Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.
You may remember it that way, but in 5th they were able to Dogs of War units, with some specific exemptions (Volands Ventators being one.) But that was similar to O&G not being able to take slayer pirates etc.
That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.
Except it's not true. As per my above, in 5th they could take Dogs of War units (with some exceptions).
It was in 6th, starting with the Ravening Hordes lists that Bretonnians couldn't take Dogs of War, but by that point it was clear GW didn't really know what they were doing with the Brets, punting them to the back of the edition for the armybook and then never touching them again. The problem they faced was they gave the Empire so many options that it was hard to make the Bretonnians unique in anyway. The empire had wizards and priests and tech. In my opinion they should have focused the Empire on being the technology advancing and the colleges of magic side of things. And let Bretonnians be the tradition / faith based faction. But they didn't.
Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?
nathan2004 wrote: Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?
Again it depends on what era you are talking about. 2k was pretty standard for 6th Ed.
nathan2004 wrote: Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?
2000 points still was the intended standard later on. Adding another 500 points was, as far as I know, done in some circles to let you play big characters on dragons that would not otherwise fit inside the character limitations of 8th ed.
Geifer wrote: 2000 points still was the intended standard later on. Adding another 500 points was, as far as I know, done in some circles to let you play big characters on dragons that would not otherwise fit inside the character limitations of 8th ed.
Yup same as the assumption that 1999+1, 1850 or 2k was "normal" for 40k in 6th/7th when it was a community decision in some places.
nathan2004 wrote: Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?
,
2k was normal for 5-7th ed.
In 8th 2400 became popular.
With much borrowed from older editions why not army size
Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.
That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.
I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.
The Stillman book was the best of the two and you can't convince me otherwise. Infinitely better than its successor which had some very pretty artwork and awful writing. It's not like the 5th Edition book didn't include stories about uncaring Lords, malicious, petty sorceresses or peasants facing hardship in a skewed society. The 6th Edition tone just Flanderized those traits to hammer home the 'comedic grimdark' vibe they were going with and everything with Bretonnians became a meme on some variation of 'peasants are poor and stupid, knights are vain and stupid LOL'. Not to mention how much the model range went downhill at the same time.
Also, as mentioned by others, they could take the vast majority of the options in the Dogs of War list that came out within a year or so of their 5th Edition book so that point is just downright incorrect.
Game size will vary a lot with this game depending on if your local area is picking it up fresh/new or if they have a lot of older players with established armies already. Not to mention how much cross over functionally remains.
If people already have 3-4-5K worth of models in old collections then they might start bigger games. If people are starting fresh then 1K and 1.5K might be locally more popular.
Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.
That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.
I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.
5th Ed Brets was the best feel for the army, honestly. Surrounded by grimderp, it was nice to have an army that was predominantly altruistic. That, and the whole Arthurian theme is the go-to image for most people who think of knights anyway.
My recollection was that 2.5k was the "standard" here in the northeastern US from mid-6th through 8th. I remember it being 2k (or 1999+1 maybe) when I first started, and then scaling up over time.
Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.
That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.
I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.
5th Ed Brets was the best feel for the army, honestly. Surrounded by grimderp, it was nice to have an army that was predominantly altruistic. That, and the whole Arthurian theme is the go-to image for most people who think of knights anyway.
Even the backward, brutal, uncaring feudalism was a bit of a retcon wasn't it? Originally Bretonnia was more steampunk/davincipunk-esque, similar tech-level to the Empire but more Louis XVI/Marie Antoinette in style and greater class/cultural divide between the nobility and peasantry, with all the nobles wearing heavy makeup and wigs to cover up the poxes and mutations and diseases they were suffering from (implied to be some sort of chaotic taint or corruption), while the unwashed dirty and grimy peasantry lived in abject poverty with no access to more modern technology and tools (horded by the elites) and suffered from debilitating disease, etc.
Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.
That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.
I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.
5th Ed Brets was the best feel for the army, honestly. Surrounded by grimderp, it was nice to have an army that was predominantly altruistic. That, and the whole Arthurian theme is the go-to image for most people who think of knights anyway.
Even that apparent altruism wasn't universal and the Stillman book, for me, gives a nice balance between showcasing the ideal of what that romanticized idea of a nation dominated by notions of chivalric knighthood might look like whilst pointing out that it is just that (i.e. an ideal). There's definitely the noble, devout knights and dedicated peasants living in a near-symbiotic relationship (and the reasons why that society developed in rural Bretonnia) alongside the acknowledgement that there's a darker underbelly with examples of corrupt or uncaring nobility, poverty and constant mass sickness in the towns and plenty of criminal activity, especially in the ports. It might have been a departure from the earlier lore for the faction (as was fairly typical for this period when the Old World fluff was crystallising into what we'd generally recognize it as today) and the Arthurian aspects certainly added a new layer but I don't see why it would be considered as being one-dimensional or too 'heroic' as an entire nation/faction. No more than, say, the Empire or High Elves would have been.
Love Dogs of War "as an army" (and if they brought them back, I'd be far more keen on them than on ancient Khemri sculpts even if they happen to be even older). But less keen on them just showing up in a force.
And really not keen on "allies".
There's always I think been this tradeoff of "its only a game, if you like the models stick them in and have fun" and the reality of them patching over issues. I guess in a world where you can take "Border Princes Bombards" its not that cheesy to plug in Empire/Dwarf cannons - but... eh...
You've got the usual issues of "We've got the points wrong on this and now everyone is including it".
I guess the interesting thing is how people feel on Hero-Hammer. We'd need to see the full array of buffs and how they interact - but a Duke on a Hippogryph, maybe with some sort of magic lance, feels like it would do a number on things. But I guess like Chaos/Vampire Lords, if its bags of points it won't really matter.
I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the possible implication that the inclusion of a unit called a "Border Princes Bombard" possibly indicates the inclusion of an army list for the Border Princes themselves (or at least a selection of "Border Princes" units that can be included within other armies).
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the possible implication that the inclusion of a unit called a "Border Princes Bombard" possibly indicates the inclusion of an army list for the Border Princes themselves (or at least a selection of "Border Princes" units that can be included within other armies).
Traditionally, the Border Princes are just exiled Empire and Bretonnian nobles (or spare children with no inheritance prospects) who set up their own temporary fiefdoms. Maybe some Tilean or Estalian nobles, but that's out of scope for TOW.
Its basically the premise of this game- petty Bret/Empire/Tomb King nobles fighting over territory on the edge of the map, and dealing with elf outposts, dwarves, orcs, beastmen and extremely lost chaos warriors.
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the possible implication that the inclusion of a unit called a "Border Princes Bombard" possibly indicates the inclusion of an army list for the Border Princes themselves (or at least a selection of "Border Princes" units that can be included within other armies).
Traditionally, the Border Princes are just exiled Empire and Bretonnian nobles (or spare children with no inheritance prospects) who set up their own temporary fiefdoms. Maybe some Tilean or Estalian nobles, but that's out of scope for TOW.
Its basically the premise of this game- petty Bret/Empire/Tomb King nobles fighting over territory on the edge of the map, and dealing with elf outposts, dwarves, orcs, beastmen and extremely lost chaos warriors.
Interestingly the WarCom article for the Border Princes did include crests from Kislev, Tilea and Estalia as well as the more common Empire and Bret
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Sergeant at Arms is probably just a peasant hero that can join peasant units. You know, instead of having a dismounted Paladin with that Vow that lets them join peasant units.
I could see him being a necron royal warden/space marine lieutenant kind of deal. Less fighty than a knight but maybe granting the unit some sort of ability or buff.
Even that apparent altruism wasn't universal and the Stillman book, for me, gives a nice balance between showcasing the ideal of what that romanticized idea of a nation dominated by notions of chivalric knighthood might look like whilst pointing out that it is just that (i.e. an ideal).
I'm not sure how accurate my recollection is but my read on the Bretonnians was there was a lot of the "unreliable narrator" about them. The idea of Bretonnia as a noble and chivalric nation filled with knights going off to rescue damsels and happy, simple minded serfs who knew their places was how the nobility saw Bretonnia. The idea of Bretonnia as a realm of gross inequality, miserable and downtrodden serfs covered in pig dung and brutal, greedy, corrupt nobles living off the backs of their serf's labour was how pretty much how everyone else saw Bretonnia. As you say, mimicking the historical idealised notions of romantic chivalry and feudalism verses the historical reality of knights being brutal killers and oppressors. I recall seeing a documentary which failed to find any historically documented instances of a knight actually going on a quest to rescue a damsel in distress.
Lets also not forget most factions looked down on others. Gotrek considered most factions beneath the Dwarves - even the Elves. So even negative impressions of factions can be skewed and heavily biased.
I think in the end the size of the realms also meant that you'd likely find both extremes were true. That there were regions where their people did live "King Arthur" style and those where they lived "Grim Dark pox ridden" style.
There are a few novels set in them and bits and pieces in Army books/ Tamukhan etc
2nd Ed WFRP also did a whole source book on them (Renegade Crowns), though it’s a bit more free form than other sourcebooks (true to the areas nature of having constantly shifting borders).
It also has an adventure book set in a TK tomb in the Border Princes as well (Lure of the Liche Lord).
Also oddly, the Border Princes turn up a few times in Vampire lore - the 7th Ed AB has lore on a Strigoi vampire who’s a Border Prince and WFRP Night’s Dark Masters features a Lahmian coven who run one as well.
There are a few novels set in them and bits and pieces in Army books/ Tamukhan etc
Also oddly, the Border Princes turn up a few times in Vampire lore - the 7th Ed AB has lore on a Strigoi vampire who’s a Border Prince and WFRP Night’s Dark Masters features a Lahmian coven who run one as well.
Was always the beauty of the Old World, there were lovely not very well charted open spaces where just about anything could, and occasionally did happen even if no one survived to act as a witness
leopard wrote: Was always the beauty of the Old World, there were lovely not very well charted open spaces where just about anything could, and occasionally did happen even if no one survived to act as a witness
But... But I was assured by AOS players on THIS VERY SITE that nothing new could be explored in the Old World. How can this be?!?!?!?! /s
Mr Morden wrote: There were some interesting units in 3rd ed, I like to think of them as older period in the actual world as well
Spoiler:
Arbalastiers
Foot Knights
Villains
What were villains?
Levied troops (-1 WS/BS from the basic human). Villeins (feudal tenants) would be more accurate.
All of those were basically precursor unit names. (Crossbowmen, Reiksguard, Bret Men-at-Arms) respectively. 3rd edition Brets had a more diverse army list that was closer to the Empire list as well.
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the possible implication that the inclusion of a unit called a "Border Princes Bombard" possibly indicates the inclusion of an army list for the Border Princes themselves (or at least a selection of "Border Princes" units that can be included within other armies).
Maybe some Tilean or Estalian nobles, but that's out of scope for TOW.
No its not.
I mean, for one thing GW has said nothing about Tilea and Estalia being specifically excluded from the game (unlike Ogres, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Skaven, etc.).
The purple shield at the most southwestern end is "Donalba", which between the name (which is actually a spanish surname as well as a spanish business) and the sun heraldry is almost certainly Estalian (though there are also arguments for it being Tilean). Tordorno is an Italian/Tilean name, though it has Bretonnian-esque heraldry. Aquilena could be either an Estalian, Tilean, or Bretonnian name, though the serpent heraldry points to it being Tilean. Ortegeta is another weird one as the name is very close to an obvious Spanish/Estalian name though the "eta" is a bit of an Italian/Tilean spin on it, and the heraldry is very Sylvanian (in that it quite literally uses real world Transylvanian/Szekely symbols).
Theres also, if you notice, Uvetovsk, which is Kislevite. And while I'm at it... whats that one that says "Harkon" in the northeastern corner? We know its not VC, but I'm sure theres going to be something necromantic or undead involved.
Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
There also aren't any kits they can pull out of the metaphorical closet and put back into production
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
There also aren't any kits they can pull out of the metaphorical closet and put back into production
A couple years ago GW let Revell run off models from Black Reach and sell them. I'd say they haven't scrapped any molds unless absolutely necessary, which means they could bring back ANYTHING they want.
And I'd sacrifice an organ if they'd want to run off fresh copies of the Talisman Dragon. Or the Swarms and Minotaurs from Warhammer Quest...
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
GW has a 2 year lead time on development, so no. Stuff that came out 2 years ago is not changing the scope. It was always the scope of the game.
Two years ago GW were still yapping on about Kislev and showing assets pulled from a video game. It was the second half of 2022 when they even decided what they were actually going to do with ToW.
lord_blackfang wrote: Two years ago GW were still yapping on about Kislev and showing assets pulled from a video game. It was the second half of 2022 when they even decided what they were actually going to do with ToW.
Yes because when Creative Assembly was working on the Vampire Coast DLC for Warhammer 2 they had to get approval of designs from GW as that army really didn't have much in the way of official models. This caused problems with development because GW kept rejecting designs.
So when Warhammer 3 came along Creative assembly said "Why don't you guys just design it for us so we dont have to waste time with this back and forth?" GW agreed.
So while those assets are for a video game, they are ultimately what GW wants those models to eventually look like.
Book got revealed today...reading the description of it now. Seems it's set in the Border Princes lands too, more fluff to add to that mostly uncharted part of legend.
Graham McNeill’s interview at the end of the article is rather interesting to read also...
Very little of this book is set in Bretonnia, but the attitudes of the lords and knights to the peasant host will be very familiar to fans of that realm. In many ways, it’s a ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’ situation, but there are a number of differences the readers will spot very early on in terms of who can be a knight and how some of the characters feel their land could or should be, as opposed to how it actually is.
Emphasis mine. I guess it makes sense that Bretonnia became more sexist over time.
lord_blackfang wrote: Two years ago GW were still yapping on about Kislev and showing assets pulled from a video game. It was the second half of 2022 when they even decided what they were actually going to do with ToW.
Yes because when Creative Assembly was working on the Vampire Coast DLC for Warhammer 2 they had to get approval of designs from GW as that army really didn't have much in the way of official models. This caused problems with development because GW kept rejecting designs.
So when Warhammer 3 came along Creative assembly said "Why don't you guys just design it for us so we dont have to waste time with this back and forth?" GW agreed.
Where have you got that idea from? I've not seen anything about them rejecting design for Vampire Coast.
Vorian wrote: The map shows the time period the game is still set in.
They've not said anything that indicates they've changed the scope of the game
When they spent the first few years showing off Kislev and said they and Cathay were being made for The Old World, only to then reveal they're actually not involved in the game and won't be released for several years after launch at best, that implies a change in scope.
Eh. Some of my Bret knights are Ladies instead of Sirs. You just have a hard time picking them out because they wear regular armor and helms, because that's what keeps you alive in a swirling melee.
lord_blackfang wrote: Two years ago GW were still yapping on about Kislev and showing assets pulled from a video game. It was the second half of 2022 when they even decided what they were actually going to do with ToW.
Yes because when Creative Assembly was working on the Vampire Coast DLC for Warhammer 2 they had to get approval of designs from GW as that army really didn't have much in the way of official models. This caused problems with development because GW kept rejecting designs.
So when Warhammer 3 came along Creative assembly said "Why don't you guys just design it for us so we dont have to waste time with this back and forth?" GW agreed.
Where have you got that idea from? I've not seen anything about them rejecting design for Vampire Coast.
Vorian wrote: The map shows the time period the game is still set in.
They've not said anything that indicates they've changed the scope of the game
When they spent the first few years showing off Kislev and said they and Cathay were being made for The Old World, only to then reveal they're actually not involved in the game and won't be released for several years after launch at best, that implies a change in scope.
They didn't though, did they? They released some articles to coincide with TWW and talked about the new areas they had mapped worked in TOW time period and in the later Warhammer time.
