No demand is not true, as people played the game but just not with GW Warhammer Fantasy models

you saw armies made from historical metal models and even 40k models rather than the original fantasy models, demand was there but ignored

Billicus wrote:
That would be a bit weird because I don't think anyone really considers "Starter set" to mean "push-fit minis" and also the last few 40k "launch boxes" have had push-fit minis in them anyway.

It seems that GW has very specific ideas what kind of terminology they want to use for their products (and have been inconsistent about it in the past, at least in some cases, which obviously doesn't help). Customers are far broader and more casual about such things.

The failure at Warhammer Fest seems to have been an inability of the presenters to understand what the audience was asking. Strictly, by their own definitions, they answered correctly. But that does not actually help an audience that may not be aware of GW's terminology, or doesn't care to use it. This is something the PR people have to pick up on to avoid miscommunication.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Changed the title and took off the reference to page 19, I think we're kind of past that now.

Where's your proof?

 Geifer wrote:

Billicus wrote:
That would be a bit weird because I don't think anyone really considers "Starter set" to mean "push-fit minis" and also the last few 40k "launch boxes" have had push-fit minis in them anyway.

It seems that GW has very specific ideas what kind of terminology they want to use for their products (and have been inconsistent about it in the past, at least in some cases, which obviously doesn't help). Customers are far broader and more casual about such things.

The failure at Warhammer Fest seems to have been an inability of the presenters to understand what the audience was asking. Strictly, by their own definitions, they answered correctly. But that does not actually help an audience that may not be aware of GW's terminology, or doesn't care to use it. This is something the PR people have to pick up on to avoid miscommunication.

I'd understand that if this was like a bunch of suits being plonked in front of an audience. But these guys are meant to be hobbyist themselves, they must have some idea of the words they say will have a certain meaning or that most hobbyist won't always refer to products in the terminology cooked up by marketing. The front line staff of GW are not so far removed from 'regular' hobbyists, surely?

Its either the best marketing strategy ever devised. Nothing keeps things in peoples social media feeds better than putting out some stupid PR commentary, being deliberately vague, and making customers pass about broken whispers (adding to the fable of the now legendary 20+ year old kits! Keep them secret! Keep them safe!) keeping everyone arguing about warhammer (And not noticing other games)

Or

They have weaponised incompetence.

Or, to be fair, institutional jargon that they use on a regular basis wins.

Everybody has their own, and its very easy to forget that other people don't use it. If its really bad, it doesn't translate between departments, let alone the outside world. (and the less said about government acronyms the better)

I know in my own workplace, there's a huge divide between them upstairs, those of us that actually work, and terminology our patrons understand.

 Mallo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

Billicus wrote:
That would be a bit weird because I don't think anyone really considers "Starter set" to mean "push-fit minis" and also the last few 40k "launch boxes" have had push-fit minis in them anyway.

It seems that GW has very specific ideas what kind of terminology they want to use for their products (and have been inconsistent about it in the past, at least in some cases, which obviously doesn't help). Customers are far broader and more casual about such things.

The failure at Warhammer Fest seems to have been an inability of the presenters to understand what the audience was asking. Strictly, by their own definitions, they answered correctly. But that does not actually help an audience that may not be aware of GW's terminology, or doesn't care to use it. This is something the PR people have to pick up on to avoid miscommunication.

I'd understand that if this was like a bunch of suits being plonked in front of an audience. But these guys are meant to be hobbyist themselves, they must have some idea of the words they say will have a certain meaning or that most hobbyist won't always refer to products in the terminology cooked up by marketing. The front line staff of GW are not so far removed from 'regular' hobbyists, surely?

Its either the best marketing strategy ever devised. Nothing keeps things in peoples social media feeds better than putting out some stupid PR commentary, being deliberately vague, and making customers pass about broken whispers (adding to the fable of the now legendary 20+ year old kits! Keep them secret! Keep them safe!) keeping everyone arguing about warhammer (And not noticing other games)

Or

They have weaponised incompetence.

Warhammerfest was just a weirdly quarter-assed thing all around - like many of these corporate affairs, nowadays you can almost cut the feeling of detached cynicism of most people involved with a knife, as they're neither genuinly excited about the things they're presenting nor involved enough to at least convincingly fake it. I don't remember which panel it was that opened with a dialogue of 'So, Jim, have you done something exciting for $game lately?' 'No, not really Bob, no' but it sums the thing up perfectly - real 'quiet quitting' hour feelings in there.

 Mallo wrote:

Its either the best marketing strategy ever devised. Nothing keeps things in peoples social media feeds better than putting out some stupid PR commentary, being deliberately vague, and making customers pass about broken whispers (adding to the fable of the now legendary 20+ year old kits! Keep them secret! Keep them safe!) keeping everyone arguing about warhammer (And not noticing other games)

Amusingly enough it was nearly 20 years after Bilbo's Birthday part that Frodo & friends actually got off their butts and starting moving.

Voss wrote:
Or, to be fair, institutional jargon that they use on a regular basis wins.

Everybody has their own, and its very easy to forget that other people don't use it. If its really bad, it doesn't translate between departments, let alone the outside world. (and the lest said about government acronyms the better)

I know in my own workplace, there's a huge divide between them upstairs, those of us that actually work, and terminology our patrons understand.

^^ This

Language and terminology internal to a firm can be very different when it comes to how the public interact with products. Most of the time its totally fine; but every so often you'll get a mistake where someone asks a simple question that gets answered the wrong way because the person answering has their company brain running instead of their consumer brain. Heck sometimes its just because they know a LOT of things that they are not allowed to tell you so they are doing their best to make sure they only release the info that you are supposed to know on that day. Which can result in someone being super cagey about even really simple things or tripping up because they are in full company mode and "no starter set" was drummed into them even if there is a set that's basically what 99.0% of customers would consider a starter set and which marketing will probably call a starter (or use similar language - eg entry set) when marketing it in a few weeks/months time.

leopard wrote:
all this is about is GW seeing other companies have "rank and file" games with a fantasy setting and they want that market

not all of it, but enough no other company can use it to grow

This man understands.....

 Overread wrote:

Voss wrote:
Or, to be fair, institutional jargon that they use on a regular basis wins.

Everybody has their own, and its very easy to forget that other people don't use it. If its really bad, it doesn't translate between departments, let alone the outside world. (and the lest said about government acronyms the better)

I know in my own workplace, there's a huge divide between them upstairs, those of us that actually work, and terminology our patrons understand.

^^ This

Language and terminology internal to a firm can be very different when it comes to how the public interact with products. Most of the time its totally fine; but every so often you'll get a mistake where someone asks a simple question that gets answered the wrong way because the person answering has their company brain running instead of their consumer brain. Heck sometimes its just because they know a LOT of things that they are not allowed to tell you so they are doing their best to make sure they only release the info that you are supposed to know on that day. Which can result in someone being super cagey about even really simple things or tripping up because they are in full company mode and "no starter set" was drummed into them even if there is a set that's basically what 99.0% of customers would consider a starter set and which marketing will probably call a starter (or use similar language - eg entry set) when marketing it in a few weeks/months time.

GW is really paranoid about giving anything but the barest, approved at the highest level information away. I suspect that its PR people might worry about the answers they're allowed/not allowed to give so much that they don't even want to try to interpret questions lest they accidentally give something away they shouldn't have.

The wise spokesperson never takes questions from the audience.

At the most you let audience submit questions to the host who then cherry picks, edits or outright makes up the questions you want to answer.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The wise spokesperson never takes questions from the audience.

At the most you let audience submit questions to the host who then cherry picks, edits or outright makes up the questions you want to answer.

see also just about every "FAQ" ever issued

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The wise spokesperson never takes questions from the audience.

A Q&A session where presenters and audience stare at each other in silent loathing for an hour is something GW should try at some point. Maybe even stream it so the Internet can partake in the experience as well.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The wise spokesperson never takes questions from the audience.

At the most you let audience submit questions to the host who then cherry picks, edits or outright makes up the questions you want to answer.

According to people there, questions were being prescreened before brought to the mike.

I wasn't there - but the idea you'd get confused over what a "starter" is in a Q/A sort of beggars belief.

Find it far easier to believe the guy taking questions didn't think there was, so just said "no". Cue outrage, cue "obviously there will be" a few hours later.

Maybe in GW-head Leviathan, the thing they'd spent 2 days hyping up, isn't a starter (cos it lacks dice and whippy sticks). But if so the response is surely "not a starter as such - but something like Leviathan".

 Londinium wrote:


Just to end this irrational nonsense that the non core factions are basically dead and will never be looked at...

A few months ago the warhammer Facebook page replied to me saying that they hadnt heard anything about plans to update the Daemon Prince but to keep an eye out in the future. A month later they announced the new Daemon Prince kit. The people that run the social media teams know basically nothing about long term plans and always frame everything in the context of "who knows what might happen woooo anything is possible ahhhh". If you're taking this as an indication of *anything* then you're falling for marketing-speak for empty promises and wishful thinking (and I say that as someone in a long term relationship with someone who specifically does marketing in the game industry).

And before anyone starts, the warcom article was actually written by "the guys from the Warhammer Design Studio" (per the article itself) - its fair to say they know what they are talking about - much moreso than the social media manager.

Ok lets speak positively for a little bit.

We have seen the new heroes for the Tomb Kings and the Brets. We also know that Brets are getting foot knights (GW said in the Bret reveal article). The last time the Brets had foot knight was 3rd edition. Based off the Tomb King weapon Sprue that they have showed a couple of articles ago, i thought is was a sprue for a plastic hero but since they showed off the Resin Hero i have changed my mind. I think that these weapons will go to a foot mummy unit similar to the one from 4th edition.

With the announcement of the armies that are coming back first and will get new units and heroes. I think heroes do not matter much, unless it is a new model for a existing Special Character. These are the units that i think are returning to TOW from previous editions with new kits.

Empire -
Reiksgard Foot Knights
War Wagon
Halflings

Wood Elves-
Animal Trainers
Falconeers
Zoats (they were part of the wood elf army in 2nd and 3rd editions)

Chaos -
Thugs
Chaos Dwarf War Machines

Beastmen -
Slangors
Tzangors
Centigors

Greenskins
Plastic Snotlings and Pump Wagon
Fimir (Forge World made some and since they are running things they may come back)

Brets -
Foot Knights

Dwarf -
Dwarf Weapon Teams
Norse Dwarfs (berserkers)

High Elves -
No earthly idea

Tomb Kings -
Foot Mummies from 4th edition

Paymaster I honestly think Gdubs should have put you in charge of this project, we would have all ended up with something we loved. Also I’m being serious here and not sarcastic.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Paymaster I honestly think Gdubs should have put you in charge of this project, we would have all ended up with something we loved. Also I’m being serious here and not sarcastic.

Thank you.

When i was a younger man i gave it the old college try and it did not get anywhere. I did write a article that appeared in White Dwarf years ago, and I did have a conversation with one of the designers about updating the rules of the Dogs of War. But all of the is in the past, i run my own model company now but if i could land a job at GW design team at my age i would take it.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Londinium wrote:


Just to end this irrational nonsense that the non core factions are basically dead and will never be looked at...

A few months ago the warhammer Facebook page replied to me saying that they hadnt heard anything about plans to update the Daemon Prince but to keep an eye out in the future. A month later they announced the new Daemon Prince kit. The people that run the social media teams know basically nothing about long term plans and always frame everything in the context of "who knows what might happen woooo anything is possible ahhhh". If you're taking this as an indication of *anything* then you're falling for marketing-speak for empty promises and wishful thinking (and I say that as someone in a long term relationship with someone who specifically does marketing in the game industry).

And before anyone starts, the warcom article was actually written by "the guys from the Warhammer Design Studio" (per the article itself) - its fair to say they know what they are talking about - much moreso than the social media manager.

Well. He just repeats what gw has said before.

So if you don't trust then no matter who says you don't trust it.

At which point just admit you think gw lies about everything.

