Geifer wrote:

And now for something completely different. To paraphrase the designers, "we gave Tomb Kings a dragon because Tomb Kings are evil and evil people have dragons".

Glad we established that.

Proof that pointy ear high elves have always been evil.

 kodos wrote:

Voss wrote:
MIniature design
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/03/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-new-graphics-and-miniatures/

cannot imagine how Bretonnia might have looked like if there was not some sourcebook left by accientend by the previous team to continue as there is literally nothing else they could have used /s

what reads a little different here, there is the rumour that the original team for TOW left GW and the current team is only working on that topic for 6-12 months now.
going by that the talk about what previous designers left behind really sound like those guys are new to the topic and working for a long time or knew fantasy from before

Just where is that rumour coming from? We know who some of the Team for The Old World are, some of them were shown in the videos talking about Cathay for TWW3

I don't see anything in that article to suggest it's a different team who are new to it, not sure what gives you that impression

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

It takes them a few years just to work on a new edition normally, and this this is far more than there would usually be from just that. It's the equivalent of a new edition + setting + miniatures years after they'd stopped working on the things relevant to it. Even just releasing new miniatures takes them 2-3 years. 4 years is not as bad as you're making out when you take all that into account.

they have re-released 2 old games recently, Legion Imperialis and now TOW
so either they have worked much longer on LI, or there was not much done in the past 4 years for TOW as there is a big difference between those 2 games

The difference is they didn't announce LI right around the time they started it, while they did for TOW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:
The fact that it has taken four-odd years to get to this point and this release is what they have to show for it demonstrates how little actual work has gone into the project...

[Citation Needed]

 MalusCalibur wrote:
GW do not care about WHFB and it shows...

Their actions - that being redoing an entire new edition of WFB, everything from rules, to artwork, to layout, to new fluff, and new miniatures, to publishing and shipping massive expensive new books across the entire world - tends to say the absolute. Literal. Opposite of that.

Agreed. If anything, TOW seems like a love letter to the genre.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Just where is that rumour coming from? We know who some of the Team for The Old World are, some of them were shown in the videos talking about Cathay for TWW3

I don't see anything in that article to suggest it's a different team who are new to it, not sure what gives you that impression
.

It's the "Cathay and kislev were mentioned so (despite not having been said to be right from get-go) not being right now means things got changed midway!" conspiracy.

Nothing more. Some people just make up their own ideas and when they were wrong it's proof things got changed mid way. Not them being wrong.

the rumor about turnover is a nothingburger. I've dispelled it a couple times over the last however many pages. There was some turnover in terms of artists and sculptors but the core design team are mostly long-time GW vets and the really important people (like Andy Hoare) are all still there working on it.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Just where is that rumour coming from? We know who some of the Team for The Old World are, some of them were shown in the videos talking about Cathay for TWW3
I don't see anything in that article to suggest it's a different team who are new to it, not sure what gives you that impression

the rumour came up as they guy who designed parts of the dragon said that he does not like the combined model
there we got the confirmation that he and another person who were working on TOW left before the new models were finalised, and also the statement from someone else that everyone previously working on TOW was not part of team in 2023 any more

they are talking about what the previous team left behind and that it was ideal to continue working on TOW
without that rumour it would assume the original 8th Edition designers, but with that rumour it would mean the people who worked on TOW with Kislev and Cathay

tneva82 wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Just where is that rumour coming from? We know who some of the Team for The Old World are, some of them were shown in the videos talking about Cathay for TWW3

I don't see anything in that article to suggest it's a different team who are new to it, not sure what gives you that impression
.

It's the "Cathay and kislev were mentioned so (despite not having been said to be right from get-go) not being right now means things got changed midway!" conspiracy.

Nothing more. Some people just make up their own ideas and when they were wrong it's proof things got changed mid way. Not them being wrong.

also this.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

The difference is they didn't announce LI right around the time they started it, while they did for TOW.

so you think they worked more than 4 years on LI?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...everything from rules...

A lot of which, by their own admission, are rules from older editions bar a couple of stupid new inclusions (like the new Break Tests). This is GW; we both know they don't spend much time testing or refining rules for anything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...to artwork...

How much of which do you think will be reused from older publications? Because again, going by precedent, that answer will likely be 'a lot'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...to layout...

I do hope you arn't serious.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...to new fluff...

Judging by the quality of writing at GW (a medieval, feudal society suddenly has female knights! Tomb Kings are evil because screw nuance! Infinite Steam Tanks! etc) I don't think they earn much credit for that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...and new miniatures...

A couple of characters for each faction, and a grand total of one new plastic kit (two if the swarms are plastic, I forget) that is fairly dreadful. Comparing that to HH or LI's launches alone does not look favourable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...to publishing and shipping massive expensive new books across the entire world...

Quite apart from the fact that 'massive, expensive books' is not a positive thing, these are logistical tasks they will always have to do for *every* system release they ever manage. It doesn't count as part of the actual development time for any other game, why should it for this?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
tends to say the absolute. Literal. Opposite of that.

Not if you actually assess what four years has got you. Never mind what other companies or even other GW games have managed, this is poor when compared just with older edition releases for WHFB - just look at Battle for Skull Pass or Island of Blood.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It takes them a few years just to work on a new edition normally, and this this is far more than there would usually be from just that

.

Except, as shown above, it isn't.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It's the equivalent of a new edition + setting + miniatures years after they'd stopped working on the things relevant to it.

Putting aside the fact that them not working on it is entirely their own doing...so what? It's not like all WHFB assets and knowledge of them suddenly disappeared into thin air when AoS arrived; they were not working from scratch here and it is no excuse.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Even just releasing new miniatures takes them 2-3 years. 4 years is not as bad as you're making out when you take all that into account.

Individual factions get more new kits than this on release. Just look at Sisters of Battle, who were out of the limelight longer than WHFB has been. Or, for a more directly comparable example, look again to Skull Pass and Island of Blood.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
They're charging GW prices for GW kits, when several of the same sort of old kits are still purchasable for AOS at these prices, it's not as if it's some sudden shocking new thing they're just doing

Maybe not, but I can't think of a time where they tried to use kits from more than twenty years ago as part of a big release fanfare and had the gall to price them as if they were contemporary. But even that is academic; just because GW already do it doesn't make it acceptable, and continuing to allow it sends them the message that they can push that line further.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
They briefly mention the time period WHFB was set in the last time we saw it, that the lore wasn't good doesn't mean it has no reason to be bought up when outlining their latest game.

End Time has no business being mentioned at all (however slight) because this is a 'historical' game, and was meant to appeal to fans of WHFB. Why even mention the thing that killed the game they love when it is entirely irrelevant to the setting?
The community articles (as worthwhile as *those* are) seem to make a point of mentioning it every time, which shows a level of disconnect between them and the people they are supposedly making the game for.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...the entire new Foot Knight unit? The new Tomb Swarms models?

Two units. After four years and as the release of what was once a flagship system. That, quite frankly, is pathetic. Let's not even touch on the fact that neither are particularly impressive models in of themselves.

So flanking just removes rank bonus like in previous editions except now everyone is "stubborn" so flanking is far less impactful. They managed to make flanking less impactful.
In 6th/7th if a full block was flanked it would loose 3 rank bonus and 1 flanking bonus. A 4 point swing that would likely be the end of a block. Now who cares about flanks if your LD is high.

Until we see all the rules about push back and fall back in good order I'm not thinking to hard about how flanking is affected. There could be something as simple as "if they are already engaged on another front the unit breaks instead of retreats in good order". Or it could make flanking pointless. Guess we'll see

Ya I remember going from 7th to 8th and the addition of step up just...ruined a lot of units. High initiative and ASF was meaningless if they just had a horde and could grind you out. Your unit either needed to be super high output, or switch to horde/grind out style itself to stay relevant.

And uh, we know exactly what happened. Everything turned into mega units, that just took as many buffs as possible to outlast and outdamage other mega units. Chariots, cavalry and most monsters completely disappeared. It was mega unit vs mega unit, with maybe a mega spell to jank them for good measure (hello flying vamp with power scroll to blast purple sun across an entire army)

Ya. Mega units can die swift death and good riddance.

Im generally positive to this game and the stuff they have come up with.
That said, the TK dragon is a really bad choise from the design team, and to se their reasoning behind the concept is just horrible to read.

I get the impression they decided to go with something that would sound good as a bretonnian adversary, rather than make sense in a TK setting.
The huge crocodile would have worked fine. Wings and a big Howdah for a flying beast dont work fine.

Well, I think its clear that MalusCalibur has never worked on any sort of creative endeavor or long term project bringing a product to market.

Very simplistic views there - the one that got me is that GW would still have the know-how of how to do WHFB type stuff almost a decade after killing it, nevermind that many of the core developers of WHFB have since retired or moved on to other things, nevermind that the remaining WHFB veterans are core developers on 40k or AoS now, nevermind that its a completely different internal studio working on TOW that had nothing to do with the team that did WHFB in the past, nevermind that almost none of the people actually working the TOW project ever worked on WHFB in the first place. They were working from scratch more than Malus realizes.

