, since at least one attack will get through his 3+ special save.

But to be perfectly honest, I didn't like the 5e army books for exactly this reason (there were 5: Bretonnia, Vampire Counts, High Elves, Lizardman and Dogs of War). Dogs of War was fine, but all the others vastly ramped up the power of their armies at the same time they added in tons of special rules to do so. Compare the 1993 4e High Elves book to the 1997 5e High Elves book... they went from no special rules to what, five or six? They now rerolled Leadership tests vs Dark Elves, fought in three ranks with spears, shot in two ranks with bows, didn't suffer movement penalties for heavy armour, had a bonus for dragons... Swordmasters and White Lions got more special rules, I think Dragon Princes got a free standard bearer or something. It was intentional rules bloat in order to create intentional power creep... bad on bad. And the new army books just seemed more bland. The "red phase" at GW was coming to an end and instead of colourful models we got mono or dual colour scheme studio armies. The Vampire Counts was an especially bad example, with black and white models (and the army became much less interesting... no more blocks of wraiths, mummies, demons riding carrion etc.) Bretonnians lost their cool volley gun that they had in 4th (although I still take it, in the form of an Empire-allied Helblaster, regardless of the Lady's Blessing). The 4e army book reprints were still golden in 5e, but the new 5e army books seemed to add a lot more power while taking out a lot of the flavour and fun. Of course, I only feel that way in retrospect. At the time, we were just dumb kids and always assumed "newer = better".

Let me be clear though, those four army books aside, 5e as a ruleset is beautifully illustrated, clearly organized and edited, and finely-tuned. I can't help but feel a nostalgic pull to 4e, but I will admit they are basically the same game and it is much easier to impress new players with the shiny 5e rulebook than the black and white 4e rulebook.

Oh, and Mazdamundi didn't have any crazy magic items... they were mostly pretty reaonable "one use only" things. Mazdamundi himself, however, was terrifying!

got to agree with this, 5e was a good improvement on 4th. it did feel a little 4.5, but the changes all seemed solid. i was leaving GW behind around the time (due to studies and work) as the 5th ed books were coming out but agree that rules bloat was starting around this time. in the end it is always about the bottom line and people want something new. re hashing the same old stuff will get you in to trouble.

how did you feel about the change in the 5th magic phase from 4th. going from being able to cast spells in both yours and opponents phase to just being able to cast in yours?

[Commissar Vaughn]

Might be a regional thing. I don't recall any 2K tournament until 6th

Pretty sure the uk Grand tournaments in 4th and 5th were all 2000 points. batreps vary a lot though, i suppose the average would be around 2k...

[Galadrin]

got to agree with this, 5e was a good improvement on 4th. it did feel a little 4.5, but the changes all seemed solid. i was leaving GW behind around the time (due to studies and work) as the 5th ed books were coming out but agree that rules bloat was starting around this time. in the end it is always about the bottom line and people want something new. re hashing the same old stuff will get you in to trouble.

how did you feel about the change in the 5th magic phase from 4th. going from being able to cast spells in both yours and opponents phase to just being able to cast in yours?

The magic phase change is fine with me. It tones down magic a little and allows heroes and powerful units to shine a bit (these are the most common victims of magic). The Warhammer Magic book (and the Battle Magic book before it) all had a number of options that let you tinker and tweak the magic phase to your liking, so the 5th Edition change to casting spells only on your turn feels perfectly in line with the other options that were already available. I even like Battle Magic, although I play with the Colleges as well (which is another option available in Warhammer Magic).

But yes, the changes were very minor... mostly cleaning up and tightening the rules. A full description of the changes was given in a White Dwarf around the time 5th Edition was released. I think they are all covered on this website as well, although he also lists a lot of things that were not actually changes at all (for example, see #8 below). My thoughts on those changes...

1) Start of Turn Phase: Added a bookkeeping phase in a turn... no major change there and works fine.

2) Marching: Marching units now no longer needed to halt within 8" of an enemy. Again, this didn't really make much difference on the game. I'd be happy with either rule.