But while gw doesn't tell everything they don't flat out lie generally. Bad business

So according to you for example no foot knights are coming. Gw said are coming but they are lying. Hell even 40k 10th ed coming this year isn't sure thing as everything gw says can be lie regardless of who says what.

Yup, a good summary of how a conspiracy theory mindset works.

tneva82 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Londinium wrote:


Just to end this irrational nonsense that the non core factions are basically dead and will never be looked at...

A few months ago the warhammer Facebook page replied to me saying that they hadnt heard anything about plans to update the Daemon Prince but to keep an eye out in the future. A month later they announced the new Daemon Prince kit. The people that run the social media teams know basically nothing about long term plans and always frame everything in the context of "who knows what might happen woooo anything is possible ahhhh". If you're taking this as an indication of *anything* then you're falling for marketing-speak for empty promises and wishful thinking (and I say that as someone in a long term relationship with someone who specifically does marketing in the game industry).

And before anyone starts, the warcom article was actually written by "the guys from the Warhammer Design Studio" (per the article itself) - its fair to say they know what they are talking about - much moreso than the social media manager.

Well. He just repeats what gw has said before.

So if you don't trust then no matter who says you don't trust it.

At which point just admit you think gw lies about everything.

But while gw doesn't tell everything they don't flat out lie generally. Bad business

So according to you for example no foot knights are coming. Gw said are coming but they are lying. Hell even 40k 10th ed coming this year isn't sure thing as everything gw says can be lie regardless of who says what.

There's a difference between direct statements like 'There will be Foot Knights for Bretonnia' and deliberately vague statements like 'It is possible that we will do things in the future'.

Concerning the statement above, in the screenshot, there are many possibilities how it can be technically true while also not being what any normal person would think of when they heard it. The statement reads:

Most armies will be comprised predominantly of returning classic kits which include a whole load of plastics, as well as some metal and resin miniatures. There will also be new kits released in both plastic and Forgeworld resin too.

The reading a normal person would infer is: 'Armies will consist mostly of plastic models, with some resin and metal besides, and will get new plastic and resin kits besides'

But if we do a careful (paranoid) reading, and use the most hostile interpretation at every turn, we get:

Most = not all, but the majority
Predominantly = 51%
Returning classics which include... = Some select plastic kits are returning, but it's mostly metal and resin
There will be... = This leaves the widest avenue for interpretation; technically this would be true with a single plastic kit and a handful of FW sets; there's also no definition what a 'kit' is in the end, this encompasses everything from a single multipart character to full regimental boxes or large multipart centrepieces

So effectively this statement could cover as much as 'all classic plastic boxes for these armies, most classic metal/resin characters, as well as new plastic kits and FW resin characters and monsters never seen before' and as little as 'some armies get limited selections of their plastic boxes back, while others will only get their character blisters made available again, and there will be a handful of new plastic kits and FW characters for a few armies'

The truth will obviously lie somewhere in the middle, and probably more on the positive side, but the statement itself is intentionally very vague and noncommittal while sounding very enthusiatic and positive if you only glance over it superficially.

I hope that everything turns out great and the game gets substantial support, but the above statement allows for dirty tricks like plastic boxes just being existing kits with a new weapon loadout, or the 'resin kits' being the handful of command sets and characters Forgeworld did for e.g. Blackfire Pass but never got around to releasing. Better to reign in your expectations somewhat than being disappointed later on.

Which is still all irrelevant if gw doesn't lower prices and create a ruleset that for once needs to compete with competent ones from other companies.

Because the grogs have left or play oldhammer versions.
A Lot are miffed about the rebasing, especially those with large armies.
Entry price and pts will remain a hurdle for new blood, nvm size of games.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which is still all irrelevant if gw doesn't lower prices and create a ruleset that for once needs to compete with competent ones from other companies.

It's directly important because plastic regiment kits are the only product that are affordable enough to allow people to enter the game at all; without a possibility to build the backbone of an army with relatively cheap plastic kits, the whole game rests on people that have armies already, second-hand stuff or 3rd-party replacements, all of which make GW no money. Launching a rank-and-file game that rest squarely on the shoulders of FW resin regiments at FW prices is a doomed endeavour. Rules etc. play a distinct second fiddle if nobody can afford the game.

Just had a thought regarding new bases.
By keeping the old base sizes, my armies can be used for:
- WFB 6E
- WFB 8E
- Kings of War (In ranks)
- Warhammer Armies Project
- The Old World (Using spaced unit trays)

Conversely, the new sizes allow me to play:
- The Old World (In an environment where I cannot just use spacers)

So we now have a game mode that is not readily compatible with anything else and does not provide equal support to all its factions. For veteran WFB players it does not seem at all appealing to rebase anything, even if I end up playing TOW as a ruleset.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Just had a thought regarding new bases.
By keeping the old base sizes, my armies can be used for:
- WFB 6E
- WFB 8E
- Kings of War (In ranks)
- Warhammer Armies Project
- The Old World (Using spaced unit trays)

Conversely, the new sizes allow me to play:
- The Old World (In an environment where I cannot just use spacers)

So we now have a game mode that is not readily compatible with anything else and does not provide equal support to all its factions. For veteran WFB players it does not seem at all appealing to rebase anything, even if I end up playing TOW as a ruleset.

It will probably boil down to how important GW-organized Organized Play is to you; if you don't want to do it with some regularity, you have absolutely no incentive to do any rebasing. That, again, contributes to the ongoing problem of this game not really knowing who it is for anyway.

Good thing you aren't required to change your bases at all.

 Gert wrote:
Good thing you aren't required to change your bases at all.

Since no base size is going to shrink, close to 100% of people will just use movement trays with adequate spacing and markings, if they feel the need to do anything at all. It's a non-issue for most.

If you flip a 25mm base upside down, a 20mm base nestles in it quite nicely (and I would imagine 25mm bases will do the same with what ever base replaces them, too). Saves a fortune on spaced movement trays, and means models can be used in older editions as well.

A change in base size, brings about game changing effects. Movement through spaces, frontage size for charging and fighting etc.
I'm going to assume GW have taken this into account with the statistics of the models they are altering with the necessary playtesting required.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which is still all irrelevant if gw doesn't lower prices and create a ruleset that for once needs to compete with competent ones from other companies.

It's directly important because plastic regiment kits are the only product that are affordable enough to allow people to enter the game at all; without a possibility to build the backbone of an army with relatively cheap plastic kits, the whole game rests on people that have armies already, second-hand stuff or 3rd-party replacements, all of which make GW no money. Launching a rank-and-file game that rest squarely on the shoulders of FW resin regiments at FW prices is a doomed endeavour. Rules etc. play a distinct second fiddle if nobody can afford the game.

That's why the old kits coming back means there's plenty of plastics.

And cheaper than all new plastic line some people hoped for.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
A change in base size, brings about game changing effects. Movement through spaces, frontage size for charging and fighting etc.
I'm going to assume GW have taken this into account with the statistics of the models they are altering with the necessary playtesting required.

I'm worried about the implications. Units will have a bigger footprint on average, so maybe the will reduce unit size to a pre-hordes amount to compensate? But that would be quite counter productive to selling more models overall. This game still holds quite a few mysteries.

I find it a bit disappointing that they decided to bring old models back for this personally. I understand that this is also probably a minority opinion. I have no old armies anymore so the basing question is a moot point for me.

If the new plastics (especially Bretonnians) are sculpted to match the detail and proportion of older kits (and they might very well be, considering the previewed hero) then I am definitely out. I very much prefer their (GW's) newer sculpt proportions and detail levels.

I will still probably get any rulebooks though. Especially if there is new fluff and artwork.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which is still all irrelevant if gw doesn't lower prices and create a ruleset that for once needs to compete with competent ones from other companies.

It's directly important because plastic regiment kits are the only product that are affordable enough to allow people to enter the game at all; without a possibility to build the backbone of an army with relatively cheap plastic kits, the whole game rests on people that have armies already, second-hand stuff or 3rd-party replacements, all of which make GW no money. Launching a rank-and-file game that rest squarely on the shoulders of FW resin regiments at FW prices is a doomed endeavour. Rules etc. play a distinct second fiddle if nobody can afford the game.

Which is preciscly what i stated? The competition is cheaper, has more modern sculpts and better rulesets right now. (And i question their skill to produce a ruleset that is competent enough to draw new blood on it's own merit)

Bringing back the old plastics is indeed the right call but with how big some units needed to be and the pts we still are in an area were old whfb was and that was a game that par excellence was described as not accessible due to price.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which is still all irrelevant if gw doesn't lower prices and create a ruleset that for once needs to compete with competent ones from other companies.

It's directly important because plastic regiment kits are the only product that are affordable enough to allow people to enter the game at all; without a possibility to build the backbone of an army with relatively cheap plastic kits, the whole game rests on people that have armies already, second-hand stuff or 3rd-party replacements, all of which make GW no money. Launching a rank-and-file game that rest squarely on the shoulders of FW resin regiments at FW prices is a doomed endeavour. Rules etc. play a distinct second fiddle if nobody can afford the game.

Which is preciscly what i stated? The competition is cheaper, has more modern sculpts and better rulesets right now. (And i question their skill to produce a ruleset that is competent enough to draw new blood on it's own merit)

Bringing back the old plastics is indeed the right call but with how big some units needed to be and the pts we still are in an area were old whfb was and that was a game that par excellence was described as not accessible due to price.

I wrote my answer before i saw your substantial edit, obviously we share a point of view on this project.

 Taarnak wrote:
I find it a bit disappointing that they decided to bring old models back for this personally. I understand that this is also probably a minority opinion. I have no old armies anymore so the basing question is a moot point for me.

I was fine with having old kits in production while they produce new kits for factions (and of course being the majority of stuff people have for a while- stuff to get by until they get to the faction properly).
I'm less fine with old kits being the majority of stuff in the queue (though several factions had really nice modern kits that were axed for no reason, particularly wood elves)

Combined with new bases, I think they've immediately made a mess, and there's going to be a lot of flailing (internally and among potential customers) until they decide to do a TOW 2.0 (like HH2.0) or... not.

I feel GW selling old plastics cheap is possibly optimistic.

All I really want is the Sphinx back and some new TK skellies that are actually usable, buildable models.

Tyel wrote:
I feel GW selling old plastics cheap is possibly optimistic.

Depends, if you mean real-world-in-absolute-terms-cheap then you're out of luck, if you mean cheap-by-the-standard-of-what -GW-customers-are-conditioned-to-endure-cheap there might be some hope left. Anyway, it's hard to judge the appeal of a classic, 'warhammery' R&F game where about 3/4 of your expensive, painted unit is effectively just wound counters in this day and age, we might see a surprise either way.

If they're bringing back classic kits, those molds are long since paid for. GW could sell them for cheap to entice new players and still make a profit.

It may depend also on how the rules are structured. If we're returning to units of 4x4 then there will be less need for hundreds of models just to assemble a core force.

Tsagualsa wrote:



I wrote my answer before i saw your substantial edit, obviously we share a point of view on this project.

No harm done.

I don't think anyone will defend goldhänders once more. Or bloodknights. hopefully...

GW prices are not based on cost but on the market

GW could sell most kits at 50% and still make profit but they don't do it

If GW wanted a cheap entry into the game, we would see an easy to build starter set
Just old kits coming back, good chance we see ebay like prices

 kodos wrote:

Just old kits coming back, good chance we see ebay like prices

So Tomb Guard for 100-300$? Hardly.

According to the GW web store 20 Night Goblins are $45 and 10 Empire Troops are $35. Since these are the same set that will be coming back to the old world it would be safe to say the price point is somewhere around there.

Alternatively, 20 KoW Goblins are $37.50 and the average Conquest 12 man warrior kit is $40 to $50 a kit.

I am inclined to say this is a wash.

 catbarf wrote:
If they're bringing back classic kits, those molds are long since paid for. GW could sell them for cheap to entice new players and still make a profit.

