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.

The reason for random charges is to remove the certainty of being able to reach combat.

You can like that or dislike that, but the real world difference between advancing or charging will make no difference.

 lcmiracle wrote:
I've never witnessed a whole squad charging that remain in formation, and that's during demonstrations in our training, precisely because of how difficult it is. Now multiply the number of sprinting individuals by about 20 and stretch their the length from their ranks over 100 feet, and see if there's time for everyone to hear the order to charge at the same time.

well, compared to reality it depends on the time and army as well as the level you look too

a group, a company or a battalion formation will be looked differently for charges in order, but for the larger group you want them to arrive in order at the same time and not just one by one and pulling that off is not easy (like Napoleonic French infantry used a different formation for charges because it was easier that way while the cavalry trained that multi regiment charged and was one of the few that could to that which made them so much more effective the larger their numbers was)

Warhammer never really made that a thing in game that there are wild charge or charges in bad order versus charges in good order
but if the random roll for distance should be that, than Orcs need to roll something different than Elves, like the Orcs doing 2D6, while Elves have double movement + 2D3

 kodos wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Because charges were the heart of Warhammer Battle, the center of the main action. That's why charge denial is frustrating for players, and random charges are a tool to make it more difficult on purpose. While there was shooting and magic, they were more here to support the main assault and Battle, in opposite to 40k, was at the core a close combat game.

and marching denial was a thing as well

if you remove charge denial and replace it with a random roll, because "charges can be unforseen" why is march denial not just removed and not replaced by random march roll because "marches can be unforseen"

and magic or shooting was everything but "just support", it was just hated by the people if you build a list that would win without any melee action just by magic or shooting

this is just a bad argument and not very consistent

Instead of talking of "bad arguments", try to understand why the mechanism was introduced instead.

Armies based on magic and shooting were indeed hated because before random charges, it was easy to play them and destroy the opponent enough before he gets into close combat. With random charges, the 1st players to moan about it were shooting list players...precisely because random charges put the battle sooner into their defensive lines, before their shoots make too much damage in opponent melee units to make them irrelevant. So they had to think more about other tactics / strategy to counter that instead of just "putting the guns as far as possible from the enemy army and shoot shoot shoot".

You just don't know what you're talking about because you never cared playing Warhammer Battle V8. You're a KoW player, where charges are still double the move characteristic. So of course you're a fervent disliker of random charges and try to make it look bad no matter what...you're one of the guys who left.

so you agree that "realism" is a bad argument and that a 2-12" variation in movement is too much

It must be said however, that wfb was literally killed the edition random charges were introduced...

We are told it's because they didn't have enough customers, but perhaps the leaving of people like kodos was the reason their customer base dried up in the first place.

Now that's just correlation, and there are many arguments thrown around about what the causes were.

But I lost interest in wfb from that edition as well, for a range of reasons, like ASF elves and random charges.

The speed charges could generate at 2d6+m was just ridiculous. The Average human charge increased from the previous edition by +~50% and maxed at 200% their original distance, while the minimum was still 75% their original charge speed. Dwarf charge speeds increased on average by 66%, maxing at 250% their original speed. Im a dwarf player and that was just ridiculous.


and it completely changed the tempo of the game, making the tactical manoeuvre aspect of the game less relevant and turning the game into a scrumfest.

Maybe gw thinks nostalgia can paper over the design issues they will have by trying to bring back rules from THE VERY EDITION THAT KILLED IT, but I hope they go back to earlier editions for their design inspiration.

 kodos wrote:
so you agree that "realism" is a bad argument and that a 2-12" variation in movement is too much

We're talking about a game with wizards, dragons and goblins. "Realism" was never the point of it.

That's why shooting weapons have such a low range ("in reality, a bow shoots further than that !"), why heroes can have more than one wound, why regiments are so low in number of models ("But one miniature can represent dozens of the same soldier !" "yeah, it's a BS excuse for people not wanting to accept their armies are not representative of the "reality" - otherwise, they would have played 10mm scale instead")...must I keep on ? I think not.

