TOW THE OLD WORLD - Poll: Will TOW be a faithful successor to WFB 8th edition?

[Morglum]

Lets hope for a lizzie southlands list

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Tomb Kings for TOW

Grrr, !mrahil

Nothing new given they already showed us some Tomb King artwork before, but great to see them finally giving the superior undead faction the credit they deserve.

And also it's pleasing to see that the Tomb Guard and Sepulchral Stalker have remained the same as their 8th Edition models - this suggests to me as though they intend to resurrect the plastic boxes for these (which would make sense given that they are still solid kits that fit with the current level of GW aesthetics, and it would save GW having to expend unnecessary money making new moulds for them).

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I do love my Sepulchral Stalkers...

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I do love my Sepulchral Stalkers...

They said they were really focusing on doing the Tomb Kings justice with their TOW rules, here's hoping they give sub-par 8th units like the Stalkers the rework they deserve!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

sub-par 8th units like the Stalkers the rework they deserve!

I always liked the Stalkers' rules in 8th. I'm a big proponent of them.

They've killed my wife's treeman in every game! In fact, they've done so with such reliability, that I started to feel bad for fielding them.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

DiscoQing of EEFL fame allegedly has some intel on TOW:

I have it on good authority that the rulebook is printed.

Likely out by the end of year?
Mainly 7th ed rules, with some changes.
Subdued magic, and 360 arc of sight for some units.

The rest of what I know, I won't post here

I do know that random charging is gone.
Back to double movement.

He has said in the past that he has a friend who is working on the game, and he hasn't lied to us yet, so it's certainly interesting if this is the route GW have chosen. I certainly still have a fondness for 7th Edition, and I would certainly be pleased to see it return, though I hope Fear and Terror are toned down so Daemons aren't OP again

Plus I hope GW keep the more sensible rules added in 8th, like shields being usable against shooting, step-up, and units having a second rank of supporting attacks, not to mention the greater range of special rules 8th introduced.

360 degree arc of sight for some units is curious, though it should be only for single models like monsters and chariots that aren't under any form of regimental discipline forcing them to only see things in their front arc.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

He has said in the past that he has a friend who is working on the game, and he hasn't lied to us yet, so it's certainly interesting if this is the route GW have chosen. I certainly still have a fondness for 7th Edition, and I would certainly be pleased to see it return, though I hope Fear and Terror are toned down so Daemons aren't OP again

I would have preferred the game to be more of an extension of 8th edition as opposed to 7th.

Plus I hope GW keep the more sensible rules added in 8th, like shields being usable against shooting, step-up, and units having a second rank of supporting attacks, not to mention the greater range of special rules 8th introduced.

Pre-measuring was also a good one. That prevented a lot of fighting and arguing.


I'd hate to see infantry regulated into the trash bin as it was in 7th. Step-up was an absolutely essential rule.



As for it coming out later this year, I've heard those rumblings too. If it is true, this has been the worst buildup ever. The stuff they have previewed has been pretty trivial thus far, mostly lore. I feel there is very little hype for this game, much less than there was when they first announced it years ago.

I imagine that you will give it a try, I'll be interested to see what you think about it. Do you plan on jumping on board day 1 or will you let things shake out a bit first? I have a suspicion that Chaos Dwarfs won't be part of the game, which will be an immediate deal breaker for me.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I would have preferred the game to be more of an extension of 8th edition as opposed to 7th.

Knowing your love of 8th Edition, this came as no surprise to me ...

Pre-measuring was also a good one. That prevented a lot of fighting and arguing.

...But this does.

True, perhaps it does prevent arguments, but to me it sacrifices too much realism - a real-world general in the Ancient world or the Middle Ages wouldn't have suddenly changed his mind after giving an order because he laid a tape measure across the battlefield and found that his troops' bows were just a millimetre out of range of the enemy.

Part of the risk-reward decision-making when being a general is about whether you're willing to make a gamble in the hope that your troops' volley hits their target, or if you'd rather play safe and hit a closer, perhaps lower-priority target with greater certainty of inflicting kills. Pre-measuring gives players unrealistic levels of foresight that make these decisions far more educated than they would actually be on a historical battlefield.

I could see how pre-measuring could be excused in 40K, to be fair, because most races in that game have highly-advanced targeting systems on their weapons that give them an accurate measurement of whether the foe is in range or not and could make it at least excusable, but certainly not in Fantasy where no race has that level of advanced technology. Thus in my household, pre-measuring is a no-no, even in 8th where the rulebook allows it.