They didn't say anywhere that TOW was going to be featuring Kislev or Cathays on release.
Yea, they didn't outright say that Kislev would be the first faction out of the gate but it was implied by being the first faction they talked about (and didn't mention it was pulled from Total War, like they did with Cathay)
A perfect candidate for further investigation is the harsh, frozen realm found to the north of the Empire – Kislev, the land of the Ice Queens. To that end, let’s take a look at a project that’s currently in development…
A few weeks ago, we saw an early look at one of the factions that’s in the works for the return of Warhammer’s Old World – the cold northern nation of Kislev. Today, we’re taking a look at one of the thematic aspects of that force: bears!
One new unit that’s in the early stages of development is set in the Ice Court – the seat of the ruling Tsar or Tsarina.
We can’t wait to see the bear cavalry that will be coming to Warhammer: The Old World.
lord_blackfang wrote: Two years ago GW were still yapping on about Kislev and showing assets pulled from a video game. It was the second half of 2022 when they even decided what they were actually going to do with ToW.
Yes because when Creative Assembly was working on the Vampire Coast DLC for Warhammer 2 they had to get approval of designs from GW as that army really didn't have much in the way of official models. This caused problems with development because GW kept rejecting designs.
So when Warhammer 3 came along Creative assembly said "Why don't you guys just design it for us so we dont have to waste time with this back and forth?" GW agreed.
Where have you got that idea from? I've not seen anything about them rejecting design for Vampire Coast.
Vorian wrote: The map shows the time period the game is still set in.
They've not said anything that indicates they've changed the scope of the game
When they spent the first few years showing off Kislev and said they and Cathay were being made for The Old World, only to then reveal they're actually not involved in the game and won't be released for several years after launch at best, that implies a change in scope.
They didn't though, did they? They released some articles to coincide with TWW and talked about the new areas they had mapped worked in TOW time period and in the later Warhammer time.
They didn't say anywhere that TOW was going to be featuring Kislev or Cathays on release.
They said that Cathay was being made for The Old World and would be coming to it.
>It’s taken more than three decades, but light is finally being shed on the mysterious eastern realm of Cathay. Though this nation’s first full appearance in the world of Warhammer can be seen in the just-released Total War: Warhammer III, Cathay will also be coming to the tabletop in the upcoming Warhammer: The Old World. And now, there’s a map. Here’s the Old World supremo Andy Hoare to explain.
And in that same article they mentioned the Bear Cavalry being made into models.
It was not something done just for TWW (although they were with them) or the map/lore side.
They did not say on release, but they did say they're coming. As I said, they spent the first few years hyping up the project with something that is only coming a few years after the games release, at best.
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
There also aren't any kits they can pull out of the metaphorical closet and put back into production
I don't think theres any evidence to support the idea that the scope changed, whatsoever, at all. They showed us a map of the Border Princes, and lo and behold earlier this year they announced the first wave of the game will be based in the Border Princes. Hell of a coincidence, right? Also (and its stunning that I have to apparently explain this to a grown-ass adult), a list of *returning* factions that are divided into "Core" and (for lack of a better term) "Unsupported" categories is not mutually exclusive with a list of *new* factions being added for TOW.
They are also still using that map - its inside the front cover of the new Bretonnian novel that BL is publishing.
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
There also aren't any kits they can pull out of the metaphorical closet and put back into production
A couple years ago GW let Revell run off models from Black Reach and sell them. I'd say they haven't scrapped any molds unless absolutely necessary, which means they could bring back ANYTHING they want.
And I'd sacrifice an organ if they'd want to run off fresh copies of the Talisman Dragon. Or the Swarms and Minotaurs from Warhammer Quest...
As far as Revell is concerned, unless they were GWs molds on loan to Revell, whatever molds Revell had would have been destroyed if they weren't turned over to GW. Its standard licensing practice in the plastics industry (and standard language in licensing contracts for goods which require production tooling). At the conclusion or expiry of the license the molds and tooling is usually cut up and either disposed of to landfill or turned over to recycling. Some shops have forges or foundries or whatever where they can melt down the scrap for re-use as lower grade steel or whatever, but I think most of the time you have to send that out for processing and refinement or whatever. Incidentally though, a lot of the toys and action figures produced in China in the 70s/80s/early 90s was just disposed of by dumping them into Hong Kong bay without actually cutting up the molds - if you know how to scuba dive and have access to a ship and industrial equipment you might be able to recover some of them and put them back into production and make a mint
As far as GW is concerned, they haven't kept 100% of their molds, theres quite a bit that they no longer have the means to manufacture due to damage or deterioration, but I think probably 98% of everything that was sold within the past 20-30 years is probably still available. The majority of their metal minis though, if its older than around ~25 years or so its gone forever, those molds have limited shelf-lives and prior to the early 2000s GW did not properly maintain their master molds so that they could replace them. There was an effort made out of their short-lived US factory in the mid-2000s to try to repair and remaster many of the older metal molds, they managed to get quite a few older minis back into production but internal GW politics killed the project and there were many molds that basically got thrown out as unsalvageable as a result.
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
GW has a 2 year lead time on development, so no. Stuff that came out 2 years ago is not changing the scope. It was always the scope of the game.
Actually 3 years more generally. The Sisters were an experiment in doing it on a shorter schedule and timeline than normal. Still though, while I agree that the scope hasn't changed (or at least not that much), I have to point out the flaw in your premise is that just because you have a lead time of x doesn't mean that things can't change within that timeframe. There are certain aspects of the design which get locked in early on, there are other things that aren't set in stone until 6 months before release.
lord_blackfang wrote: Two years ago GW were still yapping on about Kislev and showing assets pulled from a video game. It was the second half of 2022 when they even decided what they were actually going to do with ToW.
Kislev are not defined as a "returning faction" (in that GW specifically referenced these as being factions with rules in 8th edition), which is the only category of faction that GW has fully and transparently discussed recently. Their lack of mention of Kislev or other new factions doesn't mean that the scope of the project or their plans changed, it just means they aren't talking about Kislev/those other factions at the moment.
lord_blackfang wrote: Two years ago GW were still yapping on about Kislev and showing assets pulled from a video game. It was the second half of 2022 when they even decided what they were actually going to do with ToW.
Yes because when Creative Assembly was working on the Vampire Coast DLC for Warhammer 2 they had to get approval of designs from GW as that army really didn't have much in the way of official models. This caused problems with development because GW kept rejecting designs.
So when Warhammer 3 came along Creative assembly said "Why don't you guys just design it for us so we dont have to waste time with this back and forth?" GW agreed.
Where have you got that idea from? I've not seen anything about them rejecting design for Vampire Coast.
News to me as well. I only ever heard it was a positive and collaborative experience between CA and the studio.
Vorian wrote: The map shows the time period the game is still set in.
They've not said anything that indicates they've changed the scope of the game
When they spent the first few years showing off Kislev and said they and Cathay were being made for The Old World, only to then reveal they're actually not involved in the game and won't be released for several years after launch at best, that implies a change in scope.
They showed off Kislev like... two maybe three times in the span of a few months (so not "first few years") and I think they only mentioned Cathay like once in this context.
They haven't revealed that they're actually not involved in the game.
They haven't indicated that they won't be released for several years after launch.
Your take is like 90% made up fiction.
lord_blackfang wrote: Yea, they didn't outright say that Kislev would be the first faction out of the gate but it was implied by being the first faction they talked about (and didn't mention it was pulled from Total War, like they did with Cathay)
A perfect candidate for further investigation is the harsh, frozen realm found to the north of the Empire – Kislev, the land of the Ice Queens. To that end, let’s take a look at a project that’s currently in development…
A few weeks ago, we saw an early look at one of the factions that’s in the works for the return of Warhammer’s Old World – the cold northern nation of Kislev. Today, we’re taking a look at one of the thematic aspects of that force: bears!
One new unit that’s in the early stages of development is set in the Ice Court – the seat of the ruling Tsar or Tsarina.
We can’t wait to see the bear cavalry that will be coming to Warhammer: The Old World.
As much as I might have wanted it or enjoyed it, did you *really* expect that GW was going to launch this game with a whole new set of factions INSTEAD OF the actual factions that existed in the predecessor game that this is all based on???? Thats kind of a "you problem" if you did, and I think if you go through discussions from the very start most people expected at least a few (if not the entire roster) of the original WHFB factions to be returned on launch. That alone made it unlikely that GW would have Kislev available on launch day. My own recollection is that most of us expected the launch (even after Kislev/Cathay were revealed) to be similar to the HH Age of Darkness box, except it would be a box full of Empire minis that you could paint up to represent two competing sides of the 4-way civil war that is the Age of Three Emperors during this time period, or as one really big army. The idea that "Kislev was supposed to be first" is one of seemingly recent fiction as I don't really recall that ever having been an expectation before.
As much as I might have wanted it or enjoyed it, did you *really* expect that GW was going to launch this game with a whole new set of factions INSTEAD OF the actual factions that existed in the predecessor game that this is all based on???? Thats kind of a "you problem" if you did, and I think if you go through discussions from the very start most people expected at least a few (if not the entire roster) of the original WHFB factions to be returned on launch.
Sorry but I am 100% sure the consensus in this thread for a time was a "Empire civil war" starter with possibly two copies of one new set of sculpts, like Age of Darkness.
As much as I might have wanted it or enjoyed it, did you *really* expect that GW was going to launch this game with a whole new set of factions INSTEAD OF the actual factions that existed in the predecessor game that this is all based on???? Thats kind of a "you problem" if you did, and I think if you go through discussions from the very start most people expected at least a few (if not the entire roster) of the original WHFB factions to be returned on launch.
Sorry but I am 100% sure the consensus in this thread for a time was a "Empire civil war" starter with possibly two copies of one new set of sculpts, like Age of Darkness.
That’s still one of the old WFB factions and not a new one. Albeit people were expecting more new sculpts.
Book got revealed today...reading the description of it now. Seems it's set in the Border Princes lands too, more fluff to add to that mostly uncharted part of legend.
Graham McNeill’s interview at the end of the article is rather interesting to read also...
I think this interview really highlights the hole they've dug for themselves. It sounds like they want to make this era of WFB more hopefully and bright than previous iterations, but are completely tied into mentioning the end times as many times as they can!
I'm sure this will be an enjoyable read, but I'm also sure we will end up with an 'end times' counter on some website, listing the amount of times they insert a mention of it into the new books no matter what the context of the story is!
I've always been sort of in the middle with my opinion of the end times, I don't hate it, I enjoyed those bits of it I have read, but I don't have a strong attachment to it either (ie: if they were to retcon it, I'd be like 'hey thats cool' and keep painting. I get why a lot of folk hate it and pretend it never existed), but I'm already finding their articles grating with the amount of times they go 'hey, you didn't forget the end times did you!', like they are trying to double down on how awesome it was.
As much as I might have wanted it or enjoyed it, did you *really* expect that GW was going to launch this game with a whole new set of factions INSTEAD OF the actual factions that existed in the predecessor game that this is all based on???? Thats kind of a "you problem" if you did, and I think if you go through discussions from the very start most people expected at least a few (if not the entire roster) of the original WHFB factions to be returned on launch.
Sorry but I am 100% sure the consensus in this thread for a time was a "Empire civil war" starter with possibly two copies of one new set of sculpts, like Age of Darkness.
Thanks for proving my point for me? Thats still not Kislev or Cathay, instead thats at best entirely new or mostly-new models for an existing faction. I don't think we ever imagined GW to be quite this lazy as to reissue the old minis, but that was never entirely off the table either - some of the Empire sculpts are new enough that it was reasonable to expect them to not be entirely replaced.
nathan2004 wrote: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/20/lords-of-the-lance-is-the-first-new-novel-for-the-world-of-legend/
Book got revealed today...reading the description of it now. Seems it's set in the Border Princes lands too, more fluff to add to that mostly uncharted part of legend.
Graham McNeill’s interview at the end of the article is rather interesting to read also...
I think this interview really highlights the hole they've dug for themselves. It sounds like they want to make this era of WFB more hopefully and bright than previous iterations, but are completely tied into mentioning the end times as many times as they can!
I'm sure this will be an enjoyable read, but I'm also sure we will end up with an 'end times' counter on some website, listing the amount of times they insert a mention of it into the new books no matter what the context of the story is!
I've always been sort of in the middle with my opinion of the end times, I don't hate it, I enjoyed those bits of it I have read, but I don't have a strong attachment to it either (ie: if they were to retcon it, I'd be like 'hey thats cool' and keep painting. I get why a lot of folk hate it and pretend it never existed), but I'm already finding their articles grating with the amount of times they go 'hey, you didn't forget the end times did you!', like they are trying to double down on how awesome it was.
I think its GW trying to message-between-the-lines that The End Times are not being retconned and WHFB as you knew it is never coming back and Age of Sigmar is not being replaced, etc.
Book got revealed today...reading the description of it now. Seems it's set in the Border Princes lands too, more fluff to add to that mostly uncharted part of legend.
Graham McNeill’s interview at the end of the article is rather interesting to read also...
I think this interview really highlights the hole they've dug for themselves. It sounds like they want to make this era of WFB more hopefully and bright than previous iterations, but are completely tied into mentioning the end times as many times as they can!
I'm sure this will be an enjoyable read, but I'm also sure we will end up with an 'end times' counter on some website, listing the amount of times they insert a mention of it into the new books no matter what the context of the story is!
I've always been sort of in the middle with my opinion of the end times, I don't hate it, I enjoyed those bits of it I have read, but I don't have a strong attachment to it either (ie: if they were to retcon it, I'd be like 'hey thats cool' and keep painting. I get why a lot of folk hate it and pretend it never existed), but I'm already finding their articles grating with the amount of times they go 'hey, you didn't forget the end times did you!', like they are trying to double down on how awesome it was.
There has always been an "End times coming" - its like Ragnarok - and The End Times is just one version of it in one Warhammer reality - there is also the Storm of Chaos and in the Bloodbowl one I doubt it comes at all. Different realities are also referenced in the lore.....
there is a difference in "the end times comes but the world continues" and "the whole world is blown up"
and warhammer end times/storm of chaos until 8th was always that chaos will take over and the whole world becomes an ever changing waste where warbands fight for the glory of their gods
that the world itself will be gone is a very different scenario
I think this interview really highlights the hole they've dug for themselves. It sounds like they want to make this era of WFB more hopefully and bright than previous iterations, but are completely tied into mentioning the end times as many times as they can!
I'm sure this will be an enjoyable read, but I'm also sure we will end up with an 'end times' counter on some website, listing the amount of times they insert a mention of it into the new books no matter what the context of the story is!
I've always been sort of in the middle with my opinion of the end times, I don't hate it, I enjoyed those bits of it I have read, but I don't have a strong attachment to it either (ie: if they were to retcon it, I'd be like 'hey thats cool' and keep painting. I get why a lot of folk hate it and pretend it never existed), but I'm already finding their articles grating with the amount of times they go 'hey, you didn't forget the end times did you!', like they are trying to double down on how awesome it was.
So how does this differ from before? Warhammer world was fluffwise always doomed. Sure defeat.
Does it bother you that we know humanity is fetted in 40k as well? Just because they haven't told us how humanity dies doesn't mean humanity has any hope.
Warhammer never been about hopeful and bright. It's fighting despite knowing it's hopeless. Ultimately humans die.
(then again...Ultimately human dies in IRL as well. No matter what humanity dies eventually not just humans but everything that lives now or ever will live are dead...So warhammer kind of has a point )
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
There also aren't any kits they can pull out of the metaphorical closet and put back into production
I don't think theres any evidence to support the idea that the scope changed, whatsoever, at all.
Yeah, but a lot of us seem to think that they changed the scope, which is kind of evidence in itself that they changed it. I am happy for a more Empire centric game btw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scottywan82 wrote: So, someone foolishly streamed that they have the new book, but it sounds like leaks are starting to filter out.