Compromises are always made when you design a game. If "realism" is in the way of the fun, I think it's a good thing to put it away.

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Because charges were the heart of Warhammer Battle, the center of the main action. That's why charge denial is frustrating for players, and random charges are a tool to make it more difficult on purpose. While there was shooting and magic, they were more here to support the main assault and Battle, in opposite to 40k, was at the core a close combat game.

and marching denial was a thing as well

if you remove charge denial and replace it with a random roll, because "charges can be unforseen" why is march denial not just removed and not replaced by random march roll because "marches can be unforseen"

and magic or shooting was everything but "just support", it was just hated by the people if you build a list that would win without any melee action just by magic or shooting

this is just a bad argument and not very consistent

Instead of talking of "bad arguments", try to understand why the mechanism was introduced instead.

Armies based on magic and shooting were indeed hated because before random charges, it was easy to play them and destroy the opponent enough before he gets into close combat. With random charges, the 1st players to moan about it were shooting list players...precisely because random charges put the battle sooner into their defensive lines, before their shoots make too much damage in opponent melee units to make them irrelevant. So they had to think more about other tactics / strategy to counter that instead of just "putting the guns as far as possible from the enemy army and shoot shoot shoot".

You just don't know what you're talking about because you never cared playing Warhammer Battle V8. You're a KoW player, where charges are still double the move characteristic. So of course you're a fervent disliker of random charges and try to make it look bad no matter what...you're one of the guys who left.

Unless, of course, you guff your charge roll and don't have distance, buying more of a chance for the enemy to shoot you. This goes both ways, honestly.

The mechanic was introduced because of the lethality introduced by 7th and the relative version of 40K at the time, both of which adopted random charges in their next edition rather than fixing the lethality issue. The number of people who've gone back to 6th is on par with the number of people who stayed with 8th or took on one of the fanmade editions. There's a reason for that. It isn't just kodos and the KOW players who dislike random charges.

 Just Tony wrote:


Unless, of course, you guff your charge roll and don't have distance, buying more of a chance for the enemy to shoot you. This goes both ways, honestly.

The mechanic was introduced because of the lethality introduced by 7th and the relative version of 40K at the time, both of which adopted random charges in their next edition rather than fixing the lethality issue. The number of people who've gone back to 6th is on par with the number of people who stayed with 8th or took on one of the fanmade editions. There's a reason for that. It isn't just kodos and the KOW players who dislike random charges.

Of course it's not just them. Mind you, leaving for an older edition or another game entirely is, in the end, the same : you left instead to adapt.

BTW random charges has absolutely nothing to do with lethality introducted by 7th, because it's also in 8th you have the infamous "fight on 2 ranks by default" mechanism - and the hordes. And stubborn command tests if you have more ranks than the opponent.

That's the true lethality, and why shooting armies had to have melee units to delay / deal with the key opponent units instead of just putting shooting units as much as they can. The difference is that we got into close combat action sooner (and that you enjoy fighting with your units more rather than winning with static combat bonus and make the enemy automatically flee because of them even though you still have numbers with you).

But you wouldn't know that, since you didn't play V8 and just kept playing older editions.

You may indeed not like some game mechanisms and that is fine, but you can't deny their purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Maybe gw thinks nostalgia can paper over the design issues they will have by trying to bring back rules from THE VERY EDITION THAT KILLED IT, but I hope they go back to earlier editions for their design inspiration.

V8 didn't kill Battle. End Times did, quite litterally.

The reason why Battle was slowly losing players (more a question of difficulty to recruit new blood, players were more veterans than anything else who leave naturally as they keep aging ) was more to do with lack of scenarios with different victory conditions, a bloated game system that is not easy to learn when you're totally new, no real "beginner friendly" entry level (it wasn't as structured as now with AoS, the way lists were built were very rigid even in comparison to 40k at the time, which is partly why it was always more popular than Battle), a very elitist (and arrogant) competitive scene with top players with "scummy behaviour" more rewarded than the fairplay ones that didn't give a good reputation to the game in the end...A lot of factors than just "random charges", in the end.

