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.

Sarouan wrote:

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.

Mostly useful for zipping up flanks, as most units normally trying that were either Skirmishers or Light Cavalry, both of which aren’t a major threat engaging on the front if you’ve a banner and if Outnumber still presents a combat res bonus. Key is not to risk too expensive a unit, as +2 Combat Res still isn’t a sure thing. But for those armies without Skirmishers or Light Cavalry of their own, it is a way to keep enemy units off your own flank.

Charge rule is interesting, particularly as a Failed Charge still makes the full move of what was rolled up. Before, and memory is rusty, I think you just moved half distance? I presume there’ll be something in the rules that I can’t declare a charge at anything outside my maximum potential charge reach. Otherwise Stunties just got a nifty speed boost, as they’re more likely to move faster charging than marching.

Oh have we spun the roulette wheel of table sizes yet?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Oh have we spun the roulette wheel of table sizes yet?

Is Horus Heresy 6'x4' or is it the 40K 60"x42" or whatever it is?

I'm glad they dropped that extra D6" on the charge. While I'm not personally wed to static charge ranges or random charges, the long bomb charges of 8th 2d6+movement were pretty crazy.

Dropping it to 1d6+movement keeps things interesting and allows for more maneuvering.

6x4 still

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Oh have we spun the roulette wheel of table sizes yet?

Hoping for 4' round tables, to contrast with the square bases.

Sarouan wrote:

 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.

Thank you. That was a concise answer.

charging looked good at first, but adding units that do use 2D6 makes it tricky

like normal M8 Cavalry doing 9-14" with 12" being the most likely, swift Cavalry doing 10-20" with 15" being the most likely
so we are back to "disadvantage" of fixed ranges that you can just place yourself outside the enemy charge range while still being inside your own (and only a bad roll, twice will hinder it)
(infantry that can have a lucky roll and charges 10", you can still savley have your swift cavalry at 11" as a triple 1 is unlikely, and if it happens to opponent can claim tactical superiority)

Voss wrote:

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

always scroll down to the very bottom:

* In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
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

It's weird. The article states that a Close Order unit must have more models in a rank than they have in a file, but then the asterisk claims they need to be at least as wide as they are deep.

I'm going to assume that square formations are not allowed at all.

I do like the principle behind the rule, if only because it should make the board look more like a battlefield.

The article rarely shows full rules. Just parts.

My taking of *In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep* is that square formations would be fine.

This is presumably trying to stop the 5*10 (or more) goblin/zombie/skaven slave bus.

Agree with responses that marching order may benefit say cavalry that wouldn't care about a rank bonus and just want to move up quickly. I guess it depends if there's a minimum frontage you have to maintain.

I don't think you can really discuss the charge rules (beyond not liking 8th editions "long charges" - which didn't hugely bother me) without knowing how combat works. They are fundamentally tied together.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Oh have we spun the roulette wheel of table sizes yet?

Hoping for 4' round tables, to contrast with the square bases.

You jest but the local oldhammer group gathers to play older editions of WHFB on round banquet tables at the local Freemasons lodge. They mark out a rectangle on it, of course, so they aren't really playing a round battle but they could lol.

I like the idea of Marching Column but it sounds like a pain to play. You'll have to either swap out movement trays, turn every model 90 degrees to make a wide formation a long one, or not use movement trays at all.

Yet another argument for round bases in movement trays. I'm this close to committing.

Great looking rules so far. Nice mixture of the old rules with a few changes.

Marching formation on a flank, do a Turn to face the centre of the battlefield, flank some poor saps with a wide formation.

Remember from one of the earliest previews; all models in the front rank fight.

Sarouan wrote:

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.

Its literally a picture of rules text with examples.

 kodos wrote:

Voss wrote:

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

always scroll down to the very bottom:

* In other words, the unit needs to be at least as wide as it is deep.

I did miss that (for various reasons, not least because I don't look for asterisks or footnotes in web pages, but also because they aren't footnoting the important stuff- the rules pic). Not sure why the rules in the image don't just include the correct wording in the first place.

Odds are actual rules is more longer than pic with few words.

So when we give certain orders we have to change the shape of units by moving the necessary miniatures, one by one? So movement trays become useless?

If so... It sounds tedious.