A few highlights from the comments section (Take with adequate salt supplements):
From the stream (that has now been taken down):
50% points limit for characters is the same for all factions, not just brets.
Wizards cannot dispel while in close combat because they are too distracted.
The limit for how many ranks you can claim in combat is based on the unit type.
The Horde rule that the men at arms have is NOT an extra rank gets to attack when you have a wide frontage.
Monsters' weapons, like dragon claws and beaks etc have built in AP that you don't see on the unit card. So the Hippogryph no doubt has some AP.
armor from monsters and riders stacks,
all armies are 50% characters
no step up is present.
The game is just going for a sort of 5th/6th edition hybrid,
Looks good to me.
50% heroes sounds like a lot, but there are slots for the more mighty ones and you wont have to choose between a combat lord and a lvl4 spellcaster anymore.
Big upside that it means less troops and smaller armies. A beginner can just pimp 50% heroes and he will only need 1000 pts troops for a 2k game. I like it.
No project in history ever stays 100% exactly the same from initial “let’s do this” to release. This one is just a little more visible to us as they were actually mentioning stuff 3 years ago. Who knows how much Legions Imperialis changed over its years of development, we’ve got no idea tho as it wasn’t announced back then.
MaxT wrote: No project in history ever stays 100% exactly the same from initial “let’s do this” to release. This one is just a little more visible to us as they were actually mentioning stuff 3 years ago. Who knows how much Legions Imperialis changed over its years of development, we’ve got no idea tho as it wasn’t announced back then.
So yeah, scopes change. Ofc they do.
Of course things change during development, i'm sure there are plenty of things they considered or wanted to do but didn't manage to, but those don't really matter as we didn't know. It's a little different when they use show off certain things to tell us what the project is about and hype it up, only to then have those things noticeably missing from the end result though.
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
There also aren't any kits they can pull out of the metaphorical closet and put back into production
I don't think theres any evidence to support the idea that the scope changed, whatsoever, at all.
Yeah, but a lot of us seem to think that they changed the scope, which is kind of evidence in itself that they changed it.
Thats.... thats not how that works.... thats not how any of this works....
MaxT wrote: No project in history ever stays 100% exactly the same from initial “let’s do this” to release. This one is just a little more visible to us as they were actually mentioning stuff 3 years ago. Who knows how much Legions Imperialis changed over its years of development, we’ve got no idea tho as it wasn’t announced back then.
So yeah, scopes change. Ofc they do.
Of course things change during development, i'm sure there are plenty of things they considered or wanted to do but didn't manage to, but those don't really matter as we didn't know. It's a little different when they use show off certain things to tell us what the project is about and hype it up, only to then have those things noticeably missing from the end result though.
Just because they haven't told you about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't there or isn't happening. We haven't really seen "the end result". We've only seen the very early fruits of GWs labor and nothing more, and not even fully at that.
Voss wrote: Yeah, I don't care about the old maps they published two years ago before the scope of the game changed. I care about the factions they've said the game will support.
There also aren't any kits they can pull out of the metaphorical closet and put back into production
I don't think theres any evidence to support the idea that the scope changed, whatsoever, at all.
Yeah, but a lot of us seem to think that they changed the scope, which is kind of evidence in itself that they changed it.
Thats.... thats not how that works.... thats not how any of this works....
MaxT wrote: No project in history ever stays 100% exactly the same from initial “let’s do this” to release. This one is just a little more visible to us as they were actually mentioning stuff 3 years ago. Who knows how much Legions Imperialis changed over its years of development, we’ve got no idea tho as it wasn’t announced back then.
So yeah, scopes change. Ofc they do.
Of course things change during development, i'm sure there are plenty of things they considered or wanted to do but didn't manage to, but those don't really matter as we didn't know. It's a little different when they use show off certain things to tell us what the project is about and hype it up, only to then have those things noticeably missing from the end result though.
Just because they haven't told you about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't there or isn't happening. We haven't really seen "the end result". We've only seen the very early fruits of GWs labor and nothing more, and not even fully at that.
We saw Kislev and Cathay and were told they were coming for this, but we know they are not part of what they're doing at this point. They might show up eventually, but that doesn't change that they showed things and hyped the game with stuff that has no direct relevance to the project for potentially years after its main release, if ever.
anything related from TOW and TWW was marketing speech and nothing more
simply because the target audience is/was seen with the TWW player as well als old-world fans for both
by that time they may still not have none more, as the people who write the articles can only write about what they get access too
same as with the rules articles at the moment, chance is high that the people who write those don't have the rulebook but only get the information needed for the specific articles and not more
There is nothing reasonable and everything asinine about making up your own facts about the release schedule, which is exactly what you are doing. You have been provided with no information, facts, or anything else which would indicate when Kislev is to be released.
GW is very clearly initiating the launch of this game with existing kits for existing factions, whatever the timeline for them to work through all that ends up looking like is anyones guess at the end, but with rules for all of them being available on release day its unlikely to take them "years" to put a bunch of 20 year old kits back into production. The rather conservative approach of seemingly only releasing 1-2 new plastic kits per faction is also at odds with how they launched Horus Heresy (if you want to talk about things being in-line with how GW typically operates), which launched with no less than 9 new plastic kits (+a handful more existing) in the initial launch weekend plus another 9 or so new plastic kits released within approx. 6 months of the first wave, to say nothing of another couple dozen + resin kits released over the same time period. Based on what we know of Tomb Kings and Bretonnia, GW will likely put out about that many new kits for TOW for the 9 returning core factions, which based on this should only take them the aforementioned 6 months or so to do. Unless your expectation is that GW is only going to continue releasing kits for existing factions into the indefinite future, they will need to fill their release slots with something else, dont you think? They haven't spent the last 3 years since they first mentioned kislev doing nothing with them (despite your beliefs to the contrary), and given that they typically operate in a ~3 year development cycle from concept to release on miniatures, accounting for whats likely a 6-12 month delay caused by COVID in the intervening timeframe, that puts a likely Kislev release by the end of next year or maybe early into 2025. Personally, I am betting that Kislev comes out next November/December, as per its namesake in the Hebrew calendar - quite likely next years big black friday release.
You roll as many dice as your engaged models have Attacks and, with the higher Initiative models striking first, a charging unit has the opportunity to overwhelm its enemies before they have the wit to swing back. Next, you roll to wound and make armour saves as normal.
The only way that sentence makes sense is if you don't step up.
Rule-wise the game looks to be pretty interesting so far, seems like a proper return to a WHFB style of game. Hopefully they don't repeat some of the issues it had too, mainly with the pricing/costs to get into, especially as that's one of the reasons it got replaced in the first place.
chaos0xomega wrote: There is nothing reasonable and everything asinine about making up your own facts about the release schedule, which is exactly what you are doing.
I didn't say anything as if it was a fact, you've just chosen to interpret it that way. Giving an opinion about how it will possibly go =/= "making up your own facts".
In the very same post that you frame someone providing their thoughts on when they might possibly release based on what little information there is as making up facts, you then do the very same thing yourself...
As a fan of Iron Breakers in my dwarves I personally like the kill and stuff doesn't hit back (hint cause they rarely died!). But it'll definitely slow the game down in combination with the new psych rules.
Hulksmash wrote: As a fan of Iron Breakers in my dwarves I personally like the kill and stuff doesn't hit back (hint cause they rarely died!). But it'll definitely slow the game down in combination with the new psych rules.
I liked it because my Dark Elves tended to be fragile! ASF/High Initiative/Charging became almost pointless fi you score a ton of casualties but then get wiped out, anyway.
Yeah, I kinda always liked the feel of it. In my gut it tells me that although it'll slow the game down with the new resolution rules it's probably actually the best blend but until I play a bit I don't KNOW it's the best resolution
Mentlegen324 wrote: Rule-wise the game looks to be pretty interesting so far, seems like a proper return to a WHFB style of game. Hopefully they don't repeat some of the issues it had too, mainly with the pricing/costs to get into, especially as that's one of the reasons it got replaced in the first place.
chaos0xomega wrote: There is nothing reasonable and everything asinine about making up your own facts about the release schedule, which is exactly what you are doing.
I didn't say anything as if it was a fact, you've just chosen to interpret it that way. Giving an opinion about how it will possibly go =/= "making up your own facts".
In the very same post that you frame someone providing their thoughts on when they might possibly release based on what little information there is as making up facts, you then do the very same thing yourself...
This is what you said:
We saw Kislev and Cathay and were told they were coming for this, but we know they are not part of what they're doing at this point.
That is a statement of fact, not of your thoughts or beliefs, and one which is unsubstantiated by anything we actually do know, as there has been no confirmation, rumor, or announcement of any sort that Kislev and Cathay are no longer planned for TOW.
A few highlights from the comments section (Take with adequate salt supplements):
50% points limit for characters is the same for all factions, not just brets.
Wizards cannot dispel while in close combat because they are too distracted.
The limit for how many ranks you can claim in combat is based on the unit type.
The Horde rule that the men at arms have is NOT an extra rank gets to attack when you have a wide frontage.
Monsters' weapons, like dragon claws and beaks etc have built in AP that you don't see on the unit card. So the Hippogryph no doubt has some AP.
Armor from monsters and riders stacks
No step up is present.
WRONG! The streamer did NOT confirm most of those things. He said 'I don't think step up is in the book'. Also no conformation for silly heavy armor stacking.
Also step up was never an actual rule in 8th. We just call it that. So of course he did not see it in his quick look trough.
Kanluwen wrote: Look people, we have something more important to discuss:
What do we think Squires are going to be?!
personally I suspect they will be light cavalry, essentially because thats more or less what they are in the Warmaster Brettonia list. unarmoured horse, lightly armoured rider, spear, maybe a bow
I think this interview really highlights the hole they've dug for themselves. It sounds like they want to make this era of WFB more hopefully and bright than previous iterations, but are completely tied into mentioning the end times as many times as they can!
I'm sure this will be an enjoyable read, but I'm also sure we will end up with an 'end times' counter on some website, listing the amount of times they insert a mention of it into the new books no matter what the context of the story is!
I've always been sort of in the middle with my opinion of the end times, I don't hate it, I enjoyed those bits of it I have read, but I don't have a strong attachment to it either (ie: if they were to retcon it, I'd be like 'hey thats cool' and keep painting. I get why a lot of folk hate it and pretend it never existed), but I'm already finding their articles grating with the amount of times they go 'hey, you didn't forget the end times did you!', like they are trying to double down on how awesome it was.
So how does this differ from before? Warhammer world was fluffwise always doomed. Sure defeat.
Does it bother you that we know humanity is fetted in 40k as well? Just because they haven't told us how humanity dies doesn't mean humanity has any hope.
Warhammer never been about hopeful and bright. It's fighting despite knowing it's hopeless. Ultimately humans die.
(then again...Ultimately human dies in IRL as well. No matter what humanity dies eventually not just humans but everything that lives now or ever will live are dead...So warhammer kind of has a point )
Yeah, it does.
There’s a huge difference between having the flavor of an inevitable doom and the actual end of everything that invests one in the setting. And that’s even if you believe the tone of inevitable doom means the doom is inevitable. I never really thought the Warhammer World was as doomed as described.
Kanluwen wrote: Look people, we have something more important to discuss:
What do we think Squires are going to be?!
In the 5th edition army book you could include one regiment of squires per regiment of knights. They were skirmishing peasants who could take either bows or spears and could be mounted. 6th edition replaced them with mounted yeoman and the option to make one unit of peasant bowmen skirmishers. The lore has them as gofers and attendants to knights so i'm hoping there's some sort of synergy between them beyond leadership buffs. Otherwise keep them as mobile harassers and chaff to block charges.
Moreover, I just want GW to put the miniatures back in production. They're so much better than the plastic men at arms and bowmen.
Kanluwen wrote: Look people, we have something more important to discuss:
What do we think Squires are going to be?!
personally I suspect they will be light cavalry, essentially because thats more or less what they are in the Warmaster Brettonia list. unarmoured horse, lightly armoured rider, spear, maybe a bow
Spoiler:
Mounted Yeoman would fill that role, no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Coolyo294 wrote: In the 5th edition army book you could include one regiment of squires per regiment of knights. They were skirmishing peasants who could take either bows or spears and could be mounted. 6th edition replaced them with mounted yeoman and the option to make one unit of peasant bowmen skirmishers. The lore has them as gofers and attendants to knights so i'm hoping there's some sort of synergy between them beyond leadership buffs. Otherwise keep them as mobile harassers and chaff to block charges.
Moreover, I just want GW to put the miniatures back in production. They're so much better than the plastic men at arms and bowmen.
A friend of mine just grabbed me a collection of unopened Squire blisters as a Christmas present, so I'm trying to suss out what they might be. Total War has them as greatsword/halberd wielders and the models I could find are bows...definitely hoping for the bow angle!
Kanluwen wrote: Look people, we have something more important to discuss:
What do we think Squires are going to be?!
personally I suspect they will be light cavalry, essentially because thats more or less what they are in the Warmaster Brettonia list. unarmoured horse, lightly armoured rider, spear, maybe a bow
Spoiler:
Mounted Yeoman would fill that role, no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Coolyo294 wrote: In the 5th edition army book you could include one regiment of squires per regiment of knights. They were skirmishing peasants who could take either bows or spears and could be mounted. 6th edition replaced them with mounted yeoman and the option to make one unit of peasant bowmen skirmishers. The lore has them as gofers and attendants to knights so i'm hoping there's some sort of synergy between them beyond leadership buffs. Otherwise keep them as mobile harassers and chaff to block charges.
Moreover, I just want GW to put the miniatures back in production. They're so much better than the plastic men at arms and bowmen.
A friend of mine just grabbed me a collection of unopened Squire blisters as a Christmas present, so I'm trying to suss out what they might be. Total War has them as greatsword/halberd wielders and the models I could find are bows...definitely hoping for the bow angle!
Ah, in that case, I would guess squires might be lesser footnights? Something between men-at-arms and a foot knight?
Kanluwen wrote: Look people, we have something more important to discuss:
What do we think Squires are going to be?!
personally I suspect they will be light cavalry, essentially because thats more or less what they are in the Warmaster Brettonia list. unarmoured horse, lightly armoured rider, spear, maybe a bow
Spoiler:
Mounted Yeoman would fill that role, no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Coolyo294 wrote: In the 5th edition army book you could include one regiment of squires per regiment of knights. They were skirmishing peasants who could take either bows or spears and could be mounted. 6th edition replaced them with mounted yeoman and the option to make one unit of peasant bowmen skirmishers. The lore has them as gofers and attendants to knights so i'm hoping there's some sort of synergy between them beyond leadership buffs. Otherwise keep them as mobile harassers and chaff to block charges.
Moreover, I just want GW to put the miniatures back in production. They're so much better than the plastic men at arms and bowmen.
A friend of mine just grabbed me a collection of unopened Squire blisters as a Christmas present, so I'm trying to suss out what they might be. Total War has them as greatsword/halberd wielders and the models I could find are bows...definitely hoping for the bow angle!
Ah, in that case, I would guess squires might be lesser footnights? Something between men-at-arms and a foot knight?
That would be strange given both men at arms and foot knights are Core while Squires are Special.
IMO skirmishing archers like in 5th, probably with an increased BS over archers, seems most likely
You roll as many dice as your engaged models have Attacks
and, with the higher Initiative models striking first, a charging unit has the opportunity to overwhelm its enemies before they have the wit to swing back. Next, you roll to wound and make armour saves as normal.
The only way that sentence makes sense is if you don't step up.
This makes sense even if you always get to attack with engaged models if “overwhelm its enemies” is shorthand for “kill all the models in the unit”.