3) Charge: Can't charge to minimize model contact... closes a loophole, so it's fine with me.

4) Flanking: Flanking removes rank bonus. This is fine, since it is simple and really encourages good strategies to outflank an enemy.

5) Rolling Higher than 6: It's fine... we're literally talking about a 1 in 12 chance to roll a 7, so no major impact on the game.

6) Lapping Round: Figures no longer count for your rank bonus while lapping the enemy. Makes lapping a bit less powerful (which is bad) but makes sense.

7) Ranks: You now only need 4 models to make a rank. Makes ranks a bit more powerful (it was always annoying to lose a single model off the back and lose the rank bonus). It's a good change.

8) Pursuit: Not sure why the website mentions this... it was the same rule in both editions. Roll higher than the enemy to "catch" a fleeing unit.

9) Army-wide Panic Tests from Death of General: It's such a broken rule, but it is so fun! I can't tell you how many games have ended with a general dying and the army just domino-effect fleeing from the table. It's a real heartbreaker, but it is so cinematic that I would consider this a very good change. Of course, it also led to super-deathstar units to safeguard your general, so I can see a valid counter argument!

10) Units start the game frenzied: It's simpler and so it's better. The "working up" to frenzied was a holdover from 3e, I believe. This was a good change.

11) Command models and characters must be in the front rank: Another rule that changed very little. Probably most people already did this!

12) Characters can swap with regular models to fight in combat: Makes sense and closes a weird loophole. My preference would be something in between: characters can move AFTER one round of combat is fought (so you can still catch an enemy regiment in the side and beat them before their leader gets to fight), but that can be pretty cheesy too if you force the regiment to flee and overrun the character before he can fight! (Which is my intention, of course!)

13) Overkill: I like the 4th Edition rule, which meant that a weeny champion could challenge a 600pt Khorne Lord, die a gruesome death, and only give up 1 combat resolution (then you beat the Khorne Lord with CR from ranks and standard, overrun and kill him!). But the 5th Edition rule is probably more fair... the Lord get's CR equal to wounds dealt (i.e. 5 or 6), not wounds sustained (i.e. 1). Made for true "Herohammer" though, as the 4e rule really put a damper on overpowered characters.

14) Aerial Combat: Driving off flyers was changed slightly to be less punitive. Instead of removing flyers from the table for a turn, defeated flyers simply moved 3d6" away (like a flee move without fleeing). Flyers could no longer voluntarily leave combat, which is probably for the best. Aerial combat was made a bit more cinematic (only the active player could make attacks, as he passed by the enemy at high speed) and more immediate (you could attack the same turn you flew high). The latter meant that flyers were the best anti-air defense... if the enemy Bloodthirster flew high (in order to dive down next turn), you could send your 20 Harpies up and drop 20 S4 attacks on the Bloodthirster without any fear of repercussions. In general, all of these changes were for the better, as they let you do more with your flyers in a turn.

15) War machines: War machines were brought in line with the chariot rules (randomized hits, grouping similar war machines into batteries, characters joining crews etc.). This was all good and made the game much clearer. It also made war machines less likely to panic from missile casualties, which is good.

16) Capturing standards: Captured standards were now worth a victory point. A cool effect, and a very minor change to the rules. Good change.

17) Musicians: I actually liked the 4e rules for musicians... it allowed you to take a full reform action, which was basically a "get out of jail free" card if you get totally outmaneuvered and suddenly need to pivot and reform to face an oncoming enemy on your flanks. 5e just gave this ability to every regiment (without needing a musician and a leadership test) and changed musicians to break ties in combat resolution. Eh, it's OK I guess. Sometimes I toy with the idea of having musicians give +1 Leadership on break tests as well.

18) Skirmishers: 5e skirmishers could explicitly shoot missiles while partially engaged in melee (which is kind of weird, but probably realistic) and needed a musician to form into rank and file. Otherwise the rules were effectively the same as 4e. These changes were fine.

