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.

 Rihgu wrote:
Fully open skirmisher units is an... interesting choice.

It's how they worked from 4th to 7th.

I am very curious who will get Open Order and what that will mean for those units. It's an interesting addition to formation rules.

I am also very curious how reforms will work to move from Marching Column to Close Order. There were a lot of rules for changing ranks previously, which I always felt complicated things. This already seems much cleaner, but we are only getting small bits.

Random charges, but with lower range since you just keep the highest of 2D6 for infantry, not simply add them to your move. So there's a reduced randomness compared to 8th.

I'm more interested in the change to combat order and marching columns formations. Especially because units of 40 zombies / skavenslaves in a front of 5 and 8 ranks deep is no longer combat order valid, but marching column valid. So there's less abuse on "let's put as few models on the front so that the enemy can't fight with his full power if it has a bigger front" from these weak fighters that rely entirely on bonus ranks static bonuses to keep fighting.

It shows the designers know about how old Battle worked. Promising.

 Just Tony wrote:
And I'm officially out.

What exactly is the red flag here? I'm not trying to troll; I'm curious what you're seeing that I am not.

 KidCthulhu wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
And I'm officially out.

What exactly is the red flag here? I'm not trying to troll; I'm curious what you're seeing that I am not.

Random charges. Let's not reignite the "debate" that made the mods angry here.

MaxT wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
And I'm officially out.

Bye.

Removed - rule #1

 The Phazer wrote:
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."

Yeah it seems nice. A move 4 unit classically charged 8”. For this a charge of 4” plus highest of 2D6 gives you bounds of 5” to 10”, but you hit 8” 75% of the time. No silly across the board charges ala 8th, gives a zone of risk, makes dwarf and elf movement (assuming they’re still 3 and 5 respectively) still meaningful.

Like I am still a bit sad about the magic phase, but the charge change makes sense to me and I think marching columns as a way to help dwarves get up the board without the gak getting blown out of them by shooting heavy armies seems like a good solution. And it elegantly solves 4 v 5 front ranks.

This... seems actually quite good? Granted, will have to see how they are in practice (40k 10th seemed okay until the indexes were published) but I am pretty positive about this.

Misread.

Move+(best of 2d6) is pretty nice, +4.5" average with very tame variance. I honestly miss it as difficult terrain movement in 40k. And it takes base M value into account.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Misread.

Move+(best of 2d6) is pretty nice, +4.5" average with very tame variance. I honestly miss it as difficult terrain movement in 40k. And it takes base M value into account.

Note that they didn't say anything about how terrain affect moves of units in TOW.

Sarouan wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Misread.

Move+(best of 2d6) is pretty nice, +4.5" average with very tame variance. I honestly miss it as difficult terrain movement in 40k. And it takes base M value into account.

Note that they didn't say anything about how terrain affect moves of units in TOW.

I assume half speed, since half speed is already confirmed to exist as a concept in the rules.

Preventing deep tarpit units and having a dedicated marching formation seems like a nice change at first glance. Sacrificing rank bonuses for triple movement reads like a meaningful trade-off and should carry significant risk when your opponent manages to charge a marching unit. This interaction alone is surpisingly promising.

This all looks good to me! Well, I never played Bretonnians, so I don’t have an opinion about the lance formation. If nothing else, it‘s much easier to make custom movement trays than it used to be.

Am I crazy or don't they actually explain what Open Order entails?

 The Phazer wrote:
This... seems actually quite good? Granted, will have to see how they are in practice (40k 10th seemed okay until the indexes were published) but I am pretty positive about this.

I'm quite happy with what the article proposes. Cutting charge range by a d6 removes the silliness of 8th ed charges without removing the variability that made 8th ed a more dynamic game. And 2d6 pick highest keeps swinginess in check. I like that.

And unlike you, 10th ed 40k never seemed okay to me, so I don't have to feel wary of this preview.

 BertBert wrote:
Am I crazy or don't they actually explain what Open Order entails?

Not specifically, but they mention they'll be speedier, more maneuverable, and manage terrain better.

Move + 3.5-ish inches looks good - a decent amount of certainty, but with the snag that you have to plan for when It All Goes Wrong

Or deciding to take the gamble that, roughly 1/3rd of the time, you've got move + 6"

Going to make cavalry comparatively more risky - if swiftstide goes to all cav - at Move + (2d6 choose) + D6. Your guys could end up marooned much more easily if you get greedy.

Looks pretty good tbh!

A good compromise for charges between the 4-7th and 8th Ed approaches that gives an element of risk while keeping movement values relevant.

Removing rank bonus for ‘bus’ formation is an interesting choice, but probably for the best as it stops you going too large while limiting return attacks. Will play havoc with movement trays for tar pits though as you’ll likely want to reform to reduce frontage as you lose models off the back ranks.

Shooting next, but it’s the Combat phase I’m the most interested in tbh - the balance of lethality vs being able to meaningfully attack is what will make or break the game tbh.
Number of attacks needs to be toned right down from 8th to keep unit sizes reasonable, but front rank wiping from previous editions is a massive tilt to cav and monsters and can mean weaker models just become wound counters.

Previously, marching columns formations didn't have any other advantage than allowing the formation to move in space too small for a wider front. Having a specific rule advantage like tripling your move is the real novelty and incitment to use that formation. But it also prevents abuse in combat phase by making them totally inefficient in battle with no rank bonus and no charge.