I'm surprised you appreciate this rule of 8th that I'm really not fond of, but then, it's just another addition to the miles-long list of things we like to disagree about I suppose

I'd hate to see infantry regulated into the trash bin as it was in 7th. Step-up was an absolutely essential rule.

Which is partly why I agree that step-up should stay, alongside the fact that it gave armies with lower Initiative (and Great Weapon units) more of a chance to contribute to combats. While it would be great to see cavalry be made stronger than they were in 8th, it should not be at the expense of infantry as it was in 6th and 7th - both should have their own strengths and weaknesses, as they did in the Ancient and Medieval worlds.

As for it coming out later this year, I've heard those rumblings too. If it is true, this has been the worst buildup ever. The stuff they have previewed has been pretty trivial thus far, mostly lore. I feel there is very little hype for this game, much less than there was when they first announced it years ago.

This I certainly do agree with you about, GW really failed to strike while the iron was hot here. If they weren't so obsessed about keeping to their 3-year Edition gap for AoS and new 40K purely to keep their money train rolling, they could really have struck gold with TOW and capitalised on the market of disgruntled Fantasy players that left in 2015 after 8th was squatted by releasing it just after they first announced it. Instead though, so many of those players are now thinking it's all one big April Fools' joke and have lost interest. It'll take a while for TOW to really get going now when they do release it because of this.

Hell they're even sidelining TOW for a pointless 10th Edition of 40K this July, when this year is the 40th anniversary of Warhammer Fantasy, the perfect time for TOW to take front and centre. GW really have no respect for their games anymore, they see it all as one big paycheque from their customers. Even in the old days when their customer communication was nonexistent, it still felt as though they put more heart into their games and background, rather than the soulless, mass-produced rules and lore you get now in AoS and new 40K.

I imagine that you will give it a try, I'll be interested to see what you think about it. Do you plan on jumping on board day 1 or will you let things shake out a bit first? I have a suspicion that Chaos Dwarfs won't be part of the game, which will be an immediate deal breaker for me.

I think I will await reviews of it from other gamers first before diving into it, to really determine the nature of the rules and whether it's worth me investing into it, because it will result in a fair amount of cash being put into it just buying the new rules and I want to make sure that money is well spent.

As to Chaos Dwarfs, it all depends on what GW do for the rest of this year.

In recent times there have been a good few Chaos Dwarf Easter Eggs circulating, such as the Hobgoblins wielding Chaos Dwarf-supplied grenades and the Horns of Hashut Warcry Warband, alongside the confirmation of the Dawi-Zharr appearing in Warhammer: Total War. The fact that GW are releasing the last of the AoS Battletomes for existing factions through Spring to the early side of Summer suggests they've definitely got at least one new faction planned for the game prior to the arrival of the inevitable 4th Edition next year. Over the past few years GW have, to their credit, been trying to apologise to fanbases they have alienated in previous eras by squatting or mistreating cult-favourite factions, like Genestealer Cults, Sisters of Battle and most recently Squats. Perhaps this year it's the turn of the Chaos Dwarfs to be given the plastic models they deserve, and if the arrival of these models precedes TOW, then GW may well include rules to use them in that game, all accompanying their arrival in Warhammer: Total War.

Hell the Chaos Dwarf fanbase certainly deserves it, their dedication to their favourite army rivals that of much better-supported factions.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

...But this does.

True, perhaps it does prevent arguments, but to me it sacrifices too much realism - a real-world general in the Ancient world or the Middle Ages wouldn't have suddenly changed his mind after giving an order because he laid a tape measure across the battlefield and found that his troops' bows were just a millimetre out of range of the enemy.

Part of the risk-reward decision-making when being a general is about whether you're willing to make a gamble in the hope that your troops' volley hits their target, or if you'd rather play safe and hit a closer, perhaps lower-priority target with greater certainty of inflicting kills. Pre-measuring gives players unrealistic levels of foresight that make these decisions far more educated than they would actually be on a historical battlefield.

To be honest, it's a rule that has sort of grown on me over time. I wasn't completely for it at the onset of 8th edition, but since then I've come to believe that its benefits outweigh its negatives.