I guess that's possible, but I'd imagine it's a lot more likely they are talking about eligible models being killed rather than units being completely annihilated.
I hope the monster/rider armour stacking rumour is wrong. Having the bonus wounds and 1+/2+ saves and inevitable magic item protection on ridden monsters would be a significant shift in power towards them in combat compared to previous editions.
I very much think it’s wrong. We’ve seen enough good things of this rule set that i doubt the writers thought heavy cav being 3+ Save and ridden monsters being like 0+ Save is sensible.
I think its GW trying to message-between-the-lines that The End Times are not being retconned and WHFB as you knew it is never coming back and Age of Sigmar is not being replaced, etc.
This has been explicitly stated in earlier community posts.
MaxT wrote: I very much think it’s wrong. We’ve seen enough good things of this rule set that i doubt the writers thought heavy cav being 3+ Save and ridden monsters being like 0+ Save is sensible.
Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that would be needed to make them actually decently usable though?
IIRC lords-on-monsters were a massive waste of points due to how easy it was to remove them with a cannon or two, and "monsters" were only really worth it when they were cheap and spammable so as to overwhelm their counters.
Kanluwen wrote: Look people, we have something more important to discuss:
What do we think Squires are going to be?!
Been answered above (re. skirmishing archers/spearmen) but I've seen so many people ask what they think Squires are over different platforms and was baffled. Took me ages to realise it was because they'd been dropped in the 6th Edition book so haven't been part of the roster for 20-odd years.
Darkial wrote: That would be a great present from the three wise kings! (we celebrate it in Spain for the ones confused)
Parts of America do too. It's the beginning of the Mardi Gras season and the official start date for the sale of King Cakes(hence the name) in New Orleans/Louisiana.
Dreamchild wrote: Someone over on TGA mentioned January 6 as the preorder date.
I'm dubious about that, simply because that's before the current preorders resolve (the kill team and other stuff that went up yesterday has a 3-week preorder period and comes out on the 13th). Now maybe they'll have overlapping preorder periods with a two-week preorder window for TOW, but its easier to present customers with a clear 'now this, then that' rather than let people get their wires crossed.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote:They could have at least put some movement trays in that.
I think they stopped putting movement trays with models either late into 5th or at some point in 6th. Why would they start with a LE box now?
Voss wrote:
Dreamchild wrote: Someone over on TGA mentioned January 6 as the preorder date.
I'm dubious about that, simply because that's before the current preorders resolve (the kill team and other stuff that went up yesterday has a 3-week preorder period and comes out on the 13th). Now maybe they'll have overlapping preorder periods with a two-week preorder window for TOW, but its easier to present customers with a clear 'now this, then that' rather than let people get their wires crossed.
Did we not just have a couple of overlapping preorders? Lots of stuff lately was up for two weeks, while new stuff was set up every week anyway - unless I missed something.
Dreamchild wrote: Someone over on TGA mentioned January 6 as the preorder date.
I'm dubious about that, simply because that's before the current preorders resolve (the kill team and other stuff that went up yesterday has a 3-week preorder period and comes out on the 13th). Now maybe they'll have overlapping preorder periods with a two-week preorder window for TOW, but its easier to present customers with a clear 'now this, then that' rather than let people get their wires crossed.
Preorder on 6th, in store at 20th. That would work.
That's what gw did in fall. Every week new items for 2 week preorder. There were no empty weeks. Marine stuff now for 2 weeks, next week aos for 2 week. It was not to reduce # of kits released but increase time to go to stores from preorder presumably to ease up logistics(for patchy success. Some stores gets in time, others almost 3 week after supposed store date)
Dreamchild wrote: Someone over on TGA mentioned January 6 as the preorder date.
That would be nice, but waiting one or two weeks more or less doesn't make up for a big deal.
Because for a new (and existing one for that matter) player it's a pain in the ass moving that many models by hand in in a block? Another missed opportunity.
Ooh! Will GW bring back the cut-your-own plastic movement trays?
Wouldn't that be something to bring back? Though to be honest magnetic mats on plasticard sheets was the solution that worked best for me. No models falling off due to movement or sloping terrain, and good for transportation as well.
Ok, so you need three books if you want to play everything to its fullest. Not hugely surprising.
The emissary would look much better without the tactical boulder, but again kind of expected these days. Don't like the banner carrier, but the banner itself is sexy. And the swarms look very good once you can actually focus on them. Actually the more I look at the swarms, the more I don't like them. Too much skeleton junk on them. Cut that down by two thirds and leave the beetles.
Bret box looks better than the kings, but it's still going to look so uncanny using the new lord against the ancient kits.
So to get access to the full game with the core factions, I need the Forces of Index Book for the core stuff and the Arcane Journal for the Armies of Infamy
and the core faction won't be available as pdf but as e-book
let me guess the Index will be 50-70€ and the Army Book 20-30€, adding in the rulebook at 50-70€ and we have a 2000 points Army worth of money from other game in books alone
Never in my time as a wargamer have I been the sort to slavishly throw a pile of money at every item during a big launch, especially optional books that will be quickly outdated.... So there's a first time for everything I guess!
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: I wonder if people are going to start carrying around a side table just so they have room to have all the books open?
I do wonder how much you're going to need to use one of the faction books during a game - army construction rules are a pre-game element, and using index cards to write out any items or rules you're using from them seem simple enough.
Have the book with you just in case, sure, but I doubt it'll be needed on the table.
Bretonnia box is a little light on knights perhaps? I feel it should be cheaper than the Tomb Kings box, based on contents.
You forget how over-costed Peg Knights and Lord will be.
You're probably right. Same price seems logical. But there are more models in the Khemri box and the dragon look a lot bigger than the pegasus-lord. Points-wise they probably match though.
Don't have the money or time but still tempted. Started out with fantasy about 30 years ago, so nostalgia is big here. Also, those Bretonnians looks very pretty in that colour scheme.
Could save myself a ton of cash and hassle by using Oathmark and historicals instead, plus an established set of rules which is probably much better balanced and just need a single rulebook, but I will not deny there is an emotional pull with this. Probably just a pipe dream on my part.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear from all those posters who claimed the new Old World would just be dead in the water/on life support/only doing enough to protect IP/general doom-mongering.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They should have just gone paperback army book and be done with it. There was no need to add a third thing you need to lug around.
Its should all be an app as standard. Like every other games company. Relying on physical books in this day and age of living rule sets, rapid updates and regular balances/erratas is just stupid.
Its should all be an app as standard. Like every other games company. Relying on physical books in this day and age of living rule sets, rapid updates and regular balances/erratas is just stupid.
I'm sure their reasoning is they will make more money selling the books than with an app.
Honestly though, an app that cost $5 a month or so, and didn't require purchase of physical books to use, would actually get money from me. Currently I don't buy their books. Not since ..... 6th or 7th when I got my 3 Space Wolf codexs and a couple months later they were all useless. Sorry GW, your books cost too much, and are out of date immediately, to be worth purchasing.
kodos wrote: So to get access to the full game with the core factions, I need the Forces of Index Book for the core stuff and the Arcane Journal for the Armies of Infamy
and the core faction won't be available as pdf but as e-book
Anyway, I would be interested to hear from all those posters who claimed the new Old World would just be dead in the water/on life support/only doing enough to protect IP/general doom-mongering.
They likely still claim it's vaporware or comes 2028 latest.
I mean they kept claiming not coming 2024 even when gw revealed 2024...
H.B.M.C. wrote: And, just to be clear, I guess screw you if you play Dark Elves?
Can't see any mention of them.
Don’t worry if you’re more of a follower of Hashut or interpreter of the Great Plan – Legacy army list PDFs for the other seven factions from Warhammer Fantasy Battles will be available shortly after launch.
We knew they come in legacy lists since spring. Why ask what's already known?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: True enough. Feels like a case of squeeze the nostalgia until it's as dry as a tomb king. And it'll work unfortunately.
Aye. GW killed off the game, ditched the players without a care, now they're going for the nostalgia money grab. And all the ex players are like "ooh, aaahh, awesome", while drinking the GW kool aid and giving them hundreds of pounds. It baffles me.
Billicus wrote: It's stunning to me that the rulebook is 352 pages and still doesn't have all the rules in it. I'll stick to Kings of War thanks
3 Hardbacks for the "temporary" army lists and rules? Probably over £100 in books? Then they'll release army books too?
Glad my wife said WHFB was boring and slow after playing it a few times with me, but enjoyed KoW.
On another note, are the VC, Lizardmen etc going to be in those hardback books or just a fleeting pdf on the website later?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: True enough. Feels like a case of squeeze the nostalgia until it's as dry as a tomb king. And it'll work unfortunately.
Aye. GW killed off the game, ditched the players without a care, now they're going for the nostalgia money grab. And all the ex players are like "ooh, aaahh, awesome", while drinking the GW kool aid and giving them hundreds of pounds. It baffles me.
Billicus wrote: It's stunning to me that the rulebook is 352 pages and still doesn't have all the rules in it. I'll stick to Kings of War thanks
3 Hardbacks for the "temporary" army lists and rules? Probably over £100 in books? Then they'll release army books too?
Glad my wife said WHFB was boring and slow after playing it a few times with me, but enjoyed KoW.
On another note, are the VC, Lizardmen etc going to be in those hardback books or just a fleeting pdf on the website later?
I don't often agree with you, but you're absolutely right.
Tomb boys got new swarms but no new core skeletons?
So on release day there will only be Bretonnia and Tomb kings armies on the website to buy? This really will be a Bretonnia simulator TTG. Atleast give us 4 factions on release so there is some option and flavour.
3 Hardbacks for the "temporary" army lists and rules? Probably over £100 in books? Then they'll release army books too?
Glad my wife said WHFB was boring and slow after playing it a few times with me, but enjoyed KoW.
On another note, are the VC, Lizardmen etc going to be in those hardback books or just a fleeting pdf on the website later?
Well temporal as in duration of tow edition. We don't know how often gw plans to update tow editions.
What do we think? Bretonnian set to sell out within an hour and the TK one about 4? No way with the production issues that GW will have made enough stock of these.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear from all those posters who claimed the new Old World would just be dead in the water/on life support/only doing enough to protect IP/general doom-mongering.
They likely still claim it's vaporware or comes 2028 latest.
I mean they kept claiming not coming 2024 even when gw revealed 2024...
Well, a simple reprint of 90s Tomb King skeletons and a re-release of the Bretonnia battalion box kind of proves it was a sort of vaporware. Down to 10 factions and like 4 new models (will non-TK/brets even be available next quarter?).
I like much of what I see, rules especially, but if we roll into 2025 before we get to even buy some of the 10 factions old models rereleased, I think the 2025 crowd has been fairly precise. This looks like a very limited release so far. Or do you think we'll get empire models et.al in january?
I could live with buying multiple books providing they have lots of high quality background, lots of good artwork, lots of photographs and are not updated within, say, the next 4 years minimum. Some people want books to be much more than rules, and to be fair GW have usually done a reasonable job with providing those extras in the past (by past, I have not bought a GW book in twenty years outside of Forgeworld). Of course, if this turns into Newcromunda then I have zero interest.
Samsonov wrote: I could live with buying multiple books providing they have lots of high quality background, lots of good artwork, lots of photographs and are not updated within, say, the next 4 years minimum. Some people want books to be much more than rules, and to be fair GW have usually done a reasonable job with providing those extras in the past. Of course, if this turns into Newcromunda then I have zero interest.
Of course that's kind what these supplemental books appear to be, plus extra rules for the army. Whereas to play the army you just need the bigger multi-faction book.
I would imagine that, say they do an Empire and Greenskin release next, that new units would be in the supplement book (unless they're not going to do new units, and that seems unlikely).
Three books (two of which are multiple hundred pages hardbacks) to make one army function properly is a lot. There is no arguing that.
This is an odd complaint and yes you can argue it. So you need the rulebook and your army book. Two books same as most things. The Ravening Hordes books are a compendium until other army books get released..
I don't think most people were expecting expensive hardback+expensive hardback+plus probably expensive softback to give an army everything that should have either been in the hordes book already or just gone the army book route.
printed index + supplement was not on anybody's list as people expect either 8th edition 40k or 10th edition 40k/6th edition fantasy style of release
so unless we get a nice surprise and the Journal is a full army book so Bretonnia/Khemri don't need the indey at all this is the worst combination possible that the Neutral factions are gone and rolled into the bad ones does not help either
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: I don't think most people were expecting expensive hardback+expensive hardback+plus probably expensive softback to give an army everything that should have either been in the hordes book already or just gone the army book route.
Well there's a couple of scenarios there:
1. Everything in the horde books. These supplements contain tons of background, lots more photos, artwork, maps, no doubt heraldry and whatnot and even army-specific scenarios alongside the magical disciplines, special characters and race-specific magical items. Should all of that be in the "hordes" book? Wouldn't that make it even more expensive.
2. Self-contained race-specific army books. I look at 10th - a game with Indices - and how dry that's become with the slow wait for actual Codex releases. I wouldn't wish that fate upon a brand new reemergent Warhammer Fantasy. Much rather get solid complete army lists out as quickly as possible.
I mean, Oathmark has one big book and then multiple expansions which are not strictly necessary and no one complains about that. Now, it looks like I need two books to play Brets or Tombs Kings currently, and then we have expansions in the Arcane Journals for optional extras. So outstanding issues are 1) how much these books are going to cost, 2) just how much of a decent game can I play with the two books I need, 3) are those Arcane Journals going to start some silly power creep that means they are actually required, 4) how many Arcane Journals are their going to be per factio?
You can certainly avoid lots of these potential problems by going with another ruleset (Impetus or Clash of Spears come highly recommended by me). But we do not know exactly how big a problem all this will be (or at best we can provisionally extrapolate from past GW behaviour).
expect similar prices like with the other books from GW that are in a similar style, so we are looking at ~150€ for playing Bretonnia or Khemri on release
Billicus wrote: It's stunning to me that the rulebook is 352 pages and still doesn't have all the rules in it. I'll stick to Kings of War thanks
3 Hardbacks for the "temporary" army lists and rules? Probably over £100 in books? Then they'll release army books too?
Glad my wife said WHFB was boring and slow after playing it a few times with me, but enjoyed KoW.
I guess we are going to see some cheesy jokes from Ronnie coming up how you are going to get a full army in Kings of War for the same price as "just" the rules in TOW
kodos wrote: printed index + supplement was not on anybody's list as people expect either 8th edition 40k or 10th edition 40k/6th edition fantasy style of release
???
Sorry what? You mean this 6th edition fantasy style of release?
People you talked to weren't expecting a printed index? The thing that makes the most sense?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: I don't think most people were expecting expensive hardback+expensive hardback+plus probably expensive softback to give an army everything that should have either been in the hordes book already or just gone the army book route.
Well there's a couple of scenarios there:
1. Everything in the horde books. These supplements contain tons of background, lots more photos, artwork, maps, no doubt heraldry and whatnot and even army-specific scenarios alongside the magical disciplines, special characters and race-specific magical items. Should all of that be in the "hordes" book? Wouldn't that make it even more expensive.
2. Self-contained race-specific army books. I look at 10th - a game with Indices - and how dry that's become with the slow wait for actual Codex releases. I wouldn't wish that fate upon a brand new reemergent Warhammer Fantasy. Much rather get solid complete army lists out as quickly as possible.
If they wanted to release them purely as fluff/art fine. No problem. But they have army specific rules as well, that's where it's hacking things off. That's quite literal day one DLC.