Since they cut their own tools, all of their plastics are orders of magnitude cheaper for them to produce than if they didn't. Since that is the case, ALL of their plastics could be a lot cheaper than they are. I don't see the old stuff coming back at a price point any cheaper than the new stuff, personally; old molds or not.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
According to the GW web store 20 Night Goblins are $45 and 10 Empire Troops are $35. Since these are the same set that will be coming back to the old world it would be safe to say the price point is somewhere around there.

Alternatively, 20 KoW Goblins are $37.50 and the average Conquest 12 man warrior kit is $40 to $50 a kit.

I am inclined to say this is a wash.

Wait and see prices brought back at $85 for night goblins and €65 for empire troops.

I'm glad I have stacks of backlog for WFB. Seeing kits return will help knock the insane prices down for things like tomb kings, but I feel sorry for anyone needing to start an army from scratch. One of the biggest issues I foresee is the unbalanced pricing.

They are going to have to juggle selling those 16/20/24 model sets in numbers that make the game profitable & playable, and still convince people that similar models for AoS in sets of 5/10 are worth the same. Or we are just going to see those bigger sets of plastics with huge price increases to 'match' the AoS pricing scheme.

With the cost of the 5 AoS goblin wolf riders, I dread to think what the old world set is going to be.

 catbarf wrote:
If they're bringing back classic kits, those molds are long since paid for. GW could sell them for cheap

Are we talking about Games Workshop here?

 Paymaster Games wrote:
According to the GW web store 20 Night Goblins are $45 and 10 Empire Troops are $35. Since these are the same set that will be coming back to the old world it would be safe to say the price point is somewhere around there.

Alternatively, 20 KoW Goblins are $37.50 and the average Conquest 12 man warrior kit is $40 to $50 a kit.

I am inclined to say this is a wash.

Those are some odd cherries to pick.
GW makes amazing models (for what it's worth, good luck actually playing games with them), but don't come anywhere close to offering valye for money.

Let's include a few more kits in the comparison before declaring it "a wash":
I see $55 for 20 goblins from GW.
$75 for 5 cavalry.
$40 for 10 from GW, for the older kits.
Or $170 for a 35 model start collecting.
$40 for a single plastic character.

Then $65 for a battle tome.
Mantic sell a rulebook with all the lists for $50.

$37.50 for 20 plastic Mantic infantry.
You can get 40 goblins and 2 mincers in a $45 Ambush starter though.
Ambush is the low points game mode aimed at getting new players in.
The $165 starter set has 80 goblins, an 18cm giant and 33 other models.

Resin from Mantic is more expensive though.
Mantic are making their resin models available as stls through a subscription service to address that though.

Tyel wrote:
I feel GW selling old plastics cheap is possibly optimistic.

Especially after what happened with the Steel Legion M2O pricing - though I appreciate that was metal, not plastic.

GW are currently having trouble making enough product to meet demand.

I think it's very optimistic to expect the old kits to be priced as anything other than comparable to 40k/AoS/HH plastics.

Yeah I assume that they will just use their standard pricing structure.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah I assume that they will just use their standard pricing structure.

Just look at how they're pricing current FW HH stuff - 35€ for a pretty plain SM Librarian sculpt. 35€ for a torso with an Assault Cannon to stick into your tanks. 45€ for one dude with a small-ish back banner. 50€ for a Terminator character with not much bling. If prices are anyway near that they're too high. If that one Bretonnian dude we saw in the sneak peek was 40€, not many people would pull the trigger for what ultimately is a pretty generic fantasy knight.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah I assume that they will just use their standard pricing structure.

Just look at how they're pricing current FW HH stuff - 35€ for a pretty plain SM Librarian sculpt. 35€ for a torso with an Assault Cannon to stick into your tanks. 45€ for one dude with a small-ish back banner. 50€ for a Terminator character with not much bling. If prices are anyway near that they're too high. If that one Bretonnian dude we saw in the sneak peek was 40€, not many people would pull the trigger for what ultimately is a pretty generic fantasy knight.

I agree which does not bode well for the range

 Mr Morden wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah I assume that they will just use their standard pricing structure.

Just look at how they're pricing current FW HH stuff - 35€ for a pretty plain SM Librarian sculpt. 35€ for a torso with an Assault Cannon to stick into your tanks. 45€ for one dude with a small-ish back banner. 50€ for a Terminator character with not much bling. If prices are anyway near that they're too high. If that one Bretonnian dude we saw in the sneak peek was 40€, not many people would pull the trigger for what ultimately is a pretty generic fantasy knight.

I agree which does not bode well for the range

Also, due to the game still being pretty far out (by what we've been shown so far) it has ample opportunity to pick up a couple of GW's typical price increases until release

 GaroRobe wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
If they're bringing back classic kits, those molds are long since paid for. GW could sell them for cheap

Are we talking about Games Workshop here?

Yeah, Games Workshop, the company that loves to fleece you for every dollar but also is willing to cut you a deal (see: Start Collecting, new edition boxed sets) if they think it'll lead to you spending more in the long run.

It's been a while since they killed Fantasy, but they have to be aware that the enormous buy-in cost was part of what sunk the game. Using the old plastic infantry as lead-ins to the more expensive characters and special kits you need to actually build out an army could be a viable marketing approach.

I don't know if they will or won't. Just wouldn't make assumptions about pricing yet.

Luke82 wrote:
If you flip a 25mm base upside down, a 20mm base nestles in it quite nicely (and I would imagine 25mm bases will do the same with what ever base replaces them, too). Saves a fortune on spaced movement trays, and means models can be used in older editions as well.

Sir you are wise.

For the people chiming in about pricing, you'll realize GW sells 10 tactical (or intercessors) for $60 for 40k and 20 tactical MKIII for $80 for 30k right? Different price points can exist between different games, I think that example illustrates it perfectly and likely what we see in ToW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke82 wrote:
If you flip a 25mm base upside down, a 20mm base nestles in it quite nicely (and I would imagine 25mm bases will do the same with what ever base replaces them, too). Saves a fortune on spaced movement trays, and means models can be used in older editions as well.

After reading through all the criticism (some warranted) in this thread, it's nice to see something positive and incredibly useful posted here.

Prices will be better discussed when the miniatures will actually get released, anyway. We don't even know how many years it will take and in what economic turmoil we will be at that time.

Mozzamanx wrote:

So we now have a game mode that is not readily compatible with anything else and does not provide equal support to all its factions. For veteran WFB players it does not seem at all appealing to rebase anything, even if I end up playing TOW as a ruleset.

It's not for the armies you already possess for sure. The question isn't the same for new collections.

As for using them for other game systems...actually, other rule sets work very well with bigger square bases.It's just a matter of bigger footprint of the unit on the battlefield, that's all. It's not as game breaking as you may think. Well, unless you play hardcore competitive tournaments, but people recycling miniatures from another game usually don't use them for that reason anyway.

laser cut MDF base-conversion trays with a sheet of tin will still be an ideal means of playing ToW with old armies if ToW is any good, but I do like the 25mm upside down base thing. Bravo!

I'm still just glad to have to the old units coming back, even modern GW prices are a fraction of the ebay stupidity in recent years. If I could just get a High Elf Noble kit for less that $100 then that would be great. New kits will be lovely, but I am 100% here for old kits returning. $60 for Witch Aelves is dumb, but $120+ for 5 Dragon Princes is beyond the pale.

I really really REALLY hope the rules are based on the boxes. A return to the hordes units of 8th would kill this game dead dead dead dead dead. But man, if an elite unit of 10 Swordsmasters could be as effective as a unit of 20 Night Goblins then that would be amazing.

Dear GW, please bring back normal units max 20, elite units max 10, amen.

This is what a unit of swordsmasters looks like on flipped bases. It’s not perfect visually but it works pretty well, and can keep a bag of bases ready if you end up playing someone who is sniffy about playing on old bases.

Thanks for the picture, Luke82 ! Indeed, it's genius.

You will still need a movement tray in the end, though.

Yep, 100%. If you’re starting from scratch you may as well go for new base sizes, or the spaced trays. This idea is more for those of us already down the fantasy rabbit hole and facing a quandary about rebasing. I’ve got something like 90,000 points of painted stuff, all on their own home made magnetised movement trays, rebasing is just not really a viable option. This way I can quickly flip a lot of models into spare bases and repurpose some of my 25mm movement trays quickly and easily (we’ll have to wait and see on the other sizes though!)

chaos0xomega wrote:
A few months ago the warhammer Facebook page replied to me saying that they hadnt heard anything about plans to update the Daemon Prince but to keep an eye out in the future. A month later they announced the new Daemon Prince kit. The people that run the social media teams know basically nothing about long term plans and always frame everything in the context of "who knows what might happen woooo anything is possible ahhhh".

Wait, you think they didn't know about the new Daemon Prince and, that if they'd just been pre-informed about a new DP prior to your question that they would have told you and revealed it to the world via Facebook answering some random person's question? Really?

Oh man, if I could get Dragon Princes and White Lions kits...I would be pretty happy.

Still think it is just vaporware. I'm trying hard to expect nothing from GW so I don't feel let down.

Just wait until they release Epic, THEN we have a price discussion!

For the Empire - I wish they bring back the old early 2000s States Troops and those ugly 2006 ones stay with AoS or dissapear completely...

@RazorEdge: The best thing about those Sate Troops was that they were the exact same scale as the Mordheim mercenaries.

I had a box of 20 that I mixed with the Mordheim sprue that I used to make so many varied Marienburgers, Reiklanders, and Middenheimers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
A few months ago the warhammer Facebook page replied to me saying that they hadnt heard anything about plans to update the Daemon Prince but to keep an eye out in the future. A month later they announced the new Daemon Prince kit. The people that run the social media teams know basically nothing about long term plans and always frame everything in the context of "who knows what might happen woooo anything is possible ahhhh".

Wait, you think they didn't know about the new Daemon Prince and, that if they'd just been pre-informed about a new DP prior to your question that they would have told you and revealed it to the world via Facebook answering some random person's question? Really?

If they knew they would have likely excluded the part about "haven't heard anything" and left it more vague. It's marketing 101, you don't want your community outreach and marketing arm to be seen as lying or am unreliable partner to your community.

GW's social media team don't even have to be at the GW HQ. They just need to manage the FB and be fed information as they are required to have it.

Even if they are at the HQ if they aren't in the design or other teams they might well not even hear about things. Remember AoS was kept very secret for a very long time and some key staff didn't know it was a thing almost until we knew.


Plus even if they do know something, if they are not allowed to talk about it they won't even hint at it. This isn't a small 3-10 man gaming team; its a large company operating as large companies do. Information is compartmentalised and the marketing is company style.



This is not totally a bad thing. Anyone who recalls Spartan Games would recall many times they'd openly show previews or concepts or hint at things coming which would sound like they were weeks/months off but would sometimes take years or never come. Teasing things too early has issues; its why GW rarely does it (Old World is perhaps the only example of them really doing a long term tease).

Long term forecasting is hard. Finances change; projects get unforeseen delays or problems; concepts that sounded good turn out to not work (maybe its an unfun idea or the mechanics of the model don't stand up to mass production in the chosen material). Maybe finances are hard and the superlarge resin model is too much an investment. Perhaps Steve who designed 50% of it leaves the company and no one left can pick up the leftover parts; or perhaps he leaves it in some folder on the computer that no one else recalls how to find etc...

There are lots of ways that long term forecasting can fail. Heck anyone who regularly backs Kickstarters knows to never expect delivery date to be real unless its pretty much a pre-order for something already designed, made and just needing a bulk order; and even then it can still backfire for a few weeks/month or two.

The FB page team isn't marketing though, at least not in the normal way.
Their job is to post links to stuff and answer some questions all of which will be replied to with pre-determined answers.
Is it smart? Not really but considering how leaky the GW boat seems to be already, paranoia isn't paranoia when it's actually happening.