You are correct that it is slightly less realistic. I wouldn't directly disagree with any of the points you made about realism. That said, there are many things in Warhammer that deviate a great deal from a real world battlefield. A stone thrower / trebuchet is great against immovable fortifications but the flight of its projectile is so slow that you could sidestep it with ease (i.e. you aren't picking off a single entity in the middle of a field). Real fighting isn't turn based. In a real battle your charging troops wouldn't halt their charge because the enemy unit is 1 inch (or even 10 feet) further than you anticipated. In a real battle you could still charge an enemy that is outside of your front arc (even in on the wargaming table you can usually draw line of sight to an enemy unit just outside of your front arc). And so on.

In exchange for that loss in realism, pre-measuring really cleans up the game. Those close calls (fractions of an inch) can be premeasured and agreed upon with your opponent prior to declaring that crucial charge or wasting a round of shooting. Nothing is yet on the line at that stage, so it is very easy for players to come to an agreement. The number of major conflicts that can circumvent is well worth it in my mind. I am perfectly okay with players making their gaming decisions with full information. It really makes for a smoother experience in a game that is already bogged down by a great many rules (including poorly written ones and loopholes).

At the end of the day it is a trade off. Sometimes I'm willing to trade away realism and sometimes I'm not. It all depends on the context. In this case, I feel it to be a worthy trade, but I can understand it if you don't.


If we're talking about realism, I'd rather see something along the lines of longer weapons (spears for instance) granting ASF or at the very least a boost in initiative. In real life, if you have a short sword and I have a spear, I will have the opportunity to strike before you.

This I certainly do agree with you about, GW really failed to strike while the iron was hot here. If they weren't so obsessed about keeping to their 3-year Edition gap for AoS and new 40K purely to keep their money train rolling, they could really have struck gold with TOW and capitalised on the market of disgruntled Fantasy players that left in 2015 after 8th was squatted by releasing it just after they first announced it. Instead though, so many of those players are now thinking it's all one big April Fools' joke and have lost interest. It'll take a while for TOW to really get going now when they do release it because of this.

Hell they're even sidelining TOW for a pointless 10th Edition of 40K this July, when this year is the 40th anniversary of Warhammer Fantasy, the perfect time for TOW to take front and centre. GW really have no respect for their games anymore, they see it all as one big paycheque from their customers. Even in the old days when their customer communication was nonexistent, it still felt as though they put more heart into their games and background, rather than the soulless, mass-produced rules and lore you get now in AoS and new 40K.

I'm very curious as to how well this game will actually fare. I could see it going either way.

I know personally, I'm not all that hyped for it.... but that could always change (Chaos Dwarfs vs. War Mammoth starter box ). You're definitely more likely to adopt it than I for the simple fact that you simultaneously engage with multiple games. I only play a single wargame and I am not looking for a second. For me to adopt it, it must obliterate and dethrone 8th edition.

Over the past few years GW have, to their credit, been trying to apologise to fanbases they have alienated in previous eras by squatting or mistreating cult-favourite factions, like Genestealer Cults, Sisters of Battle and most recently Squats.

That is a very good point. Maybe Chaos Dwarfs have a chance. A dedicated (full) Chaos Dwarf mainline army book would go a long ways in capturing my interest.

 

[Killer Angel]

That is a very good point. Maybe Chaos Dwarfs have a chance. A dedicated (full) Chaos Dwarf mainline army book would go a long ways in capturing my interest.

there will be kislev. If GW wants to focus on a certain geographical area, the realm of chaos dwarfs in not that far...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

there will be kislev. If GW wants to focus on a certain geographical area, the realm of chaos dwarfs in not that far...

That is true.

Do you think that GW will limit there focus to a small geographical area? Where does that leave non Old World armies such as Lizardmen, Dark Elves, etc?

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

That is true.

Do you think that GW will limit there focus to a small geographical area? Where does that leave non Old World armies such as Lizardmen, Dark Elves, etc?

I reckon they will focus on the Old World for their inaugural releases (hence the name of the game ), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they release an expansion later on down the line which focuses on the New World and Dark Elves, Lizardmen, e.t.c, and then an Eastern expansion that focuses on Cathay, Ogres, Ind, Nippon, e.t.c.

Remember that Warhammer: Total War also originally only focussed on the Old World in the first game, specifically to keep balancing simpler and make faction development quicker for the inaugural release, then released expansions with II and III that catered for other areas of the Warhammer World, and other factions in the process.

I definitely couldn't see them just ignoring Dark Elves and Lizardmen indefinitely, because those two are particularly popular factions - GW would be utterly mad to deliberately exclude them from TOW.

 

[Killer Angel]

That is true.

Do you think that GW will limit there focus to a small geographical area? Where does that leave non Old World armies such as Lizardmen, Dark Elves, etc?

