The strict divide of the miniature lines allows for different pricing for the skirmish game (AOS) and the mass battle game (TOW).
Thus, GW can ask 10 bucks per Wolfrider or Chosen CW for AOS and 5 bucks (or less hopefully) for slightly different versions of those models for TOW at the same time.

people doing strange things, and locally there are some people really hyped about TOW simply because they now can buy official models to play with the official rules again

buying AoS models, even if those are former Warhammer Fantasy models, and playing an older Edition is a no-go because it is not "official"

so there are those that fit perfectly into the line of dedicated model ranges for the games with as little overlap as possible and were the separation is real and need to be there
while those that are using what they want are doing that anyway no matter if it is "official" or not

how those things will turn out with certain toxic people returning and trying to enforce the "official" part or want to organise tournaments right away on the day of release will be seen

and yes, GW will need to have different price ranges for different sized games, but I fear it will end like with War of the Rings or Warhammer 8th, were you have to pay skirmish game prizes for a mass battle game

tneva82 wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
As good of a guess as any. But I have a hard time trying to picture how it it could hurt them more than benefit. Especially because AoS players likely need to supplement their armies to roll in the Old World Anyways.

They don't want you to supplement. They want you to buy whole new army.

I get that, but I don't think that is how their consumers will act.

If I love my skaven I won't pick up a whole seperate line because I can't play Skaven in ToW. I just won't play, I still have AoS.

I

Old World and AoS are the same scale, same design ethos and AoS even uses a large bunch of models from Old World. Lore wise they are connected too.

First, I disagree that the design ethos is the same, just look at the "old" Freeguild (aka Empire models) vs the new Dawnbringer humans.

Second of all, and probably more importantly- why should someone with an AOS army go back to playing Warhammer Fantasy the Frankenstein edition?
They can already play mass combat game with big monsters and powerful magic in AoS, there is no incentive beyond nostalgia if they're an older player with an army that will still work in TOW like skaven or dark elves.

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:

Old World and AoS are the same scale, same design ethos and AoS even uses a large bunch of models from Old World. Lore wise they are connected too.

First, I disagree that the design ethos is the same, just look at the "old" Freeguild (aka Empire models) vs the new Dawnbringer humans.

Second of all, and probably more importantly- why should someone with an AOS army go back to playing Warhammer Fantasy the Frankenstein edition?
They can already play mass combat game with big monsters and powerful magic in AoS, there is no incentive beyond nostalgia if they're an older player with an army that will still work in TOW like skaven or dark elves.

There are many players who switched to AOS solely because it was the official supported game. As in, they stated clearly that they didn't prefer the rules but followed along like an Apple customer the SECOND a new iphone or other Apple product is released. THEY would wind up coming back. Not to mention the influx of posters on reddit and other social media platforms who have just started gaming and are planning to go TOW whole hog upon its release.

Whether people switch will also likely depend on if people prefer the "big blob in the middle" style of AOS or the "rank and flank" style of WHFB.

Honestly I'm just eagerly awaiting the release of Kislev for TOW. I want the winged lancers to arrive!

Also, the chaos dwarf PDF army list so my Legion of Azgorh have a reason to exist again.

Gimme Cathay. I’ve wanted them to explore that part of the Old World since sometime around 1996…

Grail Seeker wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
As good of a guess as any. But I have a hard time trying to picture how it it could hurt them more than benefit. Especially because AoS players likely need to supplement their armies to roll in the Old World Anyways.

They don't want you to supplement. They want you to buy whole new army.

I get that, but I don't think that is how their consumers will act.

If I love my skaven I won't pick up a whole seperate line because I can't play Skaven in ToW. I just won't play, I still have AoS.

I

ISTR that there will be the Army List rules for Skaven and the other side-piece armies. So we could play them, they just won't get a sexy new Army Book with OP rules like the main-line armies will. Eventually.

 SgtEeveell wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
As good of a guess as any. But I have a hard time trying to picture how it it could hurt them more than benefit. Especially because AoS players likely need to supplement their armies to roll in the Old World Anyways.

They don't want you to supplement. They want you to buy whole new army.

I get that, but I don't think that is how their consumers will act.

If I love my skaven I won't pick up a whole seperate line because I can't play Skaven in ToW. I just won't play, I still have AoS.

I

ISTR that there will be the Army List rules for Skaven and the other side-piece armies. So we could play them, they just won't get a sexy new Army Book with OP rules like the main-line armies will. Eventually.

Yup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
people doing strange things, and locally there are some people really hyped about TOW simply because they now can buy official models to play with the official rules again

buying AoS models, even if those are former Warhammer Fantasy models, and playing an older Edition is a no-go because it is not "official"

so there are those that fit perfectly into the line of dedicated model ranges for the games with as little overlap as possible and were the separation is real and need to be there
while those that are using what they want are doing that anyway no matter if it is "official" or not

how those things will turn out with certain toxic people returning and trying to enforce the "official" part or want to organise tournaments right away on the day of release will be seen

and yes, GW will need to have different price ranges for different sized games, but I fear it will end like with War of the Rings or Warhammer 8th, were you have to pay skirmish game prizes for a mass battle game

I feel like there's a bit of bias here against the player base. Consider that, broadly speaking, there is not a community which wants to play 8th edition. It just wasn't good. But then, what edition to play? Going back to prior ones cuts out new-to-8th units but also breaks a decent number of basic army mechanics, moving forward by modifying 8th involves trying to deal with a number of integral rules elements that were hated and/or just didn't generate fun gameplay.

So what happens is several sub-communities peddling their own version of how to play WHFB, which may or may not even be an improvement, the already tiny community is fractured, there's no consensus on which version to use, and regardless of which is picked there will be people who do not like certain things and refuse to play unless it is changed.

When GW publishes rules the community may not like them but it still provides an immediate standard that everyone can be onboard with--we will put up with a lot more we don't like just to have that. The value of getting the whole community on the same page is not to be understated.

 SgtEeveell wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:
As good of a guess as any. But I have a hard time trying to picture how it it could hurt them more than benefit. Especially because AoS players likely need to supplement their armies to roll in the Old World Anyways.

They don't want you to supplement. They want you to buy whole new army.

I get that, but I don't think that is how their consumers will act.

If I love my skaven I won't pick up a whole seperate line because I can't play Skaven in ToW. I just won't play, I still have AoS.

I

ISTR that there will be the Army List rules for Skaven and the other side-piece armies. So we could play them, they just won't get a sexy new Army Book with OP rules like the main-line armies will. Eventually.

Yeah. Tomb Kings and Bretonnia got the same treatment when AoS came out. Ask any of those players how it went. The unsupported armies will quickly become bland and underpowered and people will stop playing them. Then GW will eventually invalidate the rules they do have.

TK and Bret didn't just get less support, they were outright obliterated as model lines for sale. It's one thing to have just rules support whilst still selling models for another game; and quite another to have no access to models what so ever.

Even if TK had had the best rules in AOS ever written, they'd still have been a dead duck due to not being sold as models any more.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I feel like there's a bit of bias here against the player base. Consider that, broadly speaking, there is not a community which wants to play 8th edition. It just wasn't good.

your local scenes may vary but there are a lot of people who play 8th or want to play 8th, for reasons and arguments followed by that certain rules made the game the best of all because they prevented cheating or whatever
than there is 6th as a common standard, even with tournaments and events

if GW would release something you get a standard everyone follows, so there are no sub-communities of different versions of the game, but everyone is salty because the one game they agree to play is not good
and this is the reason why the leftovers are toxic, because the game they can agree to play is not the game they want or like

similar with 40k and AoS, you have people that want to play something else because it is not their game, but they keep playing to prevent the "fragmentation of the community" so no criticism allowed because we all must agree to play the game no matter if you like it or not for the health of the community

and I can already say that those that really liked 8th, the same as those who currently play 6th, won't be happy with whatever GW is going to release and the "shut up and play" won't create a healthy community but a toxic one

 Overread wrote:
TK and Bret didn't just get less support, they were outright obliterated as model lines for sale. It's one thing to have just rules support whilst still selling models for another game; and quite another to have no access to models what so ever.

Even if TK had had the best rules in AOS ever written, they'd still have been a dead duck due to not being sold as models any more.

That is a fair difference. But I still think it is delusional to think the unsupported armies will be able to keep up with those receiving supplemental rules and kits after a book release or two.

Agree in general, but gotta remember tho that this is not a main studio release like 40K or AOS with rules drops every 5 minutes. It’s like HH which has a much slower rules release. Supplemental rules and a couple of book releases for each of the announced supported factions could take 5 years, not a few months.

 Overread wrote:
TK and Bret didn't just get less support, they were outright obliterated as model lines for sale. It's one thing to have just rules support whilst still selling models for another game; and quite another to have no access to models what so ever.

Even if TK had had the best rules in AOS ever written, they'd still have been a dead duck due to not being sold as models any more.

Are you suggesting that the rule that prevented you from kneeling mid-game wasn't awesome? /sarcasm

I, for one, am in the court of 'I really only got into Age of Sigmar because that's what was supported'. Chances are that once Old World comes out AoS will be a game I play with my son until he's old enough to figure out how ranks and flanks work.

 kodos wrote:

and I can already say that those that really liked 8th, the same as those who currently play 6th, won't be happy with whatever GW is going to release and the "shut up and play" won't create a healthy community but a toxic one

Being part of that community, I can tell you they actually are more pragmatic and less dramatic than you make them look like. Most are happy for the implying model range's return, and are waiting to see what the rules will be. If they're not to our taste, we'll simply do as we did for all these years : play with the rules we still play to these days.

Remember, players don't need GW (or anyone else)'s approval to play a game system. They just need like-minded people to play with...and communities for good ol'Battle didn't die or migrated to whatever other game system. They are still around.

And I'm a member of the "8th edition rules". Don't listen to Ninth, he doesn't know what he's talking about. More seriously, everyone has their favourite edition. Hell some still even play the very first edition of Battle, the one that was more suited to roleplaying games with a dungeon master (which is why they still play it, most likely ). There's no real "best edition ever", it's just a matter of personnal taste.

yeah, fully agree, but there is also the part were "others" come in.
if the new game is not for you and your group, you keep playing the one version you like but people will be around telling you that you must play the "official" version to prevent the fragmentation of the community (same people that once told everyone why they must play ninth age no matter if they like it or not)

but most of us are too old now to play something they don't like just because it is official version

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
I am still unconvinced there will be big enough lateral movement of players from AoS to TOW, especially when they factor in that TOW will likely draw in a lot of the people who spent the last 8 years online being toxic about AoS the game and the community.
Will be interesting to see what happens..

Well, some spent 8 years being toxic about AoS, and some stopped after a year or two and moved on to other things, building up other companies to (try and) rival GW.

 kodos wrote:
people doing strange things, and locally there are some people really hyped about TOW simply because they now can buy official models to play with the official rules again

buying AoS models, even if those are former Warhammer Fantasy models, and playing an older Edition is a no-go because it is not "official"

so there are those that fit perfectly into the line of dedicated model ranges for the games with as little overlap as possible and were the separation is real and need to be there
while those that are using what they want are doing that anyway no matter if it is "official" or not

how those things will turn out with certain toxic people returning and trying to enforce the "official" part or want to organise tournaments right away on the day of release will be seen

and yes, GW will need to have different price ranges for different sized games, but I fear it will end like with War of the Rings or Warhammer 8th, were you have to pay skirmish game prizes for a mass battle game

I think even for GW events TO are generally okay with converted armies using other model ranges as long as it's clear and makes sense. People have made 40k Space Marine armies using Stormcast conversions for years and that's fine. I don't expect anyone to have an issue with using, say, newer Looncult models to represent similar Night Goblin units as long as everything is on the correct base size, and I expect everyone will use the new Seraphon to represent Lizardmen. GW may even encourage such a thing formally - I expect they would rather WFB TOW players buy new AOS models than use their old ones when there's a big difference in the quality of the models as there is there.

