Rob Alderman (current GW product development manager for Middle Earth and Blood Bowl) has now been appointed as product development manager for The Old World too (posted on facebook)
sadly he's not let slip any details, but it may well indicate they're (GW) getting towards the point where they are planning what to make (as opposed to kicking game development and art assets around)
Apparently the main reason GW is bringing back Fantasy is to hurt Kings of War and Conquest. Their thinking is "if it hurts their sales good if it doesn't oh well we made a few extra quid".
That is 100% the reason. It keeps people from playing other competitor games. Do you really think GW is going to support it like AoS or 40k? It is under Specialist Games which is a FW division of games (not the two main GW studios).
Why would they bring back a game that was outsold by paint hahahaha. It was dead. I was routinely the only player playing it in my local city for tournaments. The people who are excited it's coming back didn't even play 7th or 8th ed, they were just pissy it changed. The two things gamers hate are change and not change.
But no; they’re doing it because not everyone in the studio wanted to literally blow up the old world. Indeed, hardly anyone actually wanted that and the list of people that wanted the goofy talk to your imaginary horse rules was even shorter. They just happened to be the CEO at the time.
Apparently the main reason GW is bringing back Fantasy is to hurt Kings of War and Conquest. Their thinking is "if it hurts their sales good if it doesn't oh well we made a few extra quid".
That is 100% the reason. It keeps people from playing other competitor games. Do you really think GW is going to support it like AoS or 40k? It is under Specialist Games which is a FW division of games (not the two main GW studios).
Why would they bring back a game that was outsold by paint hahahaha. It was dead. I was routinely the only player playing it in my local city for tournaments. The people who are excited it's coming back didn't even play 7th or 8th ed, they were just pissy it changed. The two things gamers hate are change and not change.
This is just an absurd take. Paint isn't some niche thing that they only sell small amounts of, it outselling WHFB is quite meaningful as it no doubt outsells many of their products. Like, it's a potentially appeals to all of their customers regardless of which game they play, and even people outside GWs games, of course it sells.
It being "under specialist games" doesn't mean it can't be a decently sized thing on its own, or later expanded if it does well. And regardless of that, it's a return to a beloved setting that people want more of, that's enough to get interest.
Saying they're only doing it to spite another much smaller competitor just comes across as ignoring that games like Vermintide and Total War Warhammer generated popularity for a setting that no longer exists, that they abruptly destroyed rather than try and fix the problem even after they'd just done more with it than they had in years, and that was a decision made under previous management that they may now realize with their new leadership, was a bit of a poor move as there is still interest.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I believe Mantic's HQ is located about 15 minutes drive from Warhammer World, and Warlord Games HQ is only a few minutes walk away, I'm surprised they don't TP each other's buildings after a few too many drinks.
Why would they? They're all friends. Though the drinking part is probably right, as GW/Mantic/Warlord/etc - all the Nottingham companies - hang out and play games. The internet has perpetuated this myth that these companies all hate each other; then the next day there's pics of Alessio Cavatore, Jervis Johnson, John Stallard, Rick Priestley all playing a game hosted at the Perry's house.
What I said was mostly a joke, though "TPing" a place is a pretty tame act, it's not like I said "burned down" or something like that, lol, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some rivalry between the companies.
That said, if you watch interviews with a lot of the old guys who have now left GW, some of them definitely feel like they may hold some ill feelings towards GW, so I'm not entirely sure it's all "internet myth". That's not a commentary on individual relationships though, you can dislike a company while still getting along with certain people that make up that company.
Seriously. If my experience is anything to go by, the games industry is small, and people are friends and former co-workers with people in various companies. Obviously there's competition between companies, but the biggest ones are competing with other entertainment brands like Marvel, Disney, etc., not with little tabletop games companies.
If The Old World takes off, I imagine that it will occupy a similar space to Horus Heresy, has recently established itself as GW's fourth tentpole game.
Warhammer Fantasy Battles had, what? At least 10 major factions, TOW will introduce at least 2 more, each needs a minimum of 5 kits just to get started...
Maybe if they just support Cathay and Kislev at the start with legacy rules for the rest and occasional made to order...
The time frame is set during the Empire civil war, so we see a core box with humans that can be build as 1 or 2 factions, while FW will release resin upgrades to modify them for specific states (1 shield upgrade, 1 head/helm upgrade
likely we see unit bases with 25/28mm round slots to use the AoS models and 2-3 additional kits for core factions
there will be a rule book and a 2-3 faction books for the army lists and either campaign books with new units or army books added over time
which is enough to get the nostalgia crowed jump full into it
Possibility that they would fall back on the “season” model? I.E. start with a “season of chaos” that has Daemons and Cathay then move on to a compatible season of storms that is Kislev vs. Marauders/chaos warriors a year later. Continue with one old vs. one new faction every year. That way they only need one set of new sprues cut (and to dig out all the old square base moulds) and just rebox stuff they’re already using for AoS otherwise. That could go on for a while…
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Is that guessing or has someone said that's the plan?
guessing based on what was said (and there is not a lot information in the first place, as showing concept art does not mean a lot as what was shown was related to new factions in TWW, which does not mean those are the first factions in TOW)
but as I previously wrote, I don't think GW had a plan in the first place and still not decided what exactly it will be (as the release slot will be 2025, with a big maybe for 2024 if AoS last longer than expected
Mr_Rose wrote: Possibility that they would fall back on the “season” model? I.E. start with a “season of chaos” that has Daemons and Cathay then move on to a compatible season of storms that is Kislev vs. Marauders/chaos warriors a year later. Continue with one old vs. one new faction every year. That way they only need one set of new sprues cut (and to dig out all the old square base moulds) and just rebox stuff they’re already using for AoS otherwise. That could go on for a while…
I'd be dead and mummified by the time GW even considers releasing Season of Sands with Araby versus Tomb Kings.
Warhammer Fantasy Battles had, what? At least 10 major factions, TOW will introduce at least 2 more, each needs a minimum of 5 kits just to get started...
Maybe if they just support Cathay and Kislev at the start with legacy rules for the rest and occasional made to order...
Yeah I still don't see this going well.
If you think on content being added on long term planning, so that they always have something to sell, instead of supporting everything at once at launch - exactly like Horus Heresy, in the end - it makes sense...from their point of view.
From a gamer's point of view (especially those waiting the time their faction's miniatures are available), it won't go well at all.
That's sadly the point of the TOW project, IMHO. It's just another product name in their Specialist Game catalogue.
See how much time we have to wait for all the Blood Bowl teams to be there ? Well, that's how I see TOW will end being.
Except a BB team can be done on a single spure. I figure a Fantasy army in 28mm needs at least 5 kits to be viable.
2 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 monster/war machine, 1 leader. And that's a bare minimum.
Some factions are still on sale and can go right away. But rebuilding the Elves, the Dwarves and other factions that are all but gone is a major project.
Apparently the main reason GW is bringing back Fantasy is to hurt Kings of War and Conquest. Their thinking is "if it hurts their sales good if it doesn't oh well we made a few extra quid".
That is 100% the reason. It keeps people from playing other competitor games. Do you really think GW is going to support it like AoS or 40k? It is under Specialist Games which is a FW division of games (not the two main GW studios).
Why would they bring back a game that was outsold by paint hahahaha. It was dead. I was routinely the only player playing it in my local city for tournaments. The people who are excited it's coming back didn't even play 7th or 8th ed, they were just pissy it changed. The two things gamers hate are change and not change.
Dead as in top-3 miniature game seller. 40k, star wars, fb
The biggest issue is that those ranges have a variety of old and new designs and never got a comprehensive update like, say, Dark Elves. High Elves are close. They got a lot of stuff in 8th ed, though Sea Guard are monopose starter set models. Spearmen and I think Bolt Throwers, and probably something else I forgot, would be in dire need of new sculpts. In the case of Sea Guard, GW has the CAD files. They'd just have to make a new mold, mostly because of the command section as they used to sell five normal infantrymen separately.
If GW wanted to reactivate more recent sculpts like that, they could save themselves a lot of time and get a fair amount of the old factions back on sale by redoing their older sculpts. It's the only viable way I could see us get all the old factions back at least in a somewhat shortish time frame, by GW's standards anyway.
Starting from scratch with some Imperial civil war may satisfy GW's desire to sell us all new stuff, but I'm not sure how much interest there is in dudes with puffy sleeves punching other dudes with puffy sleeves. Unlike Horus Heresy, old Fantasy had a good spread on interest in different factions. It simply didn't have the Marine factor that would allow GW to focus on the largest group of customers and worry about scraps for the rest later.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Except a BB team can be done on a single spure. I figure a Fantasy army in 28mm needs at least 5 kits to be viable.
2 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 monster/war machine, 1 leader. And that's a bare minimum.
Some factions are still on sale and can go right away. But rebuilding the Elves, the Dwarves and other factions that are all but gone is a major project.
Honestly for most wargames that bare minimum is enough to make the army functional. However if you look at armies in AoS right now which are almost at that level - Flesheaters, Fyreslayers, Ossiarchs - then the interest in them is light unless they are so broken they win games on auto mode (and even then the interest is often more online drama).
Instead you look at armies like Genestealer Cults and Lumineth - both of which got big sales and popularity boosts with a solid second wave of models.
Now you can cut things down - a vanguard/welcome pack that can be done on one or two sprue that has multiple groups can form a cheaper to get started core both investment and customer wise. You can also design duel and triple kits - of course these vary a lot. Sometimes a simple weapon and head swap is ok but not really making much different; sometimes its like the Gargant kit and the variations are quite significant.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Except a BB team can be done on a single spure. I figure a Fantasy army in 28mm needs at least 5 kits to be viable.
2 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 monster/war machine, 1 leader. And that's a bare minimum.
Some factions are still on sale and can go right away. But rebuilding the Elves, the Dwarves and other factions that are all but gone is a major project.
I do totally agree (for Blood Bowl,I'd also add the team terrain, cards, dices and the Spike! magazine). So it'd take even more time in the end...which means more content to fill the gaps in the production planning for years. I guess from GW's point of view, it's very good...
tneva82 wrote: Dead as in top-3 miniature game seller. 40k, star wars, fb
I'm guessing you're talking about the ICv2 top seller lists, since we have nothing else to go on. Last time WHFB was even a blip on that chart was 2013, two years before it was canned. By the time of its death it was behind Warmachine and Hordes individually, as well as all the X-wing knockoffs.
Warhammer Fantasy Battles had, what? At least 10 major factions, TOW will introduce at least 2 more, each needs a minimum of 5 kits just to get started...
Maybe if they just support Cathay and Kislev at the start with legacy rules for the rest and occasional made to order...
Yeah I still don't see this going well.
I half expect them to shoehorn new AoS models onto square bases.
I guess a big question is "what will a regiment look like?" In WHFB it was typically a 4 to 6" wide regiment of 5 to 6 models and 4 or 5 ranks deep. They could go the ASOIF route and have regiments with a similar footprint but are only 12 models, at that point AoS models could work fine for most armies. Though I think they said something about old models being compatible, which made me think they'd try and work with the original 20 and 25mm square bases, in which case most AoS models are too chunky to work.
The big question really isn't how it will compete with 3rd parties outside of GW; its how it will compete directly with AoS within GW.
That's the real sticky area. Are we going to end up with GW messing both games around to give them their own identity. Will they try and push AoS from a wargame to a skirmish game so that Old World becomes the wargame with larger infantry blocks whilst in AoS you can only take smaller units?
Are they just going to do it with bases or are they going to start making AoS infantry impossible to physically rank up close together? Are they going to make one tighter rules and the other full "beer and pretzels silly/daft/wild" on the rules?
One big risk is that marines are the enigma. Horus Heresy works but it works because Marines are a supreme selling machine with decades of marketing and fans with an unbroken period of 30 years releases. Old World has had a 5-10 year break and never had a marine army.
Or perhaps GW won't care. One massive bonus is if Old World fails the nature of AoS means that they can just roll the models from one game into AoS and leave it at that. It's technically a little harder lore wise to do the reverse, but heck they could go that way too if AoS got left in the dust.
Ranked infantry blocks? Not so much variety needed overall, because they’re inherently limited in movement and the game mechanics.
If we breakdown WHFB? There weren’t that many unit types overall.
You had….Skirmishers, Ranged Infantry, Combat Infantry, Cavalry, Chariots, Big Infantry (Ogres etc) Monsters and Artillery - plus of course characters.
Now each of those types of course had sub types (heavy infantry, horde infantry, ranged infantry, medium infantry) and of course unit or racial rules added further variety.
And an armies access to those also varied. But breaking it down that’s the main options.
tneva82 wrote: Dead as in top-3 miniature game seller. 40k, star wars, fb
I'm guessing you're talking about the ICv2 top seller lists, since we have nothing else to go on. Last time WHFB was even a blip on that chart was 2013, two years before it was canned.
ICv2 was never a good indicator because of the bias in the polling method (they didn't poll GW stores or online store), and from memory it only considered the US (maybe I'm misremembering?) and we know WHFB was never as popular in the US as it was elsewhere in the world.
Space Marines massively bias any comparison. I remember the comment that WHFB was outsold by Space Marines alone, but Space Marines outsold the rest of 40k combined also, hell, GW just had great success with their Space Marine vs Space Marine game in which most 40k factions don't exist and the ones that do don't have rules anyway.
Ranked infantry blocks? Not so much variety needed overall, because they’re inherently limited in movement and the game mechanics.
If we breakdown WHFB? There weren’t that many unit types overall.
You had….Skirmishers, Ranged Infantry, Combat Infantry, Cavalry, Chariots, Big Infantry (Ogres etc) Monsters and Artillery - plus of course characters.
Now each of those types of course had sub types (heavy infantry, horde infantry, ranged infantry, medium infantry) and of course unit or racial rules added further variety.
And an armies access to those also varied. But breaking it down that’s the main options.
You listed 9 categories, so that's quite a lot.
Lets face it, WHFB got very bloated in its range and it needed a cull (even though I didn't want them to cull the whole bloody game!), but even ignoring that bloat to make a WHFB army the bare minimum would (I think) be 2 infantry kits, a cav, a character, something special and something rare.
ICv2 was US retail only and Warhammer Fantasy never got big in the US in the first place
and while 40k was ahead in the US at the same time Fantasy was in Europe (no retail numbers but you can compare the numbers of players on events)
Starting from scratch with some Imperial civil war may satisfy GW's desire to sell us all new stuff, but I'm not sure how much interest there is in dudes with puffy sleeves punching other dudes with puffy sleeves. Unlike Horus Heresy, old Fantasy had a good spread on interest in different factions. It simply didn't have the Marine factor that would allow GW to focus on the largest group of customers and worry about scraps for the rest later.
there is enough interest in "omg they bring it back" to make it a success and as most people who are going to play it still have their armies or just 3D print it, it does not really matter that there is not more to start
1 update per year in models, with new 2 player sets is enough to keep things going
like what to we have now, a map and a promise and people are all-in
kodos wrote: ICv2 was US retail only and Warhammer Fantasy never got big in the US in the first place
and while 40k was ahead in the US at the same time Fantasy was in Europe (no retail numbers but you can compare the numbers of players on events)
Starting from scratch with some Imperial civil war may satisfy GW's desire to sell us all new stuff, but I'm not sure how much interest there is in dudes with puffy sleeves punching other dudes with puffy sleeves. Unlike Horus Heresy, old Fantasy had a good spread on interest in different factions. It simply didn't have the Marine factor that would allow GW to focus on the largest group of customers and worry about scraps for the rest later.
there is enough interest in "omg they bring it back" to make it a success and as most people who are going to play it still have their armies or just 3D print it, it does not really matter that there is not more to start
1 update per year in models, with new 2 player sets is enough to keep things going
like what to we have now, a map and a promise and people are all-in
Are they? All that's been seen is two maps, which have been bitched about. And some concept art which was REALLY bitched about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: well, it is super easy to be all-in and stop playing anything else and wait for years based on a promise
and for those people, an official rule book and the promise for support is enough
Have you seen anyone who has actually done this though? Thrown everything to the side and is now sitting around twiddling their thumbs for five plus years while they wait?
going via the old Warhammer channels, people are already saving up money and stop playing other games while bringing their old armies into shape to be ready day 1
going via the old Warhammer channels, people are already saving up money and stop playing other games while bringing their old armies into shape to be ready day 1
going via the old Warhammer channels, people are already saving up money and stop playing other games while bringing their old armies into shape to be ready day 1
It will be interesting to see what the actual scope is; a full reboot of every prior faction seems unlikely but the implication from some of the articles seems to be that they'll at least all have rules, even if no new models. I wouldn't be surprised if the core focus of the launch stuff is based around the Time of Three Emperors conflict so that it can be similar to the Horus Heresy (i.e. miniatures that can be either used to form one army or 2 opposing ones).
going via the old Warhammer channels, people are already saving up money and stop playing other games while bringing their old armies into shape to be ready day 1
kodos wrote: well, it is super easy to be all-in and stop playing anything else and wait for years based on a promise
and for those people, an official rule book and the promise for support is enough
I don't think anyone has stopped and is pausing. Perhaps they've stopped investing into game X and are playing game Y because they hope that the new Warhammer game will replace X for them.
But otherwise no one is just sitting there waiting - a few might well be, but I'd not suspect that to be anywhere near a majority or significant number. Especially right now. A few might have started going full stop until the reality of "3 years at the very absolute least and that was before a global pandemic" hit home.
And people argue over everything online. From official models to paint jobs to concepts to maps to whatever.
kodos wrote: going via the old Warhammer channels, people are already saving up money and stop playing other games while bringing their old armies into shape to be ready day 1
I find that incredibly difficult to believe that people would drop everything and do nothing for half a decade. At minimum.
a lot of people expected it to drop sooner than later
even here a lot thought it will be released together with TWW3 or at least in the same year
that HH took the spot some believed was meant for TOW was a surprise, and I have already said it, a lot of those that are hyped now (better said, still are) will be disappointed at best
Overread wrote: But otherwise no one is just sitting there waiting
not just waiting, but waiting and building
one of the local players stopped everything else and is now building and painting a Chaos Army from scratch because he want to be ready (he also thought that TOW will be 2022/23 because of the "soon" from GW), another one is doing the same with an Empire army
following old logs/blogs, a lot of them started over again, stopping current games/projects to get an TOW army ready
there are not many of course, but for those it does not matter how many new kits or factions will be there in release, they just want official rules and support
How could anyone possibly be "ready" when there's absolutely no clue what the rules are? He could spend this time building a completely invalidated force before (and if) the game ever launches.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: a lot of people expected it to drop sooner than later
even here a lot thought it will be released together with TWW3 or at least in the same year
that HH took the spot some believed was meant for TOW was a surprise, and I have already said it, a lot of those that are hyped now (better said, still are) will be disappointed at best
Overread wrote: But otherwise no one is just sitting there waiting
not just waiting, but waiting and building
one of the local players stopped everything else and is now building and painting a Chaos Army from scratch because he want to be ready (he also thought that TOW will be 2022/23 because of the "soon" from GW), another one is doing the same with an Empire army
following old logs/blogs, a lot of them started over again, stopping current games/projects to get an TOW army ready
there are not many of course, but for those it does not matter how many new kits or factions will be there in release, they just want official rules and support
People who believed that deluded themselves when they were explicitly told 3 years minimum. And that was before the pandemic hit.
kodos wrote: one of the local players stopped everything else and is now building and painting a Chaos Army from scratch because he want to be ready (he also thought that TOW will be 2022/23 because of the "soon" from GW), another one is doing the same with an Empire army
Then find out GW's units aren't anything at all like he builds
tneva82 wrote: Dead as in top-3 miniature game seller. 40k, star wars, fb
I'm guessing you're talking about the ICv2 top seller lists, since we have nothing else to go on. Last time WHFB was even a blip on that chart was 2013, two years before it was canned.