Kinda dropped off the whole news thing again, haven't we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXfYHJweaE8&t=71s


The start set rumor is doing the rounds again. Who knows. I feel the whole game now seems like vaporware and wont appear until 2025; I seem to have time to paint my remaining Empire metals up.

Should I assume its 50% Special units, with no unit count limit? Hence I can run 3 cannons and 3 Greatswords units at 2500 points?

These are the questions that haunts me as I plot and plan how and what to paint.

As far as commenting on the rumors that the setting is one where Chaos is at a low point/ebb and there are no hordes of daemons around, that suits me fine. We're getting enough daemons in the other 2-3 games they are releasing. A more grounded Empire Centric game suits me well.

 triplegrim wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXfYHJweaE8&t=71s


The start set rumor is doing the rounds again. Who knows. I feel the whole game now seems like vaporware and wont appear until 2025; I seem to have time to paint my remaining Empire metals up.

Should I assume its 50% Special units, with no unit count limit? Hence I can run 3 cannons and 3 Greatswords units at 2500 points?

These are the questions that haunts me as I plot and plan how and what to paint.

As far as commenting on the rumors that the setting is one where Chaos is at a low point/ebb and there are no hordes of daemons around, that suits me fine. We're getting enough daemons in the other 2-3 games they are releasing. A more grounded Empire Centric game suits me well.

It's unclear what system of army selection this game will use, it has not been stated that unit slots or even percentages will be used. From what we've seen from 'mood shots' and such so far, the game feels a bit smaller than WHFB, although that may be a personal impression, subject to change nearer to release date etc. I'd not bank on multiple 'Special' units and warmachines in a typical game though. My impression (again, personal impression, not based on any facts whatsoever) seems to be that this game is aimed at being somewhere between 1000 and 1500 points in 'classic' WHFB.

I'd be surprised if the points is low for much the same reason the points tended to rise last time round. GW will presumably be bringing back the big monsters - and if so, games will need to be at a certain points so they are playable.

Admittedly, I know a section of the playerbase would perhaps like GW to go "the big centre piece kits we tried to sell through 8th were a mistake (also monstrous cavalry, what was that all about?) and they won't be in TOW" - but I can't see it.

Tyel wrote:
I'd be surprised if the points is low for much the same reason the points tended to rise last time round. GW will presumably be bringing back the big monsters - and if so, games will need to be at a certain points so they are playable.

Admittedly, I know a section of the playerbase would perhaps like GW to go "the big centre piece kits we tried to sell through 8th were a mistake (also monstrous cavalry, what was that all about?) and they won't be in TOW" - but I can't see it.

AFAIK they already said that there is no intention to bring back the FW resin monsters, and iirc the only monster we have seen so far in a photograph was the old Treeman. We also know that the Necrosphinx will return, as that was specifically called out at Warhammerfest.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/01/celebrate-the-40th-anniversary-of-warhammer-with-new-collectible-stamps-from-royal-mail/

So have we just had a sneaky confirmation of things to come? One of the artwork stamps says „Warhammer the Old World / Battle for Skull Pass“. In line with the Rogue Trader artwork they could just have said WHFB but chose to mention their upcoming game. Does that mean they will redo that box?

And also, can anyone see if the two ToW stamps with photos (dwarfs & high elves) show us anything new? I was in hobby hiatus during WHFB‘s last years.

because this is the name of that artwork

would be the same to say that the we are going to see a Rouge Trade release in 40k because of the stamp

 kodos wrote:
because this is the name of that artwork

would be the same to say that the we are going to see a Rouge Trade release in 40k because of the stamp

I didn't realize women's make-up was such a hot commodity in the 41st Millenium...

 Just Tony wrote:

 kodos wrote:
because this is the name of that artwork

would be the same to say that the we are going to see a Rouge Trade release in 40k because of the stamp

I didn't realize women's make-up was such a hot commodity in the 41st Millenium...

Aspirations to vanity are a path to Slaanesh worship, and thus heresy. Naturally that makes it rare, even for the elites.

For you, dear poster: an exalt...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/21/40-years-of-warhammer-a-rotten-lord-raises-his-axe-for-nurgle/

Nurgle lord & Glottkin celebrated in pictures in the 40th year celebration. End Times mentioned too.

Perhaos of some small interest, the grey 90s illustration style from the tomb king and brets 2023 releases are also used, which is always good looking imo.

Does anyone have an estimate for when we could expect the next article to drop?

I was under the impression that we've entered monthly updates territory but there's been nada in June so far...

There was said to be something in June, so maybe this week

while people expect major news to drop in October when the article series is done

Online preview on Saturday, promising to reveal one whole* model:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/26/the-not-warhammer-40000-preview-drops-on-the-1st-of-july/


* whole is an inference on my part

 Geifer wrote:
Online preview on Saturday, promising to reveal one whole* model:

It will surely deserve a full trailer of 5 minutes and a powerpoint with artworks !

* The sad part is that I totally believes that will be the entire preview of The Old World on that day

Sarouan wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Online preview on Saturday, promising to reveal one whole* model:

It will surely deserve a full trailer of 5 minutes and a powerpoint with artworks !

* The sad part is that I totally believes that will be the entire preview of The Old World on that day

Maybe it will be a lady of the lake, one of those sorceresses for bretonnia. I just got a vibe for a female model this month.

My first guess would be an Empire dude. GW showed a Tomb King and Bretonnian already. If they're going to drip feed us new models, I'd expect to see one of each of the core or whatever it was factions before a focus on a single faction.

Could go either way, of course. Not like we actually have much of a clue yet what GW is doing with The Old World.

 Geifer wrote:
My first guess would be an Empire dude. GW showed a Tomb King and Bretonnian already. If they're going to drip feed us new models, I'd expect to see one of each of the core or whatever it was factions before a focus on a single faction.

Could go either way, of course. Not like we actually have much of a clue yet what GW is doing with The Old World.

Apart from that its at least a 2025 release?

Presumably the unit points system/faux power level system will be implemented, going by 40k 10th. Seemed like a game philosophy choice to me.

Power Levels is on my "Automatic Non-Starter" list for the new rules.

 triplegrim wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
My first guess would be an Empire dude. GW showed a Tomb King and Bretonnian already. If they're going to drip feed us new models, I'd expect to see one of each of the core or whatever it was factions before a focus on a single faction.

Could go either way, of course. Not like we actually have much of a clue yet what GW is doing with The Old World.

Apart from that its at least a 2025 release?

Presumably the unit points system/faux power level system will be implemented, going by 40k 10th. Seemed like a game philosophy choice to me.

Does The Horus Heresy use faux power levels?

Can't see them doing that in the slightest for TOW. Fully expecting the 'classic' points and some manner of force organization chart. 10th Edition 40K game philosophy choice may well be a thing but this isn't the same studio.

Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

Cyel wrote:
Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

You didn't play 8th edition, did you. You don't pay for "back ranks" in a game where you can change formations that have widly different effects in game. Points can't take into account all the situations you have to face in game, and they will never be.

Besides, "point per model" cost is only a problem when you abuse the system on a hardcore competitive level. It was always a player personnality centered problem. It was never meant to be perfect, not even talking about balance...it was just a tool to build lists of somewhat "equal level". Reason it was at that level of detail is because at that time, customisation of unit equipment was deep in its core design (with unit modularity as well). Nowadays, when you look at AoS miniatures with less and less options (or even non-existent modularity with the models), it is sadly less relevant, thus the use of "Power Level" system.

It really depends on how GW will release future new kits, but I'm not optimistic about going back to the modularity of old editions of Warhammer Battle. But there are good chances they'll use "point per model", indeed. Will still not be balanced and there will still be people complaining about it, but that's the way it is.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Can't see them doing that in the slightest for TOW. Fully expecting the 'classic' points and some manner of force organization chart. 10th Edition 40K game philosophy choice may well be a thing but this isn't the same studio.

and AoS Team is a different studio as well yet 40k team took over the point system from them
yet TOW is for now advertised at people who played the game in the past and it makes more sense to keep the old system for that target group

yet it could also be that they want to make it easier and points are based on boxes so you buy units rather than models

Sarouan wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

You didn't play 8th edition, did you.

You're right. It introduced random charge ranges and I had no desire to play such game so 7th is the last one I've had experience with.

Cyel wrote:
Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

Apparently I was playing a very different game then because the notion that extra bodies in units did nothing more than provide a static CR bonus is pretty nonsensical to me. Even at a bare minimum it's extra wounds before you're eating into the potential for reducing that +3 CR 'ranks' result and that's only looking at bigger blocks of infantry. I'm not going to argue that there aren't flaws or balance issues but personally I much prefer the granularity of points per model. The difference between, say a 9-model unit of heavy cavalry (probably to include a character) and a 10 model unit might seem arbitrary but if that extra model is 40 or 50 points then that's a not-insubstantial factor in a 1500-2000 point game when it comes to list building and I like that level of choice.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Apparently I was playing a very different game then because the notion that extra bodies in units did nothing more than provide a static CR bonus is pretty nonsensical to me. Even at a bare minimum it's extra wounds before you're eating into the potential for reducing that +3 CR 'ranks' result and that's only looking at bigger blocks of infantry.

The explanation Alessio gave as to why points per model was poor is because the value of a Chaos Warrior hitting people is substantially higher than the value of one standing around providing 20%of a single point of static CR, at at the very least it would be a better reflection to price for additional ranks rather than additional models.

 Baragash wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Apparently I was playing a very different game then because the notion that extra bodies in units did nothing more than provide a static CR bonus is pretty nonsensical to me. Even at a bare minimum it's extra wounds before you're eating into the potential for reducing that +3 CR 'ranks' result and that's only looking at bigger blocks of infantry.

The explanation Alessio gave as to why points per model was poor is because the value of a Chaos Warrior hitting people is substantially higher than the value of one standing around providing 20%of a single point of static CR, at at the very least it would be a better reflection to price for additional ranks rather than additional models.

Sure but, to an extent you can bake that into the actual points and it's somewhat reflected in the respective unit sizes. I push back on the argument that those extra models are just providing additional static CR, particularly at the more elite unit end of the spectrum. If anything I'd hope TOW is going to err more towards the lower model count end of the scale anyway (more 4th/5th Edition then 8th...) and the diminishing returns of sinking points into big footprint units is more pronounced.

I'd also argue that there could be a more holistic response; actual scenario objectives and victory mechanics in WHF could certainly have offered more variety in order to give a better representation of unit 'value' over just how good they were at killing things.

we have/had such calculations, with the minimum amount of models for a unit cost a certain price which is higher than the per model price for models added after that

making the per model points go down the larger the unit gets

AoS had that during 2.0. One problem with it is that it greatly encourages you to take full unit blocks and makes them more and more efficient the bigger they get.

This isn't bad in itself because it allows big infantry blocks to be viable. The downside though is that it can push out middle-weight and elite unit blocks in favour of simply flooding the board with cheaper core infantry.

It's very difficult to balance units of fewer number into a system where taking all or nothing is basically encouraged and where big infantry blocks just get better and better the more points you put into them.


It closes down the viability of smaller elements on the table.



Of course in typical GW fashion they solved this by going a bit overboard against big infantry blocks in 3rd edition by both removing the discount for taking more models per unit and also by removing the ability to take more than 2 full units at 2K points through the reinforcement point system. Which in itself wasn't a bad idea, but I feel was a heavy hand across all armies when forces should vary. Elite Stormcast armies should have had fewer reinforcement points compared to armies like Skaven who should have had more for their chaff-like skaven.

But that's all drilling down into more complexity - the upshot is that units that get cheaper per model, as they get bigger, heavily encourages big units

In R&F being a large unit is a big disadvantage which is not present that way in AoS because there are no LOS or movement restrictions

Bigger being more point efficient but also harder to get those points working

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Can't see them doing that in the slightest for TOW. Fully expecting the 'classic' points and some manner of force organization chart. 10th Edition 40K game philosophy choice may well be a thing but this isn't the same studio.