Seelenhaendler wrote:
The strict divide of the miniature lines allows for different pricing for the skirmish game (AOS) and the mass battle game (TOW).
Thus, GW can ask 10 bucks per Wolfrider or Chosen CW for AOS and 5 bucks (or less hopefully) for slightly different versions of those models for TOW at the same time.

Ah... this is GW. If anything they'll charge MORE for TOW models...

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Are you suggesting that the rule that prevented you from kneeling mid-game wasn't awesome? /sarcasm

Why would you even have to kneel during a game of Warhammer?

Unless you're weak and unfit to rule

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Are you suggesting that the rule that prevented you from kneeling mid-game wasn't awesome? /sarcasm

Why would you even have to kneel during a game of Warhammer?

Unless you're weak and unfit to rule

For same reason in AoS 1.0 that you'd grow a beard if you were playing dwarves.

AoS gave you bonuses for "fun" stupid stuff cause that's the kind of system it was. It was like Magic the Gathering "Unhinged" only without the serious game alongside to balance it out

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Are you suggesting that the rule that prevented you from kneeling mid-game wasn't awesome? /sarcasm

Why would you even have to kneel during a game of Warhammer?

Unless you're weak and unfit to rule

Don't drop the soap dice!

kodos wrote:yeah, fully agree, but there is also the part were "others" come in.
if the new game is not for you and your group, you keep playing the one version you like but people will be around telling you that you must play the "official" version to prevent the fragmentation of the community (same people that once told everyone why they must play ninth age no matter if they like it or not)

but most of us are too old now to play something they don't like just because it is official version

Absolute truth. Had an AOS player pull that exact crap with us when we were running a 6th Ed. game at the FLGS.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Overread wrote:
TK and Bret didn't just get less support, they were outright obliterated as model lines for sale. It's one thing to have just rules support whilst still selling models for another game; and quite another to have no access to models what so ever.

Even if TK had had the best rules in AOS ever written, they'd still have been a dead duck due to not being sold as models any more.

Are you suggesting that the rule that prevented you from kneeling mid-game wasn't awesome? /sarcasm

I, for one, am in the court of 'I really only got into Age of Sigmar because that's what was supported'. Chances are that once Old World comes out AoS will be a game I play with my son until he's old enough to figure out how ranks and flanks work.

And you're far from the only one, which proves my point.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Are you suggesting that the rule that prevented you from kneeling mid-game wasn't awesome? /sarcasm

Why would you even have to kneel during a game of Warhammer?

Unless you're weak and unfit to rule

Maybe to pick up dice or minis that fell off the table?

 The Phazer wrote:

 kodos wrote:
people doing strange things, and locally there are some people really hyped about TOW simply because they now can buy official models to play with the official rules again

buying AoS models, even if those are former Warhammer Fantasy models, and playing an older Edition is a no-go because it is not "official"

so there are those that fit perfectly into the line of dedicated model ranges for the games with as little overlap as possible and were the separation is real and need to be there
while those that are using what they want are doing that anyway no matter if it is "official" or not

how those things will turn out with certain toxic people returning and trying to enforce the "official" part or want to organise tournaments right away on the day of release will be seen

and yes, GW will need to have different price ranges for different sized games, but I fear it will end like with War of the Rings or Warhammer 8th, were you have to pay skirmish game prizes for a mass battle game

I think even for GW events TO are generally okay with converted armies using other model ranges as long as it's clear and makes sense. People have made 40k Space Marine armies using Stormcast conversions for years and that's fine. I don't expect anyone to have an issue with using, say, newer Looncult models to represent similar Night Goblin units as long as everything is on the correct base size, and I expect everyone will use the new Seraphon to represent Lizardmen. GW may even encourage such a thing formally - I expect they would rather WFB TOW players buy new AOS models than use their old ones when there's a big difference in the quality of the models as there is there.

All of the armies with new aos models aren't being supported for the old world, they'll get day one pdfs and that's it. Seems like a dumb decision to me

We can really only guess to their thought process.

Perhaps it is due to corporate politics. They don't want to actively pull from AoS to Fantasy after all the pain they went through to launch AoS by killing Fantasy. You could also make the case that it is to avoid new customer confusion with or perhaps so they don't' have to add square bases back into the skaven/DE/undead kits.

Best case scenario, The Old World does very well and they reverse course at some point.

The Old World is seemingly targeted at older/ex-fantasy players i.e. folks who likely have a modicum of hobby experience. Much as factions like the Lizardmen, Dark Elves, Vampires and Skaven aren't getting any immediate support beyond the PDF lists, there's absolutely going to be some direct usage of AoS models in The Old World by that playerbase, especially when there's ranges like the newer Seraphon who only need a base swap to port straight back into Old World.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
The Old World is seemingly targeted at older/ex-fantasy players i.e. folks who likely have a modicum of hobby experience.

Which is funny as you can find tons of social media posts from new players who've never touched Fantasy who are asking about starting new forces for TOW. I think it's safe to say we can't rule out anything here. Whether GW is marketing it to grognards or not, the customer base is proving to be more diverse.

Just because they say they are, doesn't mean they will. Universal truth.

Beat me to it.

There are a lot of people coming from Total War or the older book series and asking for the game

if those are starting a game with 30 year old models and invest 600€ for an army will be seen

People were jumping onto LOTR, 40K AND AOS with decade/decades old models, I don't see the issue here except for people who've written this off as an abject failure from the get-go, who are also some of the loudest proponents of "Just play AOS, plebe!!!!"

I'm letting the dust settle before I make any calls. I'd call that prudent. Writing it off as DOA could leave you with just as much egg on your face as those that said the same thing about AOS.

 Just Tony wrote:
People were jumping onto LOTR, 40K AND AOS with decade/decades old models, I don't see the issue here except for people who've written this off as an abject failure from the get-go, who are also some of the loudest proponents of "Just play AOS, plebe!!!!"

Not sure that's true. Most people advocating to "just play" something else are KoW or 9th Agers in my experience.

 kodos wrote:
There are a lot of people coming from Total War or the older book series and asking for the game

if those are starting a game with 30 year old models and invest 600€ for an army will be seen

Nothing previewed so far is even close to 30 years old.

The oldest models shown to be used for TOW are the monopose Orcs from late 2000. Even if Tomb Kings get their regular Skeletons back, those are based on a kit from late 1998. Both of these are not even 25 years old. Old enough to buy drinks anywhere, but not in their 30s by any means. And if it is just about visual quality: apparently enough people buy the junk Mantic is selling, and those pre-2000 kits from GW are still better looking than that.

We also do not know if "600€ for an army" is a solid guess for a TOW army. Might be, might be not. People can start at lower levels, you know?

I don't know, we could just wait for the actual product to be around and form an opinion based on facts...

 Darnok wrote:
I don't know, we could just wait for the actual product to be around and form an opinion based on facts...

But then people wouldn't be able to get their exercise jumping to conclusions.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
I don't know, we could just wait for the actual product to be around and form an opinion based on facts...

But then people wouldn't be able to get their exercise jumping to conclusions.

Game will come out sometime in 2026.

Keep jumping lads.

The Bretonnian sprue which was leaked the other day is now on EBay. There is a new, clearer picture of the ‘games workshop limited 2023’ bit of the sprue.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/256188148077?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=RSUfjuSCTqm&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=yunk-rv-q9i&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

MvR wrote:
The Bretonnian sprue which was leaked the other day is now on EBay. There is a new, clearer picture of the ‘games workshop limited 2023’ bit of the sprue.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/256188148077?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=RSUfjuSCTqm&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=yunk-rv-q9i&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Hmm, so what are the odds this will be the 2023 Christmas miniature?

 Shakalooloo wrote:

MvR wrote:
The Bretonnian sprue which was leaked the other day is now on EBay. There is a new, clearer picture of the ‘games workshop limited 2023’ bit of the sprue.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/256188148077?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=RSUfjuSCTqm&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=yunk-rv-q9i&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Hmm, so what are the odds this will be the 2023 Christmas miniature?

My guess, and I think this will come out this year, is this is the bertonnian hero from the launch box, which is why it’s in plastic and not resin. If the rumours a true, then we will likely have a new plastic tomb kings model to go with it too. Rest of the box possibly older kits.

 Darnok wrote:
I don't know, we could just wait for the actual product to be around and form an opinion based on facts...

than ask the mods to close that topic and not upen it again until there are some "facts" haven't had anything in 4 years now
and no, a WC article saying "soon" does not add any facts

MvR wrote:
The Bretonnian sprue which was leaked the other day is now on EBay. There is a new, clearer picture of the ‘games workshop limited 2023’ bit of the sprue.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/256188148077?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=RSUfjuSCTqm&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=yunk-rv-q9i&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Its been pulled, i guess GW got wiff and put a stop to it

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Hmm, so what are the odds this will be the 2023 Christmas miniature?

A Knight before Christmas?

 Gert wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Hmm, so what are the odds this will be the 2023 Christmas miniature?

A Knight before Christmas?

‘Twas, yes..

Valete,

JohnS

I don't know about everyone else but I tried KoW/9th age and wasn't a fan of either. The fun element was lacking from both but for different reasons. Hoping ToW captures that again and gets people excited to play/start new armies. Otherwise we will be back to our current options we have available.

Have you tried Warhammer Armies Project? Many say that it is more true to the WHFB experience and unlike 9th Age it wasn't written to be a competitively balanced iteration of the game that sucked all the character and narrative out of the ruleset.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Have you tried Warhammer Armies Project? Many say that it is more true to the WHFB experience and unlike 9th Age it wasn't written to be a competitively balanced iteration of the game that sucked all the character and narrative out of the ruleset.

The only retro system that seems to have a game a month per player into it, is Warhammer Rennesaince, if you ask me.

Most wap people seem to mostly be active on fb, and rarely actually plays it.

Just my impression

Renaissance is the only modified/homebrew system that seems to get much play.

People still play the hell out of 6th though.

 Ktulhut wrote:
Renaissance is the only modified/homebrew system that seems to get much play.

People still play the hell out of 6th though.

Never heard of Renaissance. And people play a lot of 8th too. It's all a matter about what circle of players you're in and what the locals are interested into, in the end. That goes for all "dead games".

 nathan2004 wrote:
I don't know about everyone else but I tried KoW/9th age and wasn't a fan of either. The fun element was lacking from both but for different reasons. Hoping ToW captures that again and gets people excited to play/start new armies. Otherwise we will be back to our current options we have available.

I'll be honest with you : I feel we won't get back to the past days we remember as old Warhammer Battle players, because times simply have changed. Reason why these 2 games felt not fun to you is because they're not Battle and they never were (also they're written with the competitive scene in mind and thinking "tighter rules / less randomness" is better - which is not necessarily the case).

To me, it's a question of nostalgia and habit : I still have the references of Battle rules and the table of to-hit / to-wound from that time in my memory, everything comes to me naturally. But these rules are not "fun" in themselves, it's the games we played with them that were. And it was mostly a question of enjoying our time with our fellow players.

I'm a bit worried TOW will actually end up like Horus Heresy : yes, the old players were happy to see the rules were quite faithful to the precedent version, but do we see more players playing in stores and such ? No, because the old players keep playing like they always did for all those years : in their own circles. With Battle being dead and going "underworld", players actually kept playing but also in their own circles. And as recent years keep passing (with their own crisis happening, let's not forget it had an impact on our way to play), people tend to still play in their own circles / echo chamber.

We don't see much new players in HH because the rules are old, the game isn't easy to learn and take a lot of time just to play. And let's be realist : game habits have also changed now. I'm feeling TOW looks like it will follow the exact same way so far...

Are you sure about that, because locally HH does well funnily enough with new blood and old blood alike joining in.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Are you sure about that, because locally HH does well funnily enough with new blood and old blood alike joining in.

Playing in stores, we sure don't see it as much since the first (re)release. At least, that's what I'm seeing in my own local one.