Yep, given the leaks so far, it seems they are going a route similar to the one suggested by @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

To be honest, it's a rule that has sort of grown on me over time. I wasn't completely for it at the onset of 8th edition, but since then I've come to believe that its benefits outweigh its negatives.

You are correct that it is slightly less realistic. I wouldn't directly disagree with any of the points you made about realism. That said, there are many things in Warhammer that deviate a great deal from a real world battlefield. A stone thrower / trebuchet is great against immovable fortifications but the flight of its projectile is so slow that you could sidestep it with ease (i.e. you aren't picking off a single entity in the middle of a field). Real fighting isn't turn based. In a real battle your charging troops wouldn't halt their charge because the enemy unit is 1 inch (or even 10 feet) further than you anticipated. In a real battle you could still charge an enemy that is outside of your front arc (even in on the wargaming table you can usually draw line of sight to an enemy unit just outside of your front arc). And so on.

In exchange for that loss in realism, pre-measuring really cleans up the game. Those close calls (fractions of an inch) can be premeasured and agreed upon with your opponent prior to declaring that crucial charge or wasting a round of shooting. Nothing is yet on the line at that stage, so it is very easy for players to come to an agreement. The number of major conflicts that can circumvent is well worth it in my mind. I am perfectly okay with players making their gaming decisions with full information. It really makes for a smoother experience in a game that is already bogged down by a great many rules (including poorly written ones and loopholes).

At the end of the day it is a trade off. Sometimes I'm willing to trade away realism and sometimes I'm not. It all depends on the context. In this case, I feel it to be a worthy trade, but I can understand it if you don't.

Well, you'll be pleased to hear that DiscoQing has just confirmed that premeasuring is staying:

No, premeasuring is still in...
Like KoW.

To add, KoW has fixed length charges - seems to work for that game.
Maybe it's a way to bring those players over?
Who knows.

But then, that isn't a dealbreaker for me because I will keep my house rule of no premeasuring as I have always done for 8th.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I reckon they will focus on the Old World for their inaugural releases (hence the name of the game )

That is the most likely meaning of the name, but it could also be a stand in for "the world that was", aka WHFB world.

Well, you'll be pleased to hear that DiscoQing has just confirmed that premeasuring is staying:

That's good, but this is more concerning:

But then, that isn't a dealbreaker for me because I will keep my house rule of no premeasuring as I have always done for 8th.

It's an easy enough rule to circumvent, as long as others in your party agree.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

That's good, but this is more concerning:

View attachment 130044

I would have thought that's a good thing, it shows that they're willing to clarify everything to make sure everyone can get the hang of the game. Better than the minuscule level of FAQ and errata-ing in 8th Edition.

As long as these FAQs are free, though, and there won't be any pointless 'compulsory' General's Handbook you supposedly have to buy every year just to stay in the game. But then, Horus Heresy hasn't had the latter, so hopefully TOW won't suffer from it either.


And with regards to his mates not raving about the rules, that could be down to a number of things - maybe they were not Warhammer Fantasy fans and were made to work on it by their superiors, or they were fans of another edition and simply weren't happy with their superiors' decision to base it more on 7th, or some other reason that doesn't necessarily correlate to the rules themselves being absolutely, definitely bad.

I think the best thing to do is just wait until it arrives and assess its quality through reviews and personal analysis.

 

[Tk'ya'pyk]

360 degree arc of sight for some units is curious, though it should be only for single models like monsters and chariots that aren't under any form of regimental discipline forcing them to only see things in their front arc.

Perhaps, but in various editions, some skirmisher units had this rule as well, to reflect the fact that they weren't ranked up like normal units. Also single heroes on foot and fast cavalry often had this ability.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I would have thought that's a good thing, it shows that they're willing to clarify everything to make sure everyone can get the hang of the game. Better than the minuscule level of FAQ and errata-ing in 8th Edition.

As long as these FAQs are free, though, and there won't be any pointless 'compulsory' General's Handbook you supposedly have to buy every year just to stay in the game. But then, Horus Heresy hasn't had the latter, so hopefully TOW won't suffer from it either.