The attitude towards game design in general demonstrates a lack of knowledge or understanding of the process. Its not just "rules from older editions" copy-pasted together into a rulebook. Doesn't work that way, you could not do that and get a functional set of rules out of it. They took inspiration from previous editions and created a new game using elements from previous editions to create a new game inspired by something that came before. Thats a rather involved and laborious process, actually arguably harder than creating something new from whole-cloth as you're trying to maintain a certain feel and consistency/mechanical throughlines while still trying to improve on the formula. From experience, thats not easy to do. Thus far, I think most people are in agreement that on the whole the rules for TOW look remarkably sophisticated for a GW game (and I say this as someone who is a total rules *snob* and regularly insults the design chops of the GW studio).

And yes, creating a new edition of 40k or AoS is usually actually a roughly 2-3 year long process. The studio actually starts working on the next edition basically right after the current edition releases (keeping in mind that they only finished writing the current edition a few months prior to its release). They are literally working on preliminary drafts for 40k 11th right now as we speak.

Referencing the End Times is actually highly relevant - this was, from the very very very first announcement - framed as the Horus Heresy counterpart for Age of Sigmar, specifically, and would serve as part of the origin myth of the Age of Sigmar setting. Unfortunately you can't have Age of Sigmar without the end times, so mentioning it and maintaining the linkage between the TOW and AoS brand is part and parcel with the product, even if there are many customers who really rather it wouldn't. Thats likely a corporate decision to try to maintain the integrity of the AoS brand out of concern that some will perceive TOW as being an indicator of lack of confidence in the AOS brand or something. Anyway, early on they suggested that, owing to its nature as the Age of Sigmar historical prequel, TOW would have narrative elements that would reverberate forward in time through the End Times into the Age of Sigmar and there would be narrative linkage between them, similar to some of the stuff they have been doing between 30k and 40k. Frankly, I think we should consider ourselves lucky that TOW wasn't set in the End Times itself, as it would be more directly relevant and of greater narrative importance to AoS in terms of it being the settings origin myth, ala Horus Heresy to 40k. There are obvious reasons why you wouldn't want to try to sell that as a product (again), but it would fit better from a narrative perspective.

That all being said, Malus isn't totally wrong - this is still a seemingly lazy release. 3 new plastic kits that we know of (pretty sure Tomb Swarms are resin but not 100%), a handful of resin kits, insultingly overpriced metal kits, and substandard plastics that are old enough to vote in a US federal election. He seems to think that its because GW is inept and/or hates the setting, but I take a different stance on it.

For one thing, very early on after the announcement there was a *lot* of demand for GW to bring back WHFB exactly as it was, ancient gak models and all. I forget if it was here, reddit, or on facebook, but I argued extensively with people who were convinced that that was what was going to happen - and admittedly it was one of the few things I ended up being actually objectively wrong about. GW, in fact, brought back those old ass models, seemingly because thats what a very vocal segment (maybe a minority, maybe not) seemed to want.

My other take on it though, is that (as we know) GW is doing a staggered launch of the game with the core 9 factions. As a specialist project, theres only a limited number of production slots allocated to specialist games, and just bringing back all the old kits for those 9 factions is in fact a multiple of what GW usually allocates to all its specialist brands combined in any given year. So, despite not having everything ready to go on day 1, GW is actually committing a substantial amount of resources to putting this game out (especially if they get all 9 out within the 12-18 month window I expect them to). On top of that, they've also committed to putting out what looks to be somewhere between 9 and 18 brand new plastic kits (if Bretonnia and Khemri are anything to go by) across all these factions as part of this extended launch. That doesn't even begin to cover how they have resuscitated their metal production line and seemingly dedicated it full-time to supporting TOW, which is a pretty big undertaking in and of itself - refurbishing old rubber molds is time and labor intensive, and is very much a labor of love - I know from first-hand experience how much of a pain in the ass it is to work with rubber molds. So not only are they dedicated a substantial amount of production capacity to releasing the legacy WHFB models in all their glory, but they also have given the game about as many production slots as they have any other new specialist game on launch - I forget the numbers but HH had between 9 and 12 new plastic kits on launch day, and another 9 and 12 new plastic kits on top of that within 18 months of release. Assuming the other 7 factions follow the precedent of Bretonnia and Khemri, GW will be providing the same number of new kits for TOW over the next 12-18 months (anticipated) that it did to HH over the same timeframe. So again, GW is dedicating a pretty big chunk of its production capacity to supporting TOW.

And then theres the Kislev and Cathay angle - I have zero doubt in my mind that they are working on full new plastic miniatures ranges for these factions. Rumors from a while back was that Kiselv would come about a year after launch, Cathay about 2 years after (wasn't clear to me if it was 2 years after launch or 2 years after Kislev, I assume the former). As I've stated before, my expectation is that GW moves through the 9 core factions faster than most of you lot anticipate, basically a pair launched every other month, with faction #9 coming alongside an all new Kislev range in the Hebrew month of Kislev (november/december), right at the onset of winter, if not then shortly afterwards in winter 2025. The production lead times on plastic molds are substantial, some of those molds might even be being cut right now as we speak. Imagine doing everything I've outlined above, and then also launching a whole new faction with a whole new range of plastics, lets say another 8-12 or so plastic kits, on top of that. Clearly, GW is "pathetic" and they hate WHFB.

What it comes down to is impatience. People want their rank and file, and they want it now. They are unwilling or unable to imagine the future or see what the path forward looks like. Some of that is GWs fault for poor communication and heavy secrecy. Some of that is what seems to be a collective inability for a very large segment of this fanbase to set reasonable expectations for anything or learn from past experience and observe patterns of behavior in how GW operates. Whatever the reason is irrelevant, complaining about the perceived inadequacy of something based only on what you can see 2 weeks out when you know GW plays its cards close to the chest and definitely has more up its sleeve to follow is extremely short-sighted and foolish.

Tyel wrote:
I liked step up, and I fear this will revert to Cavalry Hammer without it.

All step up did was throw tactics out the window. If I out-maneuver you, that should count for something.

Well now, I though about making some bigger blocks for Beastmen but maybe I should aim for smaller units, both on field and in ambush. And hope for new Centigors.

Or just throw Ungors and Spawns under the cavalry. That should slow them down.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
...something, but really a lot nothing.

Listen, you're spending a lot of time and energy on being objectively wrong. While I agree that it would be nice to get a lot more in the way of 'new stuff', I can't imagine it's really all that easy with limited production to effectively re-launch a whole system from scratch. Even re-launching a single faction has to happen in waves (Sisters, Squats). Do you really expect them to release NINE whole armies with 100% new models?

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Just where is that rumour coming from? We know who some of the Team for The Old World are, some of them were shown in the videos talking about Cathay for TWW3
I don't see anything in that article to suggest it's a different team who are new to it, not sure what gives you that impression

the rumour came up as they guy who designed parts of the dragon said that he does not like the combined model
there we got the confirmation that he and another person who were working on TOW left before the new models were finalised, and also the statement from someone else that everyone previously working on TOW was not part of team in 2023 any more

they are talking about what the previous team left behind and that it was ideal to continue working on TOW
without that rumour it would assume the original 8th Edition designers, but with that rumour it would mean the people who worked on TOW with Kislev and Cathay

Got a link to the thing about stuff? Not heard about that.

It's quite clear that in that article, they're talking about the previous WHFB stuff, not previous TOW stuff.

 kodos wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

The difference is they didn't announce LI right around the time they started it, while they did for TOW.

so you think they worked more than 4 years on LI?

More than likely around that sort of time frame, yes? I don't know why you'd think they hadn't been working on it for several years.we had rumours of Horus Heresy Epic back in 2022 at least. We've been told takes them 2-3 years just to go from designing to releasing miniatures.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It takes them a few years just to work on a new edition normally, and this this is far more than there would usually be from just that

.

Except, as shown above, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Absurd for you to try and make out that a new game in a new setting and all this entails is less that we'd get in a normal new edition.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It's the equivalent of a new edition + setting + miniatures years after they'd stopped working on the things relevant to it.

Putting aside the fact that them not working on it is entirely their own doing...so what? It's not like all WHFB assets and knowledge of them suddenly disappeared into thin air when AoS arrived; they were not working from scratch here and it is no excuse.

It should be pretty obvious what it means. A different team, a different goal, a different game, a different setting, all done years later. Without the same level of continuity that usually comes going from one edition to the next.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Even just releasing new miniatures takes them 2-3 years. 4 years is not as bad as you're making out when you take all that into account.

Individual factions get more new kits than this on release. Just look at Sisters of Battle, who were out of the limelight longer than WHFB has been. Or, for a more directly comparable example, look again to Skull Pass and Island of Blood.

It takes 2-3 years to release miniatures, therefore if they need kits for the start of the game, that's 2-3 years for it at least. The amount of kits is quite irrelevant.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
They briefly mention the time period WHFB was set in the last time we saw it, that the lore wasn't good doesn't mean it has no reason to be bought up when outlining their latest game.