We don't see much new players in HH because you can't build a functional army without a massive investment into FW or 3d printing.

You can bet TOW will have similar hurdles, there's no way GW relaunches... did they say 8 factions?... with a full range right off the bat, so unless you have stuff lying around now, you have no real chance to play on the same level as the grognards.

I've never even heard of Warhammer Renaissance. Going to have to look it up.

HH locally had a surge in popularity and then it declined into occasionally seeing a couple guys play it once every couple weeks. Most of the people that bought in haven't played at all or don't play actively. I expect the same with TOW.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I've never even heard of Warhammer Renaissance. Going to have to look it up.

HH locally had a surge in popularity and then it declined into occasionally seeing a couple guys play it once every couple weeks. Most of the people that bought in haven't played at all or don't play actively. I expect the same with TOW.

That was the rule with WHFB too, wasnt it? For every 5 guys buying the starter set, maybe 1 actually played more than a handful games in his warhammer career... something like that.

Even fewer actually painted and assembled a 1500 pts army or more, and actually played it. Perhaps as few as 10% of everyone who started up in the hobby, imo. I believe thats why much of the appeal of latter day Mordheim, you can actually get games (done in an hour or two, and assemble a warband in a weel or even less and for a reasonable sum).

Edit : sorry, I posted in the wrong thread...

 triplegrim wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I've never even heard of Warhammer Renaissance. Going to have to look it up.

HH locally had a surge in popularity and then it declined into occasionally seeing a couple guys play it once every couple weeks. Most of the people that bought in haven't played at all or don't play actively. I expect the same with TOW.

That was the rule with WHFB too, wasnt it? For every 5 guys buying the starter set, maybe 1 actually played more than a handful games in his warhammer career... something like that.

Even fewer actually painted and assembled a 1500 pts army or more, and actually played it. Perhaps as few as 10% of everyone who started up in the hobby, imo. I believe thats why much of the appeal of latter day Mordheim, you can actually get games (done in an hour or two, and assemble a warband in a weel or even less and for a reasonable sum).

I think that was probably one of those things that was highly dependent on your area. When it still had "main game" status there were many areas where there were active and thriving communities regularly playing the game with its own dedicated night of the week at the local hobby shop, similar to 40k. There were also areas where nobody touched it at all. I have encountered both types of areas in my time. Horus Heresy has the same issue as Necromunda, Titanicus, Aeronautica, Blood Bowl, etc. - its not a main game and not what people bring to the store for pickup games, because the likelihood of finding an opponent is smaller than if you showed up with 40k.

Ok lets discuss every other game system right here.
Only rule is, you have to discuss stuff with sweeping statements and/or personal anecdotes.

 Fayric wrote:
Ok lets discuss every other game system right here.
Only rule is, you have to discuss stuff with sweeping statements and/or personal anecdotes.

Yeah. Or maybe you dont understand how to read what we others are writing. Probably more likely, using occams razor, than everyone else incapable of discussing the previous hobby scene we were part of?

Dunno how that peggyknight ended up on ebay, but I can tell you there is no TOW game coming 2023 or 2024. Perhaps gw even saw Total War as competition to their TT game and decided it would be released only as Total War ends its run?

 triplegrim wrote:


Dunno how that peggyknight ended up on ebay, but I can tell you there is no TOW game coming 2023 or 2024. Perhaps gw even saw Total War as competition to their TT game and decided it would be released only as Total War ends its run?

I’d take that bet any day of the week. GW is not teasing models for something it’s not releasing for 2 more years.

I bet we see something by Christmas.

triplegrim wrote:Game will come out sometime in 2026.

triplegrim wrote:Dunno how that peggyknight ended up on ebay, but I can tell you there is no TOW game coming 2023 or 2024.

And you know this because... ?

 triplegrim wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I've never even heard of Warhammer Renaissance. Going to have to look it up.

HH locally had a surge in popularity and then it declined into occasionally seeing a couple guys play it once every couple weeks. Most of the people that bought in haven't played at all or don't play actively. I expect the same with TOW.

That was the rule with WHFB too, wasnt it? For every 5 guys buying the starter set, maybe 1 actually played more than a handful games in his warhammer career... something like that.

Even fewer actually painted and assembled a 1500 pts army or more, and actually played it. Perhaps as few as 10% of everyone who started up in the hobby, imo. I believe thats why much of the appeal of latter day Mordheim, you can actually get games (done in an hour or two, and assemble a warband in a weel or even less and for a reasonable sum).

That wasn't the case in Central Florida. Even through AOS v1, Fantasy still had 40-50 people per quarter getting together for a tournament. Then we had tournament prep weekends for the Necronomicon and other conventions. Fantasy had less showing up for weekend games, but for scheduled events it was as big or bigger than 40k. It would be tough to learn and get better at the game without playing it somewhat regularly.

Locally I've seen more HH players than AOS, even post-10th. It largely seems to be an anecdotal thing depending on your area.

by now it is kind of strange that GW did not cover any of the leaked sprues, neither FEC for AoS nor the Pegasus for TOW

usually we get something to cover such leaks yet either this did not stir up enough people online or there is nothing soon to come

 kodos wrote:
by now it is kind of strange that GW did not cover any of the leaked sprues, neither FEC for AoS nor the Pegasus for TOW

usually we get something to cover such leaks yet either this did not stir up enough people online or there is nothing soon to come

Not really that surprising, both should still take a while until the normal reveal date let alone the release date so it would probably do more "damage" to show them now.
If it was only a month early GW would have probably made an article but for a few months its likely better to just stay quiet

 Darnok wrote:

triplegrim wrote:Game will come out sometime in 2026.

triplegrim wrote:Dunno how that peggyknight ended up on ebay, but I can tell you there is no TOW game coming 2023 or 2024.

And you know this because... ?

Basing it on the 2 new models we've seen so far, and gws lack of rules and vaporware style rumor releases. Seems like a game that'll be ready in a few years from now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matrindur wrote:

 kodos wrote:
by now it is kind of strange that GW did not cover any of the leaked sprues, neither FEC for AoS nor the Pegasus for TOW

usually we get something to cover such leaks yet either this did not stir up enough people online or there is nothing soon to come

Not really that surprising, both should still take a while until the normal reveal date let alone the release date so it would probably do more "damage" to show them now.
If it was only a month early GW would have probably made an article but for a few months its likely better to just stay quiet

News release at Nova coming, supposedly.

https://youtu.be/4t9tYXCl9PI

why sharing a video of a guy talking about a preview picture that was already shared here?

TOW is on the list for Nova, news can be anything from "we added a new coat of arms to the map" to "released the following week"

this is nothing to get excited for or telling us anything, except as Matrindur mentions, if something bigger would be announced at Nova they would talk about the leaked Pegasus, while if anything of substance is further away they ignore it

 kodos wrote:
by now it is kind of strange that GW did not cover any of the leaked sprues, neither FEC for AoS nor the Pegasus for TOW

usually we get something to cover such leaks yet either this did not stir up enough people online or there is nothing soon to come

GW generally respond to terrible potato cam shots of painted minis because (they feel) it risks people thinking, 'oh that looks rubbish, i won't bother getting it when it comes out' so GW tends to release an in focus image of a decent size to combat this

I think they're a lot less worried about sprue shots as casual watchers just won't pay as much attention to them so only those who were really invested will do more than glance at them (and in this case the pictures were decent, generally in focus and large enough to be loooked at properly not an out of focus shot of a thumbnail)

Sometimes they also just don't bother. A bunch of Wacry stuff was leaked a month or two in advance (ironically FEC again) but they didn't show it until Fest.

Yeah they’re probably saving the reveals for next week

They've barely released anything for 10th 40K. They are releasing another main game (epic) within the year. 30K is on life support at this point with no infantry kits at all since launch and not even an FAQ. I don't see them releasing ANOTHER core game (TOW) this year, and I even doubt 2024.

I don't know how you say HH is on life support, its had one of the most aggressive release schedules of any Specialist Games product. And thats just it - it *is* a specialist games product. If you're gauging release schedule in comparison to 40k or AoS, I can understand theargument that it might appear to be on "life support", but its getting the same (or greater) support as the other specialist product lines that it should be compared to.

Now MESBG - thats a game on life support.

not really either as MESBG just good new cheap (not GW cheap but wargaming cheap) army boxes for the game

HH might feel like that because it does not have anything like that "just" got tanks
so there is a difference between those 2

chaos0xomega wrote:
I don't know how you say HH is on life support, its had one of the most aggressive release schedules of any Specialist Games product. And thats just it - it *is* a specialist games product. If you're gauging release schedule in comparison to 40k or AoS, I can understand theargument that it might appear to be on "life support", but its getting the same (or greater) support as the other specialist product lines that it should be compared to.

Now MESBG - thats a game on life support.

No no, see because there are no plastic Assault Marines it's a dead game. And before that when there was only plastic Mk3/4 and Terminators it was also a dead game. And before that when it was only resin kits it was also a dead game.

And we are veering off topic, yet again. We know that ToW is happening, we do not know when, perhaps we might next month.

 Darnok wrote:
Even if Tomb Kings get their regular Skeletons back, those are based on a kit from late 1998.

I would imagine that a new box featuring TK vs Brets would be 100% new models and that would involve basic infantry.

And, speaking just personal preference here, I would damnwell hope that TK get new Skeletons. The old TK Skeleton kit wasn't fun to put together. I put one box together just for Warhammer Quest adversaries. I can't imagine what it would've been like trying to do that for an entire army.

 Darnok wrote:
And you know this because... ?

His dad works at Nintendo.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
They've barely released anything for 10th 40K.

Weirdly, you're right. 10th has had next to no releases since it game out. A couple of EZ-build models from the Levi box out as separate boxes, and then the starter boxes that just re-use those models. We know that Tyranids and Marines are coming soon, but it's been an odd gap in releases given the hype around the new edition. You'd think they'd want to strike whilst the iron is a little hotter.

I guess with so many spinning plates - 10th, AoS, HH, nuEpic, a new season of KT, ongoing Warcry and Underworlds stuff, neglecting Necromunda, and of course The Old World's imminent (?) release - things are smashing into one another and causing delays.

I don't think the box will be 100% new models. At least on the Bret side the old kits are still great and we have already seen some painted up 6th edition knights.

I do hope we get new infantry for the Tomb Kings though. Their rank and file are absolutely horrid which is a shame because their other kits are amazing.

Necropalis Knights are a bit of a pain to put together, but they do look cool. Plastic Tomb Scorpion wouldn't go astray, that's for sure!

triplegrim wrote:

 Darnok wrote:

triplegrim wrote:Game will come out sometime in 2026.

triplegrim wrote:Dunno how that peggyknight ended up on ebay, but I can tell you there is no TOW game coming 2023 or 2024.

And you know this because... ?

Basing it on the 2 new models we've seen so far, and gws lack of rules and vaporware style rumor releases. Seems like a game that'll be ready in a few years from now.

So you actually have no clue, got it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Even if Tomb Kings get their regular Skeletons back, those are based on a kit from late 1998.

I would imagine that a new box featuring TK vs Brets would be 100% new models and that would involve basic infantry.

Grail Seeker wrote:I don't think the box will be 100% new models. At least on the Bret side the old kits are still great and we have already seen some painted up 6th edition knights.

I do hope we get new infantry for the Tomb Kings though. Their rank and file are absolutely horrid which is a shame because their other kits are amazing.

My bet would be on some kind of launch box including the BRB and entirely new models, followed by a series of "faction boxes" using a mix of older models and one or two new kits each.

I hope for new TK skeletons as well, I just have my doubts. The old chariot seems to be coming back, and it has the old style skeletons as crew (plus the old skeleton horses). Together with the bunch of other rereleases we have seen it is not unreasonable to assume the old skeletons might just come back as they were. Would it suck? Hell yeah. Do I believe GW might do it anyway? Sure do...

