Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Warptide wrote:
I just can't see them going back after their other systems are as simple as "pick one hero aaand... that's it you're good." (slight exaggeration)

That's a huge exaggeration, especially since they've already drawn parallels between TOW and HH, which still uses a version of the older Force Organization Chart.

But also the older FOC was more similar to what others are using now than the stricter ones in between

Like you need 1 General, certain amount of troops, can take additional heroes/monsters/warmachines

instead of the split of troops into different categories

Dudeface wrote:

Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.

2" inaccuracy? That's no gamble.

Gambling on inaccuracy we are talking more like 0.1" inaccuracy.

Nobody who plays more than 2 or 3 games can't figure out 2". That's insanely long distance.

Well maybe if you drink couple bottle of strong whiskey 2" could be an issue...

Hey, tneva82? 2" = 2 inches. 2' = 2 feet.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Come on. It's not hard to get it to the point your opponent has to gamble on a 2" window of inaccuracy.

2" inaccuracy? That's no gamble.

Gambling on inaccuracy we are talking more like 0.1" inaccuracy.

Nobody who plays more than 2 or 3 games can't figure out 2". That's insanely long distance.

Well maybe if you drink couple bottle of strong whiskey 2" could be an issue...

Can you not - we have already been told to not debate this.

Kindly take it elsewhere, final warning.

Here is a handy link to The Thunderdome where people can politely discuss in depth the merits for what rules TOW may or may not use. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/808986.page

Do we have any confirmation of when GW will do another TOW post?

I don’t think they committed to a time. But I’m hoping it will be weekly.

I remember a few pages back, after the latest rules article, there was a discussion around if the magic phase going would mean an end to the dice pool and other magic phase related chicanery.

I was looking through the past articles and noticed a detail I'd forgotten:

Situations where a single spell can decide the outcome of a battle are rare. The focus has shifted from keeping track of dice pools or hands of cards onto the positioning of Wizards.

So I think it's pretty likely each spell caster has his or her own spell casting capacity in ToW.

Apologies if everyone else has remembered this and it's common knowledge!

Chance is that it will simply be a 2D6 test or 2D6+wizard value/LD for each spell

With either a limit on spells per phase or spell per wizard

Grail Seeker wrote:
I don’t think they committed to a time. But I’m hoping it will be weekly.

As do I. They have twelve or thirteen weeks to fill if we assume an early February release, and obviously a couple more if it's later in the month. Provided the social media slip up is accurate.

That's a fair few articles to fill after the remaining three phase rundowns. Should be doable, but if they want to hand out only the bare minimum, I figure an article every two weeks could comfortably cover the core rules and give Tomb Kings and Bretonnian army rules an article each before we hit the pre-order period for whatever gets released first.

So while I hope we'll finally get to see things move more quickly, I'm not quite ready to believe just yet.

 kodos wrote:
Chance is that it will simply be a 2D6 test or 2D6+wizard value/LD for each spell

With either a limit on spells per phase or spell per wizard

Wow, I'm getting flashbacks of the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition 40K. We were used to stopping the action to deal cards for our Psykers. Then it became "well, now it's mostly LD tests in the shooting phase". I'm not necessarily complaining; it's just a hit of nostalgia I was not expecting.

 KidCthulhu wrote:
Wow, I'm getting flashbacks of the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition 40K. We were used to stopping the action to deal cards for our Psykers. Then it became "well, now it's mostly LD tests in the shooting phase". I'm not necessarily complaining; it's just a hit of nostalgia I was not expecting.

That's how Fantasy used to be back then as well. I have a nostalgia for the old spell cards and power cards etc from the Battle Magic and Warhammer Magic days.

From the latest pre-order preview article:

GW wrote:Here at Warhammer Community, we’ve got more of the exciting reveals you crave and a further expedition into the rules of Warhammer: The Old World.

Seems like GW might actually pick up the pace. No complaints from me if they actually keep it up until the game's release.

For a February release date I'd expect to see an increase around December, building to a solid presentation during January in the buildup toward launch.

Movement phase article:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/06/old-world-almanack-the-movement-phase-introduces-marching-columns/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/06/old-world-almanack-the-movement-phase-introduces-marching-columns/

MOVEMENT PHASE FOT THE OLD WORLD

I can't wait to witness a polite, measured discussion over the potential merits or failings of random charges as a result of the article.

Is that new artwork in the article, or is that from old editions?

Fully open skirmisher units is an... interesting choice. I am kind of hoping they have some sort of harsh limits on how many you can bring, a la third edition, or else seeing 40 skink skirmishers across the board is going to be a miserable experience.

Well, even more miserable than it is now.

So a non square unit doing a 90° turn is loosing immediately rank bonus, because it will be in marching order? Wyld!

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Is that new artwork in the article, or is that from old editions?

All old stuff. 6th/7th Edition.

(Not the rules example artwork, that's new).

So the charge model is more or less the same as WAP?

That strikes me as the best way to keep everyone happy personally.
Edit: It won't work, obviously, but it seems like a reasonable compromise between the two positions - the randomness is significantly reduced without going back to "charges will always succeed if you're good at eying distances."

And I'm officially out.

 Astmeister wrote:
So a non square unit doing a 90° turn is loosing immediately rank bonus, because it will be in marching order? Wyld!

I don't believe that's what is being said? The front/sides/rear of the unit would still be the same, just facing a different direction. You'll probably have to Reform to change between marching and combat order.

so Move+2d6 with premeasuring confirmed. Getting in close beforehand has the reward of not allowing stand and shoot.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
So a non square unit doing a 90° turn is loosing immediately rank bonus, because it will be in marching order? Wyld!

I don't believe that's what is being said? The front/sides/rear of the unit would still be the same, just facing a different direction. You'll probably have to Reform to change between marching and combat order.

It says when you Turn you turn each model individually, so long/short sides will be swapped.

But that's fancy maneuver, normally you'll just wheel while staying in formation. I don't think there's anything particularly surprising in this article.

It looks ok, have to wait and see to really decide.

Have to wonder if marching order will be worth it if the tables shrink or not.

Not sure a specific speedy rule is needed to knights, as I feel they should have been fast enough.
But meh, learning rules in drip feed just annoying, I would much rather see some units and how they could interact with the rules.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
so Move+2d6 with premeasuring confirmed. Getting in close beforehand has the reward of not allowing stand and shoot.

Isn't it actually movement + 1D6 (but the best of a 2D6 throw)?

Also, nobody commenting on the going back to the triangle lance formation for Bretonia? I think it's cool but so impractical and it makes me throw away all my movement bases for the old lance formation...
Would also have been cool to see the rules for the lance formation.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
so Move+2d6 with premeasuring confirmed.

No, Move + the highest of 2D6

To establish the range of their charge, units roll two dice, pick the highest score from the two and add it to their Movement characteristic.

 Just Tony wrote:
And I'm officially out.

Bye.