Like "Lords cannot exceed 25% of your force, Heroes cannot exceed 50% of your force, special units cannot exceed 50% of your force, and rare units cannot exceed more than 25% of your force. You must include 1 core unit per 1,000 points."

8th wasn't a terrible ruleset. There are things that should be tweaked like steadfast, magic that effects entire units taking characteristic tests or dying (while basic stats being 2-3 so you'd lose 50-67% of the unit), and an overall balancing of the game. WHFB had sharp tiers vs what current AOS is balanced to.

a killy R&F unit should be high cost per model, yes the ones behind are not contributing to the fight directly - thats then a player choice, have those extra bodies for the static CR, or rely on the performance of the ones at the front for direct CR.

making the rear bodies cheaper doesn't work, especially as you then have that on the crappy horde stuff which depends on static CR and all you do is put more models on the table


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also 8th amused me, yes there were "six dice this super spell!!" things, these were in effect a hard counter to a "deathstar" unit, if your force didn't depend upon a single brick such spells were dangerous but less of an issue, same with the scenarios, if you only ever played "battleline" I think it was called the game was quite different to if you played all six scenarios

I saw a lot of tournament packs that tried to limit the six dice magic, which yes is a bit crap but has its purpose, and then as a result had to stick a whole load more rules in to counter deathstars

the games I played with it out of the box so to speak went quite well, you could have the deathstar, but you placed a lot in the lap of lady luck doing it, or you could spread your points out a bit and do better more generally

e.g. the enemy has a deathstar and you don't have a super wizard, well it can be blocked, distracted, entertained with garbage if they only have the one block

a lot depended how you wanted it to go, only having to kill 100 points more than your enemy for a win helped, it was another counter to the deathstars, kill a support unit or two then avoid it

leopard wrote:
a killy R&F unit should be high cost per model, yes the ones behind are not contributing to the fight directly - thats then a player choice, have those extra bodies for the static CR, or rely on the performance of the ones at the front for direct CR.

making the rear bodies cheaper doesn't work, especially as you then have that on the crappy horde stuff which depends on static CR and all you do is put more models on the table

All of this depends on your combat system, how 'stepping up' works, if you can fight with back ranks, and how many, if 'static CR' is even a thing and how much it matters, and so on. Even then, you can use this as a design element and let e.g. 'horde' armies (or units) have decreasing costs for further ranks, while e.g. Speardudes have constant cost, or even increasing cost, and Elite units have increasing or even quadratic costs. Of course, you'd need to check such a system thoroughly and getting it right would be tricky.

 kodos wrote:
In R&F being a large unit is a big disadvantage which is not present that way in AoS because there are no LOS or movement restrictions

The truth is that such a statement is wrong, because it assumes it will be a disadvantage in all situations in game. Depending of the victory conditions, strategic positions, availability of the armies or even the terrain disposition, it can actually be an advantage in itself. For example, big units can block enemy passage in a crucial chokepoint with their big imprint on the battlefield, much easier than multiple smaller ones.

Which is a reason belief points solve everything in balance is fundamentally flawed, and people only looking at them for that matter are just fooling themselves. That's not how a wargame works.

When Kill Team came without points and just set warbands, these people were screaming about imbalance. But the reality of current Kill Team is that points aren't needed for balance. They just put another system based on a definite set of models to be used by all for "balance". And it actually works.

I don't expect TOW to come without points, by the way, since it's all about nostalgia and going back to the old days of Warhammer Battle. But thinking points in absolute is the grail of balanced wargames was already proved wrong so many times in the past. It's just a question of habit that they're used so often, that's all.

the main issue I had with WHFB from 3rd onwards when I started playing it was the requirement to charge into combat

for me it should have been possible to move into combat as well, at a cost of losing all charge bonuses/impact hits etc.

why?

because half the time the safest place to be was right next to an enemy unit, they couldn't charge you as you were not in front, and would block ranged fire at you from about a 180 degree arc.

where as in practice a few blokes would wander sideways and say "I have a very sharp bit of metal, would you like to see it?"

and yes I get the point on how you need to adjust the combat system around how you pick points - however I seldom saw a proper fightly unit actually lose a fight to chaff, even with the chaff CR considered - they just killed far too many for it to matter

what mattered then was steadfast meaning units seldom broke - if you had a choice, take the morale test on a characters leadership, with modifiers, or on the units unmodified leadership without modifiers I think it would have been better

would also have gone back to the "free hack" system, whereby a unit can withdraw from any combat, though its enemy gets a "free hack" - i.e. gets to make a single attack per model that automatically hits, resolve as normal

result being its a lot harder for chaff to tarpit an elite unit, say chaos knights trapped by skaven slaves, the knights can probably risk the strikes from the slaves not doing significant damage and so can pull back, potentially allowing another unit to block the slaves from going back in

thing is, as has been noted before there is a lot you could do to "fix" warhammer, but in so doing it stops being warhammer

I thought 8th worked pretty well, some of the army books needed a re-write and the various colours of magic needed adjusting so they were all more or less the same in utility

I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

 Altruizine wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
My first guess would be an Empire dude. GW showed a Tomb King and Bretonnian already. If they're going to drip feed us new models, I'd expect to see one of each of the core or whatever it was factions before a focus on a single faction.

Could go either way, of course. Not like we actually have much of a clue yet what GW is doing with The Old World.

Apart from that its at least a 2025 release?

Presumably the unit points system/faux power level system will be implemented, going by 40k 10th. Seemed like a game philosophy choice to me.

Does The Horus Heresy use faux power levels?

Nope, HH doesn't. Not only does it not use faux powerlevels but it actually iterated in pts cost even and is seemingly not affraid to go under the 5pts bracket either.

and HH has the idea that you buy a block of say ten marines, which will include a sergeant, for a set point value.

and can then add extra bodies, at a slight discount, then pay upgrades for the lot or model by model

also vehicle squadrons where the extra hulls cost less than the first

leopard wrote:
I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

I don't, this is the fantasy grognard game, it should be as detailed and fiddly as Necromunda or Heresy.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:
I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

I don't, this is the fantasy grognard game, it should be as detailed and fiddly as Necromunda or Heresy.

fully agree thats how it should be

however this is GW, the rules will be a "least possible effort" thing

leopard wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:
I do expect a lot of "AoS" stuff however to come over, specifically "upgrades are free" and "you buy units in blocks that are multiples of the box contents" to "simplify" things. the rest I think will be largely unchanged

I don't, this is the fantasy grognard game, it should be as detailed and fiddly as Necromunda or Heresy.

fully agree thats how it should be

however this is GW, the rules will be a "least possible effort" thing

The Old World is done by the Forge World/Specialist Games team, so at least there is something to be said for waiting until we actually see them screw things up before we worry about that stuff, regardless of how psychotic we think the 40k rules team is.

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:
In R&F being a large unit is a big disadvantage which is not present that way in AoS because there are no LOS or movement restrictions

The truth is that such a statement is wrong, because it assumes it will be a disadvantage in all situations in game. Depending of the victory conditions, strategic positions, availability of the armies or even the terrain disposition, it can actually be an advantage in itself. For example, big units can block enemy passage in a crucial chokepoint with their big imprint on the battlefield, much easier than multiple smaller ones.

Which is a reason belief points solve everything in balance is fundamentally flawed, and people only looking at them for that matter are just fooling themselves. That's not how a wargame works.

When Kill Team came without points and just set warbands, these people were screaming about imbalance. But the reality of current Kill Team is that points aren't needed for balance. They just put another system based on a definite set of models to be used by all for "balance". And it actually works.

I don't expect TOW to come without points, by the way, since it's all about nostalgia and going back to the old days of Warhammer Battle. But thinking points in absolute is the grail of balanced wargames was already proved wrong so many times in the past. It's just a question of habit that they're used so often, that's all.

No one is claiming points solve all balance issues. But you're ignoring the fact that by far the easiest and fairest way to play a pick up game with someone you don't necessarily know really well is to have a points limit. The more complex the options, the more complex the restrictions should be (e.g. limited "elite" units, better equipment costing more etc).

bobthe4th wrote:
But you're ignoring the fact that by far the easiest and fairest way to play a pick up game with someone you don't necessarily know really well is to have a points limit.

That's actually not true, especially because it's not a fact at all. Points is simply a convention, but it's not a guarantee of balance at all. The actual easiest way is to use set units without having to bother building a list with points - like GW does with combat patrols in 10th edition. Buy a combat patrol box and play with it. Can't make it any simpler and easier than that, really. Very newcomer friendly as well.

As to be "fair"...it's so subjective it's not really a point in itself.

What is true is that we have people partisan of points system who are very vocal about how good it is and how a game without it is not worth it. They do spend a lot of energy in that, but that doesn't make it true (mostly, they're afraid of another system because they don't want to play without points). It's not about balance, it's about habits.

The more complex the options, the more complex the restrictions should be (e.g. limited "elite" units, better equipment costing more etc).

That only applies for competitive scene. For a "pick up" game, the more complex your restrictions are, the less appealing your game becomes to newcomers.


Here, with TOW...they already stated the point of this game is not to be appealing to the main market, but to this very niche core of Warhammer Battle fans. So it's not about efficiency or being newcomer friendly ; it's about nostalgia and keeping the veteran players in their comfort zone. So points will be here, I have no doubt.

What will be different with old Battle is the way GW uses nowadays tools to exploit data for "balance" (mostly tournaments) and having points updated given the results to keep abusively optimized armies to stop being so effective. So there's that. But GW knows very well what points are meant to be and what they are not. A different cost for "unit back ranks" will not happen, simply because on the opposite of KoW, Battle unit formations can be changed in game - and thus back rank "being useless" depend wildly from the formation and situation they are in. Their combat efficiency is not absolute in their stats alone.

Mathias Eliasson's WAP (Warhammer Army Project) - "9th Ed." has been contacted by GW and asked to remove all IP-protected art & text.

Initially posted on Facebook, here's a link to tga where the post was copied :

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/22826-the-rumour-thread/?&page=4236#comments

Could be an indicator that TOW might indeed release this year as rumored..

Old-Four-Arms wrote:
Mathias Eliasson's WAP (Warhammer Army Project) - "9th Ed." has been contacted by GW and asked to remove all IP-protected art & text.

Initially posted on Facebook, here's a link to tga where the post was copied :

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/22826-the-rumour-thread/?&page=4236#comments

Could be an indicator that TOW might indeed release this year as rumored..

Hardly a surprise (even to them). Do seem to be rumblings about an October/November release but given we don't know how much beyond the rules/lore is going to be 'new' in terms of physical releases, it's hard to gauge how viable that sounds (alongside the also heavily rumoured Epic reboot in some guise from the same team).

Maybe, but Fluffhammer was contacted 2019/2020 to remove all IP protected stuff and people thought this indicates a release soon

might be related, might be something else (like GW was not aware of the details of that project and only recently found out)

 kodos wrote:
Maybe, but Fluffhammer was contacted 2019/2020 to remove all IP protected stuff and people thought this indicates a release soon

might be related, might be something else (like GW was not aware of the details of that project and only recently found out)

Might just be the legal department completing their quota of 'things done this quarter' at the eleventh hour

don't remind me of that, there is enough on my desk that needs something until end of the week that I can get fully behind such things and would call it the most plausible reason

Old-Four-Arms wrote:
Mathias Eliasson's WAP (Warhammer Army Project) - "9th Ed." has been contacted by GW and asked to remove all IP-protected art & text.

Initially posted on Facebook, here's a link to tga where the post was copied :

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/22826-the-rumour-thread/?&page=4236#comments

Could be an indicator that TOW might indeed release this year as rumored..

If they first got around to doing that now, it probably means a september 2025 release, right?

This is not something you do 3 months before launch.

Judging by the single model they are going to present on saturday, I think we are 20 months at least from a release. If they have a game at all, and its not just vaporware. As I've said before, just a reprint of 6th starter box, digital army books and limited support would be fine by me. Or ditto for 7th or 8th. Or just whatever.