Here with TOW, it's clearly for nostalgia first - but as with Horus Heresy, the environment should be less focused on the competitive scene and more about building your collection and having fun with the same nostalgia / collection and/or narrative driven players, so it should be a bit friendlier for newcomers. Even though it's clearly targetting the veterans and GW certainly doesn't have the same sale expectations than for Warhammer Battle at its Golden Age - TOW is just a Specialist Game project, in the end.

Sarouan wrote:


The reason why Battle was slowly losing players (more a question of difficulty to recruit new blood, players were more veterans than anything else who leave naturally as they keep aging ) was more to do with lack of scenarios with different victory conditions, a bloated game system that is not easy to learn when you're totally new, no real "beginner friendly" entry level (it wasn't as structured as now with AoS, the way lists were built were very rigid even in comparison to 40k at the time, which is partly why it was always more popular than Battle), a very elitist (and arrogant) competitive scene with top players with "scummy behaviour" more rewarded than the fairplay ones that didn't give a good reputation to the game in the end...A lot of factors than just "random charges", in the end.

The reason Battle was slowly losing players was that you needed a crazy amount of money just to get started which i don't think will be better now (along with the "no beginner friendly" entry level you mentioned). Enjoy the nostalgia and the new models because not much will be different after the release hype goes away.

 Hellebore wrote:
It must be said however, that wfb was literally killed the edition random charges were introduced...

We are told it's because they didn't have enough customers, but perhaps the leaving of people like kodos was the reason their customer base dried up in the first place.

Now that's just correlation, and there are many arguments thrown around about what the causes were.

But I lost interest in wfb from that edition as well, for a range of reasons, like ASF elves and random charges.

The speed charges could generate at 2d6+m was just ridiculous. The Average human charge increased from the previous edition by +~50% and maxed at 200% their original distance, while the minimum was still 75% their original charge speed. Dwarf charge speeds increased on average by 66%, maxing at 250% their original speed. Im a dwarf player and that was just ridiculous.


and it completely changed the tempo of the game, making the tactical manoeuvre aspect of the game less relevant and turning the game into a scrumfest.

Maybe gw thinks nostalgia can paper over the design issues they will have by trying to bring back rules from THE VERY EDITION THAT KILLED IT, but I hope they go back to earlier editions for their design inspiration.

Personally I wouldn't put too much blame on 8th ed. For all its flaws, 7th ed wasn't much better. People like to recall the overpowered army books as the thing that ruined 7th ed, but at its core it was an edition of cavalryhammer. The combination of fixed charge range and inability to fight back if you took enough casualties to match your front rank skewed the game heavily towards fast, high lethality units. Playing a mixed army was pretty much pointless if you went up against a cavalry spam army. I saw a lot of matchups back then that led to short, unsatisfying games that were decided during deployment. People around here were not particularly thrilled to play such games (or, well, to lose such games in the case of some). In typical GW fashion 8th didn't fix the source of that frustration but instead just shuffled things around and added all new sources of frustration.

In my opinion the demise of Fantasy isn't even primarily to be blamed on the latter editions of the game themselves but the environment in which players dropped out and sales plummeted. Alongside 8th ed existed 6th ed 40k that had some controversial additions and holds the record for shortest edition lifespan yet, getting replaced after only twenty three months, and 7th ed 40k that we all know turned into a complete trainwreck that bled players and reinforced a long downwards trend in GW's profits. That trend started in the Aughts after the LotR bubble burst. I find it likely that the death of Fantasy was decided on when GW realized that cutting costs and slimming down their operation wasn't going to turn things around. That may or may not have happened before there even was any sales data on 8th ed Fantasy.

The discussion of fixed versus random charge ranges is kind of pointless, much like looking at any other rule that may have been picked for The Old World in isolation (or rather in ignorance of the larger framework). Both approaches have their pros and cons, and depending on how they interact with other rules, are perfectly capable or ruining an edition of Warhammer even if they worked in older editions or different games. There's nothing inherently wrong with using rules from the edition during which Warhammer Fantasy was killed, even rules which are considered to be controversial, as long as their function is adequately analyzed and put into context of the whole rule set, with changes and added restrictions if need be.