End Time has no business being mentioned at all (however slight) because this is a 'historical' game, and was meant to appeal to fans of WHFB. Why even mention the thing that killed the game they love when it is entirely irrelevant to the setting?
The community articles (as worthwhile as *those* are) seem to make a point of mentioning it every time, which shows a level of disconnect between them and the people they are supposedly making the game for.

Whether you like it or not, that is how we last saw WHFB. That was its final version. Mentioning it to make a comparison between that and a new game to show how things will be different is not "entirely irrelevant".

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
...the entire new Foot Knight unit? The new Tomb Swarms models?

Two units. After four years and as the release of what was once a flagship system. That, quite frankly, is pathetic. Let's not even touch on the fact that neither are particularly impressive models in of themselves.

tneva82 wrote:


Also with step up people would be paying arm and teeth for initiave's, strike first etc only for it to be 100% useless...

Thats not entirely true, higher initiative means that you are situationally capable of wiping units entirely even before they have the opporunity to step up and counterattack. I wouldn't anticipate that being relevant beyond the late stages of a game, but its still something. Likewise, depending on what you're fighting, striking first would allow you to still potentially reduce the number of attacks that could be made against your own unit by causing enough casualties before your opponent has the opportunity to make their attacks.

Personally, I think neither approach is really the right one. No step up means that many units basically end up just being a block of wound counters that do nothing because they get hit before they can attack and suffer casualties that cancels out their ability to attack. Not fun and it results in one-sided drawn out combats. Yes step up lessens the importance of higher initiative, as striking first doesnt immediately benefit you and really only becomes a consideration with superelite murderballs/deathstars that can throw out an impossible number of attacks to wipe even the largest bricks out in a single combat. The right approach seems to be an in-between where step up exists, but the models "stepping up" can only make supporting attacks (they only get one attack regardless of how many are listed in their profile) at -1 to hit. In this case initiative still matters, but larger units aren't turned into a brick of wound counters either.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

And now for something completely different. To paraphrase the designers, "we gave Tomb Kings a dragon because Tomb Kings are evil and evil people have dragons".

Glad we established that.

Proof that pointy ear high elves have always been evil.

This is the best quote in this thread.

Looks like I need more wild riders.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Do you really expect them to release NINE whole armies with 100% new models?

No. But thankfully, there are possibilities that exist between the two extremes. And for the launch factions I'd expect more than one unit and a couple of character models each. Even though I like the old skeletons, it feels like updating those should have been the bare minimum.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Yes, it is. Absurd for you to try and make out that a new game in a new setting and all this entails is less that we'd get in a normal new edition.

It's hardly a new game and it certainly isn't a new setting. A couple of hundred years in WHFB doesn't change a whole lot about the armies you would get on the table or their capabilities, short of removing some of the idiotic stuff like the Empire laser cannon et al. And it *is* less than usual new editions get in terms of new stuff. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that what TOW is getting compares to IoB in terms of actual content?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It should be pretty obvious what it means. A different team, a different goal, a different game, a different setting, all done years later. Without the same level of continuity that usually comes going from one edition to the next.

All that tells me is that expectations should have been low from the start - a bunch of folk who have no real idea what they've got or how to properly handle it, as shown from the way they've spoken about it. And again, for practical purposes it is not a new setting, so please stop trying to use that argument.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It takes 2-3 years to release miniatures, therefore if they need kits for the start of the game, that's 2-3 years for it at least. The amount of kits is quite irrelevant.

If the number of kits doesn't matter and it'll be 2-3 years either way, why not more, then?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
2 units because you've decided that the other 8 or so don't count.

Given that I've already acknowledged the few character models, (of which only 2, to my knowledge, are plastic), please go ahead and name these 8 other units they made new models for.

chaos0xomega wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Also with step up people would be paying arm and teeth for initiave's, strike first etc only for it to be 100% useless...

Personally, I think neither approach is really the right one. No step up means that many units basically end up just being a block of wound counters that do nothing because they get hit before they can attack and suffer casualties that cancels out their ability to attack. Not fun and it results in one-sided drawn out combats. Yes step up lessens the importance of higher initiative, as striking first doesnt immediately benefit you and really only becomes a consideration with superelite murderballs/deathstars that can throw out an impossible number of attacks to wipe even the largest bricks out in a single combat. The right approach seems to be an in-between where step up exists, but the models "stepping up" can only make supporting attacks (they only get one attack regardless of how many are listed in their profile) at -1 to hit. In this case initiative still matters, but larger units aren't turned into a brick of wound counters either.

I guess I'm just worried about 8thisms. Could supporting attacks at -1 to hit make for a low impact attempt to fight back after getting hosed? Ya. It could also just be a mega brick of spearmen hitting on 5s instead of 4s and out trading whatever charged them in the first place.

It all really depends on the full combat res mechanics. In 7th, you knew your fodder with spears wasn't going to win combat against the chargers; the hope was they'd be able to stick around and allow you to counter charge in the flank or something and then grind out the W on combat res. We know that getting run down is way less common now, so having units meant to take the charge and hold the enemy unit in place for a counter is much more viable.

I haven't kept fully up to date though. Maybe they tweaked enough of the horde rules to prevent mega units from effectively having few counters and you can just flank them now too.

Why is anyone arguing? MalusCalibur clearly detests the release, rules, models, everything you possibly can, so why debate further?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
All step up did was throw tactics out the window. If I out-maneuver you, that should count for something.

Yes, out-manouvering M4" infantry with M8" cavalry, monsters, flyers etc truly indicates your mastery of the game.
How can I improve? What's that? Ditch the infantry and take lists of cav missiles, character busses and redirectors? Truly this is why anyone got into Fantasy.

Dudeface wrote:
Why is anyone arguing? MalusCalibur clearly detests the release, rules, models, everything you possibly can, so why debate further?

This.

There's two sides to this coin. GW has been cagey from the beginning, trying to stamp on over-high expectations by clarifying that models will be coming out in resin, that old models will be coming back, that they'll be focusing on a specific part of the world and specific factions, but careful under-hyping always gets drowned out by the wish-listing of the masses. On the other hand, they're giving people exactly what they asked for: WHFB is coming back. With all the good and the bad that comes with it. The monkey's paw curls another finger.

We now know what the two starting factions are going to be getting at launch, it'll all be up for pre-order this Saturday. Love it or hate it, that's likely the pattern going forward.

You all can speculate all you want about the whos and whats and whys and wherefores, but ultimately we wont know anything for certain until someone from the design team retires and does his tell-all autobiography "How I Designed a Bone Dragon and Made a Bunch of Nerds Waste a Lot of Time Online."

chaos0xomega wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Also with step up people would be paying arm and teeth for initiave's, strike first etc only for it to be 100% useless...

Thats not entirely true, higher initiative means that you are situationally capable of wiping units entirely even before they have the opporunity to step up and counterattack. I wouldn't anticipate that being relevant beyond the late stages of a game, but its still something. Likewise, depending on what you're fighting, striking first would allow you to still potentially reduce the number of attacks that could be made against your own unit by causing enough casualties before your opponent has the opportunity to make their attacks.

Personally, I think neither approach is really the right one. No step up means that many units basically end up just being a block of wound counters that do nothing because they get hit before they can attack and suffer casualties that cancels out their ability to attack. Not fun and it results in one-sided drawn out combats. Yes step up lessens the importance of higher initiative, as striking first doesnt immediately benefit you and really only becomes a consideration with superelite murderballs/deathstars that can throw out an impossible number of attacks to wipe even the largest bricks out in a single combat. The right approach seems to be an in-between where step up exists, but the models "stepping up" can only make supporting attacks (they only get one attack regardless of how many are listed in their profile) at -1 to hit. In this case initiative still matters, but larger units aren't turned into a brick of wound counters either.

TOW really seems to be pushing wide vs deep, which is actually quite a big change from previous editions and somewhat mitigates lack of step up.

1) ‘bus’ formation is essentially banned (other than for manoeuvre) given you get no rank bonus if you have more ranks than files.
2) every model in the front rank gets to attack, regardless of the frontage of the enemy unit (albeit supporting attack only if not in btb)

IMO this should push actual melee units into ranks of 6-7+
Particularly given the general reduction in AP, killing that number of something that actually wants to be in melee is relatively difficult.

And archers going wide are pretty much always going to get a chunk of attacks back. E.g. dwarfs with Xbows and GW’s in 10x1 are going to get a good load of high S decent AP attacks back regardless.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Ya I remember going from 7th to 8th and the addition of step up just...ruined a lot of units. High initiative and ASF was meaningless if they just had a horde and could grind you out. Your unit either needed to be super high output, or switch to horde/grind out style itself to stay relevant.