The bigger bases for 20x20 and 25x50 have been confirmed, as far as I am aware.
Has there been any statement by GW regarding the old 25x25 bases?
Most 20s were rather easy to put in rank and file if you didn't assemble them in a stupid way. I feel it was often the big guys, that were very tight, even on 25mm bases...

Or is there a one-stop place on the internet where all the confirmed info on TOW is collected so far?

The last article demonstrated some Orcs on noticeably larger bases than the Goblins next to them.
Someone overlaid the images and guessed they were ~30mm but I'd avoid rebasing anything until that was in writing.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Sometimes they also just don't bother. A bunch of Wacry stuff was leaked a month or two in advance (ironically FEC again) but they didn't show it until Fest.

Hh starter box pic leaked almost year before gw commented on it.

New rumours from the new Valrak video
Of course as always shovel salt as needed

Release in October already

Instead of one starter box with both Tomb Kings and Bretonnians each will get their own box

The only confirmed base change is 20mm squares moving to 25mm. Every thing else floating around is just inferred through logic by the community or by guessing at the new size through images.

 Matrindur wrote:
New rumours from the new Valrak video
Of course as always shovel salt as needed

Release in October already

Instead of one starter box with both Tomb Kings and Bretonnians each will get their own box

I wouldn't object to start collecting like boxes (or something like the old battalions) intended as the way to get into the game. As long as it's on third party shelves and preferably comes with a discount, it should get the job done just fine. And selfishly, I don't mind getting Tomb Kings without having to figure out what to do with all the canned meat if it were a two faction starter set instead.

And the sooner I can get my hands on some Tomb Kings kits again, the better.

 Geifer wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
New rumours from the new Valrak video
Of course as always shovel salt as needed

Release in October already

Instead of one starter box with both Tomb Kings and Bretonnians each will get their own box

I wouldn't object to start collecting like boxes (or something like the old battalions) intended as the way to get into the game. As long as it's on third party shelves and preferably comes with a discount, it should get the job done just fine. And selfishly, I don't mind getting Tomb Kings without having to figure out what to do with all the canned meat if it were a two faction starter set instead.

And the sooner I can get my hands on some Tomb Kings kits again, the better.

I think its likely in the scale of those Middle-Earth Battlehosts

I don't think Battlehosts would be sufficient to play even a small game of TOW based on what we've heard. Maybe Bretonnians since they are an elite army, but Tomb Kings?

since when does GW care if the box content makes a playable army, or even a legal army
they rather make a new game mode that fits the box rather than making a box that works for the actual game

Grail Seeker wrote:
The only confirmed base change is 20mm squares moving to 25mm.

not even this was confirmed, just that 25 square is the smallest base size in the new game
it is still up if all old 20mm ones move to 25mm or if some move from 20 to the next larger one

I think, if every army got a core box that’s intended as both a starter and a core that would be great.
A easy get that box for each army would fix a big issue fantasy had with sticker shock, plus box bloat.
A hero with 2 one 3 builds, 30 infantry and an artillery to get a player started for a reasonable price.

Then can be a 3 box start game easy.

I expect that content but as limited Edition 150€ boxes
as this fits the recent AoS special release boxes

New sorceress on unicorn looks absolutely gorgeous. Good on the ‘eavy metal team for not edge highlighting every muscle and ruining it.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
New sorceress on unicorn looks absolutely gorgeous. Good on the ‘eavy metal team for not edge highlighting every muscle and ruining it.

She got that beetus feets.

Locally, there is a push for WFB. AOS sits on the shelf, and people scavenge what they can to make up their empty slots.

People like the figures, not so much the backgrounds.

People are also dusting off their old models, printing more, gathering their gear through FeeBay, etc.

I double mine through Mordheim, and Warhammer Skirmish.

Skaven and Dwarf armies are emerging with the occasional Empire, and Chaos coming up third and fourth.

As an old player myself, I have a small army for use by all comers, so people can get in and step up to the table for a try. As the old days, it doesn't take a hit or two to get them hooked...

Looks nice, first decent model they've revealed so far. Resin is eh, might find use in a better game though.

That's a hell of a good mini. Can't say I enjoy the drip feed but thats by the by.

Thats a lovely model !

Lady Élisse Duchaard is pure awesomeness! Shame she is not plastic :(

Have to admit the Unicorn and Sorceress is a great model. Like the imagery of roses, bare feet and ruins on base too. The coloring is great. That underskirt(?) And belt is top notch.

Tasty and classic fantasy.

A pity about the resin though. But still.

That sorceress looks incredible!
Inspiring stuff.

Pics or it didn't happen, remember?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/31/nova-previews-bow-deeply-for-elisse-duchaard/

Will have to pick one up, quite a good mini.

Yeesh, didn't notice that club foot she's going on.

Eh, by GW standards, those are fairly normal looking feet.

Looks like her big toe in the top pic got covered in white somehow, as the foot looks normal in the bottom right photo

Fantastic model.

Well, hello there, brand spanking new Morgana Le Fay...

Sorceress on Unicorn is amazing, no surprise that it's resin.

The best female model ever produced by GW, but that's not a very high bar

Ugg Resin means it going to be expensive...I mean, more so than usual that is. Still Might just get it because, honestly, that Unicorn is lovely.

The unicorn might be the best "horse" since metal Dorghar.

Dunno about that. Those hind legs are a touch iffy. I think right now the new Dawnbringers mounted general has the best horse sculpt.

I'm still trying to determine the new cavalry base size because that looks like the old 25x75mm base but it also could be the new 30x60mm one?

 Binabik15 wrote:
The unicorn might be the best "horse" since metal Dorghar.

Nah, that's plastic Shadowfax

Well, that's certainly an opinion!

Honestly I really like that model! Simple, elegant and nicely detailed!

 bong264 wrote:
I'm still trying to determine the new cavalry base size because that looks like the old 25x75mm base but it also could be the new 30x60mm one?

Thats a good question. I am not going to make any guesses at the exact size, but she looks too wide to be put into a unit with normal calvary

Huh maybe i should go check eyesight. For me it looks square base.

Grail Seeker wrote:

 bong264 wrote:
I'm still trying to determine the new cavalry base size because that looks like the old 25x75mm base but it also could be the new 30x60mm one?

Thats a good question. I am not going to make any guesses at the exact size, but she looks too wide to be put into a unit with normal calvary

From the images shown in previous articles, I am expecting that characters don't join units but instead hang out as singular entities.
Of course it's extremely possible that all the images are arranged that way to make better photos, but AFAIK every single character has been pictured standing alone thus far.

Mozzamanx wrote:

Grail Seeker wrote:

 bong264 wrote:
I'm still trying to determine the new cavalry base size because that looks like the old 25x75mm base but it also could be the new 30x60mm one?

Thats a good question. I am not going to make any guesses at the exact size, but she looks too wide to be put into a unit with normal calvary

From the images shown in previous articles, I am expecting that characters don't join units but instead hang out as singular entities.
Of course it's extremely possible that all the images are arranged that way to make better photos, but AFAIK every single character has been pictured standing alone thus far.

It's worth noting that the 6th Ed version of the Fay Enchantress had a large (for the time) square base even when joining units was definitely a thing.

And heroes standing alone in promo pics was also a thing in fb.

That's just 40x40 square, isn't it? Thought that's why the unicorn is posed a bit diagonal... Or maybe 50x50, both old favourites for characters on monsters.

Phew. Not only one seeing square then

Just the perfect amount of detail and bling on this chick. Not too much and not too plain either.

Is she riding a monstrous creature at 50x50 Nd if so, is she not rather large, or at least the unicorn is?

The heroes have always posed next to the units on promo photos for late middlehammer and onwards. How else would the buyer know its a hero?

What model is that behind the mounted captain. The single model, don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

 nathan2004 wrote:
What model is that behind the mounted captain. The single model, don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

Empire fire wizard.

 nathan2004 wrote:
What model is that behind the mounted captain. The single model, don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

It was the exclusive model for that box that they used to do for these pre-release army boxes. They were often standard bearers, that one is a Fire Wizard, as Apple fox said.

Thanks ImAGeek for filling in the details!
They actually pop up on eBay fairly often for fair prices considering GW oop stuff.

I wonder if GW will bring back some of the exclusives now.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
What model is that behind the mounted captain. The single model, don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

It was the exclusive model for that box that they used to do for these pre-release army boxes. They were often standard bearers, that one is a Fire Wizard, as Apple fox said.

Didn't the Empire get both that wizard AND a BSB? I remember them getting a pewter BSB where he's holding the banner up by the very bottom of the post.

 Just Tony wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
What model is that behind the mounted captain. The single model, don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

It was the exclusive model for that box that they used to do for these pre-release army boxes. They were often standard bearers, that one is a Fire Wizard, as Apple fox said.

Didn't the Empire get both that wizard AND a BSB? I remember them getting a pewter BSB where he's holding the banner up by the very bottom of the post.

May have been 2 different edition boxes?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
What model is that behind the mounted captain. The single model, don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

It was the exclusive model for that box that they used to do for these pre-release army boxes. They were often standard bearers, that one is a Fire Wizard, as Apple fox said.

Didn't the Empire get both that wizard AND a BSB? I remember them getting a pewter BSB where he's holding the banner up by the very bottom of the post.

May have been 2 different edition boxes?

From memory the Metal BSB came out in 6th Edition big army box alongside things like the metal greatswords. The Bright Wizard was maybe the 7th Edition and is...plastic? Can't recall.

Just double checked. The Bright Wizard was the 7th Ed. army box exclusive. The 6th Ed. had a BSB like all the other sets.

Just a side remark in this Valrak video but he heard that The Old World is pushed back to next year with Legions Imperialis taking its original spot

well yes but actually......

or the other way, GW is considering IL much more important than doing a 40 years of Warhammer TOW release

either TOW was not planned to be a big part of the 40 years celebration in the first place (unlike some people predicted) or GW thinks the fan-base of old Epic is much much larger than the Warhammer Fantasy fan-base so to switching them for the celebration is the better choice

either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

 kodos wrote:
well yes but actually......

or the other way, GW is considering IL much more important than doing a 40 years of Warhammer TOW release

either TOW was not planned to be a big part of the 40 years celebration in the first place (unlike some people predicted) or GW thinks the fan-base of old Epic is much much larger than the Warhammer Fantasy fan-base so to switching them for the celebration is the better choice

either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

Well, from what I've seen of models, it seems likely that gw has a IL game. Tow? Probably not. Look for a 2026 release or something.

 kodos wrote:


either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

They have brought The Old World back, something that many thought would never happen, but we still have to moan about something, eh?

 triplegrim wrote:

 kodos wrote:
well yes but actually......

or the other way, GW is considering IL much more important than doing a 40 years of Warhammer TOW release

either TOW was not planned to be a big part of the 40 years celebration in the first place (unlike some people predicted) or GW thinks the fan-base of old Epic is much much larger than the Warhammer Fantasy fan-base so to switching them for the celebration is the better choice

either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

Well, from what I've seen of models, it seems likely that gw has a IL game. Tow? Probably not. Look for a 2026 release or something.

So they reveal four new miniatures, three years before anyone can actually buy them, to achieve...what, exactly? The leaked plastic Bretonnian sprue also confirms that new plastics *are* coming, even if said kits are limited in number.

 Matrindur wrote:
Just a side remark in this Valrak video but he heard that The Old World is pushed back to next year with Legions Imperialis taking its original spot

Awkward that nothing at all was released in that spot then

Matrindur wrote:Just a side remark in this Valrak video but he heard that The Old World is pushed back to next year with Legions Imperialis taking its original spot

Yeah... no. LI getting actually delayed is an extreme outlyer. What gets released by GW is 99% of the time released when it was supposed to be. Why people still believe that something in the next few months can be changed willynilly is completely beyond me.

triplegrim wrote:Well, from what I've seen of models, it seems likely that gw has a IL game. Tow? Probably not. Look for a 2026 release or something.