ICv2 was never a good indicator because of the bias in the polling method (they didn't poll GW stores or online store), and from memory it only considered the US (maybe I'm misremembering?) and we know WHFB was never as popular in the US as it was elsewhere in the world.
Space Marines massively bias any comparison. I remember the comment that WHFB was outsold by Space Marines alone, but Space Marines outsold the rest of 40k combined also, hell, GW just had great success with their Space Marine vs Space Marine game in which most 40k factions don't exist and the ones that do don't have rules anyway.
Ranked infantry blocks? Not so much variety needed overall, because they’re inherently limited in movement and the game mechanics.
If we breakdown WHFB? There weren’t that many unit types overall.
You had….Skirmishers, Ranged Infantry, Combat Infantry, Cavalry, Chariots, Big Infantry (Ogres etc) Monsters and Artillery - plus of course characters.
Now each of those types of course had sub types (heavy infantry, horde infantry, ranged infantry, medium infantry) and of course unit or racial rules added further variety.
And an armies access to those also varied. But breaking it down that’s the main options.
You listed 9 categories, so that's quite a lot.
Lets face it, WHFB got very bloated in its range and it needed a cull (even though I didn't want them to cull the whole bloody game!), but even ignoring that bloat to make a WHFB army the bare minimum would (I think) be 2 infantry kits, a cav, a character, something special and something rare.
I don’t agree the game became bloated.
I think the main issue is that over the editions, as long term players collections expanded, so did the scope of the rules to enable people to use more of their collections. Sadly, they lost sight of keeping the entry cost reasonable. And due to the mechanics, a 1,000 point game wasn’t all that satisfying, as army selection cut out a bunch of options. So if you wanted to field a Dragon, for instance, you needed a 2,000 point army. Which got more and more expensive over the editions.
I think the main issue is that over the editions, as long term players collections expanded, so did the scope of the rules to enable people to use more of their collections. Sadly, they lost sight of keeping the entry cost reasonable. And due to the mechanics, a 1,000 point game wasn’t all that satisfying, as army selection cut out a bunch of options. So if you wanted to field a Dragon, for instance, you needed a 2,000 point army. Which got more and more expensive over the editions.
When I say bloated I didn't mean points cost, I mean the shear number of SKU's that needed to be maintained. A quick flick through some of the old Army Books and it was pretty typical for armies to have 15 to 20 unit entries not including characters, throw on another 5 or so character options and 5 to 10 special characters, multiplied by, what was it in the end, 13 factions? That's a huge range, even if some of those options were dual kits or whatever, it's still a whole lot of individual products and options.
I do also think the rules were a bit bloated, though they kind of always were bloated rather than "becoming" bloated. It was GW's typical style of long winded rules, rules spread across multiple locations within books and then across multiple books. One of the last games I played was me and a friend trying to get into a new edition and spending ages just flipping from book to book and rule to rule to perform what felt like something that should be simple.
tneva82 wrote: Dead as in top-3 miniature game seller. 40k, star wars, fb
I'm guessing you're talking about the ICv2 top seller lists, since we have nothing else to go on. Last time WHFB was even a blip on that chart was 2013, two years before it was canned.
ICv2 was never a good indicator because of the bias in the polling method (they didn't poll GW stores or online store), and from memory it only considered the US (maybe I'm misremembering?) and we know WHFB was never as popular in the US as it was elsewhere in the world.
Space Marines massively bias any comparison. I remember the comment that WHFB was outsold by Space Marines alone, but Space Marines outsold the rest of 40k combined also, hell, GW just had great success with their Space Marine vs Space Marine game in which most 40k factions don't exist and the ones that do don't have rules anyway.
Ranked infantry blocks? Not so much variety needed overall, because they’re inherently limited in movement and the game mechanics.
If we breakdown WHFB? There weren’t that many unit types overall.
You had….Skirmishers, Ranged Infantry, Combat Infantry, Cavalry, Chariots, Big Infantry (Ogres etc) Monsters and Artillery - plus of course characters.
Now each of those types of course had sub types (heavy infantry, horde infantry, ranged infantry, medium infantry) and of course unit or racial rules added further variety.
And an armies access to those also varied. But breaking it down that’s the main options.
You listed 9 categories, so that's quite a lot.
Lets face it, WHFB got very bloated in its range and it needed a cull (even though I didn't want them to cull the whole bloody game!), but even ignoring that bloat to make a WHFB army the bare minimum would (I think) be 2 infantry kits, a cav, a character, something special and something rare.
I don’t agree the game became bloated.
I think the main issue is that over the editions, as long term players collections expanded, so did the scope of the rules to enable people to use more of their collections. Sadly, they lost sight of keeping the entry cost reasonable. And due to the mechanics, a 1,000 point game wasn’t all that satisfying, as army selection cut out a bunch of options. So if you wanted to field a Dragon, for instance, you needed a 2,000 point army. Which got more and more expensive over the editions.
Agreed. Heck 40K armies are easily as big as Old World 2K armies were back in the day - some might even be bigger if you build your force a certain way (swarm Tyranids).
The issues for Old World were many; but a huge part was that there was this massive entry barrier. You "needed" to hit that 2K or at least 1.5K for the game to work. You could play at smaller point values but the system didn't work all that well. Some armies were very imbalanced and some almost didn't function. Plus small point value games looked and played a little daft. Hit 500points and you're basically just lining up and charging forward with your two or three units without much to move around or play with.
Old World also needed investment and attention. End Times showed that there was still a healthy legacy interest with gamers and could easily have been used to build up hype for a new edition and to at the very least re-activate the long term fans and get them gaming. Get them back in and then introduce smaller scale games and systems to make entry games. GW could easily have done something like Warcry/Killteam and Underworlds boardgames and skirmish games to ease people in. Nothing AoS has done are things that Old World could not have done - heck even most of the armies in AoS could fit into Old World very easily.
Khadorans are Dwarves who followed that crazed scottish dwarf and rejected the Engineers Guild's restrictions on technology; Ossiarchs are Nagash's newest creation upon his return; Nighthaunt represent a powerful swath of magic flooding the world and the once slaved ghosts of the Vampires fragmenting off in great enough numbers to form their own forces etc....
Looking forward to this VERY tempted to make a Skaven force for it.. Now I assume that they are going to focus on some factions to start with like the Imperial Civil War of succession before they do the wider roster... Id love to see a supplement a'la Ravening Hordes for it...
Just got to see where it goes ... I wonder if they will retcon "The End Times" or the "Rushed Apocalypse" as I like to call it.
But I doubt it because it was believe it or not the best selling bow out for the old world..I like AoS though would like to see the rules for Warhammer be less bulky no cards more intrigating the magic into a dice pool for casting..
Was it really 13 major factions? Let me see, I get:
1-Elves, High
2-Elves, Dark
3-Elves, Wood
4-Dwarves
5-Humans, Empire
6-Humans, Brettonian
7-Humans, Vampiric
8-Humans, Skeletal
9-Humans, Chaotic
10-Humans, Lizard
11-Ogres
12-Orcs and Goblins
13-Daemons
OK Undead, Orcs and Ogres, and Chaos could be squished back together but yeah that is a lot, a lot lot.
I know GW has refuted this more than once, but a smaller scale game where you could do an army on a sprue or two would make so much sense. I don't want to say Warmaster, but something like Warmaster.
Because now GW would be supporting 3 slightly different 28mm fantasy war games plus I dunno how many skirmish games.
I think the main issue is that over the editions, as long term players collections expanded, so did the scope of the rules to enable people to use more of their collections. Sadly, they lost sight of keeping the entry cost reasonable. And due to the mechanics, a 1,000 point game wasn’t all that satisfying, as army selection cut out a bunch of options. So if you wanted to field a Dragon, for instance, you needed a 2,000 point army. Which got more and more expensive over the editions.
When I say bloated I didn't mean points cost, I mean the shear number of SKU's that needed to be maintained. A quick flick through some of the old Army Books and it was pretty typical for armies to have 15 to 20 unit entries not including characters, throw on another 5 or so character options and 5 to 10 special characters, multiplied by, what was it in the end, 13 factions? That's a huge range, even if some of those options were dual kits or whatever, it's still a whole lot of individual products and options.
I do also think the rules were a bit bloated, though they kind of always were bloated rather than "becoming" bloated. It was GW's typical style of long winded rules, rules spread across multiple locations within books and then across multiple books. One of the last games I played was me and a friend trying to get into a new edition and spending ages just flipping from book to book and rule to rule to perform what felt like something that should be simple.
Is there a viable fix to the extensive model ranges, though? Ask me, The Old World is not true to the legacy it claims unless I can play my Tomb Kings. And if everyone else has modern models, I don't want to be stuck with my two decades old army looking sad and out of place. So I want rules and model support for Tomb Kings. Ask another person, they'll say the same about Brettonians, Ogre Kingdoms, Warriors of Chaos, and so forth. For good or ill, Warhammer Fantasy left a legacy of several decades and people who don't feel their once supported faction is catered to will dispute that the Old World is what it claims to be.
How is GW to respond to that? They'll to find some solution if they actually want the game to be working nostalgia bait.
in the usual GW way, as they base TOW on an existing edition with some modification, they are just taking the exiting army list, remove most special rules and be done
no thinking ahead or playtesting needed, this can be done later with campaign books (and there only the factions of the campaign need to work)
and 4 books and 1 starter set does not take that much shelf space
GW has shown many times that they don't need a good product to sell, they just need the promise of a good product and the right IP
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Was it really 13 major factions? Let me see, I get:
10-Humans, Lizard
I know they're called 'Lizardmen' but delineating them as 'humans' is... yeah.
(It's a joke)
I shall take your word for it.
Re. the scale; I can't imagine they'd want to alienate the potential for cross-compatibility with stuff like the (upcoming) Cities of Sigmar releases or some of the other existing AoS models that are definitely just lifted from an Old World aesthetic (the Witch Hunters from Underwords etc.). I remember when that set got revealed on stream and barely a single comment was about players actually using them for Underworlds as opposed to using them for Mordhiem or something. They'd basically have to do almost nothing to the Chaos ranges to make them suitable. Plus the notion that existing collections will still be compatible (remains to be seen if that will stick of course).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think the main issue is that over the editions, as long term players collections expanded, so did the scope of the rules to enable people to use more of their collections. Sadly, they lost sight of keeping the entry cost reasonable. And due to the mechanics, a 1,000 point game wasn’t all that satisfying, as army selection cut out a bunch of options. So if you wanted to field a Dragon, for instance, you needed a 2,000 point army. Which got more and more expensive over the editions.
That's a really interesting idea, actually. If you boil things down, "What do players want out of WHFB?" And I think you're right. People want a big monster or centerpiece. They want a variety of units. And it doesn't seem out of line to have that be a game you could play in an evening. But by the end, you really couldn't. That would be a good place for them to start planning and scaling things.
kodos wrote: going via the old Warhammer channels, people are already saving up money and stop playing other games while bringing their old armies into shape to be ready day 1
I find that incredibly difficult to believe that people would drop everything and do nothing for half a decade. At minimum.
So do I but at the time of the first annoucement even in Matic channels I saw droves of people saying "oh I was gonna try KoW with the new edition comign out but now I'll just wait for TOW"
Presumably they're playing something in the mean time but it's not a Fantasy replacement, and it was peculiar how GW accidentally by happenstance fired a torpedo and it randomly hit Mantic in the face at the perfect time.
I'm excited to see what kits come out with the game, and what the game and theme is like.
I'd imagine that Horus Heresy release the last few months is a pretty good indicator of what old world will be like when it (eventually) comes out. (good selection of core plastic kits, and resin characters and upgrade kits).
I do find it hard to believe there will be many factions at launch. Definitely Humans for sure (and maybe sharing core kits for multiple factions, with upgrade kits giving character?).
Besides that, who knows. Makes a lot of financial sense for there to be a civil war as the backdrop of the game, and get more millage out of universal plastic human kits which work for multiple factions.
I never played Fantasy, so I'm not nostalgic for the old game, I'm just excited to see what they do.
jaredb wrote: I'm excited to see what kits come out with the game, and what the game and theme is like.
I'd imagine that Horus Heresy release the last few months is a pretty good indicator of what old world will be like when it (eventually) comes out. (good selection of core plastic kits, and resin characters and upgrade kits).
I do find it hard to believe there will be many factions at launch. Definitely Humans for sure (and maybe sharing core kits for multiple factions, with upgrade kits giving character?).
Besides that, who knows. Makes a lot of financial sense for there to be a civil war as the backdrop of the game, and get more millage out of universal plastic human kits which work for multiple factions.
I never played Fantasy, so I'm not nostalgic for the old game, I'm just excited to see what they do.
I agree but those 'multiple different factions' would be more 'different flavours of Empire' as opposed to multiple human factions. Not that there couldn't be a solid amount of variety between those looks but a 'generic human' kit wouldn't really work without completely undermining the established aesthetics (something they've shown no indication of doing). Imperials, Tileans, Bretonnians, Norse, Kislev and Cathay all look very different to one another. If that's indeed the way they start out then I'd expect it to be more a case of shared, core Empire troops that can be slit between sub-factions ala Reikland, Middenheim, Ostland etc. probably with resin upgrades to characterise them more.
Will it be new rules or 8th edition ? Both! We’ve played every single edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles over the years and like every player, we have our favourite bits from each. Warhammer: The Old World will gather up all our favourite mechanics from the 3rd edition to the 8th edition** and add new elements where needed to create something deeply familiar yet fresh and new.
And then we have the new edition of Horus Heresy and Blood Bowl as a perfect example for what GW means with "both new and old" ; a few rule changes like reaction system in HH but the core mechanic is the same as the old.
I expect the Old World will be the same (please combine profiles like chariots in 8th for monster riders ).
kodos wrote: going via the old Warhammer channels, people are already saving up money and stop playing other games while bringing their old armies into shape to be ready day 1
I find that incredibly difficult to believe that people would drop everything and do nothing for half a decade. At minimum.
So do I but at the time of the first annoucement even in Matic channels I saw droves of people saying "oh I was gonna try KoW with the new edition comign out but now I'll just wait for TOW"
Presumably they're playing something in the mean time but it's not a Fantasy replacement, and it was peculiar how GW accidentally by happenstance fired a torpedo and it randomly hit Mantic in the face at the perfect time.
The WTOW facebook group is filled with these folks. I do not find it hard to believe at all that lots of people are just fence-sitting, waiting for this
lord_blackfang wrote: Seems worth pointing out the first announcement was 3 years ago and they just appointed a guy this week to start tinking about what the game will be.
I don't think we can do more than speculate that this is what that appointment signifies (unless there's something in the wording of the article saying otherwise; I can't actually find where that was announced). For all we know he's been handling that for The Old World internally for a while but has only been formally added as part of his title because the game is 'nearer' completion. Or someone else was doing the role and responsibilities moved round. Or there wasn't a need for a specific product developer to be assigned to the game until this point and it's been sat with the design team. A Product Developer Manager isn't necessarily involved with the core design mechanics of a game or the miniatures involved (certainly not necessarily prior to the latter stages of development).
Not saying your take is wrong, more that we don't know how or even if this is significant in terms of the development cycle.
lord_blackfang wrote: Seems worth pointing out the first announcement was 3 years ago and they just appointed a guy this week to start tinking about what the game will be.
"Wait, the game needs to be about something?!?"
-GW Executives, probably
The thing I'm most interested to see is the scale of the upcoming minis. If they are roughly the same scale (25-28mm) I'll be really interested in the offering. If they are in the "anywhere from 30-45mm range" that AoS humans are in, I'll probably give them a pass unless they have some truly great chaos marauders, which I would get for nostalgia purposes, probably.
EDIT: Or Tileans, which I would definitely buy. However, my wallet can rest safely, as there is no way that they are gonna make Tileans. Not any time soon, at least.
Carlovonsexron wrote: The thing I'm most interested to see is the scale of the upcoming minis. If they are roughly the same scale (25-28mm) I'll be really interested in the offering. If they are in the "anywhere from 30-45mm range" that AoS humans are in, I'll probably give them a pass unless they have some truly great chaos marauders, which I would get for nostalgia purposes, probably.
EDIT: Or Tileans, which I would definitely buy. However, my wallet can rest safely, as there is no way that they are gonna make Tileans. Not any time soon, at least.
I'd just take a Made to Order run of the 90s Dogs of War range at this point.
Carlovonsexron wrote: The thing I'm most interested to see is the scale of the upcoming minis. If they are roughly the same scale (25-28mm) I'll be really interested in the offering. If they are in the "anywhere from 30-45mm range" that AoS humans are in, I'll probably give them a pass unless they have some truly great chaos marauders, which I would get for nostalgia purposes, probably.
EDIT: Or Tileans, which I would definitely buy. However, my wallet can rest safely, as there is no way that they are gonna make Tileans. Not any time soon, at least.
Scale is the same as WHFB and AoS. Hell a good chunk of AoS minis are WHFB kits.
Carlovonsexron wrote: The thing I'm most interested to see is the scale of the upcoming minis. If they are roughly the same scale (25-28mm) I'll be really interested in the offering. If they are in the "anywhere from 30-45mm range" that AoS humans are in, I'll probably give them a pass unless they have some truly great chaos marauders, which I would get for nostalgia purposes, probably.
EDIT: Or Tileans, which I would definitely buy. However, my wallet can rest safely, as there is no way that they are gonna make Tileans. Not any time soon, at least.
Scale is the same as WHFB and AoS. Hell a good chunk of AoS minis are WHFB kits.
Those aren't Age of Sigmar models, they are carry over warhammer models. Big difference
Nah, AoS humans are the same scale as WHFB was. People just like to compare roided out Chaos dudes, described as being immense compared to normal men, as if they are representative of the standard.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nah, AoS humans are the same scale as WHFB was. People just like to compare roided out Chaos dudes, described as being immense compared to normal men, as if they are representative of the standard.
I hope they bring back fixed charge/run distances. I really liked those, and they sped the game up. Also minimal attacks, where the standard is one attack per model.
Edit: Yup, a count of army books + Tarmukhan confirms 16.
I think Chaos Dwarves were well and truly dead long before 8th, I'd bet we see Codex Squats before we see the return of Chaos Dwarves.
Regardless the point is made, 15+ factions to be supported, I just don't see how this can work unless it's a launch box and some army books for your old armies. But GW hates selling rules if there's no model to sold as well!