I've been paying a few WR and WAP games, and they are no worse than anything GW will release after years of tinkering with the promised Old World.

Cyel wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

You didn't play 8th edition, did you.

You're right. It introduced random charge ranges and I had no desire to play such game so 7th is the last one I've had experience with.

Kinda curious.

Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Apparently I was playing a very different game then because the notion that extra bodies in units did nothing more than provide a static CR bonus is pretty nonsensical to me. Even at a bare minimum it's extra wounds before you're eating into the potential for reducing that +3 CR 'ranks' result and that's only looking at bigger blocks of infantry.

The explanation Alessio gave as to why points per model was poor is because the value of a Chaos Warrior hitting people is substantially higher than the value of one standing around providing 20%of a single point of static CR, at at the very least it would be a better reflection to price for additional ranks rather than additional models.

That Chaos Warrior in the back has one more function beyond providing static CR. He is making sure anyone who dares charge the unit from behind will have a very, very bad day.

I made that mistake once, early on. Got a unit of CW surrounded and charged them on all sides. The CW trashed the small units on the flanks and rear so badly the accumulated ACR shattered the big block in front.

 Vulcan wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Well, the' classic' points system with its 'points per model' costs was inherently flawed in WFB. You paid wildly varying costs for models in the back ranks of units, that mostly did exactly the same thing in the game - provided a static CR bonus, regardless of their stats.

As outdated as GW designs still are in many areas, I think their designers are wiser than that now.

You didn't play 8th edition, did you.

You're right. It introduced random charge ranges and I had no desire to play such game so 7th is the last one I've had experience with.

Kinda curious.

Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?

With wargames everyone has their own limit point on how much random is too much or what parts they want to be random. Sometimes a mechanic in isolation is totally fine, but when combined with others the collective experience can be a problem for some.

I don't think it helps that GW is always "shaking things up" between editions. Heck right now the 40K crowd are going nuts because it seems that GW has cut down upgrade parts drastically from what they've historically been for decades. Big changes like that don't mean that new version is any less fun nor tactical or challenging; its just different. For some they get used to it; some like it; some tolerate and for others its just a direction they didn't want the game to go in.


For some Strategy games are about devising a plan and putting it into motion against your opponent. They don't want random charge distances causing their plan to fail because it feels like the agency for choices in movement is being taken out of their hands. All their careful plan undone because of a dice roll.
For others they love it, it brings the chaos of the battlefield home for them and they like the additional concern that their unit could fail a certain charge because the dice roll bad.

 Vulcan wrote:


You didn't play 8th edition, did you.

You're right. It introduced random charge ranges and I had no desire to play such game so 7th is the last one I've had experience with.

Kinda curious.

Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?

Ah, the old "but in real life!" fallacy, one would think it's been properly put to sleep by now.

Do you think ever regular march was done at exactly the same range every time? Always in a direction exactly like the one planned? Was every shooting attack at exactly the same range regardless of minor variations in the wind?



You can find a real life excuse to make everything in such a game random. Life is pretty random after all. But for some reason designers don't. Why? Because just sitting there watching the dice being rolled and consulting random tables is a miserable experience that hardly deserves the name "game". Thus certain things are abstracted to offer an interesting intellectual challenge instead of randomapalooza that hardly shows who is the better player and makes better moves.

Do you complain about units in HoMM 3 always going a set number of spaces? What about armies in Imperial 2030 or A Game of Thrones? What about prices of properties in Monopoly? Why doesn't Great Western Trail properly represent the mechanisms of supply and demand if Power Grid or Brass do it?

Exactly as Overread mentions this abstraction can be applied to a different level in different titles. Randomness serves many important purposes in design - for example it evens the playing field between players of varying skill or experience or muddies the perception of imbalance and hides the differences between sloppily playtested options. Randomness is certainly to stay, but to varying degrees in different titles directed at different audiences (for example families who play with kids need heavy randomness not to make the kids lose every time).

Not happy with Brass or Arkwright being decided solely by players' decisions? You can play Monopoly. A Game of Thrones or Imperial too deterministic and player-driven for your taste? You can play Risk.

 Vulcan wrote:
Do you think every charge ever done in medieval history was done at exactly the same range every time, regardless of minor variations in terrain?

and do you think full plate armour was ever worn in combination with a shield in medieval history?
or that cavalry came in units of 5 charging an infantry unit of 20 and fought until everyone was dead in all of medieval history?

given that the bloodiest battles in that time frame had something like ~30% casualties, the whole "remove single models" is even more stupid than fixed charge ranges, the same as a unit of 20 should be removed from the game as soon as they have 6-7 casualties

there are no random rolls for muddy ground, rain/snow or "too hot to move" in the game, so do you really think it was always the same weather during medieval history?

real life example to proof why one game mechanic is more realistic than another does not work, simply because this is a game and not a simulation it starts on the basic frame of the game not being realistic

Next somebody wants fixed ranges with pretension of no premeasure thinking its great tacticaj skill to effectively premeasure with number of tricks

Fixed ranges no premeasure leads to fixed result you can predict ahead of time. No need to even play.

No premeasure leads to same with half decent players who know how to premeasue without tape so only noobs gets crushed hard. No surprise no premeasure rule favoured by bad players who enjoy filling own ego by noob smashing

you should bring those arguments to the 40k board, how fixed ranges mean that there is no need to even play as the outcome can be predicted ahead of time

I guess there won't be much support for Bolters having 4D6 range instead of fixed 24

Yea, and I guess all these games that have hexes, spaces or other countable terriories are all for noobs of no strategic or tactical skill and their results are always a foregone conclusion;D

There are some interesting variations on charges and range from other game systems.

One extreme example has all charges making it, regardless of distance. But the effectiveness of the troops diminish the longer the charge has to go.

You can declare a charge right away from across the entire table, and your poor exhausted troops will hit the enemy like a puff of cotton candy and melt away.

Another variation has a limit to range that can be pre-measured, and then dice are rolled to see at what distance the troops start to diminish. Similar to the first version but the charge distance is limited and the troops being spent is random.

3rd edition Warhammer had a series of conditions that would result in a loss of charge bonus. Other situations resulted in a loss of charge bonus and the charging unit being unformed- which could result in it auto breaking if it lost combat.

2 rules from 3rd edition that would make a new version interesting are the unformed rules, and no unit taking a break test until it had lost 25% of its starting strength. I really think the latter solves a lot of problems that later versions suffered from.

Back to the topic now please.

Okay, so we know Bret foot knights are coming out in plastic (they showed us renders of the weapon arms) and we're pretty sure the old men at arms are getting re-released.

Does this mean the new food knights will be in scale with older models instead of being the giant humans in AOS? That alone is exciting news for me

I would hope so but the new foot paladin looked embiggened to me.

The one thing that gives me hope about the Paladin's scale is that the impaled Orc head on his base still looks huge in comparison.

EDIT: big image of Paladin (plus the helmet-less version) and the new Tomb King side-by side

 KidCthulhu wrote:

Does this mean the new food knights will be in scale with older models instead of being the giant humans in AOS? That alone is exciting news for me

Kinda sorta seems that way. And if so, it puts me off any chance of buying anything, personally. I really like the proportions and size of the modern stuff, and was really hoping they would make anything new in that style.

Just bringing back old models and making new ones to fit those proportions makes this a no go for me.

I dunno, how do you justify the significant height difference with the Tomb King? Thats like a 1ft difference in stature between them - the tomb kings lower jaw is sitting at the Paladins eye level.

Nehekarans were enormous people, if I remember the lore correctly.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I dunno, how do you justify the significant height difference with the Tomb King? Thats like a 1ft difference in stature between them - the tomb kings lower jaw is sitting at the Paladins eye level.

Tomb Kings got embiggened in the 8th ed model wave. New The Old World models would use that as a standard rather than going back to the smaller models from 6th ed, some of which got discontinued and replaced by those 8th ed updates.

Bretonnians didn't have that happen to them for lack of any new models in 7th and 8th ed.

If the new models are sculpted to match existing miniature lines, that's how it's bound to go. Which indeed has ample potential to suck for people who are happy with GW's modern proportions. It's not exactly ideal for anybody else either. If The Old World is a success that GW intends to keep supporting, you end up with non-future proofed models much the same as Horus Heresy between 1st ed and 2nd ed. GW is redoing Mk.III Marines in fall apparently because of the stunted old ones no longer fitting GW's new Marines. You're still expected to get your Mk.IV fix in old and ugly. You still have the same for characters and special units. The Old World might end up all over the place in terms of model size if at some point the designers are sick of that nonsense and want modern proportions but GW is unwilling to invest enough money in full range refreshes for a side game that isn't even based on their big earner.

 Rihgu wrote:
Nehekarans were enormous people, if I remember the lore correctly.

I remember that lore. At the time I was wondering if the BL authors had some weird axe to grind, and only later found out the minis were just out of scale.

the lore that they were large because of a blessing of the gods that was lost and later humans therefore smaller (and with a shorter live) came later after the minis were out

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Nehekarans were enormous people, if I remember the lore correctly.

I remember that lore. At the time I was wondering if the BL authors had some weird axe to grind, and only later found out the minis were just out of scale.

Wasn't that incorporated into the lore because of the basic Skeleton minis?
They were massive but created around what? 6th ed or earlier?

The TK upgrades were based on them, & they were not updated before the End Times.
New Tomb Kings units/models used the Skeletons as their scale reference.

When Vampire Counts got their own Skeletons that had clothes/armor, they were scaled down to look like they could fit inside a living body, as well as the magic wind from behind look.

So we got the in-universe explanation that the people of Khemri were giants.

 skrulnik wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Nehekarans were enormous people, if I remember the lore correctly.

I remember that lore. At the time I was wondering if the BL authors had some weird axe to grind, and only later found out the minis were just out of scale.

Wasn't that incorporated into the lore because of the basic Skeleton minis?
They were massive but created around what? 6th ed or earlier?

The TK upgrades were based on them, & they were not updated before the End Times.
New Tomb Kings units/models used the Skeletons as their scale reference.

When Vampire Counts got their own Skeletons that had clothes/armor, they were scaled down to look like they could fit inside a living body, as well as the magic wind from behind look.

So we got the in-universe explanation that the people of Khemri were giants.

It's also a semi-common trope with Ancient Aliens / Biblical Literalist peoples and related pseudoscientific fields, basically they take e.g. biblical descriptions literal in that people running around at that time were 9 foot tall and lived for 800 years or whatever I always took it as at least partially being a tongue-in-cheek allusion towards that as well.

Hey before we start complaining about their height difference, let's wait untill both are actually released and a proper scale comparison is actually made. We don't even know what base size these things are on.

Most of the scale differences between old skeletons and the newer ones is due to a stylistic decision to abandon the "Heroic" features such as large hands, feet, and head in favor of more normal proportions. You see it in the old vs new chaos cultist models, too.

 KidCthulhu wrote:

Does this mean the new food knights will be in scale with older models instead of being the giant humans in AOS?

They will be in scale with bretonnian last plastic kits for sure, since they already stated that those are coming back.

Deleted, WAY off topic.

Did I dream that there was a WHC statement of "an article for TOW on June"? Did I miss it? I am confused...

 Darnok wrote:
Did I dream that there was a WHC statement of "an article for TOW on June"? Did I miss it? I am confused...

Not a dream.

From the May 23 dev diary, very last line of the article:

Thanks very much guys – that’s a ton of useful information. Warhammer: The Old World is marching closer to release, and there’ll be another development diary coming at some time in June.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Did I dream that there was a WHC statement of "an article for TOW on June"? Did I miss it? I am confused...

Not a dream.

From the May 23 dev diary, very last line of the article:

Thanks very much guys – that’s a ton of useful information. Warhammer: The Old World is marching closer to release, and there’ll be another development diary coming at some time in June.

At least we'll get one whole model shown tomorrow...