I'd be less worried about what edition a rule first appeared in and more how it all fits together in the new rule set. Which isn't something we can conclusively guess at with what little information we have so far.

WHF lost a lot of players during late 7th Edition with the bad army books

Community rules made some stay but most quit with 8th as the "this time" promise not going off as the problems the new rules solved were replaced by new problems with the new army books

hardly and new players startet with 8th and the majority switched to 40k

minor details in the rule had less influence in general as it was the total package
bad balance, no updates, high models prices and increased amount of models needed

and for TOW it will be the same, minor details won't make it a success but the overall package will

Sasorijap wrote:

Sarouan wrote:


The reason why Battle was slowly losing players (more a question of difficulty to recruit new blood, players were more veterans than anything else who leave naturally as they keep aging ) was more to do with lack of scenarios with different victory conditions, a bloated game system that is not easy to learn when you're totally new, no real "beginner friendly" entry level (it wasn't as structured as now with AoS, the way lists were built were very rigid even in comparison to 40k at the time, which is partly why it was always more popular than Battle), a very elitist (and arrogant) competitive scene with top players with "scummy behaviour" more rewarded than the fairplay ones that didn't give a good reputation to the game in the end...A lot of factors than just "random charges", in the end.

The reason Battle was slowly losing players was that you needed a crazy amount of money just to get started which i don't think will be better now (along with the "no beginner friendly" entry level you mentioned). Enjoy the nostalgia and the new models because not much will be different after the release hype goes away.

I think the key thing to realise is that there isn't one golden goose egg of "this was the sole reason why" the game started to dwindle. There were multiple aspects that built up over time and for some people there were different reasons why they left/reduced. The issue was once it started happening they started snowballing and once there was a general trend that became an issue in itself.


Big rosters of models to get started was certainly one aspect and a big barrier to new people getting into the game or even just existing people starting a new army. The rules didn't really work until 1K points and even then you really wanted 1.5 or 2 K points for it to really shine for most armies. 500 point fights were strange and could be very wonky or just dull because you had so little on the table.

But that alone wasn't it; the lack of new players in any volume meant that not only were big point counts where the game worked best; but they were also what everyone who was around had. So anyone new had an uphill struggle to get into the game and "join everyone else". Lack of newbies; lack of a suitable smaller game format; lack of marketing that there was a smaller game format - all these things compounded and made worse the fact that the core game rules required/worked best with big armies.


But there were loads of other things too.

It's the same as how Privateer Press fell from their height. Again not one single thing but multiple happening all within the same timespan and building on each other.

I personally left at the start of 8th exactly because of random charges and I know quite a few people who did the same thing.

Which turned out to be a blessing as I could witness the AoS absurdity without a stake in it

Maybe the discssion on what killed previous WFB and charge distances could move to its own thread AGAIN....

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe the discssion on what killed previous WFB and charge distances could move to its own thread AGAIN....

You're right. We should make space for the discussion that The Old World might be Warmaster scale after all. We haven't had that in a while.

Sarouan wrote:
Kodos is a Kings of War fanatic, so he's out with or without random charges anyway.

Random charges are mostly hated by players who want "skill" to matter (they're usually tournament-friendly and like to think of themselves as good players) while they are liked by players who don't care about that kind of stuff (and understand that games using dice have a "luck factor" that is impossible to remove unless you remove dice in all of their mechanisms, anyway).

Besides, when people talk about "skill" in wargames like Battle or KoW, it's usually more about list building than strategy and tactics. It's mostly there so that petulant and arrogant elitist players feel like they're above the "filthy casuals". If they're out, I say good riddance - that's something I never missed when Battle died and all these "That Guy" tournament players went to other systems to plague them.

When battles are won or lost on how subtly you can cheat the 'no premeasuring charges' rule, I'm out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'll say it again: I saw the whole 1/8" push thing once in the entirety of the time I played 6th, and I was FLGS staff working GW nights twice a week. The guy did it to me personally, I hit him with one turn of Curse of Arrow Attraction with 4 Repeater Bolt Throwers and 2 20 man Archer units peppering his highest value unit. He picked up the pace from there on out.