But we're drifting off topic, so I started a new thread.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nah, AoS humans are the same scale as WHFB was. People just like to compare roided out Chaos dudes, described as being immense compared to normal men, as if they are representative of the standard.
U..huh
Thank you very, very much.
For what ever reason, people (not just NinthMusketeer) keep insisiting that the scale hasnt changed because older models are still included, and the size of stormcast and chaos warriors was an aberration. But they aren't- they are the new normal, and I'm not so keen on it. Don't get me wrong, they are magnificent, skillfully made models, and the designs are lovely, even if there are some i don't like.
But I don't want 35-45mm toy soldiers, I want 25/28mm.
Edit: which is why I'm interested in what scale the oldworld will be in, as I'm not really tempted by most AoS stuff anymore for he scale reason.
I for one prefer the proper scaling AOS models have - closer to an actual model scale of 1/48, versus the "28mm/32mm" not-a-scale sizing that WHFB was with giant melonheads and hamfists (note even in that screenshot the taller AOS models have the same head/hand sizes with the addition of actual waists).
"True" 28mm sizing such as MESBG and Perry Miniatures (like 1/60 to 1/56 scale) are and have always been significantly better looking that WHFB (and I say this as a person who has something like 180 meatball head skeletons in my Tomb Kings army)
I would agree that the larger scale might be better looking, but it will make ranking on 2omm bases even harder and while they look good by themselves it looks horrible when mixed with models at the older scale.
I'd rather GW stay consistant at 28mm for the old world so the new models don't look weird next to the old ones.
"True" 28mm sizing such as MESBG and Perry Miniatures (like 1/60 to 1/56 scale) are and have always been significantly better looking that WHFB (and I say this as a person who has something like 180 meatball head skeletons in my Tomb Kings army)
I VERY much agree with this, but I have learned to never hope for miracles from GW
Grail Seeker wrote: I would agree that the larger scale might be better looking, but it will make ranking on 2omm bases even harder and while they look good by themselves it looks horrible when mixed with models at the older scale.
I'd rather GW stay consistant at 28mm for the old world so the new models don't look weird next to the old ones.
Oh, yeah I'm not arguing that it change to an actual model scale, and it won't. Andy Hoare has already said it'll stay with GW's weird sizing. The actual issue is that of the core mechanics of WHFB, but I doubt they'll get rid of individual casualty removal
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thicker base, hero, tactical rock, compared to cherry picked peasants. That image tells the whole story of the "scale creep" myth alright.
An alternative explanation could be poor picture comprehension and a bit of no true Scotsman
Marauder to marauder, human to human, same base, no tactical rocks. (As noted in image description the AoS ones are shorter due to pose/hat not a reduced scale.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's comparing the two normal AoS humans to a bloodreaver. Note how even within the context of only AoS releases how fething big those guys are; they are not at all meant to be normal human size. This is what leads to the "scale creep" myth; misinformed comparisons of base humans to minis which are very much not.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nah, AoS humans are the same scale as WHFB was. People just like to compare roided out Chaos dudes, described as being immense compared to normal men, as if they are representative of the standard.
U..huh
Thank you very, very much.
For what ever reason, people (not just NinthMusketeer) keep insisiting that the scale hasnt changed because older models are still included, and the size of stormcast and chaos warriors was an aberration.
Here's comparing the two normal AoS humans to a bloodreaver. Note how even within the context of only AoS releases how fething big those guys are; they are not at all meant to be normal human size. This is what leads to the "scale creep" myth; misinformed comparisons of base humans to minis which are very much not.
They're basically the same size my man, the difference in their height is bordering on negligible.
And as a counter point to the argument, I present a comparasion of the new Lumineth Spearmen to the old High Elf Spearman. Rather clearly one can notice, that one is noticeably bigger, nearly a head taller whilst not standing up straight, and significantly bulkier.
Cursed City heroes, Bloodreavers and Kairic Acolytes are taller than average Warcry humans. I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on them. We don't know the intended scale of AoS humans until the first human army is released next year.
I expect Old World models to be better proportioned than WHFB models. If this means that they are slightly taller than old models, I can live with it.
Cool story with the warcry midgets, not sure why they count but my examples didn't. Speaking of picking and choosing, here are to my knowledge the only two humans ever actually released under AoS proper.
lord_blackfang wrote: Cool story with the warcry midgets, not sure why they count but my examples didn't. Speaking of picking and choosing, here are to my knowledge the only two humans ever actually released under AoS proper.
None of the models in your image were actually released for AoS, and it is an extremely dishonest comparison. If your point had merit you wouldn't be afraid to compare analogous minis with similar poses and no basing boosting their height. Every Warcry warband has been released for AoS proper as well, showing further lack of knowledge as to the product line. The entire premise and drive of your argument is to prove a point, not to actually figure out what is true.
lord_blackfang wrote: Cool story with the warcry midgets, not sure why they count but my examples didn't. Speaking of picking and choosing, here are to my knowledge the only two humans ever actually released under AoS proper.
None of the models in your image were actually released for AoS, and it is an extremely dishonest comparison. If your point had merit you wouldn't be afraid to compare analogous minis with similar poses and no basing boosting their height. Every Warcry warband has been released for AoS proper as well, showing further lack of knowledge as to the product line. The entire premise and drive of your argument is to prove a point, not to actually figure out what is true.
In turn, if your point had merit, you wouldn't simply ignore my own personal argument. But clearly, you must know that.
Here's comparing the two normal AoS humans to a bloodreaver. Note how even within the context of only AoS releases how fething big those guys are; they are not at all meant to be normal human size. This is what leads to the "scale creep" myth; misinformed comparisons of base humans to minis which are very much not.
They're basically the same size my man, the difference in their height is bordering on negligible.
And as a counter point to the argument, I present a comparasion of the new Lumineth Spearmen to the old High Elf Spearman. Rather clearly one can notice, that one is noticeably bigger, nearly a head taller whilst not standing up straight, and significantly bulkier.
Certainly won't catch me making the same argument in regards to elfs or dwarfs. I'm with you on that one.
I wouldn't even say AoS is 28mm, '28mm heroic' is the marketing lingo but really it is more like a 30mm scale. I only point out that is where WHFB was too; the (human) scale has remained largely consistent from 7th edition WHFB to now. But there was absolutely scale creep over the time of WHFB.
What has really happened in AoS is miniatures 'speading out' to make use of the space the larger bases & skirmish formations afford them. WHFB minis had to stay in their box, though obviously a growing number of kits struggled to do that, and what I expect out of TOW is larger base sizes on average with only some particularly small units at 20mm square.
lord_blackfang wrote: Cool story with the warcry midgets, not sure why they count but my examples didn't. Speaking of picking and choosing, here are to my knowledge the only two humans ever actually released under AoS proper.
None of the models in your image were actually released for AoS, and it is an extremely dishonest comparison. If your point had merit you wouldn't be afraid to compare analogous minis with similar poses and no basing boosting their height. Every Warcry warband has been released for AoS proper as well, showing further lack of knowledge as to the product line. The entire premise and drive of your argument is to prove a point, not to actually figure out what is true.
In turn, if your point had merit, you wouldn't simply ignore my own personal argument. But clearly, you must know that.
I think Chaos Dwarves were well and truly dead long before 8th, I'd bet we see Codex Squats before we see the return of Chaos Dwarves.
I dunno. They have been heavily hinted as the first DLC race for Total Warhammer 3. That could lead to them being resurrected, just like it led to Cathay/Kislev being a thing.
I think Chaos Dwarves were well and truly dead long before 8th, I'd bet we see Codex Squats before we see the return of Chaos Dwarves.
I dunno. They have been heavily hinted as the first DLC race for Total Warhammer 3. That could lead to them being resurrected, just like it led to Cathay/Kislev being a thing.
There's actually voice files for them in the game that were datamined, so they're 100% coming (to TW at least).
Be careful though. Games can be full of bits of content made for things that never appear. Diablo 1 and 2 had bits of expansions for characters/classes that never got finished and put into the game.
So sometimes data-mining the game and such can turn up some interesting bits of development that were shelved or planned and never developed or which were done possibly as an experiment or just for fun and just left in there.
There's a loading screen quote which explicitly states they are coming. We've also had more than a few pieces of evidence and hints that they will get a battletome in 3rd. Big question is will those kits (if they are indeed on their way) be made to do double-duty for TOW?
Legion of Azgorh was also a playable army in 8th, though admittedly a practical impossibility for most given the limited all-FW roster.
Plus the Dark Lands are on the map, are huge, and are also empty.
It's one thing to have a bit of coding for extra characters in Diablo (I remember them!), it's another to go to the expense of paying voice actors to record lines.
I think Chaos Dwarves were well and truly dead long before 8th, I'd bet we see Codex Squats before we see the return of Chaos Dwarves.
I dunno. They have been heavily hinted as the first DLC race for Total Warhammer 3. That could lead to them being resurrected, just like it led to Cathay/Kislev being a thing.
There's also hint of legions of Hashut worshipping duardins this year. Sounds a lot like new force coming to AoS later...
As is we got squats in 40k already so time for CD They might not look at all like chaos dwarves of old and be more like fat humans in look much like votann are just bulky humans in 40k but they will still be called chaos dwarves.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Plus the Dark Lands are on the map, are huge, and are also empty.
It's one thing to have a bit of coding for extra characters in Diablo (I remember them!), it's another to go to the expense of paying voice actors to record lines.
It's worth considering GW's involvement as well. We know from Kislev and Cathay that GW does the groundwork on design, so you don't just have the cost of voice work for Creative Assembly, they'd expect to get something workable from GW before they ever shell out for it. And if GW did all that work, what are the odds they'd have second thoughts later on?
I think Chaos Dwarves were well and truly dead long before 8th, I'd bet we see Codex Squats before we see the return of Chaos Dwarves.
I dunno. They have been heavily hinted as the first DLC race for Total Warhammer 3. That could lead to them being resurrected, just like it led to Cathay/Kislev being a thing.
There's also hint of legions of Hashut worshipping duardins this year. Sounds a lot like new force coming to AoS later...
As is we got squats in 40k already so time for CD They might not look at all like chaos dwarves of old and be more like fat humans in look much like votann are just bulky humans in 40k but they will still be called chaos dwarves.
To be fair, in case of GW's space dwarfs they are established to be abhumans rather than a completely removed species. GW is somewhat justified to give that a nod by making them look more like humans.
And we already have Fyrslyrs, Kharadron and at least one Warcry Chaos Dwarf, so it's not like GW doesn't have a template to follow.
Looking at the Kharadron on the last page though, GW might struggle to put embiggened dwarfs on 20mm bases. They kind of managed with Longbeards and Ironbreakers, but those aren't all that fresh anymore and I expect the basing issue to have far more potential for unforeseen change than the exact shape of any new dwarf. We still don't have a clue what kind of basing The Old World is going to have.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sir you said "Fyrslyrs" then it is actually "Dyreblood Skullfyreslyres (tm)"!
As random as this place is to remark on it, I have every reason to feel half vindicated. Since GW started translating names again, which must be a rather recent development, the Fyr part is canonical in the German version.
NuGW is not a lie, people! They're listening. Unfortunately for all of you, they're listening to me!
I'm not sure the last image disproves scale creep. but maybe points to GW being erratic in their own scale. The recent Vampire underworlds crew being the most blatant. Which is a shame considering the models are amazing.
I couldn't find the picture of these vamps compared to Vlad, but they tower over him.
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Grail Seeker wrote: I'm not sure the last image disproves scale creep. but maybe points to GW being erratic in their own scale. The recent Vampire underworlds crew being the most blatant. Which is a shame considering the models are amazing.
I couldn't find the picture of these vamps compared to Vlad, but they tower over him.
So the new Vampires are like Primarchs in a size comparison to their Undead grunts?
Rihgu wrote: Is that scalecreep or are AoS Vampires just Big?
Do AoS vampires still have to conceal themselves amongst the population? Seems like being a literal giant would be a bit detrimental to that.
AoS vampires don't have to hide at all. It is actually kind of strange that there are secret witch and vampire hunters when there are whole cities and kingdoms run by Vampires openly in the Realm of the Dead. Vampires in AoS stride out in the open and whilst there likely are those that live in secret within Cities of Sigmar and the like; the core of the faction are able to live, feed, operate and exist pretty freely.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sir you said "Fyrslyrs" then it is actually "Dyreblood Skullfyreslyres (tm)"!
I still use the term 'Vampire Counts', even in the Age of Sigmar. Some of their faction names are just dumb and only exist for (TM) purposes. And don't get me started on the blasted High Elves.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sir you said "Fyrslyrs" then it is actually "Dyreblood Skullfyreslyres (tm)"!
I still use the term 'Vampire Counts', even in the Age of Sigmar. Some of their faction names are just dumb and only exist for (TM) purposes. And don't get me started on the blasted High Elves.
This is pretty funny to me because it brings to mind people referring to cars as "horseless carriages" and to some extent out of touch parents who refer to every game console as a Playstation. I mean, you'll probably be right in The Old World but referring to the Age of Sigmar armies incorrectly isn't necessarily something to wear as a badge of pride. The people who never experienced anything but the Soulblight Gravelords will be like "??? okay ???"
Grail Seeker wrote: I'm not sure the last image disproves scale creep. but maybe points to GW being erratic in their own scale. The recent Vampire underworlds crew being the most blatant. Which is a shame considering the models are amazing.
Spoiler:
I couldn't find the picture of these vamps compared to Vlad, but they tower over him.
Resident Evil 8 has told me that's just how tall vampires are.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sir you said "Fyrslyrs" then it is actually "Dyreblood Skullfyreslyres (tm)"!
I still use the term 'Vampire Counts', even in the Age of Sigmar. Some of their faction names are just dumb and only exist for (TM) purposes. And don't get me started on the blasted High Elves.
This is pretty funny to me because it brings to mind people referring to cars as "horseless carriages" and to some extent out of touch parents who refer to every game console as a Playstation. I mean, you'll probably be right in The Old World but referring to the Age of Sigmar armies incorrectly isn't necessarily something to wear as a badge of pride. The people who never experienced anything but the Soulblight Gravelords will be like "??? okay ???"
I just think Soulblight Gravelords is a dumb name and I refuse to use it. I also still use the terms dwarf, elf, giant, orc, troll, ogre, minotaur, etc... because their New Names (TM) are dumb, too.
Sasorijap wrote: So i have new information regarding the Old World for anyone interested.
I heard about this from a Mantic employee that was previously working in GW (both UK companies) I don't know the guy that well so take it with a grain of salt.
Apparently the main reason GW is bringing back Fantasy is to hurt Kings of War and Conquest. Their thinking is "if it hurts their sales good if it doesn't oh well we made a few extra quid".
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...
It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.
On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.
Coming up next; someone posting a photo of a basketball player next to a little person saying ‘see, people are different sizes in real life too’ as further proof GW scale hasn’t changed.
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...
It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.
On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.
I somehow doubt that big of a difference is merely a trick of perspective.
Furthermore.
Perhaps the change from rank and file square bases to skirmish units with round bases had a huge impact on how the scale went up and inconsistent. Particulary when it comes to characters.
Back to the old world with square bases they will need to find a more coherrent standard again.
Lets hope the designers rember how to line up models.
I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fayric wrote: Perhaps the change from rank and file square bases to skirmish units with round bases had a huge impact on how the scale went up and inconsistent. Particulary when it comes to characters.
Back to the old world with square bases they will need to find a more coherrent standard again.
The vampires are consistent within themselves.
Rank and file can change poses, but it also depends on sculptor skill and I think there shifting from physical to digital sculpting allowed GW to get more wild with designs more often because you could rank things up on the computer screen and check. Daughters of Khaine are pretty wild in pose and yet came out during the rank and file era and can rank up pretty well. Plus even when you don't have rank and file the nature of close combat still means that you want things to get close together pretty much most of the time
Then you get a wild outlier like the Lumineth spear units
First miniatures for Warhammer Battle were also scaled for "true historical" 28mm scale. Then it gradually went up as years passed on.
So of course when you put a Mordheim vampire (that was still at 28mm scale at that time) with current Underworld vampire warband, the difference in scale is obvious.
It doesn't help when the AoS / Underworld concept of vampires is different from the concept of "almost human" vampires from the old Mordheim vibe (at that time, the Empire didn't know the Von Carstein family was full of vampires, they still passed as humans - eccentric weird ones who tended to get out only at nights, but still).
And yes, Underworld vampire band is made of towering giant monsters when you put them next to "normal AoS humans" as well.
AoS lore is still this strange thing being its own super high epic fantasy setting whilst still retaining some of the visual, thematic and story elements of the Old World.
Eg its really hard to imagine a loan witch hunter in the AoS setting when vampires aren't just one or two creepy people hiding in their mansion; but generations living in huge cities where the general population are giving blood offerings every day.
Luke82 wrote: You really think that size difference is a trick of perspective?
Considering that the very first thing I wrote on the subject was the following?
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid)...
No, I don't. I like to think I made that pretty clear.
Fayric wrote: Perhaps the change from rank and file square bases to skirmish units with round bases had a huge impact on how the scale went up and inconsistent. Particulary when it comes to characters.
Back to the old world with square bases they will need to find a more coherrent standard again.
Lets hope the designers rember how to line up models.
Given some of GW's latest misadventures in model making, I'm envisioning a nightmare future in which not just arm A1 and leg A3 attach only to body A2, but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth. Preferably this includes the reintroduction of slottabases so people can orient their miniature only one way and actually make them fit.
Geifer wrote: but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.
been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases
Overread wrote: I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!
It's entirely possible to believe a photo shows one model is bigger than the other whilst also noting that the photo is poorly taken to compare the size of two models
Geifer wrote: but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.
been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases
It was actually possible without that, you just had to chose the weapons and heads properly and glue the miniature on their base in different places.
Been there, done that as well. And yes, it's true you had to more carefully plan the way you put them in regiment for dynamic miniatures like Witch Aelves. Other static ones like spearmen and blackguard obviously didn't have that problem (they were released at the same time, though).
People just have to aknowledge that dynamic poses are always getting in the way of rules within a regimental wargame. KoW has the same problem as well. You'd think Mantic Games would be taking that into account, but oddly they don't. Maybe because they don't pay their sculptors enough to care.
Warmachine - ok Hordes - had issues with Skorne elephant monsters that often over-hung the base at the front. IT was even more an issue for that game because they have true facings and weapon arcs so which way your model faced was a major part of the gameplay state.
Geifer wrote: but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.
been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases
It was actually possible without that, you just had to chose the weapons and heads properly and glue the miniature on their base in different places.
Been there, done that as well. And yes, it's true you had to more carefully plan the way you put them in regiment for dynamic miniatures like Witch Aelves. Other static ones like spearmen and blackguard obviously didn't have that problem (they were released at the same time, though).
People just have to aknowledge that dynamic poses are always getting in the way of rules within a regimental wargame. KoW has the same problem as well. You'd think Mantic Games would be taking that into account, but oddly they don't. Maybe because they don't pay their sculptors enough to care.
Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.