Sure, GW is actively advertising the game already, with pictures of finished models, and we know plastics are in production... for a product to be released in three years? Things that don't happen for $200. TOW is out in the next twelve months, possibly six.

Sathrut wrote:So they reveal four new miniatures, three years before anyone can actually buy them, to achieve...what, exactly? The leaked plastic Bretonnian sprue also confirms that new plastics *are* coming, even if said kits are limited in number.

This. We know the model range for TOW is in production already, with the first kits already done - you can not pick up sprues of something that has not be cast yet. Add the active promotion of the whole thing - not vague snippets and maps, but rules and model previews - and you have something to be released in the next months.

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 kodos wrote:


either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

They have brought The Old World back, something that many thought would never happen, but we still have to moan about something, eh?

ny now they brought nothing back but just shown pictures of upcoming resin models
you can call me out when GW finally brings the Old World back, but until that happens, we may call them out for bad marketing and everything else

but I get it, the old angry grognards would be happy to pay 100€ for an empty book with "we screwed you" on the last page and still would defend GW for finally listening and bringing warhammer fantasy back

I reckon Mordheim is going to be part of The Old World, and it might be the case that it's being designed alongside it.

Skirmish games are very popular and while Kill Team has Warcry, Necromunda is currently without a fantasy alternative. Both Mordheim and The Old World have the potential to share models and terrain, and together provide enough reason to return to the WHFB setting.

SamusDrake wrote:
I reckon Mordheim is going to be part of The Old World, and it might be the case that it's being designed alongside it.

Skirmish games are very popular and while Kill Team has Warcry, Necromunda is currently without a fantasy alternative. Both Mordheim and The Old World have the potential to share models and terrain, and together provide enough reason to return to the WHFB setting.

Tuomas Pirinen and a few of the other guys from the MH design team did release a photo 2 or 3 years ago with them being in England working on a gw project. Seemed to be just playtesting at the time...

Did you hear any rumors, or are you just wish listing?

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 kodos wrote:


either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

They have brought The Old World back, something that many thought would never happen, but we still have to moan about something, eh?

So just doing something with a part of the old world again means its perfect and all criticism should be avoided, then?

Sathrut wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:

 kodos wrote:
well yes but actually......

or the other way, GW is considering IL much more important than doing a 40 years of Warhammer TOW release

either TOW was not planned to be a big part of the 40 years celebration in the first place (unlike some people predicted) or GW thinks the fan-base of old Epic is much much larger than the Warhammer Fantasy fan-base so to switching them for the celebration is the better choice

either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

Well, from what I've seen of models, it seems likely that gw has a IL game. Tow? Probably not. Look for a 2026 release or something.

So they reveal four new miniatures, three years before anyone can actually buy them, to achieve...what, exactly? The leaked plastic Bretonnian sprue also confirms that new plastics *are* coming, even if said kits are limited in number.

It's his favourite vaporvare theory. He love to prove how wrong he is so nobody ever believes him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 kodos wrote:


either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

They have brought The Old World back, something that many thought would never happen, but we still have to moan about something, eh?

ny now they brought nothing back but just shown pictures of upcoming resin models
you can call me out when GW finally brings the Old World back, but until that happens, we may call them out for bad marketing and everything else

but I get it, the old angry grognards would be happy to pay 100€ for an empty book with "we screwed you" on the last page and still would defend GW for finally listening and bringing warhammer fantasy back

Except they don''t release such book.

I'm sure you donate cash and run your company at negative but gw is in for profit despite what you believe.

Repeat after me: gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit.

Now what does gw want? Stijl think they want to throw cash away just for fun of it?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 kodos wrote:


either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

They have brought The Old World back, something that many thought would never happen, but we still have to moan about something, eh?

So just doing something with a part of the old world again means its perfect and all criticism should be avoided, then?

I dunno, I mean people could wait until it actually exists as a product before heaping criticism on it, or on the designers? Maybe it's just me, but being critical of a company because you've got it into your head that they don't care about a product that they haven't even released yet is...not something that I think is productive or reasonable?

Maybe I'm in the minority here, because I know that there are a fair few people around these parts who will mock you for dare suggesting that you want to wait and see before judging something.

Crazy, isn't it?

current criticism is that after years, there is still nothing
why should we wait with this criticism until something is released?

tneva82 wrote:

Repeat after me: gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit. gw wants profit.

and how you make profit?
by doing nothing and sell it for a high price
if people the product no matter what it will be, even invest anything, they could just release a re-print of 8th Edition, including all the errors/typos as a collectors edition and people will buy it, and they will buy the book coming after that adds the errata as well
and GW knows that very well, yet if they think it is not worth doing for a 40 year anniversary event and rather have something else to sell, they think that their profit is with another product and not with TOW

It's been really interesting seeing an attitude around TOW where a lot of people are excited about the idea of it failing, in a way I haven't really seen around any other edition or GW game. I can only assume it's sourgrapes from a segment of the AOS community who are either scared GW might turn their favour to TOW, or are bitter that the game they spent years insisting needed to die is coming back.

 triplegrim wrote:


Tuomas Pirinen and a few of the other guys from the MH design team did release a photo 2 or 3 years ago with them being in England working on a gw project. Seemed to be just playtesting at the time...

Did you hear any rumors, or are you just wish listing?

Just a casual prediction and nothing more, so hopefully this won't turn up on Faeit212 or Chapter Master Valrak along the lines of "I have it from a reliable source on Dak - I MEAN someone who is very close to James Workshop!"

WHFB, besides the odd model and Hasbro's Heroquest, was never my fancy and I can't see myself pursuing either The Old World or Mordheim when and if they return, respectively.

for my part, I just don't want to see GW having success with a lowest afford possible product

as this would only mean that the quality of the game and models will decrease while the price increase and the situation for those that actually want to play the game will be similar or worse than during late 7th/8th edition

people should demand a good product and not just being happy that there is something no matter how bad it is

 kodos wrote:
current criticism is that after years, there is still nothing
why should we wait with this criticism until something is released?

Because it takes time to make a good product? Because it's impossible to make a full assessment without seeing all of the pieces?

Why am I having to explain this to you?

than GW should just give an estimate release year and shut up until they have a good product
telling every 6 month that they are working on something is useless worse than saying nothing

PS: and GW plans 3-6 years into the future so if they have something, it will already have a release date, so they can tell us the year
if they cannot tell us, well it takes longer than those 3 years

 kodos wrote:
than GW should just give an estimate release year and shut up until they have a good product

telling every 6 month that they are working on something is useless worse than saying nothing

How is communication from GW worse than saying nothing?

Ediit: I think that Arbitrator is correct when they say that there are people who want ToW to fail, at least that's how it seems to me

what communication?
an article full of words saying nothing is communication but a waste of time (as saying nothing could have be done without it as well)

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

 kodos wrote:


either way, GW does not think Warhammer Fantasy and their fans are important enough

They have brought The Old World back, something that many thought would never happen, but we still have to moan about something, eh?

So just doing something with a part of the old world again means its perfect and all criticism should be avoided, then?

I dunno, I mean people could wait until it actually exists as a product before heaping criticism on it, or on the designers? Maybe it's just me, but being critical of a company because you've got it into your head that they don't care about a product that they haven't even released yet is...not something that I think is productive or reasonable?

Maybe I'm in the minority here, because I know that there are a fair few people around these parts who will mock you for dare suggesting that you want to wait and see before judging something.

Crazy, isn't it?

The final product may end up being different, but people are allowed to give their opinions on whats been revealed so far and how they think its going based on that.

Nothing about the release of TOW has so far followed any established GW pattern (if such a thing exists) so perhaps we shouldn't expect it to behave like other GW releases? The unique announcement years in advance gave the whole thing a weird start.

A release in November seems just as a likely as next summer or even later to me. And I'm pretty sure GW will never announce a game several years from release ever again.

kodos wrote:what communication?
an article full of words saying nothing is communication but a waste of time (as saying nothing could have be done without it as well)

You said that the communication/articles on ToW that GW have released is "worse than nothing". Unless all of the information that they have given us is false, this is absolute nonsense, moaning for the sake of moaning, which brings me to...

Mentlegen324 wrote:The final product may end up being different, but people are allowed to give their opinions on whats been revealed so far and how they think its going based on that.

Sure, but when that opinion consists of some variation of "GW don't care about the fans of Warhammer"...it just becomes negative noise from entitled moaners, IMHO

I mean, GW can't win. If they were to release ToW tomorrow the same moaners would be moaning about it feeling unfinished

Okay, for the three posters who are here simply to tell us how this isn't coming, or isn't coming when rumors say, or whatever: You've clocked in your opinion. Move on. It's getting really fething old...

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:

kodos wrote:what communication?
an article full of words saying nothing is communication but a waste of time (as saying nothing could have be done without it as well)

You said that the communication/articles on ToW that GW have released is "worse than nothing". Unless all of the information that they have given us is false, this is absolute nonsense, moaning for the sake of moaning, which brings me to...

Mentlegen324 wrote:The final product may end up being different, but people are allowed to give their opinions on whats been revealed so far and how they think its going based on that.

Sure, but when that opinion consists of some variation of "GW don't care about the fans of Warhammer"...it just becomes negative noise from entitled moaners, IMHO

I mean, GW can't win. If they were to release ToW tomorrow the same moaners would be moaning about it feeling unfinished

To a lot of people, what they've shown about TOW so far suggests they aren't committing much to it. When it's taken years and we still haven't seen much, half the armies aren't really involved, it's unclear what if any progression there will be in terms of expanding the setting later on, and even if that does happen it'll be years at the least, no tie in stuff has been even hinted at like novels, and it's going to involve a lot of resin miniatures, it's understandable why some would think they don't really care about it. That's just a valid an opinion as thinking it's all going to be great and no one should say anything negative.

They are a business. Of course they "care" about the product that they are producing, if only because they want it to be a success financially.

I can't believe that the creatives involved in producing the game "don't care".

When I hear someone say that "GW don't care about the fans" or a variation of this it makes me cringe hard. It's like I'm listening to young teenagers.

Sorry to anybody who is an actual teenager.

This is all I'm going to say on the matter, I've said my piece.

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
They are a business. Of course they "care" about the product that they are producing, if only because they want it to be a success financially.

I can't believe that the creatives involved in producing the game "don't care".

When I hear someone say that "GW don't care about the fans" or a variation of this it makes me cringe hard. It's like I'm listening to young teenagers.

Sorry to anybody who is an actual teenager.

This is all I'm going to say on the matter, I've said my piece.

Wanting to make money from isn't necessarily the same thing as actually caring about it. Plenty of companies release products that evidently haven't had care put into them because all that matters to them is the money regardless of how its done.

Yeah, to say they don't care isn't accurate, but to say that they do care about the fans is also inaccurate - they don't, they only care about the fans interest and willingness to continue consuming their products, not necessarily what is in the best interest of those fans.

Time to move on, again. This little circular conversation was not interesting the first time, by the fifth it is just really tiresome.

Though I am not much on watching Youtube influencers, someone on reddit said Valtak walked back his earlier statements and said not to expect the Old World until early 2024. Speculation is it is due to NuEpic being pushed back again.

Bit of a bummer if true, but not at all surprising to see GW refrain from two system launches so close together.

Two system launches AND a new 40K edition in 6 months is crazy even for GW.

Grail Seeker wrote:
Though I am not much on watching Youtube influencers, someone on reddit said Valtak walked back his earlier statements and said not to expect the Old World until early 2024. Speculation is it is due to NuEpic being pushed back again.

Bit of a bummer if true, but not at all surprising to see GW refrain from two system launches so close together.

No reason for GW to rush at this point, that iron ain't getting any cooler.

 Overread wrote:
Two system launches AND a new 40K edition in 6 months is crazy even for GW.