6th Edition Fantasy saw a free (!!) index book, printed and as pdf to start and full army books replacing the index lists over time
TOW now has a index book you pay for and an army book in addition, that as far as we know is not useable stand alone but has all the faction specific stuff like previous army books
and this was not expected as people either expected the index to be free (like in 6th) if there are army books coming, or paid index but without army books
but if you have expected to buy 2 books in addition to the rulebook to play the armies, I guess you are the exception
kodos wrote: printed index + supplement was not on anybody's list as people expect either 8th edition 40k or 10th edition 40k/6th edition fantasy style of release
???
Sorry what? You mean this 6th edition fantasy style of release?
People you talked to weren't expecting a printed index? The thing that makes the most sense?
What were you both expecting?
Except it's not that, you still need Ravening Hordes alongside the army book. It's more like Codex Supplements.
Oh okay sorry I get it. You're saying people were just hoping that would be free and not cost money
I mean come on.
Also by the look of the article: you don't have to pay money for the paperback army supplements to play the game. They're optional extras. It seems unadvisable to go without but it's up to you.
It is important to know that you don’t require an Arcane Journal to play your chosen faction – all the units and army rules are contained in Ravening Hordes or Forces of Fantasy – but they do provide a trove of extra options and extra depth for discerning generals.
kodos wrote: printed index + supplement was not on anybody's list as people expect either 8th edition 40k or 10th edition 40k/6th edition fantasy style of release
???
Sorry what? You mean this 6th edition fantasy style of release?
People you talked to weren't expecting a printed index? The thing that makes the most sense?
What were you both expecting?
Except it's not that, you still need Ravening Hordes alongside the army book. It's more like Codex Supplements.
I understoos it more like you get Skaven rulebook, but you can get a supplement to play clan skryre Laboratory guard force or Eshin raiding battallion?
People were hoping that the rulebooks would have the army rules in the them. Not piecemealed out among core rules, hordes and here's an extra supplement you need to make your army actually have it's theme on the table. This isn't hard.
Gotta see what's inside those ravening hordes books before I judge them. They better be full of art and stories to justify two of them. Still a bummer that the most important kits did not receive upgrades for either army.
GaroRobe wrote: What’s with all the tomb king flails? Were they ever a thing? We just got three models with them and I can’t recall a single model having one before
It's not really all the flails. The 6th ed army book had two magic flails: Crook and flail of radiance, described as symbol of kingship and probably not a war flail. Think Osiris here. And flail of skulls, an actual flail in the rules. There was also artwork of a lone charioteer, so probably a prince or king, swinging the flail of skulls.
In the 8th ed army book the magic item section was cut down severely. The flail of skulls wasn't dropped outright but given to the new special character Nekaph, who never got a model until now.
At a guess the designers figured that with a herald of a king as precedent, a bigwig like the battle standard bearer of the army is also eligible to a weapon that represents the king's power.
A less benevolent take is that because the skeletons are the old ones that are representative of troops you find in the Empire, and therefore have a flail on sprue, that inherited type of weapon goes with the Tomb Kings army just fine. I prefer the former assumption though, based on the specific styling of the new character flails
Tomb Kings are not "evil" - they are undead....but otherwise act the same as the other human kingdoms....
This is Warhammer not LOR
The good/evil divide was in a previous article. It did not bode well that they had this idea in the first place and its continued use doesn't inspire confidence. Best case scenario is that it's just a Warhammer Community thing that they think better off eventually, and hopefully sooner than you think. Worst case scenario, the setting gets dumbified.
Hope for the former, prepare for the latter, and accept that it's GW and we already know the answer.
It is important to know that you don’t require an Arcane Journal to play your chosen faction – all the units and army rules are contained in Ravening Hordes or Forces of Fantasy – but they do provide a trove of extra options and extra depth for discerning generals.
Says it right there in the article folks.
of course, same way the Codex and Rulebook is marketed as not required to play 40k and the Datacards and free pdf rules are enough
and now go and ask how many people are actually not playing with a Codex for their faction and not using the additional rules from the rulebook because they are technically not required
I understoos it more like you get Skaven rulebook, but you can get a supplement to play clan skryre Laboratory guard force or Eshin raiding battallion?
So you dont really need the Arcane Journals.
and the article also mentions magic items and spells, so maybe those are just the specific Clan Eshin magic items and not the specific Skaven magic items
but this is still GW and I don't expect them to make something like this
triplegrim wrote: I understoos it more like you get Skaven rulebook, but you can get a supplement to play clan skryre Laboratory guard force or Eshin raiding battallion?
So you dont really need the Arcane Journals.
If this is the approach then I think this is much better than putting this stuff in the army book which is released once per edition or putting it in white dwarf. It allows plenty of background, art and rules which do not easily fit an army book. Of course, it might turn into Newcromunda, we just don't know yet.
It is important to know that you don’t require an Arcane Journal to play your chosen faction – all the units and army rules are contained in Ravening Hordes or Forces of Fantasy – but they do provide a trove of extra options and extra depth for discerning generals.
Says it right there in the article folks.
of course, same way the Codex and Rulebook is marketed as not required to play 40k and the Datacards and free pdf rules are enough
and now go and ask how many people are actually not playing with a Codex for their faction and not using the additional rules from the rulebook because they are technically not required
Why did you pick apart my post like this and ignore the part that answers your own question?
what? the part that says you don't need to buy it?
that does not answer any question, as I wrote GW also says the same about the 40k Codex books, you don't need to buy them to play the factions, the Index cards are the only thing required
This is exactly what I expected when it comes to rules release, and the exact thing I don't like. Its feels very much like the necromunda release- bleed people for rulebooks which are outdated within months.
This is likely to push me to stick to 6th and/or 8th edition only. I might consider buying all the books in this first wave to have them for the new lore/art/as reference, but no way am I going to spend 100s on books on every release. I stopped at 2nd Ed AoS and other than campaign books, refuse to buy more rulebooks, there is just no need at all.
I think I will just be buying up what launch sets I can for the plastic minis, pick up a couple of odd plastic individual sets for stuff I'm missing and stick with old edition and mostly continue to collect old 2nd hand minis or from other companies instead.
I get that GW need to make money to keep the game going, but there just isn't enough substance in this release to make me want to spend the €€ to play 'keeping up with the meta', which this release now does appear to be.
Its only saving grace might be that these rules might be like MESBG, where the rules are much longer lived.
I'm also surprised they've not announce more for a whole game being released. No real hints of other models returning, terrain, additional bits other than the few things shown in photos (which might not even see release, but are just studio leftovers)
I still just see this more as a WFB 'MTO' run more than anything else.
Three books (two of which are multiple hundred pages hardbacks) to make one army function properly is a lot. There is no arguing that.
This is an odd complaint and yes you can argue it. So you need the rulebook and your army book. Two books same as most things. The Ravening Hordes books are a compendium until other army books get released..
Most people expected exactly this outcome.
Bretonnia needs forces of fantasy and bretonnia specific. You kind of need unit profiles. Just armies of infamy, magic items and special characters won't get you far.
kodos wrote: printed index + supplement was not on anybody's list as people expect either 8th edition 40k or 10th edition 40k/6th edition fantasy style of release
???
Sorry what? You mean this 6th edition fantasy style of release?
People you talked to weren't expecting a printed index? The thing that makes the most sense?
What were you both expecting?
A) above came with wd b) you didn't have supplement alongside c) when army book came lt was standalone.
"bit" different. 40k 10th doing more akin to this. Free index to begin with, army book later.
Not 2 pricey book you need.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Olthannon wrote: Oh okay sorry I get it. You're saying people were just hoping that would be free and not cost money
I mean come on.
Also by the look of the article: you don't have to pay money for the paperback army supplements to play the game. They're optional extras. It seems unadvisable to go without but it's up to you.
.
No. People expected to pay for 1 book. Not 2.
And arcane book isn't free so you need to pay. Or if you think you can play without magic items and not autolose..oh naivety. Oh and spells.
When you put it that way, I see what you're saying.
I suppose that GW is of the opinion that special scenarios and deeper looks into specific fluff and whatnot isn't enough to sell a whole book, so has to put something else in there to entice people to buy it. It really proves how silo'd they are, when you think about it. For all their (many, and unexplainable) faults, the 40k team finally figured out that people don't want to carry multiple books for their one army. Seems Specialist never got that memo.
Since Ravening Hordes was brought up, it is worth noting that (with two exceptions), it was the best WHFB list ever assembled. Minimal special rules, minimal complexity, and it worked. Even after army books started coming out, players returned to RH. And it was free - a smart move to convince people to give the upgrade a chance.
kodos wrote: printed index + supplement was not on anybody's list as people expect either 8th edition 40k or 10th edition 40k/6th edition fantasy style of release
???
Sorry what? You mean this 6th edition fantasy style of release?
People you talked to weren't expecting a printed index? The thing that makes the most sense?
What were you both expecting?
This post makes me think you never played 6th edition, because comparing what you cited with what is happening now is very nearly unrelated.
Olthannon wrote: What company won't try and get as much money out of their customers as possible?
That's not the question, the question is whether you get more money in the long term delivering a quality product and treating customers with respect or just go all out nickel and diming them until they ragequit.
Hmmm, I did an inventory of Brett’s I received on sprue from a guy moving away…
Lord oh hippogryph
3 peg knights
Trebuchet
5 questing knights
24 knights of realm
BSB on horse
2 lords on horse
2 damsels on horse
Damsel on foot
11 bowmen
The box would add more of the peasants that I’d need but not sure I need 36 knights!!
Still, very tempting as I’d be basically done.
And arcane book isn't free so you need to pay. Or if you think you can play without magic items and not autolose..oh naivety. Oh and spells.
Ah so for the 6-8 months of the release, you are saying if you play against either Bretonnians or Tomb Kings you'll auto-lose?
Talk of naivety my surprise throughout this is that this general back and forth here seems to be that yous expect better of GW?
What company won't try and get as much money out of their customers as possible?
If this was so good why doesn't gw adopt it in 40k and aos? Afterall more players...
This is unusually bad even for gw.
And yes non-bretonnia/tk will be at disadvantage. Traditional thing with index/army books. No reason to think tow won't be same. If anything it will be more so since gw went for more of anti-player than usual.
This is, quite literally, pretty standard way GW releases stuff. Nothing about the multiple books and such is out of the ordinary for GW. Personally I cant wait to get my hands on the books.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: This is, quite literally, pretty standard way GW releases stuff. Nothing about the multiple books and such is out of the ordinary for GW. Personally I cant wait to get my hands on the books.
Oh? Aos doesnt do this. 40k doesn't do this. What does?
Note how 40k did it. Free index until codex comes. 1 book.
Aos? 1 book you need. If you want units to ally 0 book for allies.
Ravening hordes from 6th was mentioned missing point. Totally different to rh.
tneva82 wrote: Note how 40k did it. Free index until codex comes. 1 book.
Aos? 1 book you need. If you want units to ally 0 book for allies.
Ravening hordes from 6th was mentioned missing point. Totally different to rh.
8ed 40k? Still not same.
Those were all transferring existing armies across to a new edition of an existing game. For all intents and purposes, this is a new game to GW - note it's called Old World, not Fantasy Battle - that just happens to use old models. And the intent seems to be that Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes are core books rather than 'get you by' lists - the 'non-core' factions are getting free rules, which will be outdated when, years down the line, they get to having a physical release.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: This is, quite literally, pretty standard way GW releases stuff. Nothing about the multiple books and such is out of the ordinary for GW. Personally I cant wait to get my hands on the books.
Oh? Aos doesnt do this. 40k doesn't do this. What does?
Note how 40k did it. Free index until codex comes. 1 book.
Aos? 1 book you need. If you want units to ally 0 book for allies.
Ravening hordes from 6th was mentioned missing point. Totally different to rh.
8ed 40k? Still not same.
Well for starters, Horus Heresy
Secondly what exactly is wrong with a Rulebook and a compendium with the army you want? Keep in mind you do not need the Arcane Journal to play. It just contains specialty army lists.
And before anyone makes a snarky post about how "The specialty list will probably be better than the compendium ones" I'd really REALLY like for this game to avoid tournament brain as much as possible. Especially since I see it leaking here before the game has even come out yet.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Secondly what exactly is wrong with a Rulebook and a compendium with the army you want? Keep in mind you do not need the Arcane Journal to play. It just contains specialty army lists.
And before anyone makes a snarky post about how "The specialty list will probably be better than the compendium ones" I'd really REALLY like for this game to avoid tournament brain as much as possible. Especially since I see it leaking here before the game has even come out yet.
Ah the old "GW is right, all the players are doing it wrong" defense, classic.
Oh look, OW is a minimal effort nostalgia cash-grab where playing fully requires 3 expensive books. Colour me shocked.
GW's contempt for fans of WHFB reaches new heights every day, doesn't it? I'd say I hope it crashes and burns (since it's exactly what they'd deserve), but we all already know that enough folk are too deep in corporate worship to resist handing over hundreds of pounds for this pathetic release. And I say this as someone who *loves* the old models.
For once, it'd be nice if GW were actually held to some standards. Until then, OW is offering nothing that Kings of War, or even just playing old WHFB editions, doesn't do better.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Secondly what exactly is wrong with a Rulebook and a compendium with the army you want? Keep in mind you do not need the Arcane Journal to play. It just contains specialty army lists.
And before anyone makes a snarky post about how "The specialty list will probably be better than the compendium ones" I'd really REALLY like for this game to avoid tournament brain as much as possible. Especially since I see it leaking here before the game has even come out yet.
Ah the old "GW is right, all the players are doing it wrong" defense, classic.
Not all the players, just the tournament try-hard WAAC jerks who break the game for the rest of us. Some of us LIKE Tactical Squads.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: This is, quite literally, pretty standard way GW releases stuff. Nothing about the multiple books and such is out of the ordinary for GW. Personally I cant wait to get my hands on the books.
Oh? Aos doesnt do this. 40k doesn't do this. What does?
Note how 40k did it. Free index until codex comes. 1 book.
Aos? 1 book you need. If you want units to ally 0 book for allies.
Ravening hordes from 6th was mentioned missing point. Totally different to rh.
8ed 40k? Still not same.
Well for starters, Horus Heresy
Secondly what exactly is wrong with a Rulebook and a compendium with the army you want? Keep in mind you do not need the Arcane Journal to play. It just contains specialty army lists.
And before anyone makes a snarky post about how "The specialty list will probably be better than the compendium ones" I'd really REALLY like for this game to avoid tournament brain as much as possible. Especially since I see it leaking here before the game has even come out yet.
Speciality lists,magic items, spells...more.
Sure you "can" play without it. Technically speaking you don't need codex space marines to play marines(without piracy). Seen many play so?
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: This is, quite literally, pretty standard way GW releases stuff. Nothing about the multiple books and such is out of the ordinary for GW. Personally I cant wait to get my hands on the books.
Oh? Aos doesnt do this. 40k doesn't do this. What does?
Note how 40k did it. Free index until codex comes. 1 book.
Aos? 1 book you need. If you want units to ally 0 book for allies.
Ravening hordes from 6th was mentioned missing point. Totally different to rh.
8ed 40k? Still not same.
Secondly what exactly is wrong with a Rulebook and a compendium with the army you want? Keep in mind you do not need the Arcane Journal to play. It just contains specialty army lists.
And before anyone makes a snarky post about how "The specialty list will probably be better than the compendium ones" I'd really REALLY like for this game to avoid tournament brain as much as possible. Especially since I see it leaking here before the game has even come out yet.
+1, they are just trolls (3 books required to play? ).
I only need 2 books: rulebook + armies book, as always.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: This is, quite literally, pretty standard way GW releases stuff. Nothing about the multiple books and such is out of the ordinary for GW. Personally I cant wait to get my hands on the books.
Oh? Aos doesnt do this. 40k doesn't do this. What does?
Note how 40k did it. Free index until codex comes. 1 book.
Aos? 1 book you need. If you want units to ally 0 book for allies.
Ravening hordes from 6th was mentioned missing point. Totally different to rh.
