"WAB Second Edition news..." Topic

>>> It is being "reworked" as we speak, so as to be compatible with WAB 2.0.

Really? Who was the author, again?

Allen

aegiscg47: I read on one of the groups that there is a fundamental change in WAB 2 about formation depth, so units will be wider and not as deep. Can anyone "in the know" elaborate on this?

I am not in the know, with quotes or otherwise. I have been scouring hobby shops not-too-diligently for the out of print WAB 1.5 rules and haven't found them, and I used to play WHFB quite a lot. However, that may be sufficient background to make an educated guess on this point.

The current release of WAB is based on WHFB 5.0 which required 4-model-wide ranks for rank depth effects (rank bonus).

It seems likely a new release of WAB would use mechanics from the current WHFB, which is 7.0. That requires 5-model-wide ranks for rank bonus. Also there is a rule called Outnumbering which grants, if your unit has more models than the enemy, the same bonus as if your unit had one more rank than the opponent.

If so, that would result in as you say, units that are "wider and not as deep" -- unless you spend more points per unit on them, buying more models, and producing units "wider and just as deep but more expensive and fewer".

That requires 5-model-wide ranks for rank bonus.

To be honest, I'm not sure how many players that will actually affect. It was a big deal in WFB because of the troop types on larger bases and the then-available movement trays.

"It seems likely a new release of WAB would use mechanics from the current WHFB, which is 7.0. That requires 5-model-wide ranks for rank bonus. Also there is a rule called Outnumbering which grants, if your unit has more models than the enemy, the same bonus as if your unit had one more rank than the opponent.

Fabrication.
This is entirely untrue for WAB 2.0. Rank bonus is still based on four model wide units. Outnumbering is not a CR bonus in WAB 2.0. (At least the last version I have been playing).
JJ

Allen, I know Rob Broom was the author of Divine Wind. But I was under the impression someone at Forgeworld had since taken it on. I take it I am mistaken?

I do not know. But I am having a hard time envisioning the circumstances under which that could happen.

Allen

I heard a rumour that the new WW2 variant was going to be based on 'Trolls in the Pantry'

Well I am looking forward to WAB 2.0, if for no other reason then to see everyone sharp shoot the errors in the printing! As for me I hear the latest rumour is that WWII never happened to begin with and all plans for a WWII supplement are back on the shelf. Or so I have heard.
VR
James Mattes

The book is lavishly illustrated with fantastic colour photographs and stunning full-colour artwork.

I wonder if they realize how much the odds of serious gamers taking a look at this decreases with every word of that sentence.

It would be a real emotional whipsaw if it continued with

"each one illustrating a key application of the rules" or something like that.

"Aegiscg47, word on the forums is that formations will only be two figures deep. Three figures deep for some special units. Rank depth bonus will be gone, replaced by a rank length bonus. This info is not confirmed, only rumoured."

None of the above rumors are true.
JJ

'Tis a disappointment of expectations for another step towards historical treatment of depth.

So Mike, you speak for the "serious" gamers do you now?

My sentiments exactly. Is something wrong with fantastic colour photographs and stunning full-colour artwork these days?

Wander over to the thread where some are excoriating Sam Mustapha for his "self indulgent vanity publication" of LaSalle.

So Mike, you speak for the "serious" gamers do you now?

As one.

The lavish illustrations I want to see are those which convey information and facilitate play, and if that photography is fantastic rather than workmanlike black and white, and the artwork is stunning full-colour instead of simple graphics, so much the better.

It requires thought and effort to blend art and message, just a large art budget for visual impact alone these days – I think it a waste of money if the rules are complete and solid, and an insult to the potential buyer if money is spent chasing after art instead of substantive performance.

I don't deny that it can be effective to attract some buyers and distract others from substantive problems with the rules.

Er. where are all the other topics?

Ah, I tought I was the only one. It has happened before, but you're right: only one topic visible.

"Over the Top" isn't there a WW1 set available already called that ?

How long does this normaly last? This is the only one I watch that has anything.

Whew. Thank God. I thought the problem with me LOL. Robert

So Mike, you speak for the "serious" gamers do you now?

I'd be more interested to know what "serious gamers" actually means – unfortuantely it is often used by wargamers as a piece of snobbery.

'Serious gamers', in my experience, tends to mean people who don't seem to enjoy themselves very much. Oh, I'm sure they do, but some outward sign would occasionally be nice. They also seem to feel that 'realism' in rules, whatever that really means, is of paramount importance. My answer to that has always been that "if I come round the table and punch your lights out, do I win?" Now that's realism. ;)

I'm a middle aged man who enjoys pushing my toy soldiers on a tabletop with my friends. What do the "serious gamers" do again?

Ralph

So are all the WAB supplements that cost me a small fortune going to be useless with WAB 2.0?
Andrew

Indubitably, Agplumer, indubitably! Did you expect any less???

No, they won't be. That has been made clear enough. But speculate away, it's entertaining.

Though not hinted at in the marketing pitch, it appears that at least some of the photos will do double duty as illustrations of play and eye candy.

Decidedly quiet on the WAB 2 front. Not even a non-newsletter for some time.

There was a shake-up of staff on the project. No doubt that has had some impact. I guess the idea is to not get dejected about it and just figure it will happen at it's own pace. It does make it more difficult for the developers who have supplements in a pipeline that don't yet have a up-to-date understanding of the final WAB 2 rules, as lives progress and deadline time compresses.
JJ

ZZzzzzzzzzzzz

GW has killed its product because it would interfear it the Space Marines and loyal GW worshippers.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

"GW has killed its product because it would interfear it the Space Marines and loyal GW worshippers".

Is this the "Official" line, or just speculation?

Good god, don't let MikeKT into the Louvre, the British Museum or the Detroit Institute of Art!!!! He might find them and similar places insulting!
--
Tim

Yep, pretty much given up hope on this one…