I am still very much in doubt that TOW happens this year, personally, unless they do a "soft launch" where a couple things come out in one wave, and then a larger wave comes next year or something.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Two system launches AND a new 40K edition in 6 months is crazy even for GW.

I am still very much in doubt that TOW happens this year, personally, unless they do a "soft launch" where a couple things come out in one wave, and then a larger wave comes next year or something.

Given current events, would give them a chance to rewrite several key mechanics, hopefully before they release a physical rulebook. That said I've got my 6th ed one stashed somewhere.

 Overread wrote:
Two system launches AND a new 40K edition in 6 months is crazy even for GW.

What other way are they going to break previous profit records and keep the shareholders happy?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Two system launches AND a new 40K edition in 6 months is crazy even for GW.

I am still very much in doubt that TOW happens this year, personally, unless they do a "soft launch" where a couple things come out in one wave, and then a larger wave comes next year or something.

Beta rules with a finished rules and models to follow in 2024?

Logical but totally unlike GW. And it would like 3rd parties and 3D printers get a jump.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Two system launches AND a new 40K edition in 6 months is crazy even for GW.

I am still very much in doubt that TOW happens this year, personally, unless they do a "soft launch" where a couple things come out in one wave, and then a larger wave comes next year or something.

Beta rules with a finished rules and models to follow in 2024?

Logical but totally unlike GW. And it would like 3rd parties and 3D printers get a jump.

Yes, the mental hoops one must jump around to get a 2023 or even 2024 release to be credible is astounding.

GW is more likely to start a few made to orders and re release old stuff with a FOMO of one month per srmy, before any rules ever arrive and promptly invalidates much of what you just bought.

I feel that if GW just wanted a quick cash in, why not release an 'amended' 7th edition book or revised 7th, with a few online articles with narrative 500 and 1500 pts. It could be written in a day, and a few changes to the book just for the sake of being able to call it 7th revised (totally not a re-release) would probably keep jerks like me playing the game and getting warmed up for the eventual Tow release. Now its just vaporware if you ask me.

I've gotten further into 3rd ed 40k and Warhammer renneissance as well as retro 6th and Mordheim, because the living rules releases of GW is either too frantic (40k) or vaporware.

As for Valraks rumor mongering, I think the 2023 release was just weak sauce to begin with. No way they just postpone a release containing a large rule book and several big armies (brets, tk?). A few months im advance? Nah. No way.

 triplegrim wrote:

As for Valraks rumor mongering, I think the 2023 release was just weak sauce to begin with. No way they just postpone a release containing a large rule book and several big armies (brets, tk?). A few months im advance? Nah. No way.

Not saying whether his 2023 release rumour is correct or not but he undoubtedly has a source with correct information based on how many other rumours if his turn out correct.

Also not like they just postponed another whole gamesystem only a few weeks before launch right? Of course as far as we know that wasn't done voluntarily but would totally be possible to do for TOW with a few months of time instead.

When they first announced it and said that it was on the horizon I didn't assume it until 2025 at the latest.

It would be a shame if they released nothing this year for the 40th anniversary. I could see them releasing a rule book and a couple of character models this year to satisfy the anniversary and releasing way more stuff next year including a big launch box with a couple armies, dice, etc.

Prior to the delay of Legions Imperialis everything hinted at a release sooner rather than later:
The frequency of preview articles increased to monthly.
Product shots of miniatures as well as battle shots (likely for the rulebook and promotion material) were presented.
Some rule concepts were presented.
In the shareholder commentary TOW is listed as coming soon.

Also, the marketing for the next edition of AOS will likely start in May with a release in July 2024.
Unless GW doesn’t care if both TOW and AOS release close to each other, that leaves basically the next 6 month or fall 2024 or later as a release window for TOW.

Further, since the game is already announced, the lead up to release may be relatively short (e.g. a few weeks). Legions Imperial also had a quite short lead up to the original release in August. So there is a precendent.

In the end, we don‘t know how much the delay of Legions Imperialis messed up the release schedule and wether or not there are other factors that prevent a release of TOW within the next 6 month.
Although I am looking forward to TOW, I am not too bothered whether or not TOW releases in 2024 or beyond. I have enough stuff on my plate.
However, my bet would be sooner rather than later for the points mentioned above.

Christmas boxes, that is all.

Seelenhaendler wrote:
Also, the marketing for the next edition of AOS will likely start in May with a release in July 2024.

Likely earlier with an announcement at Adepticon in March.

But yes, one would think GW would be more concerned about an overlap between AoS and Old World players than Epic and Old World players. It doesn't seem likely that they'd prefer to have overlap with an incoming AoS edition just to give Epic a bit of time in the spotlight by itself.

Still, for argument's sake if Old World had been scheduled for November and GW applied the Epic delay one for one, it wouldn't take more than a delay of two months to turn a 2023 release into a 2024 release with plenty of time before AoS is officially on the radar. Since there's precious little chance than The Old World was coming before November, the difference between a 2023 and 2024 release could be effectively meaningless.

Eiríkr wrote:
Christmas boxes, that is all.

What is this? A rumor, a hope.... what?

Johanxp wrote:

Eiríkr wrote:
Christmas boxes, that is all.

What is this? A rumor, a hope.... what?

I think Valrak had hinted there would be a TK and Brets box in a video about Christmas boxes, he wasn't sure if they would be Christmas boxes, launch boxes or potentially both as a release near Christmas.

Dudeface wrote:

Johanxp wrote:

Eiríkr wrote:
Christmas boxes, that is all.

What is this? A rumor, a hope.... what?

I think Valrak had hinted there would be a TK and Brets box in a video about Christmas boxes, he wasn't sure if they would be Christmas boxes, launch boxes or potentially both as a release near Christmas.

I could be mistaken here but I don't remember those being about christmas boxes. Just that instead of a normal two faction starter each faction would get their own box for the launch

 Matrindur wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Johanxp wrote:

Eiríkr wrote:
Christmas boxes, that is all.

What is this? A rumor, a hope.... what?

I think Valrak had hinted there would be a TK and Brets box in a video about Christmas boxes, he wasn't sure if they would be Christmas boxes, launch boxes or potentially both as a release near Christmas.

I could be mistaken here but I don't remember those being about christmas boxes. Just that instead of a normal two faction starter each faction would get their own box for the launch

Yeah it was the timing that was uncertain, if released late Nov/Dec they might end up getting slapped with that sort of context.

 Geifer wrote:

But yes, one would think GW would be more concerned about an overlap between AoS and Old World players than Epic and Old World players. It doesn't seem likely that they'd prefer to have overlap with an incoming AoS edition just to give Epic a bit of time in the spotlight by itself.

pairing Epic with 40k would be similar to pairing AoS with ToW
So it appears they think a mainline and a sideline do not overlap but 2 sidelines do

And most rumours for a TOW release this year are based on the 40 year anniversary and the picture countdown

The rumor I saw was about christmas boxes, though it wasn't clear if the TOW boxes were part of the christmas box rumor or a separate release.

assuming they don't find some last second issue with the rulebook printing of course

like horrors above it doesn't contain enough typos

I guess never say never, but I think if TOW were coming out in the next few weeks, it would have been announced by now. There isn't obvious room in the schedule.

I guess some sort of TK/Bret Christmas Box isn't completely impossible to imagine - but it seems like a weird way to launch a new game, and potentially messes with your logistics for the regular Christmas discount boxes. You have a clear product to shift in that period - why not push TOW/TK/Brets to a quiet February/March or something, where the marketing team can give it a decent run up?

It might not create the hype GW wants if they release army boxes without a game
Yet for what we have seen all the years for TOW it might be exactly what they are going to do

Tyel wrote:
I guess never say never, but I think if TOW were coming out in the next few weeks, it would have been announced by now. There isn't obvious room in the schedule.

I guess some sort of TK/Bret Christmas Box isn't completely impossible to imagine - but it seems like a weird way to launch a new game, and potentially messes with your logistics for the regular Christmas discount boxes. You have a clear product to shift in that period - why not push TOW/TK/Brets to a quiet February/March or something, where the marketing team can give it a decent run up?

Last check in the rumour was a late in the year release of the 2 bundle boxes, core rules and a smattering of re-release kits as a "get you by" with the rest of it rolled out in the new year.

They've done similar with armies before where you get an armybox November and a release Feb.

Tyel wrote:
I guess never say never, but I think if TOW were coming out in the next few weeks, it would have been announced by now. There isn't obvious room in the schedule.

I guess some sort of TK/Bret Christmas Box isn't completely impossible to imagine - but it seems like a weird way to launch a new game, and potentially messes with your logistics for the regular Christmas discount boxes. You have a clear product to shift in that period - why not push TOW/TK/Brets to a quiet February/March or something, where the marketing team can give it a decent run up?

Agreed. Especially about the lack of announcement. Legions Imperialis was announced July 1st for release at the end of August, so you're looking at a probably ~2 month lead time on the announcement. Unless they announceit within the next 3 weeks or so its probably not coming this year. More likely, I think the "40 years of warhammer" thing leads up to a big preview showingoff whatever they got with the announcement its coming next year, rather than an actual release this year. Its definitely not releasing when the 40 year countdown hits 40 - thats 4 weeks away (including this week), very much doubt GW is going to give such little attention to it - that is an insufficient preview window with which to announce something that supposedly includes a launch box - those larger price points usually carry the aforementioned 2-3 month window.

 kodos wrote:
It might not create the hype GW wants if they release army boxes without a game
Yet for what we have seen all the years for TOW it might be exactly what they are going to do

I agree that a game to go with the box would increase hype. But check the prices for some of those OoP bretonnia models or the insane prices of some of those tomb king constructs.

I am fairly confident that GW would sell out of the box regardless.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess never say never, but I think if TOW were coming out in the next few weeks, it would have been announced by now. There isn't obvious room in the schedule.

I guess some sort of TK/Bret Christmas Box isn't completely impossible to imagine - but it seems like a weird way to launch a new game, and potentially messes with your logistics for the regular Christmas discount boxes. You have a clear product to shift in that period - why not push TOW/TK/Brets to a quiet February/March or something, where the marketing team can give it a decent run up?

Agreed. Especially about the lack of announcement. Legions Imperialis was announced July 1st for release at the end of August, so you're looking at a probably ~2 month lead time on the announcement. Unless they announceit within the next 3 weeks or so its probably not coming this year. More likely, I think the "40 years of warhammer" thing leads up to a big preview showingoff whatever they got with the announcement its coming next year, rather than an actual release this year. Its definitely not releasing when the 40 year countdown hits 40 - thats 4 weeks away (including this week), very much doubt GW is going to give such little attention to it - that is an insufficient preview window with which to announce something that supposedly includes a launch box - those larger price points usually carry the aforementioned 2-3 month window.

Not saying a release this year is likely, but
TOW was announced 4(?) years ago. So why would it need a multi month preview window? In particular, since the game/release is of limited scope, which currently is the most likely scenario.
Also, the stuff of the last preview will probably be released by the end October.
If, mid October, the 40 year articles end with a preview of the releases for TOW, there would be multiple weeks for in depth previews before the game launches in November.
What does the current schedule till the end of the year look like?

Grail Seeker wrote:

I agree that a game to go with the box would increase hype. But check the prices for some of those OoP bretonnia models or the insane prices of some of those tomb king constructs.

I am fairly confident that GW would sell out of the box regardless.

yeah, if they are cheaper than ebay and if those models return

If it is "just" a special army box like they do now with 1 of each for 150€, not sure if these sell well

And there are those people who are hyped by TOW because of the possibility that the good old times return with everyone playing the same rules/edition/game and big fantasy tournaments each weekend

And those won't like models without rules

Seelenhaendler wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess never say never, but I think if TOW were coming out in the next few weeks, it would have been announced by now. There isn't obvious room in the schedule.