And uh, we know exactly what happened. Everything turned into mega units, that just took as many buffs as possible to outlast and outdamage other mega units. Chariots, cavalry and most monsters completely disappeared. It was mega unit vs mega unit, with maybe a mega spell to jank them for good measure (hello flying vamp with power scroll to blast purple sun across an entire army)

Step up does not make mega units. Horde and support attacks make mega units. Step up means that your basic block of poor guys will always make their 5 attacks back. You see 5 attacks are not 30 attacks from 8th edition. 5 < 30? You get it? Initiative still matters in all fights where there are no extra ranks to make step up possibile.

No step up rule? Greatswords remain on the shelf :( No step up rule? Your block of 20 basic infantry are nothing more than wound counters :(

To be fair, everything but the front rank is nothing more than wound counters.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
it seems top quality: well thought rules with the best from each edition (something that they should have done with Legions Imperialis but they didn't)

Random charges and combat resolution not contributing towards actually breaking a unit are hardly what I'd call 'the best from each edition'. And this is GW we're talking about; 'well thought-out rules' is antithesis to them.

Premeasurement is a must, so random charges "have to be" in (how would you do it otherwise?).

Resolution contributes to enemy fall back, like Warmaster, so brilliant.

Well.. there are actually quite a few games out there that have pre-measurement and fixed charge distances, seems to work, trick is a decent reaction mechanic and for most units of the same general type to have the same charge distance across all factions

drbored wrote:
You all can speculate all you want about the whos and whats and whys and wherefores, but ultimately we wont know anything for certain until someone from the design team retires and does his tell-all autobiography "How I Designed a Bone Dragon and Made a Bunch of Nerds Waste a Lot of Time Online."

Have an exalt!

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:


No step up rule? Greatswords remain on the shelf :( No step up rule? Your block of 20 basic infantry are nothing more than wound counters :(

There have been seven editions of Warhammer Fantasy Battles without the step up rule and guess what: People played lots of non-cavalry there. Your greatsword units are still useful because of their S+2 and AP-2. I'm quite sure they'll still strike first when charging (because that was the rule in the past: https://6th.whfb.app/weapons/strikes-last), so instead of your greatsword units being an impossible-to-deal-with block of pain nobody dares to charge, you have to take the charge with a unit that is able to hold ground and then you shred your enemy to pieces with your flanking greatsword units.

That's the way it was in all editions before 8th edition, you know, the editions where there wasn't a mass exodus to Warmachine.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Ya I remember going from 7th to 8th and the addition of step up just...ruined a lot of units. High initiative and ASF was meaningless if they just had a horde and could grind you out. Your unit either needed to be super high output, or switch to horde/grind out style itself to stay relevant.

And uh, we know exactly what happened. Everything turned into mega units, that just took as many buffs as possible to outlast and outdamage other mega units. Chariots, cavalry and most monsters completely disappeared. It was mega unit vs mega unit, with maybe a mega spell to jank them for good measure (hello flying vamp with power scroll to blast purple sun across an entire army)

Step up does not make mega units. Horde and support attacks make mega units. Step up means that your basic block of poor guys will always make their 5 attacks back. You see 5 attacks are not 30 attacks from 8th edition. 5 < 30? You get it? Initiative still matters in all fights where there are no extra ranks to make step up possibile.

No step up rule? Greatswords remain on the shelf :( No step up rule? Your block of 20 basic infantry are nothing more than wound counters :(

It certainly does help make mega units. It might mean those 5 goobers get their 5 attacks. It also means if you make your facing 7 wide on a unit of wych elves you get 21 attacks. Or slayers, or whatever on the larger bases like saurus or chaos warriors. If you can always get output out of a unit, why not make it a high value unit? It's not full 8th, but it incentivizes wider fronts and larger units to maintain output through losses.

Also, as nalim points out, charging with initiative bonus is what makes glass hammer units attractive without step up. Great weapon units were favoured for a reason in 7th.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

It's hardly a new game and it certainly isn't a new setting.

Wrong on both counts. GW has been pretty clear that The Old World is *not* Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that it is in fact a new game heavily inspired by but different from WHFB, rather than just a 9th edition of an old game. We can get into an abstract Ship of Theseus debate here, but theres some very relevant practical reasons to draw that distinction. Likewise it is a new setting, we haven't played Warhammer in this setting, things are different in this setting, theres many models that aren't usable in this setting and thus won't be in the setting.

Point being, this is something new, and they are launching a whole new product range (some of which is long OOP products) to get this up and running. Comparing it to a new edition launch is just wrong - when a new edition launch comes, there is always a backlog of what, a couple thousand SKUs of product(?) available for that game. How many TOW SKUs are available today? Zero? Mhm. As it stands, the launch wave for TOW is more new SKUs than the last edition of 40k or AoS had.

Dudeface wrote:
Why is anyone arguing? MalusCalibur clearly detests the release, rules, models, everything you possibly can, so why debate further?

If we ignored everyone that checked those boxes, there wouldn't be much discussion on dakka at all.

drbored wrote:

There's two sides to this coin. GW has been cagey from the beginning, trying to stamp on over-high expectations by clarifying that models will be coming out in resin, that old models will be coming back, that they'll be focusing on a specific part of the world and specific factions, but careful under-hyping always gets drowned out by the wish-listing of the masses.

Ain't that the truth. I've been watching the slow comedown on facebook and reddit as the last couple days worth of articles have rolled out and slowly confirmed many of the predictions I've been making, and people are realizing that things like Skaven and VC are not just around the corner or a couple years out and that their expectations were off-base, etc. I'm seeing people revisit older articles and go "hey, wait a minute - when they said xyz you mean they really meant they weren't going to do this or that?? WTF?". Hell, I'm still seeing people post who were completely unaware that there were non-core legacy factions, etc. who are raging out about not getting what they thought they were getting and the like. It would be hilarious if it wasn't a little sad. All the info was there, very few read it, and fewer still understood it.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Also with step up people would be paying arm and teeth for initiave's, strike first etc only for it to be 100% useless...

Thats not entirely true, higher initiative means that you are situationally capable of wiping units entirely even before they have the opporunity to step up and counterattack. I wouldn't anticipate that being relevant beyond the late stages of a game, but its still something. Likewise, depending on what you're fighting, striking first would allow you to still potentially reduce the number of attacks that could be made against your own unit by causing enough casualties before your opponent has the opportunity to make their attacks.

Personally, I think neither approach is really the right one. No step up means that many units basically end up just being a block of wound counters that do nothing because they get hit before they can attack and suffer casualties that cancels out their ability to attack. Not fun and it results in one-sided drawn out combats. Yes step up lessens the importance of higher initiative, as striking first doesnt immediately benefit you and really only becomes a consideration with superelite murderballs/deathstars that can throw out an impossible number of attacks to wipe even the largest bricks out in a single combat. The right approach seems to be an in-between where step up exists, but the models "stepping up" can only make supporting attacks (they only get one attack regardless of how many are listed in their profile) at -1 to hit. In this case initiative still matters, but larger units aren't turned into a brick of wound counters either.

TOW really seems to be pushing wide vs deep, which is actually quite a big change from previous editions and somewhat mitigates lack of step up.

1) ‘bus’ formation is essentially banned (other than for manoeuvre) given you get no rank bonus if you have more ranks than files.
2) every model in the front rank gets to attack, regardless of the frontage of the enemy unit (albeit supporting attack only if not in btb)

IMO this should push actual melee units into ranks of 6-7+
Particularly given the general reduction in AP, killing that number of something that actually wants to be in melee is relatively difficult.

And archers going wide are pretty much always going to get a chunk of attacks back. E.g. dwarfs with Xbows and GW’s in 10x1 are going to get a good load of high S decent AP attacks back regardless.

True... maybe. Every edition of WHFB I can recall (which... really was just 6th through 8th) GW introduced rules that were directly intended to create incentive to fielding units in specific formations or ways... but then there were always rules that had the unintended consequence of making you *not* want to actually do that and which ended up being primary shapers of the meta which resulted in the game playing in a way that was probably different from what was actually intended as a result. Same is true of 40k and other GW games as well. We'll see how the TOW meta ends up shaping out. If GW did its job correctly, then yes - you're right, but all to often I find that once in the hands of the broader community the game gets pushed in directions that the designers both never intended and never predicted.

Feel like people have bad memories here and don’t actually read the info put out.

Earlier people were talking about what was in the Arcane Journal vs the other books.

Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes have
“Each army gets an introduction, a gallery of miniatures, a grand army composition list, a complete set of unit profiles (so you’ll have no need for a separate army book to play), special rules, magic items, and unique spells.”

Journal has
“special characters, magic items, spells, a historical scenario, and thematic Armies of Infamy which let you select armies of very different compositions.”
Aka extra stuff.

SU-152 wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
it seems top quality: well thought rules with the best from each edition (something that they should have done with Legions Imperialis but they didn't)

Random charges and combat resolution not contributing towards actually breaking a unit are hardly what I'd call 'the best from each edition'. And this is GW we're talking about; 'well thought-out rules' is antithesis to them.

Premeasurement is a must, so random charges "have to be" in (how would you do it otherwise?).