Overread wrote: Warmachine - ok Hordes - had issues with Skorne elephant monsters that often over-hung the base at the front. IT was even more an issue for that game because they have true facings and weapon arcs so which way your model faced was a major part of the gameplay state.
Tell me about that...it was even more horrible with the metal miniatures when they were around...
Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.
Conquest shouldn't be talked here, given their miniatures are even bigger in scale than GW's.
So yeah, it doesn't solve anything to use round bases in square regimental bases if you keep making the miniatures bigger AND you try to add dynamic poses in that. It's just not made to be used together, that's all. Either you use a proper scale for regimental wargames and more static poses so that they dont get in the way of each other, or either you do something entirely different (and it's for the best, honestly).
Overread wrote: I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!
It's entirely possible to believe a photo shows one model is bigger than the other whilst also noting that the photo is poorly taken to compare the size of two models
Grunted wrote: Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.
Conquest shouldn't be talked here, given their miniatures are even bigger in scale than GW's.
So yeah, it doesn't solve anything to use round bases in square regimental bases if you keep making the miniatures bigger AND you try to add dynamic poses in that. It's just not made to be used together, that's all. Either you use a proper scale for regimental wargames and more static poses so that they dont get in the way of each other, or either you do something entirely different (and it's for the best, honestly).
My concern would be whether GW was even willing to adopt such a system. They did with War of the Rings and kind of with the latest edition of Apocalypse, and I don't think either one caught on.
I'd also throw in that my experience with A Song of Ice and Fire is that it can look pretty lame and not regimented at all with big gaps between models. I expect GW would be concerned with visual representation more than anything. If those trays get in the way of that, I imagine they'd have a hard time getting considered even if they solve some issues.
Overread wrote: I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!
It's entirely possible to believe a photo shows one model is bigger than the other whilst also noting that the photo is poorly taken to compare the size of two models
Grunted wrote: Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.
Conquest shouldn't be talked here, given their miniatures are even bigger in scale than GW's.
So yeah, it doesn't solve anything to use round bases in square regimental bases if you keep making the miniatures bigger AND you try to add dynamic poses in that. It's just not made to be used together, that's all. Either you use a proper scale for regimental wargames and more static poses so that they dont get in the way of each other, or either you do something entirely different (and it's for the best, honestly).
My concern would be whether GW was even willing to adopt such a system. They did with War of the Rings and kind of with the latest edition of Apocalypse, and I don't think either one caught on.
I'd also throw in that my experience with A Song of Ice and Fire is that it can look pretty lame and not regimented at all with big gaps between models. I expect GW would be concerned with visual representation more than anything. If those trays get in the way of that, I imagine they'd have a hard time getting considered even if they solve some issues.
I do think it depends on the specific presentation. ASOIAF units often looks weirdly spaced out and 90% of the units on the table are going to have the same footprint whereas Conquest looks like tight-knit groups of models.
My concern would be whether GW was even willing to adopt such a system. They did with War of the Rings and kind of with the latest edition of Apocalypse, and I don't think either one caught on.
I'd also throw in that my experience with A Song of Ice and Fire is that it can look pretty lame and not regimented at all with big gaps between models. I expect GW would be concerned with visual representation more than anything. If those trays get in the way of that, I imagine they'd have a hard time getting considered even if they solve some issues.
War of the Ring was different because of its specific scale : 28mm with realistic proportions (including weapons), because they had to be faithful to how they look in the movies. Even with dynamic poses, most of the miniatures tended to be reasonnable in proportion of their base's space so it wasn't a problem to put them in regiments (been there done that as well...and I went big on that game when it was out, doing a goblin and dwarf army).
Well, miniatures looked weird with their poses making no sense in a regiment, but that's another matter of the dynamic poses...
As for Apocalypse, the bases were actually only there to help move big units together faster. A bit like AoS players do with some custom unit bases, actually.
Here with the Old World, round bases are not even a thing since it was pretty much made clear in the Warhammer Community articles that they would use square bases. I just hope they won't go crazy with dynamic poses when sculpting the new miniatures...
Geifer wrote: but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.
been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases
It was actually possible without that, you just had to chose the weapons and heads properly and glue the miniature on their base in different places.
Been there, done that as well. And yes, it's true you had to more carefully plan the way you put them in regiment for dynamic miniatures like Witch Aelves. Other static ones like spearmen and blackguard obviously didn't have that problem (they were released at the same time, though).
People just have to aknowledge that dynamic poses are always getting in the way of rules within a regimental wargame. KoW has the same problem as well. You'd think Mantic Games would be taking that into account, but oddly they don't. Maybe because they don't pay their sculptors enough to care.
so yeah, GW messed up their R&F models in the past, so a good chance they do it again, or do you wanted to say that TOW will go for multi-basing and reduced model count like KoW to avoid the ranking up problem?
I really doubt that GW will reduce the amount of models needed for units just to avoid modeling problems
so yeah, GW messed up their R&F models in the past, so a good chance they do it again, or do you wanted to say that TOW will go for multi-basing and reduced model count like KoW to avoid the ranking up problem?
I really doubt that GW will reduce the amount of models needed for units just to avoid modeling problems
Oh no way GW will go with multi-basing, at least not in the rules (people will do whatever they want like they did with Battle before, after all). Since they want to "take the best of previous editions" for TOW, I'm pretty much expecting it will be the same for how they put miniatures in a regiment. I don't even expect they'll use bigger square bases for human sized models, to tell my faith on that matter.
TBH, the problem was never the amount of models needed for a "viable unit" - this was more a question about the time / money you need to build a regiment. The common trouble you had with miniatures not fitting well base to base is a question of base size and howh much of its space the miniature fills on it. That's why I hate dynamic poses for regimental wargames.
With the "scale creep" GW tends to use these days, I really can't see 20mm square bases working anymore even for static poses. I'd be more in favor of 25mm square bases minimum for all human sized infantry...and even so, I think it may not be enough at all. Even for KOW, I wish they did use 25mm square bases for all infantries and not just the heavy for that same reason.
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...
It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.
On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.
JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...
It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.
On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.
JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.
I will say..all the underworlds stuff is a bit bigger than its AOS origins. The witch elves dwarf all the new stuff so much that I have to rum them as a separate unit. That being said...I love old hammer.and new plastics make old hammer stuff look tiiiiiiney
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...
It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.
On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.
JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.
Nah if you notice the shadows the AoS model is closer to the light source therefore just appears bigger, and he is also wearing thicker socks.
Unless the photo is taken at exactly sea level with accompanying proof of the photographers GCSE certificates then it is useless for scale comparisons anyway.
Geifer wrote: The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.
Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...
It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.
On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.
JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.
Or maybe it's not scale creep and they just want the new vampires to be that big compared to a regular person?
Yeah, look at the confusion surrounding Radukar; dude has zombie ogre bodyguards, is the size of an ogre… but is a turned human, apparently. Drain enough blood and you just get mad gains?
I've not read any fluff suggesting that warband is supposed to be larger than normal, so yeah their scale is definitely bigger.
We do need to remember though that the scale creep in WHFB editions was very real; the vampires from 7th-8th are WAY bigger than that little guy. Not half giant like the AoS one, but it is still a disingenuous comparison meant to exaggerate and mislead. Not to mention a fair comparison would be to the regular VLord model, who is also not nearly as large as jolly red giant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, look at the confusion surrounding Radukar; dude has zombie ogre bodyguards, is the size of an ogre… but is a turned human, apparently. Drain enough blood and you just get mad gains?
There's two versions of him; the larger one IS a hulked out monstrosity.
The regular vampire lord, Anasta Malkorian, and the underworlds warband are all pretty much the same size, and all of them are much larger than human scale models within their own respective systems.
I think we can say that GW is intentionally making vampires larger than humans, and they haven't just made a series of scale mistakes, as all the vampire lords are in line with each other scale line. Note: I haven't built Cado Ezechiar yet, I don't know where he falls here.
Olthannon wrote: The difference between 6th edition and earlier minis and 7th edition is pretty substantial. It's not just AoS.
Indeed. Even the first pic posted with the Cursed City mini's has (what looks to me, could be wrong) a metal Empire Arty Crewman, Helstorm Battery perhaps, and a plastic multi-part archer. If that archer was posed standing upright rather than running, it would tower over that crewman and be closer to scale to the CC heroine wielding the two hander.
I seem to remember that Mordheim Vampire being dwarfed by the plastic Mordheim Empire warband mini's as well, which were its contemporaries.
Scale has always been inconsistent and had been trending upward for quite some time, with a few exceptions where it was scaled down. Examples: The very first multipart Skeletons, Night Goblins, Skaven all getting reduced down to appropriate sizes.
Personally never bothered by scale, as long as they were on appropriate bases.
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, look at the confusion surrounding Radukar; dude has zombie ogre bodyguards, is the size of an ogre… but is a turned human, apparently. Drain enough blood and you just get mad gains?
The AoS vampires, esp the Cursed City lot, are leaning way more into the bestial elements of the curse.
I would not be surprised if we see full werewolf monsters from GW at some point in the future.
Again these are vampires who don't have to hide and blend in. They can 100% let themselves go wild - quite literally. They are bloated on blood and power in ways that the Old World Vampires rarely got to enjoy before being attacked. Heck perhaps we get a vampire like Pearl from Blade!
Apparently the main reason GW is bringing back Fantasy is to hurt Kings of War and Conquest. Their thinking is "if it hurts their sales good if it doesn't oh well we made a few extra quid".
That is 100% the reason. It keeps people from playing other competitor games. Do you really think GW is going to support it like AoS or 40k?
Returning to this tangent, I have to say its always a little weird that people have this KoW vs. AoS, Conquest vs. AoS, ASOIAF vs AoS mindset that ignores GW's Middle Earth game. I remember this past years Adepticon tourney for GW's Middle Earth game got better attendance numbers then any of the 3 non GW systems mentioned above and seemed like it sold out faster than any of them. I don't think any of the 3 non GW systems actually sold out, and a casual 8th Edition WHFB (in the grave 5+ years) event sold more then the Conquest event, at least in terms of pre-event signups. Its not a perfect barometer to measure, for sure, but its probably one of the only times where they directly rub shoulders and the discrepancy of players is on display. The Adepticon website still shows 2022 attendance, if anyone wants to look.
I'm not intentionally knocking any of those 3 non GW fantasy wargames, I just don't think they have any sort of impact on GW's decisions that people give them. There are elements in GW's structure that recognize there is desire for a return to an IP they abandoned. Simple as that.
This the same GW that refuses to print units in army books before they get a model because they can't stand the thought of some garage company selling a few copies of a resin knockoff tho.
lord_blackfang wrote: This the same GW that refuses to print units in army books before they get a model because they can't stand the thought of some garage company selling a few copies of a resin knockoff tho.
That explains why something like Necromunda has several things with rules but no model, then.
Luke82 wrote: The new AoS zombies are really quite small, even compared to the kit they replaced, so the scale is definitely all over the place.
They are smaller than the skellies as well, bone must grow when exposed to AoS aether air or something.
The zombies are random peasants whereas the skeletons were actual soldiers. Humans have a pretty wide range of sizes in real life too.
Yeah, but vampires are aristocrats and therefore inbred bastards. How is it they're not stunted hunchbacks like peasants who are also inbred bastards? Something doesn't add up. I'm not getting them right proper Warhammer vibes from AoS.
lord_blackfang wrote: This the same GW that refuses to print units in army books before they get a model because they can't stand the thought of some garage company selling a few copies of a resin knockoff tho.
I prefer that over the GW that published several editions of Tyranid codex with cool units in them that never ever got models! Heck we got the Parasite model only this last year!
If GW does not go for a conquest / ASOIF / WOTR square tray with space for round based minis for this game, they are morons.
Going with individual square bases makes no sense except to cater to grognards. It takes a lot of time to rank up a horde of square bases on the board, for no real gain. As many have mentioned, it also strictly limits how the miniatures can be posed, and it just feels so outdated.
Illumini wrote: If GW does not go for a conquest / ASOIF / WOTR square tray with space for round based minis for this game, they are morons.
Going with individual square bases makes no sense except to cater to grognards. It takes a lot of time to rank up a horde of square bases on the board, for no real gain. As many have mentioned, it also strictly limits how the miniatures can be posed, and it just feels so outdated.
Well, the gain is that it looks like an actual regiment and not just 6 dudes vaguely moving in the same direction with enough elbow room for an Ogre to walk through the unit without touching anyone.
Illumini wrote: If GW does not go for a conquest / ASOIF / WOTR square tray with space for round based minis for this game, they are morons.
Going with individual square bases makes no sense except to cater to grognards. It takes a lot of time to rank up a horde of square bases on the board, for no real gain. As many have mentioned, it also strictly limits how the miniatures can be posed, and it just feels so outdated.
Literally the very first we knew about TOW was a return to squares.
lord_blackfang wrote: This the same GW that refuses to print units in army books before they get a model because they can't stand the thought of some garage company selling a few copies of a resin knockoff tho.
That explains why something like Necromunda has several things with rules but no model, then.
That also explains Middle-earth with references to Anarion and things like Azog's Signal Tower
Illumini wrote: If GW does not go for a conquest / ASOIF / WOTR square tray with space for round based minis for this game, they are morons.
Going with individual square bases makes no sense except to cater to grognards. It takes a lot of time to rank up a horde of square bases on the board, for no real gain. As many have mentioned, it also strictly limits how the miniatures can be posed, and it just feels so outdated.
Well, the gain is that it looks like an actual regiment and not just 6 dudes vaguely moving in the same direction with enough elbow room for an Ogre to walk through the unit without touching anyone.
I mean, in most cases that's just you permitting your brain to trick itself. WHFB regiments probably averaged around ~30 models and 30 soldiers would look like a pretty tiny formation irl. For a game like Total War to render army-scale WHFB visuals they had to multiply that number. Once you realize that -- that you are celebrating what was already an abstract depiction, that was never close to properly scaled in the first place -- it should be pretty easy to accept other changes along those lines, particularly if you care at all about things like cost of entry to the system.
in the end you get a little bit of everything with good looking and playability being the important parts
look at historical R&F games, specially in Napoleonic
in reality you got units that were 200 man wide and 2-3 man deep, with a game using an abstract ratio of 1:20 or 1:30 you would put 20-24 models in a single line to be realistic
yet for playability and good looks, 2 ranks and 12 files for 24 models are used
but those games also do away with single mechanics (like removing them for damage) as this does not fit very well the immersion that a unit is an abstract symbol of 500 soldiers and not just 24 dudes
I think beyond just the core rules, how they handle the movement trays and if you can use square or round in them and how the rules work for both will play a huge part in determining the success of this reboot.
I suggest you guys take a bit of paper or an old movement tray and some 32mm bases and see how many you can fit in a regiment footprint, see if that's a satisfying unit.
nathan2004 wrote: I think beyond just the core rules, how they handle the movement trays and if you can use square or round in them and how the rules work for both will play a huge part in determining the success of this reboot.
Will they start packing cross-system models (Daemons, Chaos warriors etc.) with both squares and rounds and jack up the price?
nathan2004 wrote: I think beyond just the core rules, how they handle the movement trays and if you can use square or round in them and how the rules work for both will play a huge part in determining the success of this reboot.
Will they start packing cross-system models (Daemons, Chaos warriors etc.) with both squares and rounds and jack up the price?
A huge part of this depends on how cross compatible GW intend the products to be.
My impression is GW would keep them separate and that would mean different bases in each pack. This would also mean GW wouldn't sell a movement tray with round slots in them nor round to square adaptors for monsters and heroes. Which would likely see the 3rd party market explode with those options very quickly (esp with 3D printing). In the end GW would see, manage, finance and run them as separate games and entities; but players might well cross stuff over all the time and use them as counts as -stand ins or conversion material.
GW could run them as side projects and build some fancy systems to let one work for the other - heck AoS lore would pretty much allow you to effortlessly lift the new old world forces into AoS.
nathan2004 wrote: I think beyond just the core rules, how they handle the movement trays and if you can use square or round in them and how the rules work for both will play a huge part in determining the success of this reboot.
Will they start packing cross-system models (Daemons, Chaos warriors etc.) with both squares and rounds and jack up the price?
nathan2004 wrote: I think beyond just the core rules, how they handle the movement trays and if you can use square or round in them and how the rules work for both will play a huge part in determining the success of this reboot.
Will they start packing cross-system models (Daemons, Chaos warriors etc.) with both squares and rounds and jack up the price?
RE-start. Daemons used to come packed like that.
Ah, but that was years ago! Obviously, increased overheads since those days of lore will necessitate a regrettable price hike.
Honestly whilst I know square bases are about one of the few things GW has marketed for this game and the return to rank and file battles; I'd honestly welcome them putting every model on a round base like in AoS.
Then bring out a selection of movement trays and upgrade attachments so that every model can run square/rectangular whilst still on their round base.
That way you can glue them into the adaptors and use them that way all the time; or have the option to swap between the two games.
Because if each game is on its totally separate system its a pain to swap.between. Troops isn't too bad you put them on rounds and then use a movement tray ;but leaders, monsters, heroes and basically anything not on a movement try is much harder
Changing it to rounds would torpedo the game straight away. Anyone who has switched to rounds is happily playing AoS and spending all their doll hairs with GW already, the Old World coming back is surely after the monies of those of us still playing WHFB but not really invested in the nuGW ecosystem, or those suffering through KoW wishing the game they really wanted was back. If these folk were willing to rebase they would have done so already.
With any luck, the project has been abandoned. I don’t see what good can really come of it. It will be changed a lot for a variety of sound commercial reasons and split the modest WHFB community. It won’t be ‘new, shiny’ enough for the AoS boys, nor ‘true to the game you love’ enough for the WHFB crowd, and will splutter and die.
The fans are still playing 8th or 6th and I can’t see the new game being anything other than a watered down version of these, and the community is already well used to being outside of GW officialdom by now. Are there really enough looky-loos from total war to make it viable?
lord_blackfang wrote: I suggest you guys take a bit of paper or an old movement tray and some 32mm bases and see how many you can fit in a regiment footprint, see if that's a satisfying unit.
Or they just increase the size. Do you gain something from being this pointlessly toxic?
Illumini wrote: If GW does not go for a conquest / ASOIF / WOTR square tray with space for round based minis for this game, they are morons.
Going with individual square bases makes no sense except to cater to grognards. It takes a lot of time to rank up a horde of square bases on the board, for no real gain. As many have mentioned, it also strictly limits how the miniatures can be posed, and it just feels so outdated.
Well, the gain is that it looks like an actual regiment and not just 6 dudes vaguely moving in the same direction with enough elbow room for an Ogre to walk through the unit without touching anyone.
Just because some of these games have too wide space in their tray doesn't mean GW has to. Look at the example that was posted by KidCthulhu. IMO, full multi-basing like KoW is the best option, as that allows you to both pack a base with non-dynamic models if that is your preference, or to go with dynamic positions. It is also the fastest for set-up and play. I am however realistic enough to realise GW won't go that way, as they want full model count, which is too easy to ignore with full multi-basing.
Literally the very first we knew about TOW was a return to squares.
A square movement tray for round bases is still square. That was also several years ago. GW has done many rulesets since then.