19) Units in buildings become skirmishers: Simple, clear and makes sense. The 4e rules were a little loose (you basically remained in rank and file formation, which was kind of weird when you think about it).

20) Bound monsters: They now tested leadership every turn in order to act (rarely, a failure meant abandoning the battle). This made independent monsters much less powerful (most monsters were around Leadership 7, so 50% of the time they would be doing nothing). It was probably unnecessary, but it made regular troops a more reliable choice in comparison and was pretty cinematic. On the other hand, you could now make squadrons of monsters (imagine a Wood Elf Lord on great eagle, backed up by six other great eagles... or maybe even a dragon-mounted hero leading a flight of dragons!). These were reasonable changes and brought monsters in line with chariots and (now) war machines as well, while limiting the power of unridden monsters.

So the changes were largely pretty minor and mostly served to make things more clear. The rulebook and battles book, however, were beautifully formatted and illustrated. I really love flipping through my copies when looking for a rule reference.

[Commissar Vaughn]

9) Army-wide Panic Tests from Death of General: It's such a broken rule, but it is so fun! I can't tell you how many games have ended with a general dying and the army just domino-effect fleeing from the table. It's a real heartbreaker, but it is so cinematic that I would consider this a very good change. Of course, it also led to super-deathstar units to safeguard your general, so I can see a valid counter argument!

This has to be one of my favourite rules, and I wish it wasn't removed in 6th. I like to play warhammer ancients every now and then just to see it in action. It wasn't as game deciding as it sounds...I've seen armies bounce back with nothing to scrape a draw or even a win despite losing their general early on.

13) Overkill: I like the 4th Edition rule, which meant that a weeny champion could challenge a 600pt Khorne Lord, die a gruesome death, and only give up 1 combat resolution (then you beat the Khorne Lord with CR from ranks and standard, overrun and kill him!). But the 5th Edition rule is probably more fair... the Lord get's CR equal to wounds dealt (i.e. 5 or 6), not wounds sustained (i.e. 1). Made for true "Herohammer" though, as the 4e rule really put a damper on overpowered characters.

I think they did it right though- it was capped at 5, so you were unlikely to see the unit cut and run because their leader got his ass handed to him, a fully ranked up unit with banner and musician would be difficult to move. And if it had a warbanner it would always win. Obviously not much use if the attacker doesn't run away because next turn he's free to reap the rank and file...

20) Bound monsters: They now tested leadership every turn in order to act (rarely, a failure meant abandoning the battle). This made independent monsters much less powerful (most monsters were around Leadership 7, so 50% of the time they would be doing nothing). It was probably unnecessary, but it made regular troops a more reliable choice in comparison and was pretty cinematic. On the other hand, you could now make squadrons of monsters (imagine a Wood Elf Lord on great eagle, backed up by six other great eagles... or maybe even a dragon-mounted hero leading a flight of dragons!). These were reasonable changes and brought monsters in line with chariots and (now) war machines as well, while limiting the power of unridden monsters.

In 20 years of gaming I could probably count the number of unridden bound monsters I'd seen on the table on the fingers of one kneecap...

[Teurastaja]

Thanks guys. We've decided to try 5th ed. first and later try 6th with Ravening Hordes. Probably we'll play both from time to time I can't wait for my first game!

Has anyone here tried Warhammer Skirmish?

[Arnizipal]

That's basically Mordheim but not as cool, right?

[Samsonov]

Luckily, these are almost all still available for us to view thanks to the Internet Archive, Oocities, Reocities etc. You should look for Longsword's tactica (there were two iterations of this, one for 4th and one for 5th, either will do... I can provide links if you'd like).

Please do, I would be most interested to read them.

What about the Beastmen Infighting rule in 5th. If I remember correctly, pass a leadership or you can do nothing. Given that the army was generally average leadership, and given that it was a close combat army, I think this is an utterly crippling rule. I could understand having some form of animosity rule, but this seems way too harsh. Any idea of how to play Beastmen in 5th?