Resolution contributes to enemy fall back, like Warmaster, so brilliant.

leopard wrote:
Well.. there are actually quite a few games out there that have pre-measurement and fixed charge distances, seems to work, trick is a decent reaction mechanic and for most units of the same general type to have the same charge distance across all factions

I imagine something with different stances, one of which allows a counter charge, another one allow bracing for a charge. It was always a bit stupid a unit that clearly specialised in charging would just stand there waiting to be charged because they could only act in their own turn.

Random charge distances I think will stop TOW ever being taken up by my group, as random charge distances were a big reason WHFB fell out of fashion in the first place. Getting the charge is too important, and after a few failed short distance charges and a few successful absurdly long ranged charges that decided the outcome of games, people started moving away from WHFB.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
Not if you actually assess what four years has got you. Never mind what other companies or even other GW games have managed, this is poor when compared just with older edition releases for WHFB - just look at Battle for Skull Pass or Island of Blood.

Old WHFB was a core game, alongside 40k. This is a specialist game, and is getting a massive amount of attention and effort. You clearly don't know the first thing about how rulebooks are produced and the effort and time that goes into them.

You keep calling this a low effort cashgrab yet have nothing to back that up other than breathless screamy nonsense.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, I think its clear that MalusCalibur has never worked on any sort of creative endeavor or long term project bringing a product to market.

Yeah, no kidding. I don't think he has the slightest clue how long it takes to make a book like this.

I've worked on a few. These are not speedily made products.

Always strikes last is still a USR right and I think great weapons grant this no? I’m hoping greatswords are still useful because not only do I have like 60 of them, they are also painted beautifully.

The lack of step up makes the dichotomy between elite and chaff even greater, because low I Ld regiments will be pretty useless whether they charge or not.

They will be more likely to be run down due to the punishing Ld rules and more likely to lose the combat due to the initiative and single rank attack rules.

Really not seeing anything to offset this.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Always strikes last is still a USR right and I think great weapons grant this no? I’m hoping greatswords are still useful because not only do I have like 60 of them, they are also painted beautifully.

Or great weapons could go back to being a choice rather than the de-facto “why take anything else” selection they were in the latter days of whfb.

Besides, ASL could just be “strikes at -3 initiative and never gets initiative bonuses for charging” or something like that.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

It's hardly a new game and it certainly isn't a new setting.

Wrong on both counts. GW has been pretty clear that The Old World is *not* Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that it is in fact a new game heavily inspired by but different from WHFB, rather than just a 9th edition of an old game. We can get into an abstract Ship of Theseus debate here, but theres some very relevant practical reasons to draw that distinction.

Hmm. Let's see about that:
●Laundry list of old familiar rules, some with new tweaks
●some new rules
● IGOUGO d6 based system
●Laundry list of familiar units returning
●a handful of new units for each supported force
●a Laundry list of units not returning
*but a new title on the covers of the books/boxes!

Other than the new title?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, gaks like a duck.... Surprise, it's a duck!
Or in this case just WHFB 9th ed with a different title

chaos0omega wrote:

Likewise it is a new setting, we haven't played Warhammer in this setting, things are different in this setting, theres many models that aren't usable in this setting and thus won't be in the setting.

Sorry, the setting is still the Old World. The lore just cuts off at a certain date.
Otherwise it's like every other edition. Lore up through that point stands/gets revised/gets added to. New details of the past & present are provided.
And this means.... very little when it comes time to putting models on the table.

As for the setting being different based on some models not being allowed? BS.
I started WHFB in 3e. There are models/units I cannot use in later editions. There are models/units in later editions that I cannot use in earlier editions. And yet the setting is still the Old World.
Same as over in 40k. There's plenty of stuff from the past 10 years alone that do not port into, say. 40k 2e. And 40k is still 40k setting wise.

ccs wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

It's hardly a new game and it certainly isn't a new setting.

Wrong on both counts. GW has been pretty clear that The Old World is *not* Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that it is in fact a new game heavily inspired by but different from WHFB, rather than just a 9th edition of an old game. We can get into an abstract Ship of Theseus debate here, but theres some very relevant practical reasons to draw that distinction.

Hmm. Let's see about that:
●Laundry list of old familiar rules, some with new tweaks
●some new rules
● IGOUGO d6 based system
●Laundry list of familiar units returning
●a handful of new units for each supported force
●a Laundry list of units not returning
*but a new title on the covers of the books/boxes!

Other than the new title?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, gaks like a duck.... Surprise, it's a duck!
Or in this case just WHFB 9th ed with a different title

chaos0omega wrote:

Likewise it is a new setting, we haven't played Warhammer in this setting, things are different in this setting, theres many models that aren't usable in this setting and thus won't be in the setting.

Sorry, the setting is still the Old World. The lore just cuts off at a certain date.
Otherwise it's like every other edition. Lore up through that point stands/gets revised/gets added to. New details of the past & present are provided.
And this means.... very little when it comes time to putting models on the table.

As for the setting being different based on some models not being allowed? BS.
I started WHFB in 3e. There are models/units I cannot use in later editions. There are models/units in later editions that I cannot use in earlier editions. And yet the setting is still the Old World.
Same as over in 40k. There's plenty of stuff from the past 10 years alone that do not port into, say. 40k 2e. And 40k is still 40k setting wise.

Malus might've been wrong on a lot, but this time he's right. Old World has more in common with WHFB 6e-8e than 40k 10e has in common with 40k 7e, yet we would still call 40k 'the same game'. I watched the Battle Report - this is classic WHFB.

And yes, it's the same setting. Just because it's a couple centuries earlier doesn't change that. My D&D campaigns have spanned over a thousand years in the same world; I dare you to tell me they're not the same setting.

As far as the setting goes, now you're just splitting hairs.

Horus Heresy is the "same setting" as 40k, but calling them the same is clearly false. Same applies here.

If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Random charge distances I think will stop TOW ever being taken up by my group, as random charge distances were a big reason WHFB fell out of fashion in the first place. Getting the charge is too important, and after a few failed short distance charges and a few successful absurdly long ranged charges that decided the outcome of games, people started moving away from WHFB.

While charges are random, they're not that random - and the fact you can pre-measure helps you judge the risk on a given charge. In case you didn't read it (or forgot this bit) to quote the article on movement:

To establish the range of their charge, units roll two dice, pick the highest score from the two and add it to their Movement characteristic.

Rolling two and dropping the lowest means the average of those two dice is something like 4-4.5, off the top of my head, and adding it to your Movement stat means you've got a guaranteed minimum range - chuffing up a 3" charge with infantry by rolling snake eyes is no longer possible! It does make a 10" charge with M4 infantry a gamble, but you wouldn't even have the chance of achieving that back when a charge was just "double your Movement"...

Agreed, charges are random but an entire order of magnitude less so than 8th.

We also don't have all the rules yet so we don't know how important it is to get the actual charge. Combats seem to last longer on average so it is probably a good idea to prepare for more drawn out combats and not everything being decided on the charge anyway. With that mindset in listbuilding and playing in combination with the new rules it is probably not too bad to miss a charge every now and then. It might suck and turn an advantage into a disadvantage when you roll all ones on the charge but it alone probably won't decide the entire game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

40k 10th is very much a new game compared to 3rd/5th/7th but it is "just" a new Edition because GW calls it that way
TOW is a new game because GW said so, not because the rules are that different

how much work GW puts into it remains to be seen, and if reviews show that it is just a collection of old art and background it is a low afford book

still comparing it to LI, same company, same resources available, similar development time and if everything new for one and not for the other one has seen less work put into it that could have been possible
that GW releases both at the same time (and if the November rumours would be true, both overlapping) means that there are not seen as equal but one being the lesser game that gets less resources

Do we have any infos yet on the return of Warhammer Fantasy Terrain like the Manor etc?

Actuve wrote:
Earlier people were talking about what was in the Arcane Journal vs the other books.

Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes have
“Each army gets an introduction, a gallery of miniatures, a grand army composition list, a complete set of unit profiles (so you’ll have no need for a separate army book to play), special rules, magic items, and unique spells.”

Journal has
“special characters, magic items, spells, a historical scenario, and thematic Armies of Infamy which let you select armies of very different compositions.”
Aka extra stuff.

Yes. But this is what feels like a cash grab. There's no obvious reason why the content of the Journals couldn't be in Ravening Hordes etc. If the line becomes "but the book would be too big" then maybe this wasn't the best way of doing it. Walking into a store and being told "you want to play Brets? You always liked the Green Knight back in the day? You should buy a rulebook, the Forces of Fantasy (don't worry if you don't care about the other factions) and the Journal. What's that? Yes, nearly £90. Before you've bought any models. Wait, come back..."

Supplementary stuff later is fine (up to a certain price point). You've had your Brets for a year or two - now here's some new rules/items/special characters/scenarios to shake things up. Having it on the day of release feels like day 1 DLC because it is day 1 DLC. This could have been in the first product, but has been hived off to make more money. It winds people up for much the same reason.