Yes, but tomorrow isn't June anymore. Therefore we got shortchanged. Therefore we now have to burn Nottingham to the ground. It's the only way this can go.

Makes me wonder if the author simply mixed up June and July and June was meant to be out to begin with because of how big a deal 10th ed 40k marketing was going to be this month.

they did not wrote which year, so there is still a chance for June 2024, close to the release.....

 Geifer wrote:
Yes, but tomorrow isn't June anymore. Therefore we got shortchanged. Therefore we now have to burn Nottingham to the ground. It's the only way this can go.

Makes me wonder if the author simply mixed up June and July and June was meant to be out to begin with because of how big a deal 10th ed 40k marketing was going to be this month.

Honestly, their 'diaries' are exercises in non-commital vagueness anyway, if you can clean one or two clear sentences out of one you had a good month... they're just too thin on actual information for me to get excited over missing one

Watch them drop a bomb on us tomorrow and announce an idea on when this is projected to launch. I know it’s extremely unlikely but one can hope lol.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Watch them drop a bomb on us tomorrow and announce an idea on when this is projected to launch. I know it’s extremely unlikely but one can hope lol.

Pulls a Nintendo.

"The Pre-order period for Warhammer: the Old World begins, after this presentation"

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Watch them drop a bomb on us tomorrow and announce an idea on when this is projected to launch. I know it’s extremely unlikely but one can hope lol.

Pulls a Nintendo.

"The Pre-order period for Warhammer: the Old World begins, after this presentation"

Maybe it will be the same gakshow as 10th ed

That was definitely a reveal.

Alright you know what to do- Kopium Krew explain how this isn't a dumpster fire with no plan! Go!

caladancid wrote:
That was definitely a reveal.

Alright you know what to do- Kopium Krew explain how this isn't a dumpster fire with no plan! Go!

There's nothing about this new miniature specifically that supports the idea any more or less than previous things do.

caladancid wrote:
That was definitely a reveal.

Alright you know what to do- Kopium Krew explain how this isn't a dumpster fire with no plan! Go!

It feels like you'd do TOW a favour by just turning off the machines at this point. I'm not sure if they even intend to release this game like, ever, they'll just 'preview' it at a rate of one model per quarter until eternity, or until the last die-hard fans have worked through the phases of grief and accepted that literally nothing is still better than this.

Their language in the presentation (... 'we have much more to show once we approach that particular release'... and such) has made it clear that it's still far, far off, and at this point entire game systems have been designed and released while TOW still languishes.

Why does it look like he's missing half his torso?

At least this time, they were clear about the content of The Old World preview : just one miniature.

Better copy this over so there is a picture reference on thread. There's something off about the torso/head proportions at least at this angle.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/01/warhammer-preview-a-new-bretonnian-miniature-flies-the-colours-of-the-duke/

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why does it look like he's missing half his torso?

He's wearing bot a normal belt and some sort of band around his upper chest, maybe you mistake the band (white-gold) for the belt (brown)?

I wanted to see new plastics for Brets, and got one resin mini. I totally forgot about what hope really is

The helmet and collar make it look like he has no neck and the torso looks small.

I mean yeah, it's a Brettonian, nothing exciting to be seen here.

Well, again a model that's really nice and I love the colour scheme (this knight is a a fan of Rennes FC maybe?) but I'm not interested in resin minis at GW's price range if Necromuna is an indicator to go by.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why does it look like he's missing half his torso?

He's wearing bot a normal belt and some sort of band around his upper chest, maybe you mistake the band (white-gold) for the belt (brown)?

No, i can see where his belt is. It looks like his head has collapsed into his chest.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why does it look like he's missing half his torso?

He's wearing bot a normal belt and some sort of band around his upper chest, maybe you mistake the band (white-gold) for the belt (brown)?

Nah, judging by the knee position, his pelvis sits just below his stomach.

Not too exciting tbh. I'd argue that the Pestilence warband is a bigger reveal for ToW.

Scrub wrote:
Well, again a model that's really nice and I love the colour scheme (this knight is a a fan of Rennes FC maybe?) but I'm not interested in resin minis at GW's price range if Necromunda is an indicator to go by.

100%.

They are really doubling down on blandness.

Hey its an exciting release of a renowned setting, the one where we have Vampire pirates, "Chinese" Dragons, Bear riding Ice Witches - none of which have ever had offical models (but we have been working hard on in Total War to create the lore, models etc ) ....and here to generate interest in old and new players is:

A quite nicely painted resin Knight that will likely be £40+

Lets kill the game before it even comes out...sheesh

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why does it look like he's missing half his torso?

He's wearing bot a normal belt and some sort of band around his upper chest, maybe you mistake the band (white-gold) for the belt (brown)?

No, i can see where his belt is. It looks like his head has collapsed into his chest.

He has Oldhammer proportions.

How does the resin standard bearer look worse than the metal one from decades ago?

I like the historical look of the model. I really do. The chainmail on the barding is sexy too, his weapon and the collar is something new too.

I like how the most fantastical element is his phoenix on the helmet.

Not crazy about his red and black scheme, but they straight up said it is to make regular painters believe they can manage to paint bretonnia units.

I like it. 4/4 stars from me, although note that I am no badass modelist, more of a casual player.

That said. There will be no game released this fall. I say 2025 earliest. Which is mysterious to me. Why cant they just blood release it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
How does the resin standard bearer look worse than the metal one from decades ago?

Tell me why you think so, I am genuinly curious. (I have the model I think you are talking about), and I thought it was stiff, clunky, chunky, boxy, and the metal flag would never stay with the undersized pole.

That said, I honestly believe GW designers noticed the reaction to the bear riding bear guard of the bear Tzarina, and the ice-bow archers concept art, and is releasing the more mundane model photos now. Brets are even painted in a fairly boring scheme. I think there might be a connection between fan reaction and GW marketing choice for once, especially since they for once had time to react as well.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why does it look like he's missing half his torso?

He's wearing bot a normal belt and some sort of band around his upper chest, maybe you mistake the band (white-gold) for the belt (brown)?

No, i can see where his belt is. It looks like his head has collapsed into his chest.

He has Oldhammer proportions.

He's not even five heads tall, discounting the crown and the helmet decorations completely. Normal-ish to 'heroic' proportions would be around 7 heads.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why does it look like he's missing half his torso?

He's wearing bot a normal belt and some sort of band around his upper chest, maybe you mistake the band (white-gold) for the belt (brown)?

No, i can see where his belt is. It looks like his head has collapsed into his chest.

He has Oldhammer proportions.

Which are horrible and should have been updated.

Tsagualsa wrote:
He's not even five heads tall, discounting the crown and the helmet decorations completely. Normal-ish to 'heroic' proportions would be around 7 heads.

I presume his chin to be at the cross-point of the lower gold design, not at the very base of the helm.

Yeah, he could definitely use another layer of waist. Depending on the assembly, this might be fairly easy to accomplish. Still a bummer that it's necessary in the first place. The foot paladin looked better in terms of proportions.

To me it looks like someone stuck one of the dinky push-fit Bretonnians onto the multi part kit’s monstro-horse.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
He's not even five heads tall, discounting the crown and the helmet decorations completely. Normal-ish to 'heroic' proportions would be around 7 heads.

I presume his chin to be at the cross-point of the lower gold design, not at the very base of the helm.

You sure? You know what these Bretonnian dynasties are up to, right?

It somehow gets worse with every preview

first of all, we got new base sizes because this will make it easier to handle Rank & File Formations with the models as the bases became too small for their design and it was hard to rank them up
and the 3rd new model shown which was explicit designed for TOW R&F gets a horse that fills up the new base size instead if being the same size as the old horses
but at least the horse gets a tactical rock, so we know at least that this was using a basic design from the database instead of making one from scratch

and this leads to the other problem, model scale and horses as this new heroe does not really fit next to the older plastic ones and this is also the reason why the hero itself looks off as his proportions do not fit the horse the sits on at all

PS:
horse size is a tricky one as during medieval times horses were rather short (1,40-1,60 meter) making the older models much better in scale with infantry than the newer ones
with early modern times new breeds came up and horses became taller, which also gave a difference in cavalry as the heavy (shock) cavalry used the taller horses and the light cavalry the smaller ones
Empire, which is more or less a copy of the military from early modern times, would have the larger horses for heavy cavalry, smaller ones for light cavalry, yet it is the other way around with the models as the heavy cavalry got the smaller horses, and Bretonnia should have horses of similar size or smaller than the light cavalry of the Empire and not larger ones

Lore wise Bretonnian warhorses have bloodlines that relate them to elven steeds and so are superior to other human bred horses.

https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Bretonnian_Warhorse

 Shakalooloo wrote:
He has Oldhammer proportions.

Maybe, but the horse sure doesn't. Right now, if that guy somehow managed to get off his horse without breaking his neck, he would have the stirrup at eye level.

What an exciting day of new stuff! Epic 30K and this Bretonnian halfling are the highlights for me.

I also dread the warping that will likely be going on with that banner pole and flail.

I have an old citadel halberdier with the same weird leather neck bib somewhere around here. I'm still in a "wait and see" mode with the old world but I hope they reveal some plastic stuffs down the line.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
He's not even five heads tall, discounting the crown and the helmet decorations completely. Normal-ish to 'heroic' proportions would be around 7 heads.

I presume his chin to be at the cross-point of the lower gold design, not at the very base of the helm.

They don't call him Chinny McBigHead for nothing! I don't see anything particularly off about the proportions for a GW mini, or more accurately, I don't see anyone with clear proof the proportions are off from a single picture that would fly anywhere but on dakkadakka . He definitely has a more historical mini pose though, hunched forward. I'll really have to wait and see if there is a worthwhile audience of people waiting for these boutique Old World minis for an army scale game. I sure wouldn't assume there was.

Since these will all be digital now any weird proportions will likely be shared by all the Bretonians (unless this one is actually a hunchback or similar)

so it's probably a combination of an unflattering angle, extra large helm and (oldhammer proportions ?) that's making him look a bit odd

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Since these will all be digital now any weird proportions will likely be shared by all the Bretonians (unless this one is actually a hunchback or similar)

so it's probably a combination of an unflattering angle, extra large helm and (oldhammer proportions ?) that's making him look a bit odd

The video where they do a slight pan around the model makes it look a bit like he was hunched towards the side with the flail, like he was putting effort into raising the standard extra-high and slouching down an bit on the other side as a consequence. If that's the case the angle might be mostly to blame.

He does reach up with the banner arm, but that doesn't change the fact he's missing about a mm of torso and maybe another mm of neck. And you can't even blame oldhammer scaling on that, when Green Knight exists.

I think it would be a great model if it was released in 2004. It just isn't doing very much for me today.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Since these will all be digital now any weird proportions will likely be shared by all the Bretonians (unless this one is actually a hunchback or similar)

so it's probably a combination of an unflattering angle, extra large helm and (oldhammer proportions ?) that's making him look a bit odd

Having Bretonnia have a whole load of hunchback knights would be hilarious

If the whole Old World situation doesn't scream nostalgia cash grab i don't know what is.

Another update/preview that barely teveals anything. I wonder when well see tje first new plastic kit for this game (of theres any, im starting to doubt it)

Tyel wrote:
I think it would be a great model if it was released in 2004. It just isn't doing very much for me today.

this is the one from 6th edition (with a different head, but the best picture from the side I found) https://www.coolminiornot.com/108718

not even in 2004 this would have been a good model als GW made better ones back than

have to say I have a Bretonnian BSB and don't feel the need to rush out to get that as a replacement

 kodos wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think it would be a great model if it was released in 2004. It just isn't doing very much for me today.

this is the one from 6th edition (with a different head, but the best picture from the side I found) https://www.coolminiornot.com/108718

not even in 2004 this would have been a good model als GW made better ones back than

Here it is without the changes or the excellent paintjob:



This new miniature is worse just how?

you mean except from the rider and the horse being a different scale and the proportions of the rider being off

there are also less details, like the banner and icons are just painted and not sculpted

the figure on the helm looks better, and the casting quality of the resin model is better over the metal one

dunno if the new one is "worse", I do know its not "better" enough to make me want one

I specifically like the old one for its banner being a different orientation to the unit banners

The new rider to horse ratio is definitely an improvement in my book.

 kodos wrote:
there are also less details, like the banner and icons are just painted and not sculpted

Empty fields are better than sculpted banners. That's what transfers are for and it allows for greater hobby freedom with regards to heraldry and the such.