8ed 40k? Still not same.
Secondly what exactly is wrong with a Rulebook and a compendium with the army you want? Keep in mind you do not need the Arcane Journal to play. It just contains specialty army lists.
And before anyone makes a snarky post about how "The specialty list will probably be better than the compendium ones" I'd really REALLY like for this game to avoid tournament brain as much as possible. Especially since I see it leaking here before the game has even come out yet.
+1, they are just trolls (3 books required to play? ).
I only need 2 books: rulebook + armies book, as always.
Well if you play bretonnia not magic items, spells, special characters. Have to take infantry(no all knight lists).
You'll be seriously underpowered vs other brets and tomb king and once others get their arcanum those too.
There's no 1 book for all bretonnia stuff.
Unlike say necrons, tvranid, skaven, cities of sigmar...
And if you instead take book with above no knight of the realms, duke, paladin, men at arms etc etc etc
Well if you play bretonnia not magic items, spells, special characters. Have to take infantry(no all knight lists).
You'll be seriously underpowered vs other brets and tomb king and once others get their arcanum those too.
There's no 1 book for all bretonnia stuff.
Unlike say necrons, tvranid, skaven, cities of sigmar...
And if you instead take book with above no knight of the realms, duke, paladin, men at arms etc etc etc
See? Tournament brain
Also, please list exactly where is says in the GW article magic items/spells/special characters are not in the compendium? The arcane books are for Specialty lists, like the Errantry war where you can probably take an all knight list with no need for Peasants. No where in the article does it say you will not get your full compliment of Items or rules.
I wonder if one could maybe, I dunno. Hmm. OK. Here’s an idea. But brace yourself, because it’s more radical than a fundie in a Hawaiian shirt and shades, cap at the mathematically derived jauntiest of angles, on a skateboard, which is mounted to a surfboard, jumping over tattooed sharks…….
We could…talk to our opponent, and ask if they mind just sticking to the hardback books, until we each have our compendiums.
Right. I’ve got to go. The Sane And Resonable Police are almost certainly gonna be on their way.
that is why in 8th 40k were there was a similar problem with Index VS Codex, all the tournaments were the ones using Index only and ignored the Codizes until more were available, while it was the casual players that said "I am not going to play without the fluff/narrative strategems"
will be similar here, tournaments will cut Allies, Mercenaries and Magic Items/Spells from the Journal until some more factions are released and the casual players will face to full force of Bretonnia because "the narritive"
On the whole "Good vs. Evil" thing, I would be willing to bet that is to do allies and such rather than philosophical commentary on the motivations of given factions.
It's not like it's never been done before. Hell, all the trailers for Warhammer Online had Dark Elves, Chaos, and Orks on the same side with the Empire, High/Wood Elves, and Dwarves on the other.
The complex nature of politics and diplomacy in the setting aren't ignored just because the game rulebooks have a specific word in them.
kodos wrote: will be similar here, tournaments will cut Allies, Mercenaries and Magic Items/Spells from the Journal until some more factions are released and the casual players will face to full force of Bretonnia because "the narritive"
Hopefully, TOW will be more like HH and competitive events will be the minority. Bad combos still happen but the number of players I've met IRL who have used "muh narrative" as a reason for using busted rules I can count on one hand.
Gert wrote: Hopefully, TOW will be more like HH and competitive events will be the minority.
have already seen tournament announcements for February/March so I guess people going to focus on that
Gert wrote: On the whole "Good vs. Evil" thing, I would be willing to bet that is to do allies and such rather than philosophical commentary on the motivations of given factions.
still makes Ogres as the classic Mercenary faction strange to be with Evil instead of neutral
Things Ogres do to you when not paid enough toll/gold/food whether you are random passerby or the one that bought their services first:
- Rob you
- Eat you
- Eat you more
- Probaply ate your family
Yes, Ogres are good guys.
And as they are coming as Pdf. (at first) they can have all manner of rules for all sort of mercenaries.
Goodness not sure what yall expected, this was all rumored before being confirmed today for the most part.
It’s not perfect and it was never going to meet some of your expectations but it’s something and not vaporware like some thought. Let’s see how the game plays, I like I only have to buy 2 books plus BRB since I have multiple armies.
These boxes only being 1250 pts are wild to me. I think we expected the big monster mounts to be ~400-500 pts each, no? Either they got cheaper or the cost of everything else is lower than expected.
I hate that they put the old Pegasus knights in the Bret box where they have to exist next to the new hero on Pegasus, awful choice there IMO
MalusCalibur wrote: Oh look, OW is a minimal effort nostalgia cash-grab where playing fully requires 3 expensive books. Colour me shocked.
GW's contempt for fans of WHFB reaches new heights every day, doesn't it? I'd say I hope it crashes and burns (since it's exactly what they'd deserve), but we all already know that enough folk are too deep in corporate worship to resist handing over hundreds of pounds for this pathetic release. And I say this as someone who *loves* the old models.
For once, it'd be nice if GW were actually held to some standards. Until then, OW is offering nothing that Kings of War, or even just playing old WHFB editions, doesn't do better.
chaos0xomega wrote: These boxes only being 1250 pts are wild to me. I think we expected the big monster mounts to be ~400-500 pts each, no? Either they got cheaper or the cost of everything else is lower than expected.
Khemri models are ~900 points in 8th Edition without the Dragon (as there was none) and 350 points for the priest on Dragon sounds about right (without the profile hard to tell if it is too cheap or not)
which would mean GW picks the game up were they left it with the points per model (also reasonable as they said all models from 8th will be there which is much easier to go with points from that edition)
The core rules of the game have already changed pretty dramatically from 8th that I doubt that points are unchanged from 8th. Besides TOW is not WHFB anyway, it's a new game.
Oh yeah, sure... I guess you are one of those nostalgic people who plays the 7th edition or earlier, isnt?. Well, get used to ToW, since it is quite similar to 8th edition, luckily! xD
Gwindalor wrote: Oh yeah, sure... I guess you are one of those nostalgic people who plays the 7th edition or earlier, isnt?. Well, get used to ToW, since it is quite similar to 8th edition, luckily! xD
6th Edition had the best background, and from that it just got worse as everything was just the same hyperbole in storytelling by 8th and there was no real flavour left
and TOW is nothing like 8th from what we have seen so far, but than if you think TOW would be lucky to be like 8th, there was a reason not many people were left playing that game and the rules were just a part of that and this is not something I would call lucky
and until we see what is in the Journal books, there is still a good chance that it is more like 6th (and having the appendix army lists back is a good indication for that)
so get used to it, 8th is dead and won't come back for good reasons
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: The core rules of the game have already changed pretty dramatically from 8th that I doubt that points are unchanged from 8th. Besides TOW is not WHFB anyway, it's a new game.
of course it is, and maybe GW put the hours in to get all new point costs for all units that just ends to be on a similar level per force than 8th
yet I don't expect that, at least not on a full scale as it is much easier (and cheaper) to just take the existing values and make minor adjustments if at all, let the people play the game and than release points value based on player feedback
At least there will be some new Black Library books set in the Old World. I look forward to reading discussions here about the new fluff.
Other than that, this looks expensive and rather small scale. If we see new plastics for TOW for elves or Empire before June, I’ll be surprised. The promise of Cathay and Kislev are what made me interested in TOW in the first place, so until I see plastic kits for Cathay and Kislev I will continue to consider this release at least a bait-and-switch if not outright vapor ware. Selling me on Cathay and releasing old skeletons with a new dragon, that’s not a win.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear from all those posters who claimed the new Old World would just be dead in the water/on life support/only doing enough to protect IP/general doom-mongering.
They likely still claim it's vaporware or comes 2028 latest.
I mean they kept claiming not coming 2024 even when gw revealed 2024...
Really looking forward to seeing the books.
Love the fantasy battle settning, and still take out the big 8th rulebook occasionally to look at the special scenarios and custom scenerys and stuff.
Will be cool to see some history about this era, and the flavour books will no doubt be mostly for giong more into the events and politics of the time that was.
Oh, people should totally hold their breath waiting for Cathay and ice girl Warcraft Kislev. I mean, I don't have to pay for their coffin.
One is still being perfectly reasonable being disappointed to learn that you will need to buy multiple redundant books even on release, but at the same time we're well past the point that this is a surprise. Games Workshop is a book seller who uses gigantic plastic diorama models (surrounded by little plastic models for them to kill) in order to sell those books. Indeed, just giving us two big army books and then an individual army book as well seems pretty restrained as a start. Eventually we'll have multiple magic books, yearly general's handbooks, campaign books, a quarterly Spike! The Old World magazine, and that's before they declare those first army books out of date, and re-publish them with updated rules that make the OP factions nerfed, and the nerfed factions OP.
there are 2 books for the 9 core army lists, and 2 more books to extend the first 2 factions with more army lists, more magic items and more spells (adding those for each of the core factions over time)
Just your rulebook and either Ravening Hordes or Forces of Fantasy.
Yep, same as you don't need army books for 40k or Age of Sigmar.
In what way?
Books for 40k are also advertised as "don't need them to play" as you can get the "core lists" from the DataCards and you do not need to Codex to play the game, they just add options for those who want more depth
so if the Journals are like the Codizes or like the Campaign books remains to be seen
Incredible how some are using such disingenuous arguments in order to defend GW. Let's stop kinding ourselves, the army books will be pretty much mandatory in order to play the game. Personally, it's not a big deal with me, as long as the dont start adding up books on top of books on top of books (but it's GW after all, so I'm not too optimisitic)
streetsamurai wrote: Incredible how some are using such disingenuous arguments in order to defend GW. Let's stop kinding ourselves, the army books will be pretty much mandatory in order to play the game. Personally, it's not a big deal with me, as long as the dont start adding up books on top of books on top of books (but it's GW after all, so I'm not too optimisitic)
nathan2004 wrote: It’s not perfect and it was never going to meet some of your expectations but it’s something and not vaporware like some thought.
I set my expectations very low, and they still managed to fail to meet them. And it most certainly is a project that was vaporware for the majority of the four years since it was announced in panic, since mostly recycled models and a conglomeration of previous rulesets is all they've managed to create.
Wait And See. Because playing the game magically causes reasonably priced new plastic kits and well thought-out rules to appear.
nathan2004 wrote: I like I only have to buy 2 books plus BRB since I have multiple armies.
Wouldn't it be nice if you just had to buy one book, regardless of how many armies you had? Because other games from smaller companies manage to do just that. How strange.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I wonder if one could maybe, I dunno. Hmm. OK. Here’s an idea. But brace yourself, because it’s more radical than a fundie in a Hawaiian shirt and shades, cap at the mathematically derived jauntiest of angles, on a skateboard, which is mounted to a surfboard, jumping over tattooed sharks…….
We could…talk to our opponent, and ask if they mind just sticking to the hardback books, until we each have our compendiums.
Right. I’ve got to go. The Sane And Resonable Police are almost certainly gonna be on their way.
Let me know how many people agree not to use a chunk of their army's rules, outside of your particular friend group. I imagine it will be similar to the numbers who would agree to play 40k with just the indices.
Consisting mostly of old models, some of which date back to the 90s - yet they will be priced as if contemporary. The definition of low effort, and certainly low investment.
4 of which nobody wanted to see. Having to buy a separate book for a faction is an outdated concept by now - as is having two seperate books for faction army lists - just because Horus Heresy did it wrong doesn't mean every specialist game should follow suit. And please don't insult us both with the 'but you don't *need* the faction book to play' line, because it's been countered several times already.
Given the price and quality issues associated with Forge World...I don't think that's much of a positive.
MaxT wrote: and its still vapourware? Stop embarrassing yourself
They've had four years, and this is all they've produced? That's damning evidence that it *was* vaporware for a significant portion of the development time. Unless you're suggesting that trying to milk nostalgia with minimal investment of time and money was the intent from the first announcement? Because that's even worse.
The argument that they are mandatory is predicated on the idea that they will include additional magic items and the like that will be must-haves to be competitive with the army. There's validity to the standpoint, but that doesn't make them mandatory, it makes them essential - there's a difference. The only books that are truly mandatory are the Core book and the appropriate ravening hordes style book.
streetsamurai wrote: Incredible how some are using such disingenuous arguments in order to defend GW. Let's stop kinding ourselves, the army books will be pretty much mandatory in order to play the game. Personally, it's not a big deal with me, as long as the dont start adding up books on top of books on top of books (but it's GW after all, so I'm not too optimisitic)
"Imagined must take items"??? What in Khorne name is that supposed to means?
And it's not only about fielding a competitive army. These books , besides the "imagined must take items" also introduce some new army composition rules and spells for the army. We all know that everyone fielding said army will buy the arcane journal of the army, no matter how disingenuous some are (after spending a few hundreds if not thousands bucks buying said army, and spending hours assembling and painting said army, nobody sane wouldn't spend a few more dollars to have all the rules associated with it).
As I said before, I'm ok with the profit model and I wouldn't mind buying these books if I played The Old World. Alas, there's no way in hell i'm paying GW prices for miniatures that were already terribly outdated when WHFB was discontinued, especially more with Para Bellum continually relasing some amazing plastic kits recently. It's very unfortunate, since I'm a huge WHFB fanboy, but it just seems like this was almost setup to fail.
vipoid wrote: By the way, am I right in thinking that GW aren't bothering to write a Vampire Counts book for Old World?
Don’t worry if you’re more of a follower of Hashut or interpreter of the Great Plan – Legacy army list PDFs for the other seven factions from Warhammer Fantasy Battles will be available shortly after launch.
vipoid wrote: By the way, am I right in thinking that GW aren't bothering to write a Vampire Counts book for Old World?
Correct, they’re one of the 9 factions with pdf rules only. Probably as they’re a major AoS faction, though lorewise there’s also that all the Von Carsteins are all dead in this time period.
MaxT wrote: GW releases 2 boxed armies, 5 books, new plastic releases, new forgeworld releases and its still vapourware? Stop embarrassing yourself
GW: In two years we’ll sell you all new Old World armies with exciting new units. Our eyecatching headliners are Cathay and Kislev. Don’t you want Cathay and Kislev??
GW years later: Here are old skeletons and Brets with some new centerpieces. That’s what we sold you on, right?
vipoid wrote: By the way, am I right in thinking that GW aren't bothering to write a Vampire Counts book for Old World?
Correct, they’re one of the 9 factions with pdf rules only. Probably as they’re a major AoS faction, though lorewise there’s also that all the Von Carsteins are all dead in this time period.
All the main Von Carsteins are dead or pretending to be, plenty of older vampires (the Carsteins are with the exception of Vlad are all very young vamps) across the world though in the other countries of the Old World and Kislev gets a vampire Tzarina after the Great War against Chaos is won.
streetsamurai wrote: "Imagined must take items"??? What in Khorne name is that supposed to means?
And it's not only about fielding a competitive army. These books , besides the "imagined must take items" also introduce some new army composition rules and spells for the army. We all know that everyone fielding said army will buy the arcane journal of the army, no matter how disingenuous some are (after spending a few hundreds if not thousands bucks buying said army, and spending hours assembling and painting said army, nobody sane wouldn't spend a few more dollars to have all the rules associated with it).
As I said before, I'm ok with the profit model and I wouldn't mind buying these books if I played The Old World. Alas, there's no way in hell i'm paying GW prices for miniatures that were already terribly outdated when WHFB was discontinued, especially more with Para Bellum continually relasing some amazing plastic kits recently. It's very unfortunate, since I'm a huge WHFB fanboy, but it just seems like this was almost setup to fail.
They are items that are imagined to be must take. None of us know what items are in the book, so we have no idea of the comparative strength compared to any of the core items (which we also don't know about).
The new books introduce Bretonnian Exiles and Errantry Crusades. If you want to play the core army then the normal book contains what you need.
