I agree with this, i think GW will be shooting for use of 16-reg and 10-reg.
However, in the bret pics, we saw:
6-man cav (lance)
18-man Men at Arms regs (3x6)
32-man Archer reg (8x4)
I want to point out something else that excited me quite a lot.
True! My point was more that I’m expecting a more aligned connection between “number of models you actually buy” and the unit sizes in the game. And by that mechanic they could automatically get smaller unit sizes.
In this example, I would be not surprised if you buy Knights of the Realm in boxes of 6, Men at Arms in boxes of 18, Archers in boxes of 16. Back in the days we had boxes of 8 Silver helms, now we have 5 Snarlfang Riders, so depending on options I could very well see 6 Knights of the Realm in one box. They used to come with two Knights on one sprue, right? Three sprues in one box sure is common. Old Archers were 8 in a box, so 16 would work too. I think Men at Arms were 16 in a box, so yeah, I haven’t figured it all out yet, but generally something like this. 
There doesn’t need to be complete uniformity. Take Ogres in AoS: Ogre Bulls are taken in increments of 6, exactly what you get in one box. Leadbelchers are bought in increments of 4, even if there is no apparent reason why one should be 6 and one should be 4, but it’s also exactly what you get in one box.
Yeah I reckon you are right and they will deflate minimum regiment sizes and simplify kit buying. I just remembered how big the archer reg looked and fancied counting. As it is the sizes chosen in the pics are baffling (barring the knights - lances are really fixed at 6/10/15) and I don’t think they signify much. They aren’t commonly divisible or anything. So I’m not convinced they mean anything (as with the oop goblins). Was just interesting to observe.
The old sprue layouts are very inefficient by modern standards with lots of gaps and two sprues for what could these days fit happily on one (thus doubling package width). I wonder if they are willing to invest in a redesign or what.
Yeah you’re right, not advisable to read too much into a few pictures. It’s also a question at whom did they have in mind with these photos? E.g. The Honest Wargamer was disappointed they used those old Bretonnian Knights and not show off shiny new sculpts. But I disagree. I think at this stage still, TOW posts are mostly aimed at old WHFB players. I think they wanted to show how old armies can be easily used in TOW.
As for the old sprues, well, we’ll see. I guess all old models they are bringing back will also be on the old sprue layout. I cannot see them invest work and time into rearranging old sculpts on sprues. They’re either just going to get the old moulds out of storage or completely redesign the model from the ground up.
Stuff like the WE Eternal Guard which is still on sale over at GW looks pretty efficient in the sprue
That Knights of the Realm sprue though? Less so.
Ah well, it will be interesting times.
I’m expecting unit width to be a fixed number and then you buy ranks, so some units will always be 6 models wide, some might be 5. I’m also expecting unit options to be more limited than before, so most will be fixed with a certain weapon and armour but even this won’t matter because it will be merged into the unit stats. This all simplifies army building and reduces confusion over what a unit can do.
Given what we have seen of the new 40k rules, I expect that my stat breakdown I wrote last year is going to be awfully similar to what they do in W:TOW but with a lot of trimming, like no Initiative, no BS for units without ballistic weapons, etc.
Interesting that that trebuchet is on a base. Anyone want to bet that’s not just for aesthetics and we’ll see warmachines now on bases? Think all AoS warmachines are based these days aren’t they, so they’ll probably be doing the same for TOW warmachines. Plus mandating bases will likely make how they interact with the game simpler.
I do hope they don’t go down the 40k/AoS route of having attacks hit on a fixed number, although I imagine they might as a way of simplifying things and having consistency across systems.
It’s never sat right with me that for example a Chaos Warrior can hit a High Elf lord as easily as he can hit a goblin.
Why not? The warriors skill in hitting stuff hasn’t changed? I know… some things are harder to hit then others since they’re faster and what not… but that should/would be represented by the models saving throw(s).
I wouldn’t have any issues with a more streamlined system without the need of a 2 page cheat sheet for basic stuff.
For the Hit roll I can almost guarantee it. And I have no issue with it tbh. 90% of all hot rolls in WHFB were on 3+ or 4+ anyway.
I would have more problems with the wound roll. I really don’t like the AoS system with fixed rolls, I hope they use the new 40k system. Good balance between fast and nuanced
In my view TOW exists because Mantic exist and Mantic exist because of KOW and KOW is a discount product.
On that basis, pricing is a fascinating question, given the dev cost of the re released kits is zero.
If GW had the guts… but they won’t, and prices will be high. Hopefully more on the AOS end though.
I really hope most of this stuff doesn’t come to pass. I want the ws table to return. I want units abilities to be reflected by stats not a million special rules. I would mix 3rd and 8th for 9th ed.
Asf should only be a magic item. Balance the armies better. Get rid of rock paper scissors kind of rules. No more of this stupid 4+ for ws3 . We are not retarded, to hit and to wound tables were incredibly easy to remember. Build a game for adults and kids will love it too. A balanced Ravening hordes is the way to go. Reduce power creep. Make light cavalry useful again
woah. the hell. did I call the front rank barricade/entrenchment with my tomb king archers or what. #oldworldready
Because the opponent doesn’t just stand there and let the Chaos Warrior hit them; the old comparing WS reflects the opposed skills of the two combatants, which is why it’d be easier for the CW to hit a gobbo than an elite elf.
Thats what i said… and thats what i meant with
I had no idea 40k had moved to that, that’s really interesting.
I’m not against simplification, dropping stats and complexity was a big part of the move to 4th edition, but my thoughts on that solution is complex.
The old WS table was not very dynamic but it was not complex and at least allowed for some variation. When it comes down to it anyone can swing a sword, it’s your skill compared to the opponent that makes the difference.
That said, arguments on realism are a non-starter and ultimately lead to bickering, it’s all about how you want the game to feel on the table. If they want a quicker or more lethal system I would rather see fewer opportunities to fail (ie less dice rolls) than an increase in number of attacks or simplification of existing ones. I agree with zodd in that I do want a level of crunch beyond what’s offered in most skirmish systems. I think they should mostly focus on removing ambiguity and random charge distances (insert personal grumbling here).
Charge distances are only partially random to be fair, and I’d argue for preserving them, especially in the context of whole player turns. Charges falling short present one of the only main disruptions to a player’s planned combat sequence and with fixed predefinition would come games that are even easier to predict and therefore prone to rules manipulation. Reasonable minds may of course differ but for me unless we go to alt activations, random charge is fundamental
Respectfully disagree, of course. WHFB is both an intensely random game already and fundamentally a game of maneuver. As such, movement is one of the few things you can control and the introduction of chance here only serves to further restrict player agency.
It’s also notable that I know of only a single non-gw system that uses this mechanic. It’s not been considered a revolutionary idea, or even one worth copying, even among IGYG systems.
We had fixed charge distances in earlier editions, but that was back when you weren’t allowed to measure distances and had to guess war machine shots etc. I cannot see TOW return to this state. I’m confident we will see random charge distances. For me it’s ok. And it’s better for Dwarfs too. In 5th we had a whole 6“ charge distance. Now we have at least a chance of completing a charge…
I don’t see any guess measures in the new game. Kinda against gw game design policy now.
I don’t mind guess ranges. We use it in oldcromunda. Nothing better when someone runs out of ammo firing a bolt gun only to find they were a couple of inches out of range haha
Modern games, rank-and-flank and skirmish, use both fixed distances and premeasuring though. I agree we wont see guess ranges again, but there’s no need for a “one or the other” approach.