I guess some sort of TK/Bret Christmas Box isn't completely impossible to imagine - but it seems like a weird way to launch a new game, and potentially messes with your logistics for the regular Christmas discount boxes. You have a clear product to shift in that period - why not push TOW/TK/Brets to a quiet February/March or something, where the marketing team can give it a decent run up?

Agreed. Especially about the lack of announcement. Legions Imperialis was announced July 1st for release at the end of August, so you're looking at a probably ~2 month lead time on the announcement. Unless they announceit within the next 3 weeks or so its probably not coming this year. More likely, I think the "40 years of warhammer" thing leads up to a big preview showingoff whatever they got with the announcement its coming next year, rather than an actual release this year. Its definitely not releasing when the 40 year countdown hits 40 - thats 4 weeks away (including this week), very much doubt GW is going to give such little attention to it - that is an insufficient preview window with which to announce something that supposedly includes a launch box - those larger price points usually carry the aforementioned 2-3 month window.

Not saying a release this year is likely, but
TOW was announced 4(?) years ago. So why would it need a multi month preview window? In particular, since the game/release is of limited scope, which currently is the most likely scenario.
Also, the stuff of the last preview will probably be released by the end October.
If, mid October, the 40 year articles end with a preview of the releases for TOW, there would be multiple weeks for in depth previews before the game launches in November.
What does the current schedule till the end of the year look like?

Thing is that GW traditionally doesn't release much in december outside of the holiday boxes, and usually the big release in november is something smaller like a faction launch box (Cadia Stands, Sisters of Battle) or Warcry Red Harvest or the 2nd edition BloodBowl launch box. In fact, the release schedule for November is usually a little bit lighter, comparatively speaking, than other months - probably because GW is aware that people are holding cash in anticipation of holiday battleforces instead of spending freely and they don't want to cannibalize their own sales.

Launching a whole new army scale game ala 40k, AoS, or HH in November would be a huge departure from their established business practices (which usually limit those types of releases to the summer). Coming hot on the heels of a similar game ala Legions Imperialis and right before Holiday Battleforces would be unheard of - GW manages its release schedule in such a way as to prevent major releases like box sets and such from clustering too tightly and losing out on sales because people blow their budget on other items, they are marshaling their release schedule to try to extract every last penny possible out of the community. I just don't see them launching Legions Imperialis, The Old World, and the Holiday boxes back to back to back in such a manner.

Even if you don't consider that it would overload GW's already overloaded production (Wayland didn't get their Tyranid shipment this week); having that many BIG things all in a row would drain the pockets of customers. Customers have finite cash and if they load too much too often the result is some of those are going to sell poorly not because of anything wrong with the product; but simply because everyone has their wallets burned out. Esp before christmas when everyone will be waiting for the Christmas bundles.

Pretty much my point, yeah.

New Valrak rumours

Summary:
Release Q1 2024


Boxset contents:
Each box get their own core rulesets (probably means core rulebook in both boxes?)

Bretonnia: 70+ models

Big chunk of Men-at-Arms (two units?)
Big chunk of Archers
Two lances of Knights
Unit of three Pegasus knights
Lord on Pegasus

Only the Lord on Pegasus will be new, everything else is old fantasy models

Tomb Kings: 90+ models

Skeletons
Archers
Knights (Necropolis Knights?)
Chariots
Lich riding a Dragon

again only the Lich will be new

Considering there's never been a tomb king riding a dragon (at least to my memory), then that's immediately wrong.

It says the Lich will be new, no?

Dragon can mean anything here, as we got the snake riders in 8th a hero on snake is a possibility

yet one thing, if it says all models but the heroes are old, "big chunk of models" means not much in that context as compared to the new 5 model cavalry and 10 model infantry boxes, the old 8/16/20 model boxes are a lot
so 2 old boxes of infantry makes 40 models which is a "chunk" compared to the lates 10 model boxes but still just 1-2 units

expecting 2 units of 6 knights, 2 units of 16 Man-at-Arms, 1 unit of 16-24 Archers

similar for Khemri, 3 units of 24 Infantry, 2 units of 8 cavalry, 1 unit of 3 chariots + Lich = 92 models

In that case it would still be wrong as there's already been a new tomb king shown

and they are resin, making it unlikely to end up a box set while we have seen the single pegasus sprue, so having a new plastic hero riding something bigger than a horse to go with the old models makes sense

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
In that case it would still be wrong as there's already been a new tomb king shown

Which is going to be resin so likely not in those starter boxes.

I'm not saying that rumour is correct but they could absolutely make a new Lich on a Bone-Dragon (or 'Dragon' may be a bit of a misnomer and it's some other similar flying dead gribbly as a mount).

Warmaster had a lich priest or tomb king riding a zombie dragon.
Not sure because my old 4th edition undead book is in store, but there the tomb kings might also have had this option of zombie dragon.

Sounds interesting. I wonder what will be the price for the box.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Sounds interesting. I wonder what will be the price for the box.

my guess ~150-200€

Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

 Astmeister wrote:
Warmaster had a lich priest or tomb king riding a zombie dragon.
Not sure because my old 4th edition undead book is in store, but there the tomb kings might also have had this option of zombie dragon.

Believe it was just 'Undead Hero' on Zombie Dragon, although it was initially alongside the Tomb Kings stuff. Don't think WH:Fantasy Tomb Kings ever got Zombie Dragons as an option after the split from Vampire Counts but there's probably no 'lore' reason they couldn't have one; they've as much geographical access to the Plain of Bones as the Vampire Factions (if not more) and it's not like that's the only way to get one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

I can't actually believe they'll attempt to re-release those old skeletons. The Men at Arms/Bowmen from 6th, sure. They are, (for some reason) fairly well regarded it seems.

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

Is it possible that the TP will be riding a Warsphinx or the like, and that the rumor monger simply mistook the picture?

The 6th, 7th and 8th Tomb Kings did not have any dragons. I am pretty sure because, I played all of them.
4th Edition indeed is mixed TK/Vamps and did include it.

Just Tony wrote:Is it possible that the TP will be riding a Warsphinx or the like, and that the rumor monger simply mistook the picture?

Honestly, I hope not, because that's already an "existing" kit, it's an option for the Warsphinx we had. I'd prefer a new kit in each box.

Astmeister wrote:Warmaster had a lich priest or tomb king riding a zombie dragon.
Not sure because my old 4th edition undead book is in store, but there the tomb kings might also have had this option of zombie dragon.

Both Mummy characters and Liches had the option for Monster mounts including the Zombie Dragon.

There you go. Thanks.

Lich?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Lich?

Khemrian magic users are Liches, but not the D&D "we stuffed our souls into a device named after a Jewish holy item" style of Liche.

Probably meant a Liche Priest.

A mummy dragon would be cool, but no way I'm ever buying anything that has the old skeletons in it, no matter how cool the other contents of the box are.

Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

It all comes down to personal taste, really. I intentionally seek them and the previous 3rd Ed versions out for my Undead cause I'm nostalgic to how quaint they are.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

It all comes down to personal taste, really. I intentionally seek them and the previous 3rd Ed versions out for my Undead cause I'm nostalgic to how quaint they are.

Based solely on that pic, I really like them.

Well, for starters, they're too big to fit into WHFB scaled human bodies. Also very breaky and you have to glue the spine flat end to flat end with like 1 square mm of surface. The melee weapon selection also completely sucks for TK as they're really VC skellies with an upgrade sprue of bows and helmets.

problem was not that they looked bad in general

tricky to assemble, easy to break, oversized "generic" weapons did not fit the general Khemri theme, and they were a different scale/size than the actual khemri units

cavalry and archers had the same problem and those, by the time 20 year old models, were a reason why Khemri did not sell at all in 8th Edition
as a lot of people wanted to start a that army because of the shiny new elite units and monsters, but everyone expected up to date core infantry like Vampires got

so releasing the same models that were the reason not many bought into that faction in the first place might not be the best idea

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Out of pure curiosity - to all people who posted here about old skellies - what was so awful/wrong with them?

They're a 5th-edition kit, designed for a different army. They include classic TK weapons like hatchets or flails. They are fething massive, towering over mortals with their giant heads and gorilla-like hands. This is despite their intimidating bow-legged squat poses and strong mould lines.
They were horrible in the 6E lineup and were abysmal in the 8E lineup. Now, they're a joke.

When people say TK had beautiful models, chances are they are talking exclusively about 8E plastics, Ushabti and the 6E characters. Otherwise the range was ancient 10 years ago and not in the good way.

They actually looked like this. So they got new shields, new heads and new command options with respect to the old vampire skeletons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw did they not already show updated weapon pictures on warhammer community the other day for the tomb kings?

Taken from this link

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/13/old-world-development-diary-revealing-the-weapons-of-war/

Well obviously this entire outrage over 30 year old skellies hinges on Valrak not taking out of his ass agian.

and we already talked in the past about it that this might just mean a new upgrade sprue and/or new resin parts to go with the old models
and that old models will come back with limited amount of new models added was already said more or less with the WC articles

but simply because the old models are what they are, a lot of people still believe that there must be new ones

I think I'd believe a rumour more if it at least included the models GW have already shown us. I guess they don't have to go together but kind of seems like they would be in this box.

Those are some very jazzy weapons for mook infantry designed to be fielded in hordes. I think these weapons are going to be the reserve of characters, or maybe some extremely well-equipped elites.

Those weapons are way more suited to character models in design than being the standard infantry weapons.

That sounds reasonable.
I guess from a business perspective GW will also just release the old models and hope for a cash grab from the old Neckbeards.

I thought the bare minimum would be new TK Skeletons.

What a waste of time...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I thought the bare minimum would be new TK Skeletons.
What a waste of time...

who would have thought that getting warhammer back meant to actually get warhammer back, with all the wish listings and downsides.....

I mean, eventually the Monkey's Paw has to run out of fingers, yes?

depends what the wish was "I want old warhammer back" might have been not precise enough

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, eventually the Monkey's Paw has to run out of fingers, yes?

The great many fingered monkey.

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

Its funny, just yesterday I was lamenting to myself that I wish I had some men at arms kits so I could kitbash them with some cadians ala Dave Taylors Genswick Rifles to make an Imperialis Militia force for Heresy.

That being said, I will probably skip these boxes. They seem tempting, because those kits have been in such demand for the past ~10 years, but they are old junky kits that don't carry much nostalgia value for me, and I think long run I'll probably just end up disappointed that I bought them instead of waiting a bit longer for inevitable future resculpts which will be much better in terms of detail and quality and probably scale poorly to the legacy kits.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

Its funny, just yesterday I was lamenting to myself that I wish I had some men at arms kits so I could kitbash them with some cadians ala Dave Taylors Genswick Rifles to make an Imperialis Militia force for Heresy.

The new Cites of Sigmar bodies would give a decent similar design.

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I thought the bare minimum would be new TK Skeletons.
What a waste of time...

who would have thought that getting warhammer back meant to actually get warhammer back, with all the wish listings and downsides.....

Well, if there was _one_ unit to update out of the entire WFB range, tomb king skeletons would've been pretty high on most lists. Especially with the available factions pared down.

They were the perpetual excuse: 'I'd start a tomb kings army, except the core units suck' for multiple editions.


Really, if they're not even going to do that level of minimum effort for the Old World, I don't know why they're bothering.

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

I liked the peasant archers but never was a huge fan of the men-at-arms (its a bit of a weird thing I know).

I could have been clearer, my comment was more based on the lack of support to not even re-do the weaker/oldest/most plain parts of the ranges.

The men-at-arms are nowhere near as painful as tomb kings skeletons both in detail and in the awfulness to assemble.

Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

The Brets seem to match up to what's painted here.

2 x 18 m@a
24 Archers
3 Pegasus knights
2 x 6 KotR

I will never believe anything that comes from youtube rumours.

That said, I've been waiting for news if the TK were getting a full refresh or we would see the old range as it was.

I really, really want to be able to get hold of those ancient skeletal horses again. I brought a fairly large job lot of TK chariots, not noticing that it didn't come with any horses! Plus I'd rather like to mix them with some of the old wargames factory skeletons and finish as much of my undead force off with that oldhammer-y aesthetic.