I suggest you guys take a bit of paper or an old movement tray and some 32mm bases and see how many you can fit in a regiment footprint, see if that's a satisfying unit.
Those movement trays were already too small for most units back then. Why would GW re-use the same size tray? Something on 32mm bases would also be at least heavy infantry, which would need a bigger tray.
lord_blackfang wrote: I suggest you guys take a bit of paper or an old movement tray and some 32mm bases and see how many you can fit in a regiment footprint, see if that's a satisfying unit.
Or they just increase the size. Do you gain something from being this pointlessly toxic?
Saying "try it for yourself" is toxic now? Wow, the standards really have fallen. removed - rule#1
Luke82 wrote: Changing it to rounds would torpedo the game straight away. Anyone who has switched to rounds is happily playing AoS and spending all their doll hairs with GW already, the Old World coming back is surely after the monies of those of us still playing WHFB but not really invested in the nuGW ecosystem, or those suffering through KoW wishing the game they really wanted was back. If these folk were willing to rebase they would have done so already.
In your opinion.
At first I was gutted GW nuked the old world, but it forced me into trying other games, and realising that GW rules often/usually sucked and there were far better games out there. Games that didn't take all day to play in a slow crawl. I missed the lore of the old world, but it never stopped me from playing out GW's Old World battles with KoW.
It's a strange thing to think about, but basing is shaping up to be a big issue actually.
The desire to keep older collections valid is going to cause major headaches with anything new. Anything released after AoS is likely to be incompatible, either because they are posed too dynamically to rank up or because their bases are simply too big. Similarly anyone who has already taken steps to make the old collection usable in AoS will find themselves needing to undo all of their hard work.
Off the top of my head, I can think of:
- Literally every model who used to use a 20mm square, since the smallest round is 25mm. This includes all Empire, Elves, Dwarfs, Skaven, Vampire Counts and Goblins.
- The vast majority of 25mm squares who are now on 32mm. See Orcs, Beastmen, Daemons and Chaos.
- The vast majority of characters who are on larger, more impressive bases than their peers.
- Every unit which has been resculpted and embiggened during AoS. Examples include Chaos Knights and Blood Knights, who will never fit back on a 25*50mm base, or the new Greater Daemons who used to be a 50*50mm.
It's definitely quicker to list the models that won't need rebasing, which as far as I can tell includes Ogres and the occasional unit.
It begs the question of who the intended audience is, because the other parties are going to be stuck with an awful lot of work and I think players are going to have to choose between AoS and WFB.
a. Old players prioritised, which means old basing conventions and the need to rebase any AoS models. Probably need to re-release old versions of everything which has been resculpted in a larger scale.
b. AoS players and new blood, meaning larger bases and probably some spaced movement trays for older models. Seems more practical for reusing models avross games, but will alienate a lot of older players and look worse on the table.
c. Write the rules in such a way that the base size doesn't matter, like KoW unit footprints. The best solution for gamers but the worst for business, so no chance of that happening.
Luke82 wrote: Changing it to rounds would torpedo the game straight away. Anyone who has switched to rounds is happily playing AoS and spending all their doll hairs with GW already, the Old World coming back is surely after the monies of those of us still playing WHFB but not really invested in the nuGW ecosystem, or those suffering through KoW wishing the game they really wanted was back. If these folk were willing to rebase they would have done so already.
In your opinion.
At first I was gutted GW nuked the old world, but it forced me into trying other games, and realising that GW rules often/usually sucked and there were far better games out there. Games that didn't take all day to play in a slow crawl. I missed the lore of the old world, but it never stopped me from playing out GW's Old World battles with KoW.
Yes should have caveated that not all KoW players are unhappy with the game, just that a lot of players are playing KoW cause there is no official WHFB set of rules… which is a bizarre mindset to me but hey ho.
My main game is warlords of erehwon with Old World lore / armies so I’m kind of in the same boat as you, quite happy away from the GW teat. But looking at it from a GW point of view I still don’t know how they can win with this game. Feels like they are trying to have their cake and eat it in a way, blow up the world and put their fingers up to the fans, then try and snap their fingers and get them back after a lot of water has passed under the bridge.
Luke82 wrote: With any luck, the project has been abandoned. I don’t see what good can really come of it. It will be changed a lot for a variety of sound commercial reasons and split the modest WHFB community. It won’t be ‘new, shiny’ enough for the AoS boys, nor ‘true to the game you love’ enough for the WHFB crowd, and will splutter and die.
The fans are still playing 8th or 6th and I can’t see the new game being anything other than a watered down version of these, and the community is already well used to being outside of GW officialdom by now. Are there really enough looky-loos from total war to make it viable?
Will it die the way the new Necromunda died, or the way the new Blood Bowl did?
Mozzamanx wrote: IExamples include Chaos Knights and Blood Knights, who will never fit back on a 25*50mm base
Funny enough, the plastic Blood Knights fit on 25x50mm better than the metals did:
Spoiler:
And the newer Chaos Knights ALSO fit better than the previous versions did:
Spoiler:
Well look at all the egg on my face then. I suppose that's what happens when you ask /tg/ for model advice.
Very surprised to see those Chaos Knights because they look massive in the pictures, but well done for ranking them up.
Just going to shift my goalposts to the new Chaos Chosen and Skeletons then...
Cost of buy in is a lot smaller with those games though. A WHFB army is a big commitment. So I think the game will live or die on the efforts of those guys who are still keeping a WHFB community alive to foster the potential new players; cheese these guys off with a blanket base change / size increase and it’s gonna be hard to get that burst of momentum going.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cost of buy in is a lot smaller with those games though. A WHFB army is a big commitment. So I think the game will live or die on the efforts of those guys who are still keeping a WHFB community alive to foster the potential new players; cheese these guys off with a blanket base change / size increase and it’s gonna be hard to get that burst of momentum going.
Mozzamanx wrote: IExamples include Chaos Knights and Blood Knights, who will never fit back on a 25*50mm base
Funny enough, the plastic Blood Knights fit on 25x50mm better than the metals did:
Spoiler:
And the newer Chaos Knights ALSO fit better than the previous versions did:
Spoiler:
Well look at all the egg on my face then. I suppose that's what happens when you ask /tg/ for model advice.
Very surprised to see those Chaos Knights because they look massive in the pictures, but well done for ranking them up.
Just going to shift my goalposts to the new Chaos Chosen and Skeletons then...
Tbh I wouldn’t be surprised if the new squares they make are say 25 and 30 mm (and multiples thereof) instead of 20 and 25 mm as before and just write in the rules that old models can use the bases they came on like is officially the case in 40k and like they were doing for monsters back in 8th.
De facto people will probably start up sizing bases for tournaments etc, but doesn’t mean that’ll necessarily be the hard rules.
Movement trays with spacers can look fine with a bit of work too, they don't have to look rubbish. GW will no doubt even sell you something half decent.
lord_blackfang wrote: I suggest you guys take a bit of paper or an old movement tray and some 32mm bases and see how many you can fit in a regiment footprint, see if that's a satisfying unit.
Or they just increase the size. Do you gain something from being this pointlessly toxic?
Saying "try it for yourself" is toxic now? Wow, the standards really have fallen. Maybe you need to install a baby filter or something.
I feel like I learn more from reading your posts than filtering them out, even if they do baffle me at times.
Gallahad wrote: Honestly I can't believe this thread is still going nearly three years after GW announced the project. Longer wait than many a bad Kickstarter!
Probably time to move on guys. And I say that with a ton of empathy. Nostalgia for something long gone is a bleep of a drug.
Gallahad wrote: Honestly I can't believe this thread is still going nearly three years after GW announced the project. Longer wait than many a bad Kickstarter!
Probably time to move on guys. And I say that with a ton of empathy. Nostalgia for something long gone is a bleep of a drug.
Go
Thing is most "bad KS" that last that long tend to die because all the KS money got used up early on for the moulds and materials and production gear. What kills them are the inevitable delays and the lack of any income to sustain running costs for the firm. GW has money to keep running aplenty and invest in material and resources.
They have concurrent product lines coming out all the time which keeps us interested in them as a brand. So sure they've a long term project that is years off even now and yet we keep chatting about it. Plus Warhammer had 30 years in the market. It defined fantasy wargames for a very very long period of time. Some here grew up on it.
So yeah there's huge interest, huge chatter potential and lots of nostalgia all backed by a firm that can ride out the long development time and not vanish. Of course the project could still die or change - GW has other commitments; they have shareholders and managers and Cursed City is a fine example that things can go all kinds of strange and wrong .
As some one who is very excited about the Old World, i am hanging on every update and building and painting new units for my army waiting for the release date to be reveiled.
Other then the cities of sigmar, lizardmen, Ogres and some chaos and greenskin models it is very unlikely that any AoS models with see the light of day in the Old World.
The Old World will likely be inspired by 6th edition, which was the most ballanced edition, with elements from the other editions added in. GW stated that the Old World setting will be durning the time of three emperers, which saw huge changes to the Warhammer World setting, like the Rise of the Vampire Counts, The Waaagh of Gorbad Ironclaw, and the Great War of Chaos. This is going to be a great setting for Warhammer since so many of the nations got their chance rise whlie the Empire was at its weakest. I am pumped. GW also said that all of the armies from the Old World would be playable. So that would make 6 Old World armies ( Empire, Bretonia, Tilea/Dogs Of War, Dwarfs, Wood Elves, and Skaven), 3 Armies from The Badlands and the East (Greenskins, Chaos Dwarves and Ogres), One army to the South (Tomb Kings) and 3 armies to the West (High Elves, Dark Elves and Lizardmen) and Chaos to the North. That is 14 armies to start (15 if you count Beastmen). If thier is any truth to the talk about new armies we may see armies for Kislev, Gand Cathey, Norsica, and Golden Hoard of Hobgobla Khan. It is so hard not to get excited about this game.
When it comes to basing, GW said that square bases are returning fo rthe Old World. I am willing to take them at their word. I know people who rebased their Warhammer models to play AoS, but most of the people i know put their Warhammer models on a shelf, switched to KoW (Which released several WHFB themed armies right after the Death of Warhammer) or bought new if they started up AoS. Basing is importent in Warhammer, it determines who can fight, how many ranks you have, how your units manuver on the battlefeild. So this would have to fall back on the Hobby skills of the different players to make the basing options that work for them. I remember seeing units mounted on strips and monster bases. I know that if you wanted to reuse you AoS models for Warhammer i am sure you could figure out a way to to do it with out rebasing a single model.
I hope that in the Warhammer Day tomorrow that they will finally release news for the Old World. I am looking forward to returning to Warhammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thing is most "bad KS" that last that long tend to die because all the KS money got used up early on for the moulds and materials and production gear. What kills them are the inevitable delays and the lack of any income to sustain running costs for the firm. GW has money to keep running aplenty and invest in material and resources.
They have concurrent product lines coming out all the time which keeps us interested in them as a brand. So sure they've a long term project that is years off even now and yet we keep chatting about it. Plus Warhammer had 30 years in the market. It defined fantasy wargames for a very very long period of time. Some here grew up on it.
So yeah there's huge interest, huge chatter potential and lots of nostalgia all backed by a firm that can ride out the long development time and not vanish. Of course the project could still die or change - GW has other commitments; they have shareholders and managers and Cursed City is a fine example that things can go all kinds of strange and wrong .
This guy has a very real point. The only real reason we do not have this game in our hnads right now is because of Covid. Everything has been delayed accross the board, not just at GW. I am willing to give GW the benifit of the dought. Please give me a update one where we are on the project and let us know a possible release date.
Ehh, I think we'd still be waiting either way, but I do agree in that it would have been among the first projects put on the backbones during the pandemic.
Paymaster Games wrote: I hope that in the Warhammer Day tomorrow that they will finally release news for the Old World. I am looking forward to returning to Warhammer.
I share your enthusiasm for the Old World, and you make a couple of good points in general. Concerning todays "Warhammer Day" though: not a snowballs chance in hell for anything regarding this topic. It will be all 40K all day today - and GW has left no doubt about it from its first announcement.
Paymaster Games wrote: Other then the cities of sigmar, lizardmen, Ogres and some chaos and greenskin models it is very unlikely that any AoS models with see the light of day in the Old World.
I'm sure that once the AoS Dawnbringer Crusade humans are out, the old Empire models will be retired from the line and just shuffled back across to the Old World.
Given the Old World name, I'm thinking that lizardmen (along with maybe High and Dark elves) won't be included in the first batch of armies, as GW 'focus' on the 'original' continent and leave Lustria, Ulthuan et al to an expansion down the line. It's sure to piss of players, which is why I'm confident it's what GW will do. Maybe there'll be some 'get you by' Ravening Horses-style lists, but no great attention paid.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Ehh, I think we'd still be waiting either way, but I do agree in that it would have been among the first projects put on the backbones during the pandemic.
Yep it would also have been a natural "just cancel it" project due to Covid or due to the fact that GW's production can't keep up right now etc....
Or its entered a dangerous spot where resources for it got moved around internally and suddenly it ends up running on a skeleton crew and development time gets stretched out too far; or it gets put on the endless "next business meeting we'll make a firm choice" list. Which can lead to super long delays in getting through key steps which, again, can kill a project because it never gets underway.
There are a lot of ways it could just up and die. GW could also not throw away material either; if they cancelled it they could still just go "Ok we are sorry, Old World isn't coming, Covid blah blah - but we are releasing the armies into AOS. Behold the bear riding, icy army of the Velsik!"
Old World is not getting cancelled. There's no way current GW would pass up on the biggest nostalgia trip to the bank possible, when even brave new AoS is dredging ideas from WFB's past.
His Master's Voice wrote: Old World is not getting cancelled. There's no way current GW would pass up on the biggest nostalgia trip to the bank possible, when even brave new AoS is dredging ideas from WFB's past.
I agree but I think we all have to brace for disappointment.
My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
His Master's Voice wrote: Old World is not getting cancelled. There's no way current GW would pass up on the biggest nostalgia trip to the bank possible, when even brave new AoS is dredging ideas from WFB's past.
I agree but I think we all have to brace for disappointment.
My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
I dunno. Death are really popular as a GA in AOS and GW could make a killing bringing back Tomb Kings. AT the same time Demons are a natural cross-over faction and the core models can at least jump into Old World with zero modification save for base size elements.
Paymaster Games wrote: As some one who is very excited about the Old World, i am hanging on every update and building and painting new units for my army waiting for the release date to be reveiled.
Other then the cities of sigmar, lizardmen, Ogres and some chaos and greenskin models it is very unlikely that any AoS models with see the light of day in the Old World.
The Old World will likely be inspired by 6th edition, which was the most ballanced edition, with elements from the other editions added in. GW stated that the Old World setting will be durning the time of three emperers, which saw huge changes to the Warhammer World setting, like the Rise of the Vampire Counts, The Waaagh of Gorbad Ironclaw, and the Great War of Chaos. This is going to be a great setting for Warhammer since so many of the nations got their chance rise whlie the Empire was at its weakest. I am pumped. GW also said that all of the armies from the Old World would be playable. So that would make 6 Old World armies ( Empire, Bretonia, Tilea/Dogs Of War, Dwarfs, Wood Elves, and Skaven), 3 Armies from The Badlands and the East (Greenskins, Chaos Dwarves and Ogres), One army to the South (Tomb Kings) and 3 armies to the West (High Elves, Dark Elves and Lizardmen) and Chaos to the North. That is 14 armies to start (15 if you count Beastmen). If thier is any truth to the talk about new armies we may see armies for Kislev, Gand Cathey, Norsica, and Golden Hoard of Hobgobla Khan. It is so hard not to get excited about this game.
When it comes to basing, GW said that square bases are returning fo rthe Old World. I am willing to take them at their word. I know people who rebased their Warhammer models to play AoS, but most of the people i know put their Warhammer models on a shelf, switched to KoW (Which released several WHFB themed armies right after the Death of Warhammer) or bought new if they started up AoS. Basing is importent in Warhammer, it determines who can fight, how many ranks you have, how your units manuver on the battlefeild. So this would have to fall back on the Hobby skills of the different players to make the basing options that work for them. I remember seeing units mounted on strips and monster bases. I know that if you wanted to reuse you AoS models for Warhammer i am sure you could figure out a way to to do it with out rebasing a single model.
I hope that in the Warhammer Day tomorrow that they will finally release news for the Old World. I am looking forward to returning to Warhammer.
I don't understand your first line. If you love Warhammer that much, then why don't you still keep playing it. You still have your old rulebooks and Army books I assume - as will most of your old regular gamers. Why do you need GW to sell you more stuff - most likely with changes that will affect your existing army?
I know when new editions come out and people say to keep on playing the old version, it's harder, as many move onto the new version, but when GW didn't make a new version, why didn't you just keep on playing the game you already had?
His Master's Voice wrote: Old World is not getting cancelled. There's no way current GW would pass up on the biggest nostalgia trip to the bank possible, when even brave new AoS is dredging ideas from WFB's past.
I agree but I think we all have to brace for disappointment.
My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
I dunno. Death are really popular as a GA in AOS and GW could make a killing bringing back Tomb Kings. AT the same time Demons are a natural cross-over faction and the core models can at least jump into Old World with zero modification save for base size elements.
I think you far overestimate TK's popularity against people who say they would do the army Vs those who actually would. In about three editions of the game, I saw the army once. And that was with a guy who math hammered to the extreme.
Paymaster Games wrote: As some one who is very excited about the Old World, i am hanging on every update and building and painting new units for my army waiting for the release date to be reveiled.
Other then the cities of sigmar, lizardmen, Ogres and some chaos and greenskin models it is very unlikely that any AoS models with see the light of day in the Old World.
The Old World will likely be inspired by 6th edition, which was the most ballanced edition, with elements from the other editions added in. GW stated that the Old World setting will be durning the time of three emperers, which saw huge changes to the Warhammer World setting, like the Rise of the Vampire Counts, The Waaagh of Gorbad Ironclaw, and the Great War of Chaos. This is going to be a great setting for Warhammer since so many of the nations got their chance rise whlie the Empire was at its weakest. I am pumped. GW also said that all of the armies from the Old World would be playable. So that would make 6 Old World armies ( Empire, Bretonia, Tilea/Dogs Of War, Dwarfs, Wood Elves, and Skaven), 3 Armies from The Badlands and the East (Greenskins, Chaos Dwarves and Ogres), One army to the South (Tomb Kings) and 3 armies to the West (High Elves, Dark Elves and Lizardmen) and Chaos to the North. That is 14 armies to start (15 if you count Beastmen). If thier is any truth to the talk about new armies we may see armies for Kislev, Gand Cathey, Norsica, and Golden Hoard of Hobgobla Khan. It is so hard not to get excited about this game.
When it comes to basing, GW said that square bases are returning fo rthe Old World. I am willing to take them at their word. I know people who rebased their Warhammer models to play AoS, but most of the people i know put their Warhammer models on a shelf, switched to KoW (Which released several WHFB themed armies right after the Death of Warhammer) or bought new if they started up AoS. Basing is importent in Warhammer, it determines who can fight, how many ranks you have, how your units manuver on the battlefeild. So this would have to fall back on the Hobby skills of the different players to make the basing options that work for them. I remember seeing units mounted on strips and monster bases. I know that if you wanted to reuse you AoS models for Warhammer i am sure you could figure out a way to to do it with out rebasing a single model.