[Galadrin]

This has to be one of my favourite rules, and I wish it wasn't removed in 6th. I like to play warhammer ancients every now and then just to see it in action. It wasn't as game deciding as it sounds...I've seen armies bounce back with nothing to scrape a draw or even a win despite losing their general early on.

Oh yes, I definitely agree. It is an awesome rule, even when it's my army fleeing the field, as it is just so dramatic and cinematic. It really makes those general-vs-general duels in the center of the table very tense!

I think they did it right though- it was capped at 5, so you were unlikely to see the unit cut and run because their leader got his ass handed to him, a fully ranked up unit with banner and musician would be difficult to move. And if it had a warbanner it would always win. Obviously not much use if the attacker doesn't run away because next turn he's free to reap the rank and file...

I agree here too... it is probably better this way and it's not an unreasonable rule at all. I just miss the old 4e rule which really put a cap on tooled out characters. Then again, the old rule didn't force you to actually think about your strategy... You just get charged and automatically throw out a challenge with your champion. On the other hand, it forced people to have MORE characters in their units to avoid your heavy-hitters being challenged, and those more characters were also relatively weaker than the one tooled out Lord, and that was a GOOD thing for gameplay.

In 20 years of gaming I could probably count the number of unridden bound monsters I'd seen on the table on the fingers of one kneecap...

Independent monsters were so good in 4e... for under 200 points, you could have a monster that could fly 24" every round and cause terror checks all around the battlefield, march-block enemy units from behind, gobble up lone wizards and war machine crews, overrun fleeing enemies and support your main attack with flank and rear charges on the enemy. Having an enemy monster behind your front lines was devastating! Even the lesser monsters are really cool. I have a Giant Scorpion in my Orc & Goblin army (it just seems like such an Orcy monster to have) and a Gigantic Spider in my Undead army. For a measley 50 points you get a supremely mobile, fear-causing unit with a couple of S5 attacks (Strength 10 with the Scorpion's pincer rule!). They're dirt cheap and effective. I always take one or two Great Eagles with my Wood Elves also, making the game's cheapest flying march-blocker.

It's true though, the 5e Bound Monster rule really did curb monsters, but they are still insanely useful to have. I would not overlook that section of the army book if I were you.

Thanks guys. We've decided to try 5th ed. first and later try 6th with Ravening Hordes. Probably we'll play both from time to time I can't wait for my first game!

Has anyone here tried Warhammer Skirmish?

Great, tell us how you get along! There is a small but loyal number of Herohammer players still around... what we really need is a forum.

Warhammer Skirmish is awesome... it was such a cool idea. I played it for a short while, but it was really starting to be supported about the time that I dropped out (6e lost the magic for me, but skirmish was still neat). It was based on Mordheim, by the way, which is a WFB 5e game.

[Galadrin]

Please do, I would be most interested to read them.

What about the Beastmen Infighting rule in 5th. If I remember correctly, pass a leadership or you can do nothing. Given that the army was generally average leadership, and given that it was a close combat army, I think this is an utterly crippling rule. I could understand having some form of animosity rule, but this seems way too harsh. Any idea of how to play Beastmen in 5th?

Oh man, my cup runneth over with Herohammer articles... be careful what you wish for! There is an ENORMOUS volume of fan articles and websites from the late 90's devoted to Warhammer Fantasy Battle 4th and 5th Edition. More are being uncovered every day thanks to Oocities and Reocities. If only we could get better access to the other early website hosting services, like FortuneCity and Angelfire. Well, I suppose it is just a matter of time before these are brought back as well!

If you were active in the webrings and email lists back in the late 90's, you'll find many of the websites you remember with a simple Google search. For starters, try entering "site:oocities.org warhammer" into Google. But anyway, here you go:

Longsword's Warhammer tactica. This is the 4e version, dated 1995... I think there may be an updated 5e version as well... I'll dig around this weekend. The vast majority of the tactica is 100% valid, however, so read away. This was considered one of the most formative tactica articles available for Warhammer in the 90's and everybody cited it. Longsword knew the game inside and out so well that GW asked him to write 6th Edition!