Past that? I never even saw it pulled off in tournaments.

YOU saw it once. I saw it ever darn game. It sounds like your local meta was way less WAAC than mine was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

Besides, when you play dwarves as I did too with different editions of Warhammer Battle, you knew that before random charges were introduced, charges initiated by melee dwarf units were...let's say very short (pun intended ). That's why the only way to play dwarves before random charges was putting as many shoots as you could. With V8...melee dwarf lists were actually playable thanks also to them.

In general, before random charges, infantry always struggled to charge in comparison to cavalry, monster and all of the stuff that was 4+ in movement. Reason why the variancy is "so high" is precisely so that they were more par to par between them.

Agreed. Fixed charge ranges force dwarves to either lose 100% of the time, or play pure gunline at the back of the map. From there, you might as well roll a D6 each, higher result wins, and move on to more interesting games.

"Why did WHFB die" is a long running discussion that gets the thread locked. But FWIW I think the issue is that GW didn't care that the game was an imbalanced mess, and players were increasingly unwilling to put up with it. I'd say the rot was really there in 7th (not that 6th was perfect). People talk about the Daemons army book - but frankly DE and VC weren't dramatically better from the perspective of everyone else. The gulf between the haves and have-nots was awful, and I think 8th was just a good time for people to give up the ghost. (And frankly, that yawning gap continued through the years of unabated codex creep). 6th and 7th 40k (frankly late 5th) were also suffering similar problems - and this is why games like Warmahordes and later X-Wing boomed. Representing meaningful competition to GW that hasn't really existed before or since.

Complaints about charging can get threads locked too I guess - but as we see rules for the new edition, it is I guess vaguely relevant.

I think a key factor that needs to be remembered is other changes in 8th rather than just random charges.

Before 8th the charge was the be-all and end all. You charged, you got to fight first, you wiped the front rank, they couldn't fight back. That is fundamentally different to a system where fighting first is down to initiative, and models step up to fight.

The former made infantry blocks basically worthless except as a redirector (being fodder for most cavalry - or any higher M units). The second however encouraged the 30-50 man great weapon deathstars, that could take a hit and then delete... well, basically anything except other deathstars.

I hope GW have spent some time trying to square this circle. Blocks of say 20~ infantry, with champions, standard bearers and musicians, should be the core of the game. There should be some sort of cap on going dramatically higher - but also rules so they don't just get run over by other stuff.

I'd half hope you get units in fixed sizes, dare I say it, like AoS*, as a way to deal with some of the death star stuff and go back to having a meaningful army and now unkillable chaff that will bog you down all game


* ok I feel dirty now

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Nothing too dramatic there to be honest beyond magic being separated out between phases. Game structure seems to be at least tacitly very similar to latter editions. It's when we get into the meat of combat rules that it'll get particularly interesting.

I'm desperate and impatient to see the rules of the shooting phase!!!

I agree with you on most of your list @Tyel.
However I think infantry was not quite so useless in 6th and 7th because a 20 man squad could hold its ground unless a breaker (at least 6 knights with warbanner or more) hit them.
They were good for board control and fighting other board controlers or light units off.

Also one problem about 8th: 40+ man squads of super expensive stuff. Who wanted to start a dwarfs army knowing he had to buy 40 hammerers for 160 euros alone?

 Astmeister wrote:
I agree with you on most of your list @Tyel.
However I think infantry was not quite so useless in 6th and 7th because a 20 man squad could hold its ground unless a breaker (at least 6 knights with warbanner or more) hit them.
They were good for board control and fighting other board controlers or light units off.

Also one problem about 8th: 40+ man squads of super expensive stuff. Who wanted to start a dwarfs army knowing he had to buy 40 hammerers for 160 euros alone?

Useless is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration - and we've all seen knights fluff their small number of attacks on the charge.
But from memory (and we are talking 15ish years) most competitive lists in late 7th had a lot of fast stuff because infantry were just too slow/vulnerable. Which also brought about the 8th edition table flip. A lot of people didn't like discovering an almost all cav army bought specifically to meet 7th's meta was now bad in 8th.