My point of view is that I had hoped for a free Ravening Hordes type supplement, but that I'm okay paying for it - even if it's two books. What I don't like is that the book is so bloated with pictures and fiction. It'll be inconvenient to lug around.
The new army books... I suppose that's to be expected. I don't like them, because as others have said that's three books you'll have to consult. The main thing that drives me from GW games is the library growth - that's why I never got into Newcromunda. Way too many books to stay on top of.
My hope is that the core rules + compendium armies (including the PDFs) are enough to play satisfying games and I can find a group that's willing to stick to them.
MaxT wrote: GW releases 2 boxed armies, 5 books, new plastic releases, new forgeworld releases and its still vapourware? Stop embarrassing yourself
GW: In two years we’ll sell you all new Old World armies with exciting new units. Our eyecatching headliners are Cathay and Kislev. Don’t you want Cathay and Kislev??
GW years later: Here are old skeletons and Brets with some new centerpieces. That’s what we sold you on, right?
The way I remember it, was they started to sell it simply by saying "old world" and "square bases", then went on to make maps and pointing to Bretonnia, hinting at the heraldry of king Louen Orc-slayer to tease the time and setting.
And then they said they had officially fused the art-direction team of Total War to "the old world" project to enable the design for Kislev and Cathay to be part of their new game.
And at this point people were looking at the new design of giant bear cavalry and weird stuff saying "Jikes, ToW will get the AoS treatment, perhaps we better stick with 6th edition FB".
I have mixed feelings about all of this. At first I was very excited for Warhammer Fantasy Battles coming back, but as time has shown more I'm less excited.
So far we have seen the re-release of old models that were bad when they were released (Tomb King Skeletons).
And.
Faction books essential spread over several publications, to squeeze out more cash.
If anything I think ToW is looking to be GW testing the waters on just how far they can push things with their rabid fanbase.to see where the limit is on what they can get away with, because only a fool would think that GW will not charge a premium price for thise old Skeletons, and for the 2 books needed to get one army list. Maximum profit, for minimum effort.
I may just stick to 6th edition and use predominantly none GW models.
vipoid wrote: By the way, am I right in thinking that GW aren't bothering to write a Vampire Counts book for Old World?
Correct, they’re one of the 9 factions with pdf rules only. Probably as they’re a major AoS faction, though lorewise there’s also that all the Von Carsteins are all dead in this time period.
Let's be real, the fluff is there to justify and rationalize what was primarily a business decision.
Aesthete wrote: My point of view is that I had hoped for a free Ravening Hordes type supplement, but that I'm okay paying for it - even if it's two books. What I don't like is that the book is so bloated with pictures and fiction. It'll be inconvenient to lug around.
The new army books... I suppose that's to be expected. I don't like them, because as others have said that's three books you'll have to consult. The main thing that drives me from GW games is the library growth - that's why I never got into Newcromunda. Way too many books to stay on top of.
My hope is that the core rules + compendium armies (including the PDFs) are enough to play satisfying games and I can find a group that's willing to stick to them.
This is going to be a game that follows the mold of horus heresy, necromunda and adeptus titanicus, etc. Every so often they are going to put out a narrative supplement that will add additional units, variant army lists, magic items, special characters, etc. Within ~3 years time you can reasobably expect the rules for most factions will be split across 5 or 6 separate books if you want to have a fully comprehensive all encompassing army. If you're OK just playing a "grand army" style list and sticking to the armies core units instead of mucking about with fringe units or weirdo narrative stuff, then you can get by with 1 book. Whether or not that 1 book will be enough to build a "competitive" army is unlikely - balance has never been GWs strong suit and there will no doubt be some power creep over time, but if you're OK with maybe a 50% win rate instead of a 50% win rate, then you should be able to play a 1 book army list without demanding your opponents do the same.
MaxT wrote: GW releases 2 boxed armies, 5 books, new plastic releases, new forgeworld releases and its still vapourware? Stop embarrassing yourself
GW: In two years we’ll sell you all new Old World armies with exciting new units. Our eyecatching headliners are Cathay and Kislev. Don’t you want Cathay and Kislev??
GW years later: Here are old skeletons and Brets with some new centerpieces. That’s what we sold you on, right?
The way I remember it, was they started to sell it simply by saying "old world" and "square bases", then went on to make maps and pointing to Bretonnia, hinting at the heraldry of king Louen Orc-slayer to tease the time and setting.
And then they said they had officially fused the art-direction team of Total War to "the old world" project to enable the design for Kislev and Cathay to be part of their new game.
And at this point people were looking at the new design of giant bear cavalry and weird stuff saying "Jikes, ToW will get the AoS treatment, perhaps we better stick with 6th edition FB".
This is pretty much exactly what happened. GW never indicated Kislev and Cathay would be available on launch, only that they were being developed into miniatures. In fact, they more or less explicitly stated that Cathay would not be available for some time after TOW released but that they would eventually be added, so anyone bitching and moaning about Cathay at this point has no legs to stand on.
I could see why some mightve thought Kislev would feature on launch, but that was always an unreasonable expectation vs starting off with old factions. Actually the original premise of what most expected was that the launch would be Empire vs Empire as the first content reveal was the map showing that the game was set in Age of Three Emperors. Basically, there was never really a point at which expecting GW to start with Kislev would have been reasonable, a lot of the complaints about it today strike me as people whinging for the sake of it or throwing sand in their own eyes and then crying about how GW kicked sand at them afterwards.
In one of the youtube videos elsewhere on the site, Andy Chambers reminisces about the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed. 40k and how it offered an opportunity to reset all the armies from zero and fix a lot of problems that crept in over the previous six years.
The then laughs knowingly. "Of course, the codexes would soon wreck all that..."
Because I am not Charlie Brown eternally trying to kick a football, I'm quite certain that if GW gets any kind of a favorable response, more supplements will be produced, and in three years, The Old World, 2nd Edition will be on the way because that's what they always do.
On that note, can someone get me an estimate of the minimum cost to play a game I've already bought three times?
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: In one of the youtube videos elsewhere on the site, Andy Chambers reminisces about the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed. 40k and how it offered an opportunity to reset all the armies from zero and fix a lot of problems that crept in over the previous six years.
The then laughs knowingly. "Of course, the codexes would soon wreck all that..."
Because I am not Charlie Brown eternally trying to kick a football, I'm quite certain that if GW gets any kind of a favorable response, more supplements will be produced, and in three years, The Old World, 2nd Edition will be on the way because that's what they always do.
On that note, can someone get me an estimate of the minimum cost to play a game I've already bought three times?
Rulebook plus the free legacy pdfs gives you what 7 armies worth of full rules. So £25 maybe for a rulebook off eBay in a few weeks. Or probably £35 brand new.
And of course you’re entirely able to continue to play your old editions for free!
MaxT wrote: GW releases 2 boxed armies, 5 books, new plastic releases, new forgeworld releases and its still vapourware? Stop embarrassing yourself
GW: In two years we’ll sell you all new Old World armies with exciting new units. Our eyecatching headliners are Cathay and Kislev. Don’t you want Cathay and Kislev??
GW years later: Here are old skeletons and Brets with some new centerpieces. That’s what we sold you on, right?
State your source where GW announced a 2 year timeframe or admit you’re just making things up. We’ll wait.
The Timeframe might have been invented or was GW's best guess at the time an article was posted. That said they did advertise Kislev and Cathay at the very start as new armies appearing in Old World. However now they aren't appearing even in the preview content.
Now we don't know why that is.
Perhaps they got shelved; perhaps Old World was taking too long and managers decided to speed it up based on feedback and demand. So instead of launching with 2 armies that won't be ready for another 2 years they are going with stuff they've already got.
Perhaps GW got a LOT of hate mail from fans of old existing armies and didn't get any for support of the new ones (or the margins were insanely skewed ot one side) so they decided to stall forces that were going to cost more and weren't getting as much reception; and focused on those that people were asking for
Aesthete wrote: My point of view is that I had hoped for a free Ravening Hordes type supplement, but that I'm okay paying for it - even if it's two books. What I don't like is that the book is so bloated with pictures and fiction. It'll be inconvenient to lug around.
Your idea of bloat is many other idea of part of why they buy the books. Artwork and background. Especially new background for a time period not previously written about.
Privateer Press once tried separating out rules and fiction for Warmachine and nearly killed their company doing it (among other failures).
Overread wrote: The Timeframe might have been invented or was GW's best guess at the time an article was posted. That said they did advertise Kislev and Cathay at the very start as new armies appearing in Old World. However now they aren't appearing even in the preview content.
Now we don't know why that is.
Perhaps they got shelved; perhaps Old World was taking too long and managers decided to speed it up based on feedback and demand. So instead of launching with 2 armies that won't be ready for another 2 years they are going with stuff they've already got.
Perhaps GW got a LOT of hate mail from fans of old existing armies and didn't get any for support of the new ones (or the margins were insanely skewed ot one side) so they decided to stall forces that were going to cost more and weren't getting as much reception; and focused on those that people were asking for
Not sure how true this is, but I do recall someone somewhere saying how the design team changed during the development of ToW. So what we are getting is different from what was originally penciled in for ToW. Think they even mentioned how a lot of the 'old guard' were brought in to work on the ToW we are getting now.
I think the big change is due to some shake up somewhere within GW's development process. I personally wouldn't be surprised if we hear nothing lore of Cathay or Kislev as full factions, we may get a character/unit here as mercenaries I'd wager.
Overread wrote: The Timeframe might have been invented or was GW's best guess at the time an article was posted. That said they did advertise Kislev and Cathay at the very start as new armies appearing in Old World. However now they aren't appearing even in the preview content.
Now we don't know why that is.
Perhaps they got shelved; perhaps Old World was taking too long and managers decided to speed it up based on feedback and demand. So instead of launching with 2 armies that won't be ready for another 2 years they are going with stuff they've already got.
Perhaps GW got a LOT of hate mail from fans of old existing armies and didn't get any for support of the new ones (or the margins were insanely skewed ot one side) so they decided to stall forces that were going to cost more and weren't getting as much reception; and focused on those that people were asking for
I should think a logical reason would be sculpt quality. Somebody probably had the brainwave that if you launched with two brand new ranges, sculpted up to modern standards, the disparity would be huge. Far worse than it already is with the new and old sculpts for tomb kings and bretts. Could you imagine if they started with all new kislev and then brought out tomb kings with those skeletons? They would have had to redo everything from scratch to keep the standard up.
Going with Kislev and Cathay at the beginning would have been a mistake IMO.
TOW isn't HH where stuff is guaranteed to sell because its Space Marines.
Nostalgia also sells well and is a safer bet than brand new factions that people hadn't really seen before.
vipoid wrote: By the way, am I right in thinking that GW aren't bothering to write a Vampire Counts book for Old World?
Correct, they’re one of the 9 factions with pdf rules only. Probably as they’re a major AoS faction, though lorewise there’s also that all the Von Carsteins are all dead in this time period.
Ugh.
"Sorry but the faction you play exists in our arse replacement to WHFB, with rules that we pulled out of our biggest, sweatiest arse. Thus, even though we're rehashing WHFB, we can't be bothered writing them back into it."
Aside, even if you buy that bullcrap, what exactly is the excuse when it comes to not doing a proper Old World Dark Elves book? At least with VC you can make the claim that they exist as Soulblight (even if the rules bare almost no resemblance to the VCs of old). However, Dark Elves don't have any sort of single coherent army in AoS. You've got Daughters of Khaine (a minor Dark Elf sub-faction that was stretched into a standalone army), and then some stuff in Cities, though the rules for them read as an afterthought. Plus all the units that flat out don't exist anymore (remember when Dark Elf Lords could ride things other than dragons? Or, heaven forbid, be on foot?).
Correct. They aren't a TOW faction, they are getting a "legends" style pdf army list and will probably never be looked at again.
Yeah, this is exactly my concern.
Oh well, since GW have no interest in writing rules for either the army I played or the army I was interested in starting, I'll just assume that they don't want my money.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: In one of the youtube videos elsewhere on the site, Andy Chambers reminisces about the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed. 40k and how it offered an opportunity to reset all the armies from zero and fix a lot of problems that crept in over the previous six years.
The then laughs knowingly. "Of course, the codexes would soon wreck all that..."
Because I am not Charlie Brown eternally trying to kick a football, I'm quite certain that if GW gets any kind of a favorable response, more supplements will be produced, and in three years, The Old World, 2nd Edition will be on the way because that's what they always do.
On that note, can someone get me an estimate of the minimum cost to play a game I've already bought three times?
Well for one thing TOW isn't a core game like AoS or 40k, so expecting a 2nd edition on a 3 year schedule is going to set you up for disappointment. It took HH around what, 10 years for second edition to come along? Necromunda is still technically/officially on its first edition after 6 years going on 7. Adeptus Titanicus is coming up on 5 years later this year with no indication of a second edition coming (though with some of the rebranding and stuff with LI thats not out of the question). Blood Bowl went 4 years before a new edition. Aeronatuica Imperialis... RIP.... MESBG just past 5 years since its last edition (and went ~6 years before that without a new edition, unless you count The Hobbit wave in 2014 as an edition update, I dunno the ME brand has been a bit harder to track and figure out what constitutes an edition or not).
Overread wrote: The Timeframe might have been invented or was GW's best guess at the time an article was posted. That said they did advertise Kislev and Cathay at the very start as new armies appearing in Old World. However now they aren't appearing even in the preview content.
Now we don't know why that is.
Perhaps they got shelved; perhaps Old World was taking too long and managers decided to speed it up based on feedback and demand. So instead of launching with 2 armies that won't be ready for another 2 years they are going with stuff they've already got.
Perhaps GW got a LOT of hate mail from fans of old existing armies and didn't get any for support of the new ones (or the margins were insanely skewed ot one side) so they decided to stall forces that were going to cost more and weren't getting as much reception; and focused on those that people were asking for
My bet is some combination of all of the above. COVID screwed up their timing of everything for them and probably dragged things out longer than consumer patience and financial planning could allow. This was likely a major capital program for them that required financial analysis for the time horizon for return on investment and to achieve profitability, etc. Management has to hit those numbers, because bad things happen when you don't. My guess is that it was always intended that the legacy factions would feature around launch time, but they probably intended to launch with all new minis or at least a more significant wave of new minis rather than reissuing old kits en masse. Kislev I think was probably intended to feature prominently with the launch (though maybe not to be a "launch faction" per se), but with their timeline in shambles they likely had to retool their release plan and go out with launching legacy factions with whatever handfuls of new kits for them they could ready in time in order to begin generating cash flows and revenues against their investment while Kislev and whatever else they are working on lags behind. My expectation at this point is that we see Kislev out end of November/early December next year as an internal target for GW, with early 2025 probably being more likely. I think the fact that they said the first wave of TOW is set in the border princes, which they produced a map of which specifically added a kislev-based faction to that never existed in the lore before, is a pretty good indicator that they intend to support Kislev much sooner than anyone thinks (i.e. not 2+ years post release), even if its not a fully fleshed out army for some years afterwards. To me a "wave" is not an edition, it is something less than that and each edition encompasses several (or even many) waves of releases within it. I think we will see an early launch of Kislev in relatively short order as part of that first wave, which might only be a couple units of infantry, a winged lancer cavalry unit, a generic hero or two and maybe a special character, with more units, monsters, artillery, bear cavalry and the like to follow over subsequent years as more waves follow.