I don't see it as a good thing at all. The fact that the product hasn't even been released yet and there is already talk of a fix, is a very bad sign. GW is selling an unpolished and unfinished product. Let me liken it to two examples:

1. Would you be excited to buy a brand new car if you heard that an early recall is likely/imminent? Sure it's great that the car company is looking after the vehicle, but I think most people would prefer to buy a new car without major issues known right from the start.
2. Another example would be video games being released that are buggy and require an early patch (or series of patches) to make them playable as reasonably expected. The company is supporting and fixing their product, but why was it released in such a state in the first place? Video game players are sick of this kind of thing. Playtest, debug and polish the game prior to its release. Cyberpunk 2077 is a prefect example of a company that completely dropped the ball on their release and paid dearly for it.

If these GW game testers were able to find such slew of errors and deficiencies in the rule set, why weren't they brought in to playtest the game before the rules were set off to the printers? If these guys already know that a FAQ is needed prior to the release of the game, we have the potential for a major problem. The question is, just how much patch work is needed?

Mind you, 8th edition had its own release issue of a small but critical omission that required an immediate errata. It was frustrating but it did manage to work out in the end. I'm wondering if TOW is in need of a small fix as well or a complete FAQ overhaul.

nd with regards to his mates not raving about the rules, that could be down to a number of things -

maybe they were not Warhammer Fantasy fans and were made to work on it by their superiors

Unlikely, as DiscoQing immediately stated that they are "obviously chuffed with the return itself"

or they were fans of another edition and simply weren't happy with their superiors' decision to base it more on 7th

That's possible, though as a person who wishes the rules were predominately based on 8th edition, this comes as little consolation.

or some other reason that doesn't necessarily correlate to the rules themselves being absolutely, definitely bad.

Once again, possible, but it still isn't a good sign. It would be far more promising if they were praising the rule set. Might it turn out well in the end?... yes... but at the moment, with the admittedly limited information at our disposal, this is troubling feedback.

I think the best thing to do is just wait until it arrives and assess its quality through reviews and personal analysis.

I agree that a final decision can't be made until we know significantly more. However, this does work to undermine the development of excitement and anticipation for the new game.

A little bit of bad news is still bad news.

 

[BigDinosaur]

I heard some nerds claiming base sizes will enlarge for ToW. For example 20x20 will become 25x25 and so on... this will mean rebasing entire armies.
Apparently this is because they will want players to use AoS miniatures such as the new chaos warriors or upcoming saurus warriors... but I haven't found any rumour.

This doesn't make sense to me since the design of AoS miniatures and specially the poses are going to look awful on ranked blocks (if possible even with the larger bases...). Also the new seraphon seem to be departing from the more traditionally tribal lizardmen look...

To me it makes sense that there will be a separate line of models and keep the same base sizes as 8th edition, specially at the beginning where they definetaly should not want to alieante current fantasy players by forcing them to rebase entire armies again.

What you guys think?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I heard some nerds claiming base sizes will enlarge for ToW. For example 20x20 will become 25x25 and so on... this will mean rebasing entire armies.

It doesn't necessarily mean that people will have to rebase. Special movement trays with spacers could easily accommodate smaller base sizes and bring them in line with the new larger standard. In fact, certain WHFB units (such as CD Infernal Guard, Skink Cohorts, etc.) were terribly difficult to rank up properly and would actually benefit from special movement trays that help spread them out a little.

Lone models on the other hand would be more problematic as they don't employ movement trays.

Apparently this is because they will want players to use AoS miniatures such as the new chaos warriors or upcoming saurus warriors... but I haven't found any rumour.

This doesn't make sense to me since the design of AoS miniatures and specially the poses are going to look awful on ranked blocks (if possible even with the larger bases...). Also the new seraphon seem to be departing from the more traditionally tribal lizardmen look...

To me it makes sense that there will be a separate line of models and keep the same base sizes as 8th edition, specially at the beginning where they definetaly should not want to alieante current fantasy players by forcing them to rebase entire armies again.

I believe that @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl provided a previous example (40k I think) where an old unit of models was still supported even after the updated model line was released. I can't remember what unit it was though.

That said, I just can't see GW doing that on a large scale. A unit or two, maybe... unlikely... but possible. However, if the Seraphon get a complete refresh, I don't think we'll see GW keep selling two lines of the same army. I highly doubt that they would stock two sets of Saurus Warriors, Salamanders, Slann, Kroxigor (if new ones are released), Saurus Cav (if new ones are released), etc.

I do agree that the Seraphon are slowly shifting away from the traditional Lizardmen look. However, I don't imagine many people would be willing to buy the old (current) Saurus models once the new ones drop. And producing, shipping and stocking multiple lines of the same model isn't very cost effective.

Who knows though... it is GW!