You should also bookmark the Warhammer Fantasy Battle 5e FAQ, as it is incredibly helpful for rules questions (feel free to ask here, as well, as one of us is bound to know the answers). If you prefer 4th Edition, check out the 4e FAQ as well.

Finally, there is a ton to be said about Beastmen Warbands in 5e. It is important to note that 5e changed the structure of Chaos armies (instead of one, huge mixed army, you now had three separate warband types... warriors, beastmen and daemons... which you could take as long as you took a warlord for each). 5e also added a bunch of unit types for Chaos, like Ungors and Bestigors. We can definitely talk tactics... what did you have in mind for your army? My initial advice is never think about a 5e army in a purist sense... you have an allies slot, use it! Diverse armies with allies are much more interesting to play and effective on the field. What you choose may depend on your opponent... maybe Dark Elf repeater bolt throwers and crossbowmen for more ranged attacks, Chaos Dwarves or Undead for their heroes, Savage Orcs for their cavalry. I usually use allies to pick the magic I want to use, which saves character points for my general, heroes and champions.

For Beastmen specific advice, chariots are awesome in 5e and Beastman Chariots are no exception. Importantly, it is the fastest unit in your army (not exactly true, Harpies are also a terrific buy with S4, T4 and 2 wounds, but they come out of your allied points!) and they are immune to infighting. Consider scythes (they boost the power of the chariot considerably, but the also put you over 1 Victory Point for the chariot unfortunately). Chaos Hounds are a good alternative to Harpies if you are not facing war machines and want to save your allied points for a Vermin Lord or something similar (he's basically a Greater Daemon of Khorne and Tzeentch all in one!).

Shore up the middle of your line with a big unit of Gors led by a character with Crown of Command. You can also use Valorous Standard or other cheap magic items to avoid infighting problems. I have mixed feelings on Bestigors... they are immune to infighting, but they are very expensive. Gors, on the other hand, are extremely cheap for T4 and 2 wounds... give them additional hand weapons and send them after enemy light infantry. Ungor skirmishers are dirt cheap (they are just under 5 points per model, so they get half-price equipment like goblins) and immune to infighting. Use these to screen enemy missiles, but also realize that they are good behind the lines to ward off march-blockers (skirmishers cannot be march-blocked themselves, and they can provide a buffer area to prevent enemy flyers from march blocking your regiments from behind... and skirmishers can charge in 360 degrees as well!). Ungors aren't going to win you any fights, but for 45pts for a small band of 10, you can't go wrong.

Minotaurs with double-handed weapons can be useful for killing knights, but I often find they draw a lot of artillery fire. They do have some of the best leadership in your army, however, and are fast and do not suffer from infighting. In 4e, you could have a Minotaur Lord as long as you had a single Minotaur regiment, which was neat. In 5e, you needed to drop at least 400 odd points on an enormous Minotaur unit before you bought the 400 point Lord... I never saw a Minotaur Lord used in 5e for this reason. Point for point, a Beastlord is a much better buy. Cool model, though! I also like a lone Minotaur to chase down enemy wizards and distract archers and artillery. Not super effective, but not a big point investment either.

A quick search came up with a few good tactica articles for Beastmen. The first one looks excellent and very thorough. The second one is a little shorter and not quite as deep, but it gives a decent overview.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Wow, serious munchkins on this thread. More cheese than the Kraft Corporation. Beards that put Duck Dynasty to shame.

I really liked the core rules of 5th, enjoyed the bright artwork and hated the game. I read with interest the counters and counter-counters given above, but my analysis is a little different. Basically I found that the key to successful game play came down to the Compression Principle: he who concentrates the most points in the fewest models usually won.

There was an exception to this and that was Traveling Circus concept, which is where a slightly larger army can dominate by simply ignoring any thought or concept of historical/plausible units and going with a collection of counter-intuitive units that are designed to exploit special rules in a way that make normal tactics useless.

I'm sure everyone here knows what I mean.

I enjoyed neither type of game.