It probably sucks that they won't get a refresh- but I'll be happy enough to get my hands on those useful skeletal horses. If they redid them you can almost guarantee they will come with too many knick-knacks stuck to them and chances are they would have half the rider sculpted directly to the horse itself.

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

Not talking about rumours doesn't leave much to talk about.

Talking about their validity usually just leads to incessantly crapping on the rumourmongers.

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

I don't know what's ridiculous about the suggested content of the suggested boxes. Sticking with Tomb Kings, because I don't have a clue about the fleshy guys, it's three disciplines of Core (shooty, stabby, mobile), a dual kit heavy cavalry/monstrous infantry and a character to lead the army. That's not a bad mix for something GW expects you to buy once to get the core of your army. It has the lure of a new character, sells you kits that might not sell so well individually, and probably steers you to expand into more expensive single kits of monsters and such. Seems sound enough from a marketing and sales perspective.

The absence of a Prince/King is the only actual issue by Warhammer Fantasy standards, but we have no idea if that dynamic made it into The Old World or if Tomb Kings get different requirements for their leadership to lessen the issues that used to cause.

I mean, I can see selling old Skeletons for new prices (or at all, really) as plenty of reason to call the suggested boxes ridiculous. However that's no reason to discard the rumor. It's definitely something we should expect from GW. Customer perspective shouldn't be believed to have an impact on credibility.

I bought those skeletons when they were released back in 5th edition, and already hated them there They were way too big and quite inferior to the 3rd/4th edition version they replaced. Plus the kits had one big flaw (at least at the time), where the sprue had that special weakness and broke easily, all time, at the same spot You know when it breaks with a clean spike/hole. And that weak spot was right in the middle of the shinbones of some of the legs They would break when cleaning mould lines, or after you glue it to the base and pick it up funny later. I was not having fun with those.

Their only advantage really was that it was designed with the other infantry kit of the time (Zombies, Empire Militia/State troops, Skaven Clan Rats, Goblins, Chaos Marauders, etc) and all had the same design of legs, body, arms and head so all parts were interchangeable. Especially for Undead players, that was a really big plus to just combine anything together.

I managed to add whatever I had of awful skeletons to my TK when the army came out, making them all archers and calling it a day, not wanting to add anymore of those bad sculpt. From 6th through 8th I had no other core infantry than some archers because the models were just awful and I didn't want to deal with them anymore. Thankfully archers (the TK one at least) were quite nice in-game so it wasn't too bad on that front.

If those same models are released as the core of the army, oof. Not a great way to draw new players that's for sure.

The giant skeletons would fit with the current eight foot tall vampires...

Vorian wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

The Brets seem to match up to what's painted here.

2 x 18 m@a
24 Archers
3 Pegasus knights
2 x 6 KotR

think MaA were 4 models per frame, so either 16 or 20 in the box, or we see a new command frame adding some models (and weapons)

I do believe the old box has 16 men-at-arms

 kodos wrote:

Vorian wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/old-world-development-diary-on-bases-and-the-barons-of-bretonnia/

The Brets seem to match up to what's painted here.

2 x 18 m@a
24 Archers
3 Pegasus knights
2 x 6 KotR

think MaA were 4 models per frame, so either 16 or 20 in the box, or we see a new command frame adding some models (and weapons)

,2x18=36 aka 9 sprues of 4.

9 sprues would mean that it is not a regular box content

did we ever had army boxes were models frames/sprues were different from the stand alone release?

Well half the reqular box is definitely a thing. Reqular box has x models, start collecting has half.

 kodos wrote:
9 sprues would mean that it is not a regular box content

did we ever had army boxes were models frames/sprues were different from the stand alone release?

Several Chaos boxes for 40K only used 8 Beserkers vs the retail box of 12.

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

I understand that logic, but at the same time his sources have been fairly on point this last year. Likewise I think it's become apparent GW has indeed, lost the plot for what they aim to do with old world.

It feels like when they booted the project off, they aimed to start totally fresh, but the production issues and rammed release schedule left them with nowhere to go.

Combine with the fact lots of players have existing armies stashed away, so the drive to buy new ones will be low for those, and you suddenly have a hard time finding demand.

To cap it all off, the expectations and complaints of only 3-4 armies were ready to go at launch might have given them cold feet, so might have realising people won't buy into a new game with hundreds of minis needed for every army from scratch for a new game.

So it feels instead they're hoping to hit the nostalgia chord, roll out as many old kits as possible and see what bites to mitigate risk and cost.

tneva82 wrote:Well half the reqular box is definitely a thing. Reqular box has x models, start collecting has half.

Platuan4th wrote:Several Chaos boxes for 40K only used 8 Beserkers vs the retail box of 12.

having less than retail is something I know

but 9 frames is an odd number for that, as the retail box would have more, putting it to 40 models with 2 command frames per box which would be way too much for the regular GW box (specially as GW avoids making more than 1 unit from a single box, rather the other way around) and would also limit the price they can ask for.
People are willing to pay a lot per model as long as the box looks reasonable. Selling 20 for 50€ is easier than selling 40 for 100€

so either an extra command frame in addition (first time for GW), or that models are not meant to ever get a regular release

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/combat-patrol-world-eaters-2023

I can assure you berserkers don't come in boxes of 20.

Nor can you field more than 10 in unit.

And you most definitely can get them on your own(provided gw hasn't ran out of stock...again)


https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/combat-patrol-chaos-daemons-2022

2 kits duplicated.

exactly, those are always 2 regular boxes duplicated, with an even number of sprues

how is 9 sprues a duplicate of a regular sprue?
they are not going to cut them in half for the regular box

so it must be 8 sprues (2 regular units of 16) +1 for that box (which would be something new), or we get a new 2 model command frame with new weapons for an 18 model regular box
(or worst case there is no regular box hence why there is an extra sprue inside)

Dudeface wrote:
It feels like when they booted the project off, they aimed to start totally fresh, but the production issues and rammed release schedule left them with nowhere to go.

Combine with the fact lots of players have existing armies stashed away, so the drive to buy new ones will be low for those, and you suddenly have a hard time finding demand.

To cap it all off, the expectations and complaints of only 3-4 armies were ready to go at launch might have given them cold feet, so might have realising people won't buy into a new game with hundreds of minis needed for every army from scratch for a new game.

So it feels instead they're hoping to hit the nostalgia chord, roll out as many old kits as possible and see what bites to mitigate risk and cost.

I see your point, but this sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. My hope remains this is all much ado about nothing.

Dudeface wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Interesting to see how many people take this "rumour" straight at face value. The content of those two boxes sounds ridiculous. If it was true, GW would truly have lost it.

That said: while I think the M@A and knights in the Bretonnian range are fine and stood the test of time, the TK skeletons really need an update. Those were not exactly great back in the early 2000s, and did not age well either. By todays standards they are just bad.

As with all rumours from Valrak: I believe it when I see it. His track record on the 40K/HH side seems to be not too bad, but in this case... eh, you better be kidding.

I understand that logic, but at the same time his sources have been fairly on point this last year. Likewise I think it's become apparent GW has indeed, lost the plot for what they aim to do with old world.

It feels like when they booted the project off, they aimed to start totally fresh, but the production issues and rammed release schedule left them with nowhere to go.

Combine with the fact lots of players have existing armies stashed away, so the drive to buy new ones will be low for those, and you suddenly have a hard time finding demand.

To cap it all off, the expectations and complaints of only 3-4 armies were ready to go at launch might have given them cold feet, so might have realising people won't buy into a new game with hundreds of minis needed for every army from scratch for a new game.

So it feels instead they're hoping to hit the nostalgia chord, roll out as many old kits as possible and see what bites to mitigate risk and cost.

I'm still under the impression that some GW worker made the announcement on their last day as their petty revenge. Now GW are flapping to pull some promised project out of thin air!

I totally agree with you though. If anything its why they have gone for Bretts & TKs as the 'starting armies'. Both armies are pretty rare out in the wild, and their is less risk selling a bunch of models they already have available. You'd think Empire would be the first army, being that this edition is being set in an empire focused war.

Probably a bit of hopium here, but does anyone know how well the TK sprue heads and command arms would fit on the (far superior) 7th Ed Skeletons?

Still a bit Old Worldy in terms of the weapons, but much better than the 5th Ed ones.

I tried to splice the kits together a very long time ago and from memory, I don't think it worked very well. The TK (Old skeleton) kits have a bad case of Massive Head Syndrome plus exceptionally chunky arms.
You can do alright using TK shields and Grave Guard weapons, as below. (Note, not my picture)
However I would also point out, do the 7E VC Skeletons actually matter? They are also OoP, extremely valuable and thus expensive, and likely won't be coming back to TOW. I think you'll have a horrible time sourcing enough of them to make a force.

Mozzamanx wrote:
I tried to splice the kits together a very long time ago and from memory, I don't think it worked very well. The TK (Old skeleton) kits have a bad case of Massive Head Syndrome plus exceptionally chunky arms.
You can do alright using TK shields and Grave Guard weapons, as below. (Note, not my picture)
However I would also point out, do the 7E VC Skeletons actually matter? They are also OoP, extremely valuable and thus expensive, and likely won't be coming back to TOW. I think you'll have a horrible time sourcing enough of them to make a force.

As conversion fodder no.

But if the upgrade sprue fitted acceptably onto the newer models GW could potentially release the new kits with those ones instead of the older ones.

Those models were actually pretty nice (if still fiddly).

Probably unlikely though - hence ‘hopium’…

 kodos wrote:
9 sprues would mean that it is not a regular box content

did we ever had army boxes were models frames/sprues were different from the stand alone release?

Yes. I recall on several occasions they released battalion boxes and battleforce sets that did not match the contents of an individual kit or a multiple thereof. I recall being annoyed by it and having entire conversations with friends about how it screwed up model counts when trying to collect an army to round/rankable numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

caladancid wrote:
Old skeletons and men-at-arms is brutal. Those models were dated when they were new.....

Agree on the skeletons, but not on the men-at-arms. Those were pretty cool and also good for 40k conversions.

Its funny, just yesterday I was lamenting to myself that I wish I had some men at arms kits so I could kitbash them with some cadians ala Dave Taylors Genswick Rifles to make an Imperialis Militia force for Heresy.

The new Cites of Sigmar bodies would give a decent similar design.

It's the wide brimmed men at arms helmets that do it for me though. Suppose I can sculpt some and print them though.

No photos I’m afraid, but I’ve used tomb kings shields and heads with Wargames Atlantic to good effect, the WGA skellies are cheap and readily available, if you can get the tomb kings bits.

So, is there any rumors of content of the bretonnia box?

And specualtion on price?

I dont mind there only being 1 new model there at all, according to rumors. A current release of any TOW game will breathe shelf life into whatever Im playing now anyway.

Only hint of the content is that the number of models rumoured fits the models show on the WC article

But this could be the other way around, that the rumour is based on that article

For the price, current AoS starter armies or special edition boxes price points are both possible

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
I tried to splice the kits together a very long time ago and from memory, I don't think it worked very well. The TK (Old skeleton) kits have a bad case of Massive Head Syndrome plus exceptionally chunky arms.
You can do alright using TK shields and Grave Guard weapons, as below. (Note, not my picture)
However I would also point out, do the 7E VC Skeletons actually matter? They are also OoP, extremely valuable and thus expensive, and likely won't be coming back to TOW. I think you'll have a horrible time sourcing enough of them to make a force.

As conversion fodder no.

But if the upgrade sprue fitted acceptably onto the newer models GW could potentially release the new kits with those ones instead of the older ones.

Those models were actually pretty nice (if still fiddly).

Probably unlikely though - hence ‘hopium’…

Agreed-TK weapons on VC skeletons was the way to go; I've seen a whole army converted that way and it looked fantastic.