Marching columns sounds nice, but, such thin but Long blocks were also used for breakthroughs, bit wierd then that it is merely for marching.

2D6 pick the highest removes the main issue I had with the random charge - the crazy distance units could get.

If I'm reading it right, Cav charge M+2d6(pick highest) +1D6. That makes them relatively more swingy.

It's nice to see formations used a little more and have effects beyond changing shape.

Pretty sure triple movement is from Warhammer Ancient Battles, or even an edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles from either 1-4.

This random charge is more in line with what I suggested earlier, so not too over the top.

I really like the charge system. And I'm no gw simp either. Elegant.

Also, does the rank rules mean I can field my 4x4 troops and still get 3 rank bonuses? If so, I'm very happy.

Johanxp wrote:
So when we give certain orders we have to change the shape of units by moving the necessary miniatures, one by one? So movement trays become useless?

If so... It sounds tedious.

Changing formation was always a thing in fb. You expected aos like rules?

So am I talking out of my arse (or just don't know old editions enough) but the whole marching column thing really seems to be on point with old WFB/the old cadre of designers who loved historical wargaming. I wonder what the odds are they've contracted an old hand to the design team?

Also am I right in thinking in the reduction of charge ranges that movement/positioning will be even more important, and that the game will feel "larger scale" compared to the actual size of the minis.

And the whole Open Order thing, so the unit will still be rank and file as normal but perhaps it's to represent more loose or disorganised formations like savage orcs, as opposed to staunch shield walls of elves or whathaveyou.

I've never played a "blind deployment" game (ie where you use something to block board view and both deploy all at once) but given there's now more movement options it sounds like it could be fun!

triple marching be very useful for scenarios too. Games where units need to get off a table edge or into enemy deployment zones would be impacted simply by having it as an option. Calling a game in turn 4 because it's impossible physically move units far enough is never fun.

While I preferred static charge distances, the M+2D6 (highest) is pretty acceptable. Coupled with the magic changes, I'm cautiosly optimistic about ToW.

 Kalamadea wrote:
triple marching be very useful for scenarios too. Games where units need to get off a table edge or into enemy deployment zones would be impacted simply by having it as an option. Calling a game in turn 4 because it's impossible physically move units far enough is never fun.

While I preferred static charge distances, the M+2D6 (highest) is pretty acceptable. Coupled with the magic changes, I'm cautiosly optimistic about ToW.

triple elves are going to be a headache.... 15" a turn is nuts. Let alone cavalry going 24" in one turn. Going to be hard to stop them getting off the board...

Dwarfs though are getting much better charge support, as is the way with the random dice rolling - Max charge of 9" is triple their move, so it's a 50% greater range. the average rolls are going to slow down elves and speed up dwarfs, but only in charging.

Triple moves will speed up the already fast units even more.

 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."

Agreed. It allows enough randomness to prevent the ol' quarter-inch shuffle that plagued so many of my games in the past.

The second step is to actually make your Charge Moves. 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. This means a unit of Skeleton Warriors has a charge range of between 5” and 10”, but Bretonnian Knights are rather more dangerous – their Swiftstride special rule adds an extra d6” to every charge they make.

Judging from the article, swiftstride is either a cavalry specific rule or a Bretonnian cav specific rule. I have to imagine it's the latter since that rule was not in 6th nor 7th IIRC and it was for all cavalry, and it's the same as here (just worded differently). Wonder if Bretonnia's Purebreed special rule still stands tho.

Anyway, all looks to be in order; I'm not so sure about the Lance Formation actually forming the wedge, I'm not certain it'd make that big of a difference in the movement phase; one thought is that the wedge indicates that the unit is in the Lance Formation instead of marching formation, which may be confused with the lance as done in 6th edition (3 files wide only). It'd be interesting to me to see how the lance formation will behave in melee though; also what happens if the unit is charged while in the Lance.

I'm also assuming the Marching Order formation will be at an disadvantage in melee, in that only the first rank gets supporting attacks and the flanks don't, besides the combat resolution penalties.

I would expect a rule that most cavalry has. By making it a USR it means that superheavy cav wouldn't get it. Ogre cav for example.

It also is indicative of them using USRs to cover things like they did in HH.

But having just bretonnian knights being able to charge up 20" and all other cav only 14" is a pretty big disparity.