Especially when as you said you now needed very expensive bricks of infantry.

Late 7th is not a good example because certain combs had 2/3 of the using 300 points more than the meta armies (in addition to being mostly fast units) because they could not compete otherwise

Which editions of WHFB sucked or were the best, what killed it or people moving to other systems are evil is not the topic. Knock it off.

Tyel wrote:
Representing meaningful competition

This is debatable. In terms of Revenue, GW basically remained flat from around 2005/2006 through to 2016. Yes, there were up and down years but revenue didn't meaningfully change during that time and set around 120 million GBP +/- ~10-15 million. During the timeframe you're really discussing, from around 2009-2016, GW peaked at around 135 million in 2013 only to decline to 118 million in 2016, which is a delta of about 17 million, but was only about 7 million less than it was in 2009. This is statistically insignificant and happened during a global financial crisis, etc. Whatever "competition" WMHDs and X-Wing may have provided GW at the time amounted for very little. If you take the view that the market did not grow during this time frame and those revenue losses were the result of competitors grabbing market share, then all of GW's competitors combined would have been pulling no more than maybe 20-25 million GBP/yr at the time.I can tell you from first hand knowledge that X-Wings best year of sales was around that mark on its own (25-30 million USD) so clearly thats not the case and the market actually grew a bit to accommodate rival games, but the point stands that if GWs biggest "competitor" was only about 15% as large as itself, then it wasn't really that much of a competitor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, didn't see Ingtaers message before submitting, my bad :(

I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.

No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I do not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.

It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.

How are 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??

SU-152 wrote:
I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.

No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I don not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.

It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.

How is 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??

If fixed charges are a thing, it gets really dull with premeasuring, since you exist with perfect knowledge of when and where you will be eating a charge, which is basically saying you are choosing to give up a huge advantage.

So unless there's a compromise and there's some kind of incentive or defense for eating charges, it'll be a poor situation imo.

Pre-measuring ban died in most gw games like over decade ago. AT has it i think. 40k/aos doesn't. Aos has never had it, 40k had...looong time ago.

Doubt it comes back and good riddance. It was only making life hard for noobs in their 1st games. About as skillfull or interestinj as stealing from baby


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.

No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I don not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.

It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.

How is 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??

If fixed charges are a thing, it gets really dull with premeasuring, since you exist with perfect knowledge of when and where you will be eating a charge, which is basically saying you are choosing to give up a huge advantage.

So unless there's a compromise and there's some kind of incentive or defense for eating charges, it'll be a poor situation imo.

Even without only noobs on 1st games wouldn't know are they in range or not. Too many tricks and easy math.

tneva82 wrote:
Pre-measuring ban died in most gw games like over decade ago. AT has it i think. 40k/aos doesn't. Aos has never had it, 40k had...looong time ago.

Doubt it comes back and good riddance. It was only making life hard for noobs in their 1st games. About as skillfull or interestinj as stealing from baby


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.

No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I don not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.

It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.

How is 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??

If fixed charges are a thing, it gets really dull with premeasuring, since you exist with perfect knowledge of when and where you will be eating a charge, which is basically saying you are choosing to give up a huge advantage.

So unless there's a compromise and there's some kind of incentive or defense for eating charges, it'll be a poor situation imo.

Even without only noobs on 1st games wouldn't know are they in range or not. Too many tricks and easy math.

Well yes, if you know how far apart forces are at the start, track how far every unit moves, track out the angles and whack out the pythagoran theories and a scientific calculator then yes, you can get within 0.5" easily on your 2nd game.

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

SU-152 wrote:
I really really hope premeasurement is allowed in ToW.

No premeasurement is an absurdity from the 80s. I do not care if charges are fixed or random as long as measurement is allowed at any time.

It's a wargame, my sight/guess skill shouldn't matter.

How are 40k and AoS in that matter nowadays??

Pre-measurement is the norm in all current GW games. I expect TOW will be the same.

Will TOW use percentagea for army comp?