I think the debate on whether TOW is WHFB 9th edition or not is semantic rather than fundamental. Horus Heresy 1.0 for instance had far more in common with 40k 3rd-7th than 40k 8th/9th/10th did. So if you were to say HH was different from say 40k 7th but 8th was the same, I feel you are being persuaded purely by the names used rather than any underlying logic. Today HH and 40k have evolved in fundamentally different ways and so I think are very different games. I don't think this was true 10 years back.

Some things in TOW are going to be different (magic being the obvious one) - but the majority feels like a mash up of 25ish years of WHFB. This is sort of why you can say "if the rules are like this, the meta is likely to evolve like that". But - admittedly - that was when GW didn't care about balance at all. A army book was released, and if it was completely broken, oh well, maybe there will be an even more broken one in a year's time. If it sucked, bad luck, you are going to be weak for 4-10 years. That may not happen this time. If we get a meta defined by Hero Hammer, Cavalry Hammer, 50 strong great weapon death stars, High Elves, High Elves and High Elves etc etc they will hopefully change the points/rules accordingly.

 Geifer wrote:
I don't think most models will go full jigsaw, however, because at least nominally models need to fit into regimental formations or in base contact with them, and that naturally keeps the more exotic poses in check that we get in AoS which require the 3D puzzle to avoid undercuts.
.

All miniatures, no matter their pose go "full jigsaw" these days, some are merely more extreme in it than others. (The new way of doing things is ironically sometimes claimed to be "easier" when the old way you didn't need instructions or have to look for numbers on the sprue) The 2017 Rubric Marines (Whose designers having seen the Primaris even went back and added a mm or two) aren't like this though which implies to me that it is to some extent a choice (Having a computer black box do things will maybe produce silly things sometimes) to make third party upgrade kits much less feasible. Some people claim the height (Ie the extreme addition of 1 or 2 mm of the legs and tordo) or pose of the Primaris kits explains this. I don't know what Harlequin posed Primaris marines they've been looking at but their poses are the same as the old ones, or I should say their legs are the same, slightly too far apart both feet on the ground facing the same direction.

If something as basic as a Space Marine today is a jigsaw I don't think anything else can escape.

Tyel wrote:

Actuve wrote:
Earlier people were talking about what was in the Arcane Journal vs the other books.

Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes have
“Each army gets an introduction, a gallery of miniatures, a grand army composition list, a complete set of unit profiles (so you’ll have no need for a separate army book to play), special rules, magic items, and unique spells.”

Journal has
“special characters, magic items, spells, a historical scenario, and thematic Armies of Infamy which let you select armies of very different compositions.”
Aka extra stuff.

Yes. But this is what feels like a cash grab. There's no obvious reason why the content of the Journals couldn't be in Ravening Hordes etc. If the line becomes "but the book would be too big" then maybe this wasn't the best way of doing it. Walking into a store and being told "you want to play Brets? You always liked the Green Knight back in the day? You should buy a rulebook, the Forces of Fantasy (don't worry if you don't care about the other factions) and the Journal. What's that? Yes, nearly £90. Before you've bought any models. Wait, come back..."

Supplementary stuff later is fine (up to a certain price point). You've had your Brets for a year or two - now here's some new rules/items/special characters/scenarios to shake things up. Having it on the day of release feels like day 1 DLC because it is day 1 DLC. This could have been in the first product, but has been hived off to make more money. It winds people up for much the same reason.

Instead of Arcane Journals, I'd rather have seen expansions printed for FoF and for RH over time that added something for each faction at the same time, and have their release decoupled from the timing of model releases.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

40k 10th is very much a new game compared to 3rd/5th/7th but it is "just" a new Edition because GW calls it that way
TOW is a new game because GW said so, not because the rules are that different

how much work GW puts into it remains to be seen, and if reviews show that it is just a collection of old art and background it is a low afford book

still comparing it to LI, same company, same resources available, similar development time and if everything new for one and not for the other one has seen less work put into it that could have been possible
that GW releases both at the same time (and if the November rumours would be true, both overlapping) means that there are not seen as equal but one being the lesser game that gets less resources

A sensible post here. At last some logic.

ToW is Warhammer FB, the same as LI is Epic. GW decided, for some marketing reason, to name them differently and "say" that those are new games, which they clearly aren't (for gosh sake, it's the same mechanics, style, design...).

 Astmeister wrote:
Do we have any infos yet on the return of Warhammer Fantasy Terrain like the Manor etc?

As far as I'm aware GW has said nothing about the return of terrain kits.

SU-152 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

40k 10th is very much a new game compared to 3rd/5th/7th but it is "just" a new Edition because GW calls it that way
TOW is a new game because GW said so, not because the rules are that different

how much work GW puts into it remains to be seen, and if reviews show that it is just a collection of old art and background it is a low afford book

still comparing it to LI, same company, same resources available, similar development time and if everything new for one and not for the other one has seen less work put into it that could have been possible
that GW releases both at the same time (and if the November rumours would be true, both overlapping) means that there are not seen as equal but one being the lesser game that gets less resources

A sensible post here. At last some logic.

ToW is Warhammer FB, the same as LI is Epic. GW decided, for some marketing reason, to name them differently and "say" that those are new games, which they clearly aren't (for gosh sake, it's the same mechanics, style, design...).

Them naming it different is pretty irrelevant. When it's an entirely different team making their own game years after the original version was discontinued, establishing their own background and lore for the setting of the game to take place within, and it wasn't just as simple as taking stuff from before and making a few changes but instead they've had to come up with their own ideas about just what the fundamentals of armies are and how to adjust and interpret things both lore, miniature, rulewise etc, it's not just WHF.

Neither is stuff like Legions Imperialis or Necromunda the same as the previous games just because they're based on the original and have similarities. They retain some core elements, but it's it's a re-imagining to the extent of a new game.

And I'm sure you call warhammer 40k 9th ed totally new game to 3rd ed as well

and the very same for 40k, BloodBowl and even AoS

just that marketing decided that some are better released as new games, while others are released as new edition and this s the only difference

It's funny how movie and video game industries try to ride their existing titles so much that they'll literally name a new and completely different movie/game the same name as a previous one (not even a number next to it).

Games Workshop on the other hand make sure they rename games, and give units such whacky names that your average person will never find their products in an unrelated google search.

I can kind of appreciate it for WHFB and Epic though. Other companies have started using "Epic" as a moniker for small scale games, and GW decided to rebrand themselves as Warhammer so "Warhammer Fantasy" isn't as distinctive as it might have been previously.

Some base sizes from The Old World facebook account:

All Orc infantry 30s
The best units in the game (Goblins) 25s
Squigs Herds and Hoppers 25s
Giant Cave Squig character mounts are on 50s
Manglers Squigs on 50x75s
Trolls 40s

Standard ogres 40s
Gnoblars 25s
Ogre Lords 40s,
Butchers are 40s, but 50x100 with their cauldron,
Hunters are 50s,
Maneaters are 40s
Yheties are 40s
Gorgers are 50s.

Gors 25s
Bestigors 30s
Beastman Lords/Shamans 25s or 30s
All Minotaurs 50s
Ghorgon/Cygor 60x100

Brettonian Pegasi.
Mounts: Barded pegasus 40 x 60, Royal pegasus 50x50.
Pegasus knights 40x60s

Demigryphs 50 x 75s

Chaos Knights/Chosen Knights/Marauder Horsemen 30x60s
All Chaos warrior infantry 30s
Chaos Marauders 25s

All Dwarf infantry 25s
Shield Bearer Mount 50
Gyrocopters 50s
Bolt thrower/cannon/organ gun 50s
Flame Cannon/Grudgethrower 50x75s

Wild Riders/Sisters of the Thorn/Glade Riders 30x60
Dryads and Branchwraiths 30s
Treekin 50s
Treemen 50 x 50 mm (min), 50 x 75 mm (max)
Warhawk Riders 50s
Giant Eagles 50s
Forest Dragons 60x100

Ashitaka wrote:
Some base sizes from The Old World facebook account:

All Orc infantry 30s
The best units in the game (Goblins) 25s
Squigs Herds and Hoppers 25s
Giant Cave Squig character mounts are on 50s
Manglers Squigs on 50x75s
Trolls 40s

Standard ogres 40s
Gnoblars 25s
Ogre Lords 40s,
Butchers are 40s, but 50x100 with their cauldron,
Hunters are 50s,
Maneaters are 40s
Yheties are 40s
Gorgers are 50s.