 Gert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there are also less details, like the banner and icons are just painted and not sculpted

Empty fields are better than sculpted banners. That's what transfers are for and it allows for greater hobby freedom with regards to heraldry and the such.

pretty much nail on head, sculpted stuff is nice as an option, but there should always be a plain version included

The new BSB definitely looks hunched over to me. The old BSB is sitting up tall in the saddle.

I'll grant the details issue, but one isn't going to notice the details so readily from across the table. One will be able to notice the difference between the BSB who is riding tall and proud, and the other lazily slouching down...

This has dragged so badly that Mantic can simply point out that you can play Kings of War right now to market their game.
They did it in response to the original square base announcement too and it's hard to say it's too soon to do it again.

 Gert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there are also less details, like the banner and icons are just painted and not sculpted

Empty fields are better than sculpted banners. That's what transfers are for and it allows for greater hobby freedom with regards to heraldry and the such.

I guess this is why people hunt down sculpted shoulder pads for Marines or sculpted banners, because everyone likes to paint free hands or things that decals are easy to apply (if available as the BS won't come with its own decal sheet)

 kodos wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there are also less details, like the banner and icons are just painted and not sculpted

Empty fields are better than sculpted banners. That's what transfers are for and it allows for greater hobby freedom with regards to heraldry and the such.

I guess this is why people hunt down sculpted shoulder pads for Marines or sculpted banners, because everyone likes to paint free hands or things that decals are easy to apply (if available as the BS won't come with its own decal sheet)

Oh right, because shoulder pads on individual marines armour that someone will have an entire armies worth of are totally comparable to the flag of a standard bearer

you are right, you cannot compare that because there are decals for the shoulder pads of the army available that come with the box while there are non for the banner

so arguing better having free space for non existing decals is a little off
and it is way easier to replace the sculpted banner with a clear one if you want to add free hands, than to add sculpted banner (as those who are good enough to make that free hand won't struggle to add a clean one, while those who are not good enough in painting won't be able to sculpt it either)

but I guess this is because it is a GW model and therefore must be the best model out there
as if anyone here would have considered this a good sculpt if any other company would have released it

There was always the option of including both a sculpted and non-sculpted banner in the box. It's a resin kit so the cost of tooling is low, and it would be a flat component so minimal impact on box space.
Obviously remains to be seen if GW went for the option.

As for the sculpt itself, I honestly and sincerely believe that the limited edition BSB from the 2004 army set is a better model.

 kodos wrote:

but I guess this is because it is a GW model and therefore must be the best model out there
as if anyone here would have considered this a good sculpt if any other company would have released it

You're being absurdly hyperbolic now. The sculpt is fine. There's nothing egregiously bad about it that makes it as terrible as you're making out.

Mozzamanx wrote:

Obviously remains to be seen if GW went for the option.

TBH, if there were options, they would have showed it like the previous preview on the paladin on foot.

I wouldn't count too much of having another version of a sculpted banner in the box of this miniature.

Otherwise, the sculpt is indeed fine. Less details is good from time to time. Like all sculpts, it's just a matter of personnal taste. Kodos like Mantic Games miniatures, so he's already fine with low detail or out of proportions miniatures. Real question is the price this one will be sold and if it will be worth it. So far, we don't know, so no point to get outraged for now.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
You're being absurdly hyperbolic now. The sculpt is fine. There's nothing egregiously bad about it that makes it as terrible as you're making out.

the sculpt is ok, I just said GW made better ones in 2004 and if you think the old sculpts are worse than this, you won't have much fun with TOW as GW is re-releasing the old ones along this

People can like multiple things chief. My HH Iron Warriors have everything from 2nd Ed Rhinos to 2022 plastic Mk6s. You can appreciate the new sculpts while also liking the classic stuff.

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
You're being absurdly hyperbolic now. The sculpt is fine. There's nothing egregiously bad about it that makes it as terrible as you're making out.

the sculpt is ok, I just said GW made better ones in 2004 and if you think the old sculpts are worse than this, you won't have much fun with TOW as GW is re-releasing the old ones along this

No, you didn't "just" say that. You said it's a bad sculpt that people only say they like due to it having the GW name on it, so it they just like it because brand loyalty.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

No, you didn't "just" say that. You said it's a bad sculpt that people only say they like due to it having the GW name on it, so it they just like it because brand loyalty.

well:

 kodos wrote:
not even in 2004 this would have been a good model als GW made better ones back than

than there was the response that this one is superior to the old ones for "reasons" and no I cannot follow this as neither does the new one is modeled to match the old sculpt as some will argue, nor das it fit the classic Warhammer design

and "being off and clumsy" was not the classic design of 6th/7th

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

No, you didn't "just" say that. You said it's a bad sculpt that people only say they like due to it having the GW name on it, so it they just like it because brand loyalty.

well:

 kodos wrote:
not even in 2004 this would have been a good model als GW made better ones back than

than there was the response that this one is superior to the old ones for "reasons" and no I cannot follow this as neither does the new one is modeled to match the old sculpt as some will argue, nor das it fit the classic Warhammer design

and "being off and clumsy" was not the classic design of 6th/7th

And you then went on to say that it's a bad sculpt that people only say they like because brand loyalty:

 kodos wrote:

but I guess this is because it is a GW model and therefore must be the best model out there
as if anyone here would have considered this a good sculpt if any other company would have released it

The sculpt is fine. There is nothing as bad about it as you're making out, it's fine to prefer the older version but acting like it's an outright terrible sculpt that people only say is alright because its a GW mini is absurd.

I thought only the pesentry was deformed? Or are they giving the presents magnificent stallions now.

The Old World project is a nostalgia game. Since they clearly stated they will release old plastic kits at the time of the end of Warhammer Battle (Bretonnia in particular), it should be a given the new sculpts will have to take into account what was made before, but with new methods / other sculptors than at that time. There's unavoidably another interpretation of the representated model, and thus subtle differences even with some similarities.

Criticizing that is being blind to that reality, IMHO.

Its not a great model IMO and I'll probably stick with the old model, but I don't understand a lot of peoples anger. Not everything needs to be reacted to only with extreme pleasure or vitriol.

Sasorijap wrote:
If the whole Old World situation doesn't scream nostalgia cash grab i don't know what is.

Have you seen the HH range!!! GW has been monetising nostalgia for while, and it’s great!

Andykp wrote:

Sasorijap wrote:
If the whole Old World situation doesn't scream nostalgia cash grab i don't know what is.

Have you seen the HH range!!! GW has been monetising nostalgia for while, and it’s great!

If you ask the right forum pundits, it's a dead game that gets deader whit every single one of its frequent, high profile releases

Damn, you'd think this guy was the next Pumbagore.

He doesn't really need much to be great, though I get that people shouldn't be expected to fix their models beyond cleaning casting lines and filling gaps.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:
That was definitely a reveal.

Alright you know what to do- Kopium Krew explain how this isn't a dumpster fire with no plan! Go!

There's nothing about this new miniature specifically that supports the idea any more or less than previous things do.

This is a good first try, but you can do better.

The preview of one model at a time really are dragging this out for little fanfare. And nothing really compensates for the change to base sizes.

So far the only news to be excited about is the re-release of some of the old plastic kits, which means I might buy a few new units for my 8th edition armies and keep playing that once in a blue moon.

caladancid wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

caladancid wrote:
That was definitely a reveal.

Alright you know what to do- Kopium Krew explain how this isn't a dumpster fire with no plan! Go!

There's nothing about this new miniature specifically that supports the idea any more or less than previous things do.

This is a good first try, but you can do better.

Go on then, explain how this miniature supports that idea any more than the previous stuff did.

I don't think this project is going to go too well myself, but this new miniature doesn't add anything to that either way. We already know there isn't going to be a huge amount of new things.

 DarkBlack wrote:
This has dragged so badly that Mantic can simply point out that you can play Kings of War right now to market their game.
They did it in response to the original square base announcement too and it's hard to say it's too soon to do it again.

And it's still the same game it was when I tried it after End Times blew up the world, and I didn't like it then when it was effectively free, and I'm certainly not paying for a game I'm not going to like now.

If it's to your taste, more power to you. It's not to mine, and we'll leave it at that.

Gotta love the duality of man -

"If they release 20 year old style minis I'll be in heaven! That's all they have to do!"

"This looks like it's from 2004 and it's awful, reeeeeee!"

 Vulcan wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
This has dragged so badly that Mantic can simply point out that you can play Kings of War right now to market their game.
They did it in response to the original square base announcement too and it's hard to say it's too soon to do it again.

And it's still the same game it was when I tried it after End Times blew up the world, and I didn't like it then when it was effectively free, and I'm certainly not paying for a game I'm not going to like now.

If it's to your taste, more power to you. It's not to mine, and we'll leave it at that.

Can I ask what you do play currently?

Honestly?


The model is great but its at an awkward pose and angle together make it look meh, but once we have it in our hands I'm sure it'll look fantastic.

Dynamic action pose from horse back will always have some funky angles to make it look weird

For me, the question is one about logistics.
GW already has issues supplying 40k and AoS, nvm HH which had a huge push and then was left to languish.
Now we get epic, a whole other supply line and ToW? And whilest i rekon development time for ToW to be comparativly short since GW can recycle just the old moulds, that is still a question of running the machines and stockpiling product for sale.

this depends what the release will bring

limited edition box set with Khemri and Bretonnia, each with 2 new resin heroes and 2 old plastic units and 1 new one and a rulebook
while the other faction coming as made to order one at a time with the army book release over the next years is a possibility

I find it hard to imagine there will be any resin in the boxed set, as add-ons yes but not in the box

I've been staring at this for a while and I think I know what else is bothering me about it. It doesn't feel like a BSB. The standard is big, but very plain, the rider is slouched his weapon not doing anything. It doesn't have the oomph of a BSB, it looks more like a regular unit standard, especially when you compare it to the older BSB on the previous page.

Missed opportunity to finally release a Joan of Arc miniature! That is pretty much the last piece I need to be done with Bretonnians and lay them in whatever system down to the end of my life.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Damn, you'd think this guy was the next Pumbagore.

He doesn't really need much to be great, though I get that people shouldn't be expected to fix their models beyond cleaning casting lines and filling gaps.

Spoiler:

Took me a moment to realise that this was an edit. Really subtle but makes an enormous difference to the overall finish.

but now the models does not look like the old design any more and it is not improved at all as it was already a great model before /s

leopard wrote:I find it hard to imagine there will be any resin in the boxed set, as add-ons yes but not in the box

we don't know if it will be a boxed set, better said we already know that it won't be a regular boxed set so it might be just a bundle with the exclusive resin models as add-on

but what other reason is there to show us single models if they are not part of the launch bundle

Mozzamanx wrote:


Took me a moment to realise that this was an edit. Really subtle but makes an enormous difference to the overall finish.

If this is so subtle, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal in the first place.

In reality, when you're in game at Battle's scale, you hardly see the difference. That's the point.

 kodos wrote:
but now the models does not look like the old design any more and it is not improved at all as it was already a great model before /s

leopard wrote:I find it hard to imagine there will be any resin in the boxed set, as add-ons yes but not in the box

we don't know if it will be a boxed set, better said we already know that it won't be a regular boxed set so it might be just a bundle with the exclusive resin models as add-on

but what other reason is there to show us single models if they are not part of the launch bundle

stuff that will be released alongside it?