I hope that in the Warhammer Day tomorrow that they will finally release news for the Old World. I am looking forward to returning to Warhammer.
I don't understand your first line. If you love Warhammer that much, then why don't you still keep playing it. You still have your old rulebooks and Army books I assume - as will most of your old regular gamers. Why do you need GW to sell you more stuff - most likely with changes that will affect your existing army?
I know when new editions come out and people say to keep on playing the old version, it's harder, as many move onto the new version, but when GW didn't make a new version, why didn't you just keep on playing the game you already had?
I get what you are saying here, but for many players its not that simple. Lots of gaming communities and clubs are 'tied' to the latest GW releases, not everyone is lucky enough to have a group of playing friends that will play games which are not current. I think a good percentage of gamers are basically in the position of Timmy standing outside of Scrooge's window, waiting for the half-eaten chicken leg to be thrown to them, and for whatever reason they can't tuck in to the feast that they already have. Usually this is because they have to go with whatever their club or store goes with, and quite often that framework is provided by the parent company making the game, for good or ill.
I'm very fortunate that I can play older versions of 40k and we are running a Necromunda campaign which is a combination of old and new versions and has the new version's most egregious rule imbalances or campaign stuff ignored. But, if you look around you at the community you see people putting their head in their hands because of some new rule that they know will torpedo their campaign, or the new HH release for example which has suddenly invalidated an army costing hundreds of £s and that took hundreds of hours to complete. You can see why people get highly strung about this stuff!
But I remember what happened in some of my local gaming groups when WHFB was torched - its the only time, in my lifetime, that I have seen a grown man reduced to tears by what happened with that game. He and his gaming colleagues used to travel across Europe playing WHFB tournaments, gaming every week, really into the game and multiple armies. Then the game was killed and replaced with something where you could do a dance on the side of the table or speak to your characters for bonuses re-rolls, and was markedly a completely different game than what had come before. Despite this, despite the bond that group of gamers had, very few of them carried on with the old game. Some switched to AoS, some moved to other rank & file games, others stopped altogether. But it's remarkable how it managed to fracture that community. So not everyone can carry on with what they want to, and I've seen personally even very close gaming groups get split apart by new releases, either because the game has been killed (as with WHFB), or because a poor new version of it has made people want to stop playing - this seems to afflict numerous companies, not just GW.
His Master's Voice wrote: Old World is not getting cancelled. There's no way current GW would pass up on the biggest nostalgia trip to the bank possible, when even brave new AoS is dredging ideas from WFB's past.
I agree but I think we all have to brace for disappointment.
My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
I dunno. Death are really popular as a GA in AOS and GW could make a killing bringing back Tomb Kings. AT the same time Demons are a natural cross-over faction and the core models can at least jump into Old World with zero modification save for base size elements.
I think you far overestimate TK's popularity against people who say they would do the army Vs those who actually would. In about three editions of the game, I saw the army once. And that was with a guy who math hammered to the extreme.
Yeah, Tomb Kings are likely very niche. Even if that isn't true, you just have to look at Blood Bowl to see what happens just because GW believes so. It's been what, six years since the game relaunched? We've had second helpings of humans and orcs, and we're still waiting to get even a hint of the Khemri team.
I don't believe Tomb Kings would do badly if they got a consistent and well designed plastic range. GW has seen that time and again both in 40k and AoS. What cripples Tomb Kings most is that GW has historically given them barely any attention, and the one plastic update they got came with some major flaws. It's a pretty mismanaged army, and that's before it was squatted.
But regardless of GW's mistakes, I don't think a shiny new Tomb Kings army would have the same draw as the same investment in Empire. Chaos or Orc plastics. Unless The Old World literally started with only two factions for a year, and Tomb Kings was one of them. You don't have to beat the competition if there is no competition.
Well they had to make a Amry book for Kislev Cathay for CA's Total War so they have done the time and effort for that already so you would assume they would double down on using it
Paymaster Games wrote: As some one who is very excited about the Old World, i am hanging on every update and building and painting new units for my army waiting for the release date to be reveiled.
Other then the cities of sigmar, lizardmen, Ogres and some chaos and greenskin models it is very unlikely that any AoS models with see the light of day in the Old World.
The Old World will likely be inspired by 6th edition, which was the most ballanced edition, with elements from the other editions added in. GW stated that the Old World setting will be durning the time of three emperers, which saw huge changes to the Warhammer World setting, like the Rise of the Vampire Counts, The Waaagh of Gorbad Ironclaw, and the Great War of Chaos. This is going to be a great setting for Warhammer since so many of the nations got their chance rise whlie the Empire was at its weakest. I am pumped. GW also said that all of the armies from the Old World would be playable. So that would make 6 Old World armies ( Empire, Bretonia, Tilea/Dogs Of War, Dwarfs, Wood Elves, and Skaven), 3 Armies from The Badlands and the East (Greenskins, Chaos Dwarves and Ogres), One army to the South (Tomb Kings) and 3 armies to the West (High Elves, Dark Elves and Lizardmen) and Chaos to the North. That is 14 armies to start (15 if you count Beastmen). If thier is any truth to the talk about new armies we may see armies for Kislev, Gand Cathey, Norsica, and Golden Hoard of Hobgobla Khan. It is so hard not to get excited about this game.
When it comes to basing, GW said that square bases are returning fo rthe Old World. I am willing to take them at their word. I know people who rebased their Warhammer models to play AoS, but most of the people i know put their Warhammer models on a shelf, switched to KoW (Which released several WHFB themed armies right after the Death of Warhammer) or bought new if they started up AoS. Basing is importent in Warhammer, it determines who can fight, how many ranks you have, how your units manuver on the battlefeild. So this would have to fall back on the Hobby skills of the different players to make the basing options that work for them. I remember seeing units mounted on strips and monster bases. I know that if you wanted to reuse you AoS models for Warhammer i am sure you could figure out a way to to do it with out rebasing a single model.
I hope that in the Warhammer Day tomorrow that they will finally release news for the Old World. I am looking forward to returning to Warhammer.
I don't understand your first line. If you love Warhammer that much, then why don't you still keep playing it. You still have your old rulebooks and Army books I assume - as will most of your old regular gamers. Why do you need GW to sell you more stuff - most likely with changes that will affect your existing army?
I know when new editions come out and people say to keep on playing the old version, it's harder, as many move onto the new version, but when GW didn't make a new version, why didn't you just keep on playing the game you already had?
I get what you are saying here, but for many players its not that simple. Lots of gaming communities and clubs are 'tied' to the latest GW releases, not everyone is lucky enough to have a group of playing friends that will play games which are not current. I think a good percentage of gamers are basically in the position of Timmy standing outside of Scrooge's window, waiting for the half-eaten chicken leg to be thrown to them, and for whatever reason they can't tuck in to the feast that they already have. Usually this is because they have to go with whatever their club or store goes with, and quite often that framework is provided by the parent company making the game, for good or ill.
I'm very fortunate that I can play older versions of 40k and we are running a Necromunda campaign which is a combination of old and new versions and has the new version's most egregious rule imbalances or campaign stuff ignored. But, if you look around you at the community you see people putting their head in their hands because of some new rule that they know will torpedo their campaign, or the new HH release for example which has suddenly invalidated an army costing hundreds of £s and that took hundreds of hours to complete. You can see why people get highly strung about this stuff!
But I remember what happened in some of my local gaming groups when WHFB was torched - its the only time, in my lifetime, that I have seen a grown man reduced to tears by what happened with that game. He and his gaming colleagues used to travel across Europe playing WHFB tournaments, gaming every week, really into the game and multiple armies. Then the game was killed and replaced with something where you could do a dance on the side of the table or speak to your characters for bonuses re-rolls, and was markedly a completely different game than what had come before. Despite this, despite the bond that group of gamers had, very few of them carried on with the old game. Some switched to AoS, some moved to other rank & file games, others stopped altogether. But it's remarkable how it managed to fracture that community. So not everyone can carry on with what they want to, and I've seen personally even very close gaming groups get split apart by new releases, either because the game has been killed (as with WHFB), or because a poor new version of it has made people want to stop playing - this seems to afflict numerous companies, not just GW.
I think several important factors...
- WHFB has a large number of supporters, but they weren't all playing at the time when WHFB was killed. The final editions were ones that divided the community, some people liked them, some people didn't, many people quit in the last few years before GW killed it... sadly a lot were drawn back in by the End Times before they figured out the title of the campaign was literal.
- Even before WHFB was killed, the community was very divided on what edition to play, when GW killed it this made the community fracture even more. Some people jumped to fan rules, some to older editions, some stuck to the final edition. It's always better for a game (and easier to maintain a local community) if everyone is at least somewhat on the same page.
- WHFB is a painfully expensive game, both in time and money investment. I might start an Epic army even though I know there's no one else nearby playing it, knowing that I can build and paint 2 separate armies and try and start a community myself. Even if I fail, I have 2 armies that I can use like a glorified board game if I want. Building a WHFB army when there's not a community already going to join is a big ask. If Blood Bowl died tomorrow, no worries, it can and did survive without GW supporting it. WHFB, not so much, and it has nothing to do with the dedication of the BB community vs the WHFB community, one game is just better suited to surviving without any support from the manufacturer.
- Some communities did go on for a while, but in communities there's a cycle of old players dropping off, new players starting, occasionally a cool release brings some of those old players back again. Once GW kills the game the cycle dies, old players leave and never come back (rather than coming back when they see a new shiny they like) and try getting new players into a game where they can't buy most of an army, the coolest models are unavailable or expensive 2nd hand, the books aren't available and people can't even decide which books you should buy.
- WHFB was a gradual-build game. Most people didn't just go out one weekend and buy a whole army and call it done, they'd slowly build their army over the course of years or decades. When GW killed it, for many people that kills the whole gradually building thing.
All that said, there are still people who play WHFB and/or use their WHFB to play other games like KoW, but there's also a lot who loved the game and setting who aren't playing now for one of a dozen reasons.
I agree but I think we all have to brace for disappointment.
My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
I don't think GW is going to be killing any of their systems, outside of the most niche ones, like Quest. Practically everything they put out is going to be profitable with how the plastic and resin production is set up, so officially ending support for a line just doesn't make any sense for them.
Mr Morden wrote: Well they had to make a Amry book for Kislev Cathay for CA's Total War so they have done the time and effort for that already so you would assume they would double down on using it
They made them an 8th edition book I believe as CA had used 8th books as guides for the existing factions.
Mr Morden wrote: Well they had to make a Amry book for Kislev Cathay for CA's Total War so they have done the time and effort for that already so you would assume they would double down on using it
They made them an 8th edition book I believe as CA had used 8th books as guides for the existing factions.
There wasn't any 8th book for Vampire Coast, Norsca, Kislev or Cathay. All factions that CA implemented in the TW series.
That said, I would feel confident in the speculation that CA worked closely with GW with regard to at least Kislev and Cathay and whatever artwork and storyboarding they had in place for bringing back the Old World. I'm sure many NDA's were signed during the development of TW3.
Mr Morden wrote: Well they had to make a Amry book for Kislev Cathay for CA's Total War so they have done the time and effort for that already so you would assume they would double down on using it
They made them an 8th edition book I believe as CA had used 8th books as guides for the existing factions.
There wasn't any 8th book for Vampire Coast, Norsca, Kislev or Cathay. All factions that CA implemented in the TW series.
That said, I would feel confident in the speculation that CA worked closely with GW with regard to at least Kislev and Cathay and whatever artwork and storyboarding they had in place for bringing back the Old World. I'm sure many NDA's were signed during the development of TW3.
We'll likely never know the truth of the matter, but both CA and GW have claimed they worked closely together on the concepts for Kislev and Cathay (CA in their blogs and GW on their community page have claimed that).
But yeah, I'm not sure where the idea that GW made CA army books comes from, CA didn't need an army book to make their game, they just need a rough idea of how units should work and their various strengths and weaknesses, Total War has its own system that goes beyond what was in army books (e.g. the concept of anti-large/anti-armour/anti-infantry, charge bonuses, reload rates, etc).
The idea that GW have a copy of a Cathay army book stems from this interview I think. Andy Hall, ex GW senior writer and Total War lead/principal writer, recalls information for the CA game from a GW edition.
In fact, the Warhammer Studio went so far as to establish each and every unit for use on the tabletop, including stats and special abilities.** These numbers were then expertly translated and transposed by the technomancers at Creative Assembly, who deftly wove them into a rich campaign in this never-before-seen part of the Warhammer world.
Luke82 wrote: With any luck, the project has been abandoned. I don’t see what good can really come of it. It will be changed a lot for a variety of sound commercial reasons and split the modest WHFB community. It won’t be ‘new, shiny’ enough for the AoS boys, nor ‘true to the game you love’ enough for the WHFB crowd, and will splutter and die.
The fans are still playing 8th or 6th and I can’t see the new game being anything other than a watered down version of these, and the community is already well used to being outside of GW officialdom by now. Are there really enough looky-loos from total war to make it viable?
Will it die the way the new Necromunda died, or the way the new Blood Bowl did?
Necromunda 2017 is being played by the same crowd which plays HH: 40+ hobbyists. They are a smaller group of the community but still large enough for GW to not ignore them.
Someone mentioned lizardmen above. Are they expected to be part of the old world? I thought the old world was the human (including Northern chaos wastes, cathay, empire,)vampires, elven, and orc/ogre/goblinoid armies...
In fact, the Warhammer Studio went so far as to establish each and every unit for use on the tabletop, including stats and special abilities.** These numbers were then expertly translated and transposed by the technomancers at Creative Assembly, who deftly wove them into a rich campaign in this never-before-seen part of the Warhammer world.
** Eighth edition rules, we understand.
It also seems to contrast with Kislev, where it seems GW just gave them their notes and designs for TOW plus some bespoke special characters to use as LLs (like Kostaltin who was apparently designed by Adam Troke) and CA just added that to existing Kislev material from 4th-5th.
Whereas for Cathay, GW talks about writing 8th Ed rules for everything and Andy from CA has mentioned having a physical army book which they made CA since previous lore was so scant.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But yeah, I'm not sure where the idea that GW made CA army books comes from
from GW themself about TWW3, that they made 8th Editon books so that CA had a base to work with as everything else also was based on 8th Editon books
Okay I guess, just seems like a dumb arse way to do it when Total War has their own stats system that may be inspired by but is totally unique from GW's rules Like why would you bother writing those rules for 8th edition when you can just incorporate them straight into Total War? I get that maybe the GW creators don't know how the CA system works, but still just seems like the arse about way to do it, lol.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But yeah, I'm not sure where the idea that GW made CA army books comes from
from GW themself about TWW3, that they made 8th Editon books so that CA had a base to work with as everything else also was based on 8th Editon books
Okay I guess, just seems like a dumb arse way to do it when Total War has their own stats system that may be inspired by but is totally unique from GW's rules Like why would you bother writing those rules for 8th edition when you can just incorporate them straight into Total War? I get that maybe the GW creators don't know how the CA system works, but still just seems like the arse about way to do it, lol.
Because they need to stat them up in the original system first to see in which areas they are stronger or weaker than the benchline? Makes sense to me.
Eldarain wrote: Would make sense if they've kept tabs on the resell demand for those factions.
The resell on both are affected by the fact that by the end of 8th, much of both of those factions were Direct Only already due to lack of popularity/interest. Bretonnians hadn't had a new book since 6th and that required a ton of FAQing to bring in line with 8th ed army building rules. Add on that neither army's lines survived into AoS1 and you have a Rare armies = extra resell effect.
Not only that but wargamers, whilst we often have impressive unbuilt collections, are often more likely to hold onto things. So rare forces can become even rarer because those who buy tend to hold onto it after an initial fall off interest when the army goes out of production. So right now prices are inflated because hardly anyone will part with models; plus those that do will want to command the higher prices most times.
Also GW has to be aware that armies can sell poorly purely because of how GW has treated them. No or bad rules updates; no model updates; no marketing push or battle reports or lore or anything. Basically if GW ignores something or treats it poorly that army will wane in interest. New people won't get excited, existing fans will discourage others and be less likely to expand collections etc..
Heck that was Old World near the end - right before End Times sparked interest, Old World was a dwindling game.
GW at least now realises that leaving armies whole editoins without updates or updates only at the end is bad business; though it would be nice if they could shift to perhaps 4 or 5 year editions instead of 3!
Depends on how much investment it gets and what you count as an "edition".
Necromunda got re-released in 2017 and has been given 4 rulebooks IIRC but they're essentially clean-ups of the older versions with some new stuff added in i.e. Ash Wastes with vehicles and Dark Uprising with ZM. The basic game hasn't really changed and even taking a huge break from the initial release until Ash Wastes, I still know what everything does.
On the other hand, Kill Team got made into a full game in 2016 and got a 2nd edition in 2018 with a rules switch in 2021 to the current version.
Then you have LotR which is sitting on 4 years for its current edition.
It'll very much be "wait and see", if we ever get to the release date that is.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But yeah, I'm not sure where the idea that GW made CA army books comes from
from GW themself about TWW3, that they made 8th Editon books so that CA had a base to work with as everything else also was based on 8th Editon books
Okay I guess, just seems like a dumb arse way to do it when Total War has their own stats system that may be inspired by but is totally unique from GW's rules Like why would you bother writing those rules for 8th edition when you can just incorporate them straight into Total War? I get that maybe the GW creators don't know how the CA system works, but still just seems like the arse about way to do it, lol.
Because they need to stat them up in the original system first to see in which areas they are stronger or weaker than the benchline? Makes sense to me.
Except they don't need to do that, because TWW3 already has it's own system that is more granulated that WHFB ever was. There's a bunch of Ws3 S3 units in WHFB that have unique profiles afforded by the more complex system of TWW3 or maybe just different interpretations, a bunch of M4 units in WHFB have different Speed in TWW3 (Zombies, Skeletons and Ghouls all has the same movement in WHFB, but have Speed 23, 31 and 38 respectively in TWW3).
Those existing units would be the benchmark for any new units added.
I guess as a starting point they could write the WHFB statline (M/Ws/Bs/S/T/W/I/A/Ld) as a starting point to ballpark get units in the right location, but that's far from "an army book". Points would be useless as CA would have to do their own balancing, descriptions of special rules and the fluff behind a unit would be useful but actually writing the rule out in 8th edition form would be a complete waste of time.
I'm going to guess there was a bit of poetic license taken in saying GW provided CA with an army book. Though perhaps, interviews with the original GW founders and writers makes me think those are the sort of blokes who would write an unreleased army book for the hell of it during one of their weekend gaming sessions Interviews with more recent GW rules writers make me think they're probably too busy begging for bread and water to survive in their 15 minutes of free time each week to make anything other than the games that get released to the public
Sure, their stats are different, but the stats are still based off of rule books. Skaven are fast in the books, so they're fast in the game. And them there's army rules they'd need to translate. It would be harder for Games Workshop to work with a system they don't understand, so they communicated in a system they both understand. What's so weird about that? Why do so many forum users speak English when they have their own languages that work just fine? Some concepts are better explained in different languages, too. But we need to understand each other, and English is common enough to use as a baseline for communication, even if you're German or Russian. This is just a small scale, non language version of that.