Gors 25s
Bestigors 30s
Beastman Lords/Shamans 25s or 30s
All Minotaurs 50s
Ghorgon/Cygor 60x100

Brettonian Pegasi.
Mounts: Barded pegasus 40 x 60, Royal pegasus 50x50.
Pegasus knights 40x60s

Demigryphs 50 x 75s

Chaos Knights/Chosen Knights/Marauder Horsemen 30x60s
All Chaos warrior infantry 30s
Chaos Marauders 25s

All Dwarf infantry 25s
Shield Bearer Mount 50
Gyrocopters 50s
Bolt thrower/cannon/organ gun 50s
Flame Cannon/Grudgethrower 50x75s

Wild Riders/Sisters of the Thorn/Glade Riders 30x60
Dryads and Branchwraiths 30s
Treekin 50s
Treemen 50 x 50 mm (min), 50 x 75 mm (max)
Warhawk Riders 50s
Giant Eagles 50s
Forest Dragons 60x100

About what I expected. Can't say I'm thrilled at chaos warriors etc on 30mm, I'm sure they rank up better but I'd rather not need another base size not commonly available (other than the overpriced €50 base set of them from GW direct).

A little bit surprised at trolls being 40mm, I assume they will re-release all the old but smaller metal ones. I'd honestly expected them to have gone to 50mm. I'll probably go up to 50mm for them so I can field my whole collection easily.

Goblins on 25s are going to look tiny, unless we are only going to see hill goblins back and night goblins are gone. (Though I'd love for the Brian Nelson plastics to return in place of the newer night goblins )

The scenario is not new, it already existed in the 8th edition xD

War machines are on square bases? And what are Chosen knights?

Chosen knights were an upgrade to regular chaos knights in some editions, later editions basically made knights chosen by default and git rid of the "lesser" knights that were a closer equivalent to warriors.

 Mallo wrote:
About what I expected. Can't say I'm thrilled at chaos warriors etc on 30mm, I'm sure they rank up better but I'd rather not need another base size not commonly available (other than the overpriced €50 base set of them from GW direct).

30mm is a common size and plastic bases that size are already sold for 10+ years
just not marketed to warhammer players


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
War machines are on square bases?

most of them, some on rectangular bases

Dysartes wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Random charge distances I think will stop TOW ever being taken up by my group, as random charge distances were a big reason WHFB fell out of fashion in the first place. Getting the charge is too important, and after a few failed short distance charges and a few successful absurdly long ranged charges that decided the outcome of games, people started moving away from WHFB.

While charges are random, they're not that random - and the fact you can pre-measure helps you judge the risk on a given charge. In case you didn't read it (or forgot this bit) to quote the article on movement:

To establish the range of their charge, units roll two dice, pick the highest score from the two and add it to their Movement characteristic.

Rolling two and dropping the lowest means the average of those two dice is something like 4-4.5, off the top of my head, and adding it to your Movement stat means you've got a guaranteed minimum range - chuffing up a 3" charge with infantry by rolling snake eyes is no longer possible! It does make a 10" charge with M4 infantry a gamble, but you wouldn't even have the chance of achieving that back when a charge was just "double your Movement"...

NinthMusketeer wrote:Agreed, charges are random but an entire order of magnitude less so than 8th.

Less lethal is STILL lethal. Same argument for those of us, including All-Seeing Skink's group, who don't want random charges at all.





I did note that the base chart neglected Ungors completely and left Gors on the same size squares they were in previous editions. So the upgrade wasn't universal across the board. I'm giddy thinking about all the people that rebased months ago...

If Gors are on 25's then Ungors will be too since that is the minimum basesize. Unless you are trying to imply that people rebased Gors to 30s and you are happy that they were wrong?

In either case, that is a pretty pathetic thing to be 'giddy' about.

I'm sure 3d print files for nase extenders are doing the rounds already

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I liked step up, and I fear this will revert to Cavalry Hammer without it.

All step up did was throw tactics out the window. If I out-maneuver you, that should count for something.

I'd say budget stubborn had more to do with that than step-up.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/04/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-painting-the-miniatures/

A little bit of info on the painting of the bretonnians

They discuss future proofing, to me suggesting that they worked on the armies knowing some of this would get replaced in time.

A nice article, if a little bit light. Would be nice to have seen and heard more of these kind of things as they had been working on the game as a whole.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I liked step up, and I fear this will revert to Cavalry Hammer without it.

All step up did was throw tactics out the window. If I out-maneuver you, that should count for something.

I'd say budget stubborn had more to do with that than step-up.

Don't remind me of the skavenslave bus >.>

 Mallo wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/04/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-painting-the-miniatures/

A little bit of info on the painting of the bretonnians

They discuss future proofing, to me suggesting that they worked on the armies knowing some of this would get replaced in time.

A nice article, if a little bit light. Would be nice to have seen and heard more of these kind of things as they had been working on the game as a whole.

To me it sounds like what they meant was more painting miniatures in a way that isn't going to become obviously outdated after a while, like right before that part they say it used to be about using bright colours that would stand out in photos rather than focusing on detail. That style of painting is less relevant now and miniatures painted with that in mind are going to look a bit different.

Some of those base sizes feel weird to me. Dryads, for example, don't exactly overflow 25mm rounds, let alone squares. So a 30mm base seems unnecessary, and skews the look of the army a bit.

30x60 makes sense for chaos knights (those kits swamped the standard cav bases and bits knocked together in ranks), but the marauder horsemen were fine.

As someone with a big beasts of chaos army, definitely don't like bestigors on 30s and characters being variable. They either won't rank properly in bestigors or won't rank in beast herds. Pick a base size and stick with it.

Well I would had been interested why TK Skeletons weren't repainted in similar fashion.

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well I would had been interested why TK Skeletons weren't repainted in similar fashion.

There's a limit to how much polish you can put on a turd. I think they decided to leave it to make the characters 'pop' more.

Hopefully because the kit is soon to be replaced!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well I would had been interested why TK Skeletons weren't repainted in similar fashion.

There's a limit to how much polish you can put on a turd.

Exalted.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Hopefully because the kit is soon to be replaced!

Well that would be kick in the groin!


Atleast, if they do that, they wait 2+ years so everyone just forget about spending on big starter army.

I think realistically we see all 9 factions released + Kislev + Cathay + whatever other new units are coming (border prince bombards and brigands for example) before gw starts going back and doing resculpts of older kits. I would imagine we are 3+ years out from that happening unless demand grossly outstrips projections and the molds run out their useful life much earlier than planned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, didn't see it mentioned, but shops are starting to report bigly cuts to their order allocations. FOMO seems to be in rare form for the release.

Dudeface wrote:
Why is anyone arguing? MalusCalibur clearly detests the release, rules, models, everything you possibly can, so why debate further?

Having a discerning opinion does not equal 'might as well shut down all discussion'. Your comment is reductive, contributes nothing, and doesn't serve as any kind of counter argument.

SU-152 wrote:
]Premeasurement is a must, so random charges "have to be" in (how would you do it otherwise?).

Random charges do not have to be in, and were one of the many reasons I despised 8th edition - just because it's less random than it was doesn't make it acceptable. Other games have both premeasuring and fixed charge distances and manage just fine. Random charge distances belong only to things that should be that random; Chaos Spawn, Pump Wagons, and the like.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wrong on both counts. GW has been pretty clear that The Old World is *not* Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that it is in fact a new game heavily inspired by but different from WHFB, rather than just a 9th edition of an old game. We can get into an abstract Ship of Theseus debate here, but theres some very relevant practical reasons to draw that distinction. Likewise it is a new setting, we haven't played Warhammer in this setting, things are different in this setting, theres many models that aren't usable in this setting and thus won't be in the setting.

Nothing is so drastically different about ToW, gameplay wise, as to distinguish it more than a new edition would. It's 9th edition in all but name; if they'd called it that, no one would have been saying 'this is a totally new game, not WHFB!'. Just because GW says it's 'not WHFB' doesn't classify it as an entirely new creative endeavour. In other words...

ccs wrote:
Hmm. Let's see about that:
●Laundry list of old familiar rules, some with new tweaks
●some new rules
● IGOUGO d6 based system
●Laundry list of familiar units returning
●a handful of new units for each supported force
●a Laundry list of units not returning
*but a new title on the covers of the books/boxes!

Other than the new title?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, gaks like a duck.... Surprise, it's a duck!
Or in this case just WHFB 9th ed with a different title.

Sorry, the setting is still the Old World. The lore just cuts off at a certain date.
Otherwise it's like every other edition. Lore up through that point stands/gets revised/gets added to. New details of the past & present are provided.
And this means.... very little when it comes time to putting models on the table.

As for the setting being different based on some models not being allowed? BS.
I started WHFB in 3e. There are models/units I cannot use in later editions. There are models/units in later editions that I cannot use in earlier editions. And yet the setting is still the Old World.
Same as over in 40k. There's plenty of stuff from the past 10 years alone that do not port into, say. 40k 2e. And 40k is still 40k setting wise.

...precisely all of this.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Comparing it to a new edition launch is just wrong - when a new edition launch comes, there is always a backlog of what, a couple thousand SKUs of product(?) available for that game.

And yet you have to go fairly far back to find an edition launch that had less to offer, within itself, than TOW. As I've said already, I wasn't expecting every army to get an entire range of new kits right away, and knew that some old models would be brought back (which is a good thing as far as Bretonnians are concerned). But managing to create as much for just two armies as previous starter boxes have was the bare minimum, and the old models should have come at a major discount (not just the pittance versus their last known RRP that we got) to reflect their age and relative quality.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You keep calling this a low effort cashgrab yet have nothing to back that up other than breathless screamy nonsense.