In old Battle, you often saw units of fighters that were "average" and rely on numbers to keep fighting, thus having as many deep ranks as possible. Formation of 5 front and 6 deep were very common. Now these same units will be "forced" to be 6 front and 5 deep at least to be combat effective, otherwise they'll be marching column material only.

 Rihgu wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
Am I crazy or don't they actually explain what Open Order entails?

Not specifically, but they mention they'll be speedier, more maneuverable, and manage terrain better.

My guess is that it might work like 8th Edition skirmishers, probably with an immunity to being slowed by terrain if that come back.

Will be interesting to see which legacy skirmishers units become Loose Order and which go back to 4th-7th style formations.

Could make some interesting distinction for elite units - e.g. maybe basic Skinks will be Loose Order and Chameleons will be skirmishers?

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Will be interesting to see which legacy skirmishers units become Loose Order and which go back to 4th-7th style formations.

Could make some interesting distinction for elite units - e.g. maybe basic Skinks will be Loose Order and Chameleons will be skirmishers?

Yeah, gonna depend on what options each unit gets.

Maybe I'm missing something - but is anyone going to bother with Marching Column? There may be other benefits etc - but on the face of it.

I.E. - you deploy in this formation. First turn march up 3*M" turn 1. You reform to go into "Combat Order" turn 2. You can now finally charge in turn 3? If Musicians allowed a normal move via "Swift Reform" (or similar) then okay, you can now go 4*M" forward. Otherwise its 3*M".

But... you could also just march twice in combat order over turn 1 and turn 2 for 4*M" then charge in turn 3. That way you aren't potentially exposed to being charged or something while still in Marching Column?

Edit: NVM, this was nonsense.

Tyel wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something - but is anyone going to bother with Marching Column? There may be other benefits etc - but on the face of it.

I.E. - you deploy in this formation. First turn march up 3*M" turn 1. You reform to go into "Combat Order" turn 2. You can now finally charge in turn 3? If Musicians allowed a normal move via "Swift Reform" (or similar) then okay, you can now go 4*M" forward. Otherwise its 3*M".

But... you could also just march twice in combat order over turn 1 and turn 2 for 4*M" then charge in turn 3. That way you aren't potentially exposed to being charged or something while still in Marching Column?

We don't know what the missions are, some may want you to get up field fast. We also don't know what benefits charges give, it may not be as devastating for Dwarves or a dedicated Anvil unit to march T1 then reform to accept a charge T2.

Tyel wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something - but is anyone going to bother with Marching Column? There may be other benefits etc - but on the face of it.

I.E. - you deploy in this formation. First turn march up 3*M" turn 1. You reform to go into "Combat Order" turn 2. You can now finally charge in turn 3? If Musicians allowed a normal move via "Swift Reform" (or similar) then okay, you can now go 4*M" forward. Otherwise its 3*M".

But... you could also just march twice in combat order over turn 1 and turn 2 for 4*M" then charge in turn 3. That way you aren't potentially exposed to being charged or something while still in Marching Column?

Moving triple your move is a bigger deal than in previous Battle editions where this formation never had that boost. It's mostly useful for big battlefields where you need to redeploy quickly your further units towards where the main / important fight is.

But I think that overall, it's main use is precisely to prevent units from using certain formations to keep being battle ready. Because a lot of battle formations favored by players in older editions suddenly become marching columns in TOW. That's the real change here.

not like the rule for changing to marching order to actually march was not there before
just everyone ignored it because moving models off the tray and back on was not something people bothered

and triple speed will be more important for faster units and changing 5 cavalry models is different to a block of infantry

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Will be interesting to see which legacy skirmishers units become Loose Order and which go back to 4th-7th style formations.
Could make some interesting distinction for elite units - e.g. maybe basic Skinks will be Loose Order and Chameleons will be skirmishers?

Beastman in 6th had that special rules that made them skirmishers for movement but fight in R&F formation, so I guess Loose Order will be this

I'm puzzled by a couple things.

Skirmish and Open Order seem distinct (the latter specifically mentions fighting in ranks), but largely undefined

Combat Order vs Marching Column- both are more than. Where does equal fall? I used a lot of 4x4 and 5x5 in various editions of WFB, but as written they aren't in combat order OR marching column.

Also technically speaking, you can shoot an enemy unit out of 'marching column' formation (which might be a benefit for them if they're close enough to engage). The example unit is 4x5. 8 casualties means they're 4x3 and no longer a marching column. And at 4 casualties, they fall into the 'undefined' category of ranks=files.

---
It seems a shame to see only Brets get lance formation (and swiftstride?) rather than open formations up. 3rd edition had more than this handful, and imo, they added a lot.

I think you're taking the example too literally, Voss.

Voss wrote:

Combat Order vs Marching Column- both are more than. Where does equal fall?

Good question. Here, it's a resume, not the full rules written in book. Maybe there's a situation where they belong. Or maybe they're not valid formations anymore, possible as well.

Also technically speaking, you can shoot an enemy unit out of 'marching column' formation (which might be a benefit for them if they're close enough to engage). The example unit is 4x5. 8 casualties means they're 4x3 and no longer a marching column. And at 4 casualties, they fall into the 'undefined' category of ranks=files.

Depends on how the rules cover that case, but I can see it working fine as it : it just either becomes a valid formation after losses are removed or has to become one as soon as it can (in their next move phase, for example).

If your regiment is exactly 4x4 or 5x5 it can't do anything until you lose a guy, the gap will define which is your rear rank