They don't understand all the stats and baselines, and how everything interacts, so they wrote an army book to bridge the gap.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
Warhammer - The Old World: La Sainte Croisade
Features the return of Bretonnia and Tomb Kings, as a legion of Knights and Peasants delves into Khemri on a holy crusade!
Led by Reponse de Lyonnese?
Unfortunately, I suspect that Tomb Kings is the group most likely to get dropped from the Old World release (and I say this as someone who played them). There seemed to be little interest in them amongst the GW staff back in the day. And many elements of their army came across as "similar to Vampire Counts, but weaker and more complicated", which suggests a lack of interest by GW in writing their army books (even 8th edition).
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Sure, their stats are different, but the stats are still based off of rule books. Skaven are fast in the books, so they're fast in the game. And them there's army rules they'd need to translate. It would be harder for Games Workshop to work with a system they don't understand, so they communicated in a system they both understand. What's so weird about that? Why do so many forum users speak English when they have their own languages that work just fine? Some concepts are better explained in different languages, too. But we need to understand each other, and English is common enough to use as a baseline for communication, even if you're German or Russian. This is just a small scale, non language version of that.
They don't understand all the stats and baselines, and how everything interacts, so they wrote an army book to bridge the gap.
I don't speak Japanese, like, at all, if someone's speaking Japanese I have zero idea what they're saying.
Someone who understands WHFB rules can tell at a glance what the TWW3 stats mean.
But as I said, ' they could write the WHFB statline (M/Ws/Bs/S/T/W/I/A/Ld) as a starting point to ballpark get units in the right location, but that's far from "an army book" '.
A full army book is simply not needed. Maybe they wrote one anyway, but it's far from needed.
I've beaten Total War Warhammer 2 and I still don't know what most of the numbers mean in depth. I see 30 speed and don't really know the exact implications. I still have no idea how much Melee Defense makes a difference, and Armor is weird.
But, yeah, they probably didn't need a full army book. They probably didn't add art and lots of lore, but once all the units are down, it's pretty easy to divide units between Lords, Heroes, Core, Special, and Rare, and then maybe give a faction or two with different selections, and add army rules. It honestly could have been a pretty fun weekend project, because they didn't really need to worry about balance or anything.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A full army book is simply not needed. Maybe they wrote one anyway, but it's far from needed.
What are we imagining a full army book is, here?
To create a new Warhammer faction, the main studio would need to do: a list of units, their stats and abilities, their visual design and the lore of the faction. None of this is stuff that they could leave to an outside license holder to just invent out of thin air and insert into the setting. And these are basically the components of an army book and what I expect GW produced and meant when they said they made an army book. I don't imagine they literally laid out a book with a specific page count, chapters, fonts, photo gallery, points costs and gak. They made a reference document of what the faction is.
StarFyre wrote: Someone mentioned lizardmen above. Are they expected to be part of the old world? I thought the old world was the human (including Northern chaos wastes, cathay, empire,)vampires, elven, and orc/ogre/goblinoid armies...
Lizardmen originated in WFB. Warhammer: The Old World is theoretically a return to that setting entire though the initial release may be more limited. Anyway the point is that the lizards and frogs were part of the setting and game back then so people will expect to see them again.
StarFyre wrote: Someone mentioned lizardmen above. Are they expected to be part of the old world? I thought the old world was the human (including Northern chaos wastes, cathay, empire,)vampires, elven, and orc/ogre/goblinoid armies...
Lizardmen originated in WFB. Warhammer: The Old World is theoretically a return to that setting entire though the initial release may be more limited. Anyway the point is that the lizards and frogs were part of the setting and game back then so people will expect to see them again.
Were lizardmen "discovered" by the time the Old World is set? Same with Tomb King. Were they awakened? I feel like a lot of the old factions may not make a huge appearance, simply because it doesn't fit in with the older timeline. I don't even know if Ogre Kingdoms would be on their pilgrimage yet
StarFyre wrote: Someone mentioned lizardmen above. Are they expected to be part of the old world? I thought the old world was the human (including Northern chaos wastes, cathay, empire,)vampires, elven, and orc/ogre/goblinoid armies...
Lizardmen originated in WFB. Warhammer: The Old World is theoretically a return to that setting entire though the initial release may be more limited. Anyway the point is that the lizards and frogs were part of the setting and game back then so people will expect to see them again.
Were lizardmen "discovered" by the time the Old World is set? Same with Tomb King. Were they awakened? I feel like a lot of the old factions may not make a huge appearance, simply because it doesn't fit in with the older timeline. I don't even know if Ogre Kingdoms would be on their pilgrimage yet
Yes - for nearly 1200 years - Skeggi was founded by the Norse in 888 whilst Marco Colombo makes his infamous "discovery" in 1492. There were even captured Amazons for sale in Mordheim shortly before the comet hit in 2000.
The Tomb Kings had been awake for about 3000 years by the year 2000.
Tomb Kings aren't like Tomb Kings in space. They've been continuously active throughout the millennia, fending off treasure hunters, retrieving lost artifacts, haunting the ocean they claimed as their territory and going on slave raids. There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,
Geifer wrote: There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,
No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.
well, those are all over the World, Wood Elves are not just in 1 forest but in many, Lizardmen have cities in the south of Khemri as well as there is Chaos Waste in the southern lands too
Laurelorn Forest has had a powerful influence on the Empire through its history and as the Enoir (the Wood Elves that dwell there) are different to those of Athel Loren - there is the opportunity for new models etc
Geifer wrote: There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,
No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.
That's a problem with Wood Elves, not Tomb Kings. You'll struggle to find reasons for a lot of factions to fight isolationist hippies, including the Empire.
The Badlands, Border Princes and part of the southern Empire are the rightful territory of one or another Nehekharan monarch. Bashing in some barbarian heads to restore order and Nehekharan rule is all the justification you need without going into more specific scenarios.
Similarly, the ocean south of the Border Princes and Tilea see fleets out of Zandri because the city claims those waves for itself.
Tomb Kings never suffered the supposed isolation they're frequently accused of. They're next door neighbors with the Old World and have strategic interests* in the southern parts of it.
*both literally and alternatively read as a euphemism for royal ego.
Geifer wrote: There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,
No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.
Quests, summoning magic gone wrong, revenge, chaos did it...
Yeah it's weird, but in a world of magic and ancient civilizations it's more rational than say, Samurai at the pyramids of Giza.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Tomb Kings is the group most likely to get dropped from the Old World release (and I say this as someone who played them). There seemed to be little interest in them amongst the GW staff back in the day. And many elements of their army came across as "similar to Vampire Counts, but weaker and more complicated", which suggests a lack of interest by GW in writing their army books (even 8th edition).
There was at least enough interest to get them both a book and multiple new units in 8th, which is infinitely more interest from the studio than Bretonnians which got their 6th ed releases then literally nothing but an 8th ed FAQ.
It didn't help that Vampires also had skeletons and got a massive update with ghosts as well alongside and also a more powerful battletome.
Again whilst power isn't everything; if your army dies in most encounters and is tough to use purely because its got bad or out of date stats then interest wanes. People move onto working on another army etc...
Kirby era GW I think didn't understand this well at the top end of the firm. All they understood was quality sculpting, boutique sales and sales figures. If they invested lots into making TK look cool and they didn't sell then that was the only issue, they either didn't look cool enough or they were wrong from the outset and would never sell.
Again it was policy born of a management team too isolated from their actual customers and viewpoints to really understand the whole of the sales data. At least that's my impression of those times.
Yea it seemed Kirby thought he was selling display case figurines and the rulebook side of the business was a weird hobby that Priestly and his gang had that was just a dumb drain on resources.
That would certainly explain the 1st edition AoS “rules”, such as they were.
Not even considering the wacky cluck like a chicken junk; the idea that 20 wounds worth of goblins was an even match against 20 wounds of Nagash, Supreme Lord of the Undead, somehow… or that if you had more than those 20 gobbos there was a decent chance Nagash could win by only killing a quarter of them, because he was so badly outnumbered.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Tomb Kings always had a very cool look (though it got a bit silly with the skull sphinxes and such) but were very limited.
It would be like splitting Necrons into 2 armies, one that gets almost everything, the other which only gets warriors and a few other units.
Not sure what the fix would be but GW never found it either.
The Tomb Kings were supposed to have loads of construct-warriors. Like the Ushabti and Bone Giants but moreso. If they’d leaned into that then I’m sure more units could have been added. Similarly their elite tomb guards were supposed to have been dedicated to their gods and got specific bonuses in life; that could have been a thing for their raised remains too.
Oh yes because the base version was even worse. As in model count only. So Nagash was so horribly outnumbered by a minimum sized unit of goblins he could declare a sudden death condition and win by killing five of them. Or something.
Mr_Rose wrote: That would certainly explain the 1st edition AoS “rules”, such as they were.
Not even considering the wacky cluck like a chicken junk; the idea that 20 wounds worth of goblins was an even match against 20 wounds of Nagash, Supreme Lord of the Undead, somehow… or that if you had more than those 20 gobbos there was a decent chance Nagash could win by only killing a quarter of them, because he was so badly outnumbered.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Tomb Kings always had a very cool look (though it got a bit silly with the skull sphinxes and such) but were very limited.
It would be like splitting Necrons into 2 armies, one that gets almost everything, the other which only gets warriors and a few other units.
Not sure what the fix would be but GW never found it either.
The Tomb Kings were supposed to have loads of construct-warriors. Like the Ushabti and Bone Giants but moreso. If they’d leaned into that then I’m sure more units could have been added. Similarly their elite tomb guards were supposed to have been dedicated to their gods and got specific bonuses in life; that could have been a thing for their raised remains too.
There's an interview that surfaced somewhere and basically AoS did have sensible rules in development for launch. However one of the managers over the rules team "liked silly rules" and the rules team worked to appease their manager which resulted in the formal rules going out the window and joke rules being the only thing that came along. The total mess of messing up the armies and such I think was purely a marketing move.
My impression is the AoS product was going to be joke/casual rules with only 4 "Grand Alliance Armies" with no worries about balance. GW would then release "mini" armies which would be one or two release waves and that would be it. They could then retire and release armies all over the place because of how the lore works with AoS. Utterly no limits.
With only 4 GA armies to worry about they could "retire" armies and you'd still have valid forces etc..
Basically a purely shelf filling model line with some rules on the side with only support for some core factions that sell really well or which get marketed like crazy - ergo Stormcast (the new Marines who I suspect they also wanted to come in multiple chapters like Marines).
AoS is a product and marketing choice born of a management team totally isoalted from the actual customers; purely looking at the numbers and neurotic about leaks (which is an irony because GW at that time leaked like crazy). It was also made without the marketing team actually being involved - hence the massive marketing push for Old World prior to its removal from sale (without warning) and the surprise release of a totally "new game" with zero pre-release marketing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote: There wasn't even that. The game launched with the idea that you just put down what you wanted and played.
Yep, no points, no structure, no army limits. The only people that really liked it at that time were those doing home-brew rules because after years of being ignored they suddenly ruled their local clubs because the core AoS structure was beyond daft. That and most people used 8th ed points for armies that had them.
The Tomb Kings were created in a ritual that ended abruptly (and unexpectedly) with Nagash's death. When Nagash was recreated for the first time following his death, he had his fatal run-in with Sigmar not long afterwards. The Tomb Kings have been around for a *long* time, and pre-date the Empire.
As for why the Tomb Kings would send an army somewhere? Well, the Tomb King leading the army found out that a gold necklace from his Treasury had turned up in the region, and...
His Master's Voice wrote: Old World is not getting cancelled. There's no way current GW would pass up on the biggest nostalgia trip to the bank possible, when even brave new AoS is dredging ideas from WFB's past.
I agree but I think we all have to brace for disappointment.
My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
The disappointment is going to be that everyone jumping the gun and building armies for the game before we even know much about it won't be able to use half the stuff that they thought they could, and then within a year all the legacy stuff will be sidelined into a "legends" type format where they won't get balance updates and will be considered unusable by the community at large. Even though its predictable, folks will still whinge that they spent thousands of dollars buying and countless hours assembling and painting obsolete model kits and that they are getting screwed by GW.
chaos0xomega wrote: The disappointment is going to be that everyone jumping the gun and building armies for the game before we even know much about it won't be able to use half the stuff that they thought they could, and then within a year all the legacy stuff will be sidelined into a "legends" type format where they won't get balance updates and will be considered unusable by the community at large. Even though its predictable, folks will still whinge that they spent thousands of dollars buying and countless hours assembling and painting obsolete model kits and that they are getting screwed by GW.
Yes.
I think people thinking this is going to be "WHFB 9th, just ignore the missing decade" are set to be very disappointed.
I admittedly can't tell what GW will do - but they will want me to buy new minis. Not use the ones I bought 10-25 years ago.
Warhammer Community wrote:We’ve also got a busy week right here on the Warhammer Community website. There are reveals for Warcry, more on Kill Team: Shadowvaults, and an update on The Old World.
Platuan4th wrote: There wasn't even that. The game launched with the idea that you just put down what you wanted and played.
One of my favorite things about the AoS launch version is that the core rules actually included the sudden death rule.
Also, just for the record, the correct way to phrase it is that sudden death helps your three Nagashs defeat five Goblins. Cut it out with this wound counting nonsense the players came up with and embrace the game designers' vision already.
His Master's Voice wrote: Old World is not getting cancelled. There's no way current GW would pass up on the biggest nostalgia trip to the bank possible, when even brave new AoS is dredging ideas from WFB's past.
I agree but I think we all have to brace for disappointment.
My guess:
Launch box with 2 factions.
3-5 insanely priced army books for the old factions
Made to order?
Death
The disappointment is going to be that everyone jumping the gun and building armies for the game before we even know much about it won't be able to use half the stuff that they thought they could, and then within a year all the legacy stuff will be sidelined into a "legends" type format where they won't get balance updates and will be considered unusable by the community at large. Even though its predictable, folks will still whinge that they spent thousands of dollars buying and countless hours assembling and painting obsolete model kits and that they are getting screwed by GW.
You're not wrong, but wouldn't it be just as predictable to GW as it is to us? Wouldn't the question then be why GW doesn't market the Old World accordingly instead of inviting discontent with a way too early announcement and nothing to follow up on it?
I'm so scared of them ruining Skaven that I've been slowly amassing a collection to avoid the worst outcome. I just need a Doomwheel and I'll be safe from the worst of it. Once that's done, I can finish collecting Clanrats to actually build an army.
Even if The Old World is bad, I'll just keep playing 6th edition, but in person instead of on TTS. It's not the end of the world for me, unless they ruin the Skaven line of models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, square is better, because I'll never touch Age of Sigmar.
Could magnetize squares onto round base extenders. 3d printed ones come pretty cheap, and are thin enough the magnetization would go through to a tray.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I'm so scared of them ruining Skaven that I've been slowly amassing a collection to avoid the worst outcome. I just need a Doomwheel and I'll be safe from the worst of it. Once that's done, I can finish collecting Clanrats to actually build an army.
Even if The Old World is bad, I'll just keep playing 6th edition, but in person instead of on TTS. It's not the end of the world for me, unless they ruin the Skaven line of models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, square is better, because I'll never touch Age of Sigmar.
Could look at the Underworlds Skaven bands to get an idea of the aethetics & motifs they are going with, though obviously those are far more dynamic than units would be.
My worry isn't that they'll stop selling anything. My worry is where the Skaven aesthetic will go if they update all my favorite models. I don't like the new Deathmaster because of the absolute lack of emotion, but the AoS Skryre guy is fine, if not just a bit tall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I never realized they did an Underworlds thing for Skaven. Maybe I'll grab a pack to run as Assassins with different loadouts. That could be fun.
Warhammer Community wrote:We’ve also got a busy week right here on the Warhammer Community website. There are reveals for Warcry, more on Kill Team: Shadowvaults, and an update on The Old World.
Let's hope for something other than a new map-update this time!
Warhammer Community wrote:We’ve also got a busy week right here on the Warhammer Community website. There are reveals for Warcry, more on Kill Team: Shadowvaults, and an update on The Old World.
Let's hope for something other than a new map-update this time!
Hopefully. We've basically had nothing since the start of the year, and even then all we got was stuff to do with TW:W3. Now that that's released it should at least be something other than Kislev and Cathay.
I admittedly can't tell what GW will do - but they will want me to buy new minis. Not use the ones I bought 10-25 years ago.
GW released a short FAQ about the Old World game last year. In it, they wrote: «We want people to be able to use their old armies if they wish, or to start new ones, or to add new miniatures to old armies – whatever they want.»
So yeah, they want to sell new minis, but also want us to be able to use our existing armies.
but it was the same with AoS, people could use their old armies (but with the silly rules in an open play game mode), or buy the new ones that got the real rules
and yes, AoS was not that bad if you got 2 new armies playing with the provided scenarios
the problem simply was that there were only 2 armies that were playable although GW said you can use your existing collection (just not with the game mode that works)
so there is a good chance that the old armies can be used but to get the full (or good) experience of the new game, you need the new armies
Absolutely. But that’s fine ? All I expect is to be able to use (some of) my old Fantasy minis to get me going. If persisting with old minis gives me a disadvantage on the battlefield… well, that wouldn’t exactly be anything new. In my head, Warhammer has always been like that. To a certain degree, you’re going to have to keep buying new minis to keep up.
Also, this may turn out to be naive, but I choose to believe that GW of 2022 will treat oldblood hobbyists like myself with less contempt than GW of 2015 did. Lots of things seem to have changed for the better since the days of the initial AoS launch. I’m pretty sure W:ToW is going to be a better game than AoS was on release, and it’s not going to be «silly rules for legacy stuff, proper rules for new stuff» this time.
The hype we’ve had for W:ToW so far seems heavily aimed at hobby veterans with an affection for square bases and the fantasy editions of yore. To me, that means that the game will be fairly «veteran friendly», at least to a greater degree than AoS was.
Tbh I expect that we’ll get rules for all the old armies with all the stuff you could use before, but when they start writing army books for the armies set in that era they’ll simply be more powerful to encourage buying them. So you can use your old armies forever, they just won’t be as good.
Potentially as well they’ll be different enough that it’ll discourage using old models for the new set up - e.g. we know there’s multiple different Empire factions- if they’re significantly different from each other then you’re not really going to be able to just use a WFB Empire army to represent them, especially with all the modern stuff missing.
Similarly all the Von Carsteins are dead in this timeframe but Hellsnitch and Drachenfels are active- perhaps the main undead faction with have a different focus as well?
Geifer wrote: There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,
No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.