There's just no need for rudeness like that. I'll reiterate: this release has less to offer than previous launches, either of core games or specialist ones, yet has no excuses for it given the time they've had and the assets available.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, no kidding. I don't think he has the slightest clue how long it takes to make a book like this.

I've worked on a few. These are not speedily made products.

No, I havn't and I'm sure you know better - but it's not the point. This is hardly the first and only time GW have produced big expensive books for a system release - Horus Heresy even followed a similar pattern of core rulebook+two faction books. So why is it that TOW in particular gets to use their development time as an excuse for the lack of overall substance? How did HH (also a specialist game) manage to put out more models with (presumably) a similar development time and the exact same number of books? And, if having those three big, expensive books ate so much of the four years that everything else has suffered, maybe they shouldn't have had that many big expensive books in the first place!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As far as the setting goes, now you're just splitting hairs.

Horus Heresy is the "same setting" as 40k, but calling them the same is clearly false. Same applies here.

Horus Heresy is ten thousand years prior to 40k, and represents armies with clear, distinct and significant differences in their operation and equipment from 40k's, not to mention everything else (rising empire rather than crumbling ruin of one, beings as powerful as the Emperor and Primarchs present rather than not, semi-enlightened progressive society rather than zealous fascist regressive one, etc). A hundred years or so in WHFB's timeline does not come close to the same level of difference, and it's disingenuous to suggest it is.

Tyel wrote:
Yes. But this is what feels like a cash grab. There's no obvious reason why the content of the Journals couldn't be in Ravening Hordes etc. If the line becomes "but the book would be too big" then maybe this wasn't the best way of doing it. Walking into a store and being told "you want to play Brets? You always liked the Green Knight back in the day? You should buy a rulebook, the Forces of Fantasy (don't worry if you don't care about the other factions) and the Journal. What's that? Yes, nearly £90. Before you've bought any models. Wait, come back..."

Supplementary stuff later is fine (up to a certain price point). You've had your Brets for a year or two - now here's some new rules/items/special characters/scenarios to shake things up. Having it on the day of release feels like day 1 DLC because it is day 1 DLC. This could have been in the first product, but has been hived off to make more money. It winds people up for much the same reason.

Absolutely this, yes. I'd go one step further and suggest that the FoF/RH books don't even need to exist, and army lists could easily have been included in the rulebook itself (again, like other games seem to manage to do). If that makes the rulebook too big, then perhaps it's too damn bloated in the first place.
But even so, to have the cheek to split up the rules the way they have in order to maximise profit but not to provide much alongside them is why it comes across as a cash grab rather than a passion project that some are claiming.

The fact that TOW exists at all does not automatically mean it has been handled in a way that is reverent or even competent, and what we have seen of the contents of the release suggests the opposite; that time was spent putting together big, expensive rulebooks to cash in on but not on making a decent opening model range or, from what we've been able to gather, a particularly solid ruleset that avoids 'standard GW' rules writing pitfalls (it's already fallen into several).

It would be nice if, for once, GW were held to some actual standards; particularly when it comes to re-releasing a once beloved game. And given how WHFB was treated at the end, a lot more than what TOW is should be needed to win people back, not just throwing a new expensive hat on it and expecting hundreds of pounds for the privelege.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why is anyone arguing? MalusCalibur clearly detests the release, rules, models, everything you possibly can, so why debate further?

Having a discerning opinion does not equal 'might as well shut down all discussion'. Your comment is reductive, contributes nothing, and doesn't serve as any kind of counter argument.

What do you want? You gave an opinion, it doesn't need or require a rebuttal. Contrarily, you're more than happy to aimlessly argue with people.

My stance was that you clearly dislike the entire game, products, marketing and company ethos behind it. Am.i wrong? If not, what is there to "counter argue" if you do not wish to have your mind changed.

I am pretty sure that if GW were not being held to any standard ls the majority of this discussion thread wouldn't exist.

Yeah, no. TOW is not WHFB any more than Kings of War is, or for that matter Black Powder is Warmaster or Dropfleet Commander is Battlefleet Gothic. Different rules, different settings, different teams, even where there's overlaps or similarities. I'm not interested in having this dumb ass ship of theseus debate.

Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

Grail Seeker wrote:
If Gors are on 25's then Ungors will be too since that is the minimum basesize. Unless you are trying to imply that people rebased Gors to 30s and you are happy that they were wrong?

In either case, that is a pretty pathetic thing to be 'giddy' about.

Pathetic? ANY time someone can't show a little bit of patience to wait to see how something might actually function before dumping massive time, effort, and money into modifying everything they own and have it backfire to the point they have to do it all over again is FAR more pathetic than finding it funny that it blew up in their face. ESPECIALLY since base extenders are a thing.

I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for.

If you don't want to play TOW, then don't play it. GW aren't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy the minis or play the game.

I for one will be buying the TK box because I want a classic looking TK army without having to pay the ridiculous eBay prices. Goofy bobblehead skeletons and all.

And people complaining about random-but-not-really-that-random charges is silly. If you want every single thing in your game to be predetermined and assured then you probably want to try some games that aren't wholly reliant on dice.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

really? Do you know anything we don't or how are you counting those?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, no. TOW is not WHFB any more than Kings of War is, or for that matter Black Powder is Warmaster or Dropfleet Commander is Battlefleet Gothic. Different rules, different settings, different teams, even where there's overlaps or similarities. I'm not interested in having this dumb ass ship of theseus debate.

well, TOW is a new Edition of Warhammer Fantasy the very same way 10th 40k is a new Edition
despite 10th Edition has different rules, different setting, different teams and just some overlaps in naming

either call both a new game or both a new edition

I don't know if this would be helpful but here is the Base Sizes that were posted today
Kingdom of Bretonnia

Tomb Kings of Khemri

Ogres

High Elf

Lizardmen


Vampire Counts Legacy List


Dwarfen Mountain Holds (Beards mandatory for entry)


Skaven Legacy List (Cheese board size not included)


Orks And Goblins


Wood Elf Realms


The Empire of Man (For Sigmar? Nah, for Squigmar!)


Warriors of Chaos (BOO HISS)

 Mallo wrote:

Goblins on 25s are going to look tiny, unless we are only going to see hill goblins back and night goblins are gone. (Though I'd love for the Brian Nelson plastics to return in place of the newer night goblins )

This was my issue with the rebasing from the start. Goblins, dwarfs, and most human-sized models look ridiculous on ranked 25mm bases.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for..

There's a common trend on the internet to see contradictory complaints and assume they're all coming from the one source. You may find it less confusing if you assume that the people who wanted WHFB back as-is and the people who didn't want WHFB back as-is are not actually the same people.

 insaniak wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for..

There's a common trend on the internet to see contradictory complaints and assume they're all coming from the one source. You may find it less confusing if you assume that the people who wanted WHFB back as-is and the people who didn't want WHFB back as-is are not actually the same people.

Unfortunately I know some people that have done literally as I described

The bulk of my post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular here, it was more me ranting to whoever might be willing to listen. I'll go back to my corner now

Well I am actually lot less surprised how some are based (if the leaks are true).

Only things that surprised were:
- Gors (Orcs went 30mm but these not)
- Trolls

And Warmachines with bases is actually good thing in my books.

There's base sizes for Forsaken? You think there's any chance they're gonna resell that kit?

 KidCthulhu wrote:
There's base sizes for Forsaken? You think there's any chance they're gonna resell that kit?

Every Chaos players bits box would be over flowing the day its re-released.

Pretty gak models as a whole, but man, did I put that kit to work on my various Chaos projects.

edit: I hope it comes out again!

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If HBMC and I are agreeing, you know we must be right.

40k 10th is very much a new game compared to 3rd/5th/7th but it is "just" a new Edition because GW calls it that way
TOW is a new game because GW said so, not because the rules are that different

how much work GW puts into it remains to be seen, and if reviews show that it is just a collection of old art and background it is a low afford book

still comparing it to LI, same company, same resources available, similar development time and if everything new for one and not for the other one has seen less work put into it that could have been possible
that GW releases both at the same time (and if the November rumours would be true, both overlapping) means that there are not seen as equal but one being the lesser game that gets less resources

A sensible post here. At last some logic.

ToW is Warhammer FB, the same as LI is Epic. GW decided, for some marketing reason, to name them differently and "say" that those are new games, which they clearly aren't (for gosh sake, it's the same mechanics, style, design...).

Them naming it different is pretty irrelevant. When it's an entirely different team making their own game years after the original version was discontinued, establishing their own background and lore for the setting of the game to take place within, and it wasn't just as simple as taking stuff from before and making a few changes but instead they've had to come up with their own ideas about just what the fundamentals of armies are and how to adjust and interpret things both lore, miniature, rulewise etc, it's not just WHF.

Neither is stuff like Legions Imperialis or Necromunda the same as the previous games