Incidentally, CA published a list of most played factions in TWW by region on instagram today - Kislev was #1 in Europe, Africa, North America, and South America. Cathay in Asia, and Empire in Oceania. That probably indicates that Kislev is the #1 most popular faction amongst the global playerbase, but the sheer size of chinas population might skew that in a different direction. That Kislev (and Cathay) was massively popular with the TWW community isn't new information and goes back some years and was probably something that GW and CA expected when they announced them (prior to their introducition in TWW3) based on market research. Thats the likely reason why both factions were announced as coming to TOW at all, because $$$. I am reasonably certain that Kislev not being ready to go on launch isn't for a lack of desire or effort on GWs part, as Kislev is apparently a clear money maker for the brand on a global scale, possibly moreso than Bretonnia and Khemri are, and probably something that GW management is expecting will carry the TOW brand and make it the financial success they want it to be.
Overread wrote: The Timeframe might have been invented or was GW's best guess at the time an article was posted. That said they did advertise Kislev and Cathay at the very start as new armies appearing in Old World. However now they aren't appearing even in the preview content.
Now we don't know why that is.
Perhaps they got shelved; perhaps Old World was taking too long and managers decided to speed it up based on feedback and demand. So instead of launching with 2 armies that won't be ready for another 2 years they are going with stuff they've already got.
Perhaps GW got a LOT of hate mail from fans of old existing armies and didn't get any for support of the new ones (or the margins were insanely skewed ot one side) so they decided to stall forces that were going to cost more and weren't getting as much reception; and focused on those that people were asking for
Not sure how true this is, but I do recall someone somewhere saying how the design team changed during the development of ToW. So what we are getting is different from what was originally penciled in for ToW. Think they even mentioned how a lot of the 'old guard' were brought in to work on the ToW we are getting now.
I think the big change is due to some shake up somewhere within GW's development process. I personally wouldn't be surprised if we hear nothing lore of Cathay or Kislev as full factions, we may get a character/unit here as mercenaries I'd wager.
Its not really true. There was some turnover in terms of some of the sculptors and artists but all the biggest names that were associated with TOW at the start are still very much at GW still working in the same studio that handles all the forgeworld/specialist games, particularly the higher ups like Andy Hoare who is the project lead and head of the studio and a couple other bigger names.
Aesthete wrote: My point of view is that I had hoped for a free Ravening Hordes type supplement, but that I'm okay paying for it - even if it's two books. What I don't like is that the book is so bloated with pictures and fiction. It'll be inconvenient to lug around.
Your idea of bloat is many other idea of part of why they buy the books. Artwork and background. Especially new background for a time period not previously written about.
Yeah for sure. And even if I think the tomes are too big and unwieldy, there's a 99% chance that I'll buy them even if I grumble about (what I see as) bloat.
"Previously revealed this year are the Battle Standard Bearer on Foot, Questing Knight Paladin with Great Weapon, and the positively radiant Lady Élisse Duchaard. They will all be available at launch, or shortly after, in resin"
"Alongside these new and returning kits which form the bulk (or entirety) of your force, there will also be a selection of returning metal heroes and specialist units that will be available to order direct from games-workshop.com."
Its not really true. There was some turnover in terms of some of the sculptors and artists but all the biggest names that were associated with TOW at the start are still very much at GW still working in the same studio that handles all the forgeworld/specialist games, particularly the higher ups like Andy Hoare who is the project lead and head of the studio and a couple other bigger names.
I could even see it that the original design team/sculptors for Cathay/Kislev are no longer working on the project as they've moved onto other things/are no longer hired by GW. Since GW does some work-by-hire for sculpting it might be those armies are "done" at certain points in development already. Thus when other armies rose to the fore, GW shifted staff around. Perhaps just to put staff that knew/wanted/were better at the lines going out now. So it could just be the creative team shuffling around.
This is pretty much exactly what happened. GW never indicated Kislev and Cathay would be available on launch, only that they were being developed into miniatures. In fact, they more or less explicitly stated that Cathay would not be available for some time after TOW released but that they would eventually be added, so anyone bitching and moaning about Cathay at this point has no legs to stand on.
I could see why some mightve thought Kislev would feature on launch, but that was always an unreasonable expectation vs starting off with old factions. Actually the original premise of what most expected was that the launch would be Empire vs Empire as the first content reveal was the map showing that the game was set in Age of Three Emperors. Basically, there was never really a point at which expecting GW to start with Kislev would have been reasonable, a lot of the complaints about it today strike me as people whinging for the sake of it or throwing sand in their own eyes and then crying about how GW kicked sand at them afterwards.
You keep saying things like this, but as of yet GW has not removed all the articles from Spring 2020 discussing Kislev and Cathay (you can even see the article where they say that more articles about Cathay are coming, before they took a three year and counting hiatus), to include maps focusing on how important Kislev was in the new setting....
You may refuse to see what is in front of your face but probably shouldn't also try to get others to close their eyes.
People who just want to simp for GW are going to be the reason this game flops. And you can say what you want, but selling 'new' boxes of primarily 30-year-old models and then expecting people to go buy two other books on top of that is not a strong strategy.
Aside, even if you buy that bullcrap, what exactly is the excuse when it comes to not doing a proper Old World Dark Elves book? At least with VC you can make the claim that they exist as Soulblight (even if the rules bare almost no resemblance to the VCs of old). However, Dark Elves don't have any sort of single coherent army in AoS. You've got Daughters of Khaine (a minor Dark Elf sub-faction that was stretched into a standalone army), and then some stuff in Cities, though the rules for them read as an afterthought. Plus all the units that flat out don't exist anymore (remember when Dark Elf Lords could ride things other than dragons? Or, heaven forbid, be on foot?).
Its not really bullcrap. These have become some of the most popular factions in AoS, and theres something to be said about having strong, distinct, self contained brands with minimal crossover between them in order to ensure strength of sales and brand identity, etc. Its clear that GW doesn't want that crossover to exist as it will weaken AoS without necessarily strengthening TOW in the process (turns out, free riders taking their existing armies from one game to play in another game puts less money in GWs pocket vs making people buy a whole new separate army). Otherwise it would have been really really easy for them to slap all these brand new modern plastic kits into turquoise colored TOW boxes and have them ready to go on release day as almost fully realized armies that don't require any real investment into resculpts or production of new resin/metal kits to fill gaps, etc.
As for Dark Elves specifically? Daughters of Khaine were for a while one of the hottest armies in AoS. Even with their recent reluctance to feature brand crossover in their product ranges, I doubt that alone was probably enough to seal the fate of the dark elves in TOW as I think that covers only about 3 or 4 actual DE kits and they probably couldve found ways to work around that. If the last update to Cities of Sigmar is any indication, the remaining dark elf stuff in that battletome (along with the remaining Empire and Dwarf stuff) is probably a placeholder until either the long-rumored Umbraneth get released (presumably in 4th edition? I think most of us AoS fans are surprised they haven't come already as there were heavy hints about them going into 3rd edition and then... nothing...) or GW expands the Cities of Sigmar non-human range further. Whether or not they re-use any of the old Dark Elf kits for these purposes is anyones guess (I would guess probably no), but one would assume that they intend to keep closer to the flavor of the WHFB Dark Elves with whatever the Umbraneth/Malerions elves come out to be (similar to how the Vampire Counts flavor was kept with Soulblight Gravelords, and Lizardmen with Seraphon, and Skaven with Skaven, and Ogre Kingdoms with Ogor Mawtribes, etc.) and thats why they opted not to put DE into TOW, whereas with Wood Elves they basically just took the trees and built Sylvaneth around that theme and threw off the actual elf component of the army (or interbred them with horses to get kurnothi centaurs, I guess), and Lumineth only kinda look like High Elves if you squint and ignore all the kangaroos, foxes, and cows and the heavy asiatic influences in their design (whereas high elves are more western/european/celtic/brythonic in their design and generally more heavily armored and taking more design cues from birds and dragons than bovines and ungulates).
My guess though, personally, is that while there won't be a proper "Dark Elf" army in TOW, there will eventually be a new army of "Black Ark Raiders" that feature a limited subset of units from the old DE army + a bunch of new stuff focused on creating a different and distinct flavor for the faction based on piracy and the like.
Personally, I don't think selling older models is a flop. The Bretonians have great models and still hold up quite well today. I'm going to end up with a bunch of new Bretonians because when I first got the box when I was 14 I traded them for more lizardmen because I was too scared to paint them. Now, I want them for pure nostalgia purposes. Right before COVID hit, I traded all of my Tomb Kings to a buddy who ended up passing away early during COVID. So I could enjoy doing TKs just as much. I've still got the Lizardmen army as well from that box too, complete with tons of old metal models.
Well, using old models may not be your cup of tea, but I feel that the old models hit the nostalgia button and allows you to have access to an entirely new army right away. Sure we may need to wait longer for Cathay and Kislev but I'm ok as they would need to build an army from the ground up.
"Previously revealed this year are the Battle Standard Bearer on Foot, Questing Knight Paladin with Great Weapon, and the positively radiant Lady Élisse Duchaard. They will all be available at launch, or shortly after, in resin"
"Alongside these new and returning kits which form the bulk (or entirety) of your force, there will also be a selection of returning metal heroes and specialist units that will be available to order direct from games-workshop.com."
They haven't really said. If LI is any indication, I would expect there will be a selection of individual kits available on launch day at a minimum. Whether or not that includes the specific kits you're asking about is anyones guess at this point, but rumors indicate we should know more in the not to distant future.
This is pretty much exactly what happened. GW never indicated Kislev and Cathay would be available on launch, only that they were being developed into miniatures. In fact, they more or less explicitly stated that Cathay would not be available for some time after TOW released but that they would eventually be added, so anyone bitching and moaning about Cathay at this point has no legs to stand on.
I could see why some mightve thought Kislev would feature on launch, but that was always an unreasonable expectation vs starting off with old factions. Actually the original premise of what most expected was that the launch would be Empire vs Empire as the first content reveal was the map showing that the game was set in Age of Three Emperors. Basically, there was never really a point at which expecting GW to start with Kislev would have been reasonable, a lot of the complaints about it today strike me as people whinging for the sake of it or throwing sand in their own eyes and then crying about how GW kicked sand at them afterwards.
You keep saying things like this, but as of yet GW has not removed all the articles from Spring 2020 discussing Kislev and Cathay (you can even see the article where they say that more articles about Cathay are coming, before they took a three year and counting hiatus), to include maps focusing on how important Kislev was in the new setting....
You may refuse to see what is in front of your face but probably shouldn't also try to get others to close their eyes.
People who just want to simp for GW are going to be the reason this game flops. And you can say what you want, but selling 'new' boxes of primarily 30-year-old models and then expecting people to go buy two other books on top of that is not a strong strategy.
I don't see what one has to do with another. Nothing I am saying would have anything at all to do with anything that would prompt GW to remove those articles. The only reason they would remove those articles at all is if they had decided to quietly cancel the release of Kislev and Cathay, which is pretty much the opposite of "the things I've been saying".
I refer back to those articles all the time. I even quote them or paraphrase them regularly when I am posting. There is *NOTHING* in them that indicates that they would have been available on launch. NOTHING. There is no promise made in those articles to be available on launch. There is zero indication they would be, there is absolutely nothing indicating that we should have had any expectation of them arriving in the game at any specific point in time.
Even before Kislev was featured in WarCom, they featured the first map for the game showing 4 empire factions and literally nothing else - Kislev was blank. Bretonnia was blank. The Border Princes were blank. If your argument was that you expected a new Empire model range to be available on launch you'd maybe have some ground to stand on, but its not and so you really have any basis to complain, nor to have expected Kislev on launch given that they were technically the fifth faction shown after the 4 empires. Anyway, after two articles about Kislev they went right into talking about Bretonnia - and Kislev didn't have its faction map filled in until after Bretonnias was. Not saying that theres a relationship between maps and release orders, but given that the maps are directly tied into the faction politics of the setting and seemingly by extension relate in some aspect to future army lists, that was probably a sort of clue as to what their priorities and focuses were and where things were in terms of their stages of development.
Insisting that because GW isn't giving you your toys on day 1 they must not exist is not a good look for you, nor is your implied insults of anyone wise enough to point out that just because they haven't shown you what they are working on mean it doesn't exist.
vipoid wrote: By the way, am I right in thinking that GW aren't bothering to write a Vampire Counts book for Old World?
Correct, they’re one of the 9 factions with pdf rules only. Probably as they’re a major AoS faction, though lorewise there’s also that all the Von Carsteins are all dead in this time period.
Ugh.
"Sorry but the faction you play exists in our arse replacement to WHFB, with rules that we pulled out of our biggest, sweatiest arse. Thus, even though we're rehashing WHFB, we can't be bothered writing them back into it."
Aside, even if you buy that bullcrap, what exactly is the excuse when it comes to not doing a proper Old World Dark Elves book? At least with VC you can make the claim that they exist as Soulblight (even if the rules bare almost no resemblance to the VCs of old). However, Dark Elves don't have any sort of single coherent army in AoS. You've got Daughters of Khaine (a minor Dark Elf sub-faction that was stretched into a standalone army), and then some stuff in Cities, though the rules for them read as an afterthought. Plus all the units that flat out don't exist anymore (remember when Dark Elf Lords could ride things other than dragons? Or, heaven forbid, be on foot?).
Correct. They aren't a TOW faction, they are getting a "legends" style pdf army list and will probably never be looked at again.
Yeah, this is exactly my concern.
Oh well, since GW have no interest in writing rules for either the army I played or the army I was interested in starting, I'll just assume that they don't want my money.
The Lore argument is that the DE are building up for the imminent invasion of Ulthuan, before which they were pretending they were a non-entity to lull the HE and therefore not too involved over on the Old World.
The business argument will be as chaos0xomega says, that the individual components of DE have a strong presence in AoS still. Notably all the HE just got purged from Cities of Sigmar (ready for their transition to TOW) whereas all the DE remained to be the main Aelven (*spits*) presence in that range.
For whatever reason GW seem to be drawing a sharp distinction between the TOW ranged and the AoS range, hence the recent CoS purge (though oddly the dwarfs survived it, maybe they’ll get cut when they release for TOW).
I'd also argue that GW don't know what they are doing with the DE stuff in AoS. It doesn't feature in the new cities of sigmar really (if its in the book its not in any of the marketing at all); they "soft" did a reboot of the army with a recent expansion book with Daughters of Khaine invading and taking over a dark elf city.
But I just feel like DE fans are sitting there unsure if GW is going to keep or squat them in AoS and GW is sitting there also being really slow to come to a choice too
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: I don't think most people were expecting expensive hardback+expensive hardback+plus probably expensive softback to give an army everything that should have either been in the hordes book already or just gone the army book route.
No, we weren't.
But looking back, I'm not sure WHY we weren't. This is perfectly in character for GW.
I dont disagree with that. The Dwarves and DE in the Cities battletome (they are there) are clear second class citizens. They are mechanically segregated from interaction with eachother or the mainline human part of the army, and as a result limited in what you can achieve in terms of tabletop success by including them as "souping" the different parts of the army is much less effective than just running human pure. To some extent I interpret it as GW including those units so as to not alienate existing players, but in a way that disincentive their use so that players are less likely to invest into them and players that already have them are less likely to use them, with the goal of peacefully phasing them out without fan blowback. As much ad I want to collect the DE components of CoS, I won't because I know better than to piss my time and money away on them, personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BertBert wrote: I'm confident they will migrate dark elves over to ToW for second edition or whenever the second wave of "core factions" is introduced.
Yep, right after they introduce Eldar and Orks into Horus Heresy.
I was being flippant. I'm confident that they won't migrate dark elves over, nor any of the other factions. The reason they were excluded to begin with was for business reasons rather than for lore reasons, those business reasons aren't going change, but they are actually not entirely dissimilar from the reasons why there's no xenos in HH.
It's a possibility, especially when it comes to drawing a clear line between ToW and AoS. Some of it might also depend on the success of the initial release wave. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Arbalastiers
Foot Knights
Villains
We know its not 
)
).