Boats. I can't see how it's THIS difficult for people to understand.
some people simply struggle with the idea that war between countries that do not share a border is possible
there are people who even complain that a battle between Empire and Bretonia is not immersive at all because with mountains in between it is impossible that an army of knights will ever cross the border
(just looking at T9A were one goal of the background team was drawing a map that made wars between all factions "immersive")
not like in the real world were we had Austrians fighting French in the Middle East or Prussians against Indian in Africa
kodos wrote: some people simply struggle with the idea that war between countries that do not share a border is possible
there are people who even complain that a battle between Empire and Bretonia is not immersive at all because with mountains in between it is impossible that an army of knights will ever cross the border
(just looking at T9A were one goal of the background team was drawing a map that made wars between all factions "immersive")
not like in the real world were we had Austrians fighting French in the Middle East or Prussians against Indian in Africa
Those people don't know the lore - there have been various battles between the two nations even in the time of Karl Franz - there is a disputed border.
Geifer wrote: There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,
No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.
Boats. I can't see how it's THIS difficult for people to understand.
There are also Lizardmen temples in the Southlands. There's an entire Khemrian city that fights them on the regular.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Sure, their stats are different, but the stats are still based off of rule books. Skaven are fast in the books, so they're fast in the game. And them there's army rules they'd need to translate. It would be harder for Games Workshop to work with a system they don't understand, so they communicated in a system they both understand. What's so weird about that? Why do so many forum users speak English when they have their own languages that work just fine? Some concepts are better explained in different languages, too. But we need to understand each other, and English is common enough to use as a baseline for communication, even if you're German or Russian. This is just a small scale, non language version of that.
They don't understand all the stats and baselines, and how everything interacts, so they wrote an army book to bridge the gap.
I don't speak Japanese, like, at all, if someone's speaking Japanese I have zero idea what they're saying.
Someone who understands WHFB rules can tell at a glance what the TWW3 stats mean.
But as I said, ' they could write the WHFB statline (M/Ws/Bs/S/T/W/I/A/Ld) as a starting point to ballpark get units in the right location, but that's far from "an army book" '.
A full army book is simply not needed. Maybe they wrote one anyway, but it's far from needed.
So because you don't think it's needed means they didn't do it even though they said they did?
Good to know that you know better than GW what GW did.
I feel like people just don't want to accept that a lot of matchups between armies were only plausible within the content of a certain region, or by creating an excuse. It isnt the how--yeah we all know how boats work, it's the why. How many Tomb King amulets ended up in Kislev? How many crusades did Brettonia mount upon Ulthuan? How many Dwarf expeditions into Lustria? Very few factions had real narrative freedom to fight anyone and needing to come up with a narrative that is more or less an embellished asspull (or less, depending on writing ability) totally works once or twice, but it gets old fast. Some players can glaze over it, and that is great! But for others it dampens the fun, trying to say it's invalid 'because boats' is simply a reflection of the level the speaker wishes to communicate on.
Heresy I know, but I'd probably just retcon in some sort of lost/isolated Lizardmen jungle city somewhere in the Old World (a crater in the mountain ranges of Tilea/Estalia perhaps, as they have never had much detail). They can then use that as a base of operations to go wherever you want.
Beyond that I guess it depends on how "asspull" you feel it is. Just about every faction I feel can show up in say the Border Princes (except as said possibly the Lizardmen, but even then) without too much narrative skew.
"Why is this army at the gates of Altdorf/Lothern/Itza?" etc is a difficult one to answer. But you don't really have to do it that way.
I suppose a more 'game aware' map maker might have added colonies all over the place or a lazier one would have throw in teleport gates that worked semi randomly, but really, it's not that big an issue.
One thing common throughout history is allies, colonial armies and mercenaries travelling far. George Washington fought Germans in the New World, Trinidadians fought in France in WWI, Indians in Iraq in WWII. A Roman Legion is supposed to have made it as far as China.
So Frenchy knights fighting Egyptian skeletons on the Russian Steppes really does not bother me.
Geifer wrote: There is no point in the Imperial timeline where you would struggle to insert Tomb Kings,
No, just the problem of justifying why a band of Wood Elves have ventured into Khemri. Or how a group of Tomb Kings have profaned a sacred elven woodland. As with Lizardmen, it's not their lack of existence that requires a bit of a thinking to justify, but their geographical isolation.
Boats. I can't see how it's THIS difficult for people to understand.
Don't even need boats. The Wood Elves can travel through the worldroots of the Oak of Ages, which are spread all over the world.
Boats, Magic, Airships, Chaos - there are a lot of ways you can formally and accidentally end up invading other nations.
Also don't forget time is a huge factor too. Whilst the lore might have a few fixed focal story points, the world itself will have had factions moving all over the place over time. So it might be that at the core single point in time that most of the lore focuses on, certain factions might have not been within easy striking distance. However in the past they might well have had greater reason to fight.
That said I think everyone accepts in lore there will always be factions who never fight each other; who never encounter each other; or who only ever stand united as allies or have small skirmish fights etc... That's just part of the nature of wargames. Heck considering how many mirror matches there are most factions have been at intense civil war too which is often very rare to happen in lore
kodos wrote: but it was the same with AoS, people could use their old armies (but with the silly rules in an open play game mode), or buy the new ones that got the real rules
and yes, AoS was not that bad if you got 2 new armies playing with the provided scenarios
the problem simply was that there were only 2 armies that were playable although GW said you can use your existing collection (just not with the game mode that works)
so there is a good chance that the old armies can be used but to get the full (or good) experience of the new game, you need the new armies
While these things are true. GW is much different than they were in the Kirby era and while not perfect, have been much more consumer friendly. There is no reason to expect a repeat of Kirby's greatest hits.
kodos wrote: the only difference between than and now is the marketing
they even care less about rules than back than, but have a better marketing to sell it
so yes there is the chance that they do a "best of Kirby" but with marketing
I don't know about care less. They push the boat out more - but equally, try to fix it on a vaguely sensible time schedule.
I feel a major factor behind WHFB's decline was their refusal to try and "fix" the game. In the past they had got away with being the only game in town - but in 8th they now they faced competition from X-Wing, Warmahordes etc, and the playerbase melted. (There was I guess also division over 8th's changes - but 7th edition was something of a mess by the end too.)
Hero Hammer gave way to Cavalry hammer gave way to "just 6 dice dwellers".
Really rather than worrying about whether there will be support for TK, I just hope they can make a "good" rank and file ruleset - where blocks of infantry and cavalry do most of the work. Magic and monsters etc should undoubtedly be there - but they should be a desirable supplement, not the core of the game.
kodos wrote: the only difference between than and now is the marketing
they even care less about rules than back than, but have a better marketing to sell it
so yes there is the chance that they do a "best of Kirby" but with marketing
I don't know about care less. They push the boat out more - but equally, try to fix it on a vaguely sensible time schedule.
I feel a major factor behind WHFB's decline was their refusal to try and "fix" the game. In the past they had got away with being the only game in town - but in 8th they now they faced competition from X-Wing, Warmahordes etc, and the playerbase melted. (There was I guess also division over 8th's changes - but 7th edition was something of a mess by the end too.)
Hero Hammer gave way to Cavalry hammer gave way to "just 6 dice dwellers".
Really rather than worrying about whether there will be support for TK, I just hope they can make a "good" rank and file ruleset - where blocks of infantry and cavalry do most of the work. Magic and monsters etc should undoubtedly be there - but they should be a desirable supplement, not the core of the game.
Death Knell for WHFB was weight of models needed and high price. You can´t lower the number of models for a R&F game but the price tag. Needless to say whatever comes in the future will need to address this.
kodos wrote: the only difference between than and now is the marketing
they even care less about rules than back than, but have a better marketing to sell it
so yes there is the chance that they do a "best of Kirby" but with marketing
I don't know about care less. They push the boat out more - but equally, try to fix it on a vaguely sensible time schedule.
I feel a major factor behind WHFB's decline was their refusal to try and "fix" the game. In the past they had got away with being the only game in town - but in 8th they now they faced competition from X-Wing, Warmahordes etc, and the playerbase melted. (There was I guess also division over 8th's changes - but 7th edition was something of a mess by the end too.)
Hero Hammer gave way to Cavalry hammer gave way to "just 6 dice dwellers".
Really rather than worrying about whether there will be support for TK, I just hope they can make a "good" rank and file ruleset - where blocks of infantry and cavalry do most of the work. Magic and monsters etc should undoubtedly be there - but they should be a desirable supplement, not the core of the game.
Death Knell for WHFB was weight of models needed and high price. You can´t lower the number of models for a R&F game but the price tag. Needless to say whatever comes in the future will need to address this.
For full 2K point style games I agree you can't really lower the model count too far otherwise it loses the feel and visual impression of the game. That said you can very much make smaller point value rules systems. That was the real issue - there was just no real gateway products to get you into the game. You had to jump in the deep end and gun for that 2K point game or at least 1.5K game. The 500 point games worked but were rather dull for most forces and rather limited in scope; plus some armies just didn't really work well at that point value. It needed a Warcry/Killteam style game to get people over the introduction hurdle so they didn't burn out on money/building/painting to hit 2K points
Warcry does not get people into AoS, 1 box of models being 1 unit is hence the starting problems of AoS as not only the rules were bad, but a box of Stormcast with 3 models were you needed 5 to play
Warhammer had Mortheim to get people into the setting, but not many started big R&F because of Mortheim, same as not many who like Unbderworlds or Warcry go full 2k AoS
Strg Alt wrote: Death Knell for WHFB was weight of models needed and high price. You can´t lower the number of models for a R&F game but the price tag. Needless to say whatever comes in the future will need to address this.
AoS is running fine, with the same amount of models and much higher prices
WHFB died because of bad rules, no support and price hikes combined with increasing size of standard units
and this is a difference for AoS, there is rules support, the rules are good (within the GW environment) and 1 box of models makes a minimum sized unit that is playable
needing 120 models to play is different if those are 12 units each 40€, or if those are 3 units each 120€
and this is part of marketing, being able to start small and grow is easier to get people into than start big even if the outcome is the same
which was something GW killed with the 8th Edi point system as the cool and expensive heroes could not be used in less than 2-3k games
(it started with 7th were the minimum sized unit raised from 16 to 20 models but the boxes were reduced from 16 to 10 but you still could play 1000 point games rather easy)
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like people just don't want to accept that a lot of matchups between armies were only plausible within the content of a certain region, or by creating an excuse. It isnt the how--yeah we all know how boats work, it's the why. How many Tomb King amulets ended up in Kislev? How many crusades did Brettonia mount upon Ulthuan? How many Dwarf expeditions into Lustria? Very few factions had real narrative freedom to fight anyone and needing to come up with a narrative that is more or less an embellished asspull (or less, depending on writing ability) totally works once or twice, but it gets old fast. Some players can glaze over it, and that is great! But for others it dampens the fun, trying to say it's invalid 'because boats' is simply a reflection of the level the speaker wishes to communicate on.
Some conflicts are easier to explain narrative wise than others but most of these factions are actually quite large and the small armies that are fielded in Warhammer can be commanded by indivudals going out on their own - the army books and novels have plenty of these and unusual conflicts/team-ups. You can forge the narrative if you want or not - but its there if you want to use it.otherwise you are going to end up having to say certain armies don't fight each other which causes issues with gaming groups. Even a battle between natural allies can be considered a training exercise if you want.
Go anywhere - fight anyone with the tech, magic or stuborness to do it.
Dark Elves, Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Vampires, Orcs and Goblins, Norsca, High Elves,
The Tomb Kings have gone as far as Norsca on several vengeance quests and often go raiding or conquering sometimes in conjunction with the Dark Elves and others
Most factions are respresented in the Border Kingdoms and so can fight each other .
Dwarfs - you just need the right Grudge and they will move mountains to right it.
Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Cathay, Kislev and The Empire tend to stay closer to home but thats because mostly the enemies come to them! However all of these have lorewise sent armies and expeditions across the world
Its the same as why does Karl Franz, Malekith, Morathi, Nefarata, Vlad, Grimgor, Tyrion etc turn up to every little skirmish people fight.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like people just don't want to accept that a lot of matchups between armies were only plausible within the content of a certain region, or by creating an excuse. It isnt the how--yeah we all know how boats work, it's the why. How many Tomb King amulets ended up in Kislev? How many crusades did Brettonia mount upon Ulthuan? How many Dwarf expeditions into Lustria? Very few factions had real narrative freedom to fight anyone and needing to come up with a narrative that is more or less an embellished asspull (or less, depending on writing ability) totally works once or twice, but it gets old fast. Some players can glaze over it, and that is great! But for others it dampens the fun, trying to say it's invalid 'because boats' is simply a reflection of the level the speaker wishes to communicate on.
Some conflicts are easier to explain narrative wise than others but most of these factions are actually quite large and the small armies that are fielded in Warhammer can be commanded by indivudals going out on their own - the army books and novels have plenty of these and unusual conflicts/team-ups. You can forge the narrative if you want or not - but its there if you want to use it.otherwise you are going to end up having to say certain armies don't fight each other which causes issues with gaming groups. Even a battle between natural allies can be considered a training exercise if you want.
Go anywhere - fight anyone with the tech, magic or stuborness to do it.
Dark Elves, Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Vampires, Orcs and Goblins, Norsca, High Elves,
The Tomb Kings have gone as far as Norsca on several vengeance quests and often go raiding or conquering sometimes in conjunction with the Dark Elves and others
Most factions are respresented in the Border Kingdoms and so can fight each other .
Dwarfs - you just need the right Grudge and they will move mountains to right it.
Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Cathay, Kislev and The Empire tend to stay closer to home but thats because mostly the enemies come to them! However all of these have lorewise sent armies and expeditions across the world
Its the same as why does Karl Franz, Malekith, Morathi, Nefarata, Vlad, Grimgor, Tyrion etc turn up to every little skirmish people fight.
Sure, but when it comes to GW deciding which factions to cut from the start of their relaunch of the game, my money's on those that aren't firmly based in the Old World itself.
In the context of one game or even one campaign it really isn't an issue--one can come up with SOME reason to be there. But it gets old when having to be done repeatedly, which for some armies definitely happened. Each successive reason for why Tomb Kings and Dark Elves are in the region of Kharak Eight Peaks, or Dwarfs and Lizardmen are fighting it out in Norsca, feels a bit less authentic and more like a thin excuse to cover real word practicalities. A few years of doing that and narratives which would have worked before feel like repeating asspulls.
Compare to factions like Wood Elves, Skaven, BoC, etc. Where they can easily be showing up anywhere and focus on involving themselves in the local narrative. It is a factor--not insurmountable, but it exists in a not-insignificant way.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In the context of one game or even one campaign it really isn't an issue--one can come up with SOME reason to be there. But it gets old when having to be done repeatedly, which for some armies definitely happened. Each successive reason for why Tomb Kings and Dark Elves are in the region of Kharak Eight Peaks, or Dwarfs and Lizardmen are fighting it out in Norsca, feels a bit less authentic and more like a thin excuse to cover real word practicalities. A few years of doing that and narratives which would have worked before feel like repeating asspulls.
Compare to factions like Wood Elves, Skaven, BoC, etc. Where they can easily be showing up anywhere and focus on involving themselves in the local narrative. It is a factor--not insurmountable, but it exists in a not-insignificant way.
Agree with all of this. Yet I still prefer it to the portal shenanigans of AOS. The whole «anyone can show up anywhere at any time» just makes it impossible for me to care about the setting. It’s just a bridge too far for my suspension of disbelief.
xenofexx wrote: Agree with all of this. Yet I still prefer it to the portal shenanigans of AOS. The whole «anyone can show up anywhere at any time» just makes it impossible for me to care about the setting. It’s just a bridge too far for my suspension of disbelief.
Yea same, there's just no meaning to anything you do.
I have to agree. I think we will see AoS get a bit more strict here and there, lets not forget its original inception was just to be fully open because GW weren't really being serious with it at almost any level save selling models. So some of AoS's is issues are almost dealing with going back to Rogue Trader era levels of lore building.
Eg at inception realms were almost endless in size and travelling to the rim was a huge undertaking of many years travel coupled with constant creation of new land on the boundaries. These days it feels like GW has reined in that aspect somewhat, though the Realms are still vast.
Maps have also started coming out slowly; but I do agree they have an uphill struggle. It's made worse when there are realms like the Metal Realm where there are whole (and fairly regular it seems as every story has at least one) storms of rust-dust and mineral wealth on the surface for the taking and lakes of quicksilver. Ergo its a scene out of the band album covers of the 70s metal music; but at the same time not only is the distance and concept of land battles and territory hard to visualise; its also really hard to visualise how people live there.
The setting went from an Old World where GW felt creative constriction (which is odd considering how many factions they didn't explore and how most AoS factions could easily have setup with minimal lore work) to one where its so utterly open its hard to consider things.
I think the other angle is time. There really isn't a chronological system in place. We have events happening in an order, but its really hard to date things. This makes it really hard to understand the importance of territory changes because you've no idea how it really settles in the story unless its near to major landmarks - like the NecroQuake. Even then you have a hard time working out if two characters you know are alive or dead at the same time. Or place a network story like the new Gotrek stories in any kind of order - has Gotrek really managed to spend perhaps decades being drunken between books or is it just a few months and if so that means a lot of major events are happening very fast etc..
It's "messy" to say the least. Visually its amazing, but it needs some kind of overlord to put order to the Chaos.
Realistically speaking the Lizardmen are the only ones with the power to open those kinds of portals, but they did not do that very often. I can only think of them doing it twice, once in the Dark Shadows campaign and once in the Storm of Chaos. For the most part, the Lizards fight against colonists and invaders instead leading campaigns in other lands.
As to the ships, nearly every nation in Warhammer has a navy, with the Wood Elves (only 4th edition army not to get a Man-o-war fleet, land locked nation), Lizardmen and Ogres (Too new to get fleets) being the exceptions. The Skaven did not need a fleet since they could travel any where in their tunnels, but still had one. The Tomb Kings had/has a navy, they have used it to attack Brettonia a few times. The Vampires have the ghost fleets the patrol the Vampire Coast and in recent years in or near the Sea of Pirates off the coast of Sarcosa. So the conflicts by ship is more then possible. Raids and Slave runs by the Dark Elves, Araby, Norse, Chaos Dwarves, and Chaos are well know. Empire, Tilea, High Elves get in to a fight because of trade dispute of some kind which was also common. Dwarves have come into conflict with the other nations while looking for trade goods or raw materials. Greenskins in ships raided Ulthuan and Albion. In 2nd edition, Nippon had several ships off the coast of the Empire. So for the most part I would not rule out Man-O-War Fleets causing problems for any nation that has a coast.
Lets just say for the sake of argument that the first source book for The Old World would only be limited to the Old World, you would have the Empire (Possibly 3 different armies for each Emperor), Brettonia, Kislev, Tilea/ DoW, Vampire Counts (They did rise to power during this period), Skaven, Greenskins, Dwarfs, Norsica, Chaos and Wood Elves. So that would be 11 armies to start, and two of them would be completely new with new models. Not a bad start.
Since i do not see GW making any new models other then heroes or a monster here and there, i am sure that GW will just re-release the plastic sets for the models and go finecast or resin to replace the metals. If i remember correctly, GW also said that very few of these armies would be available in the stores and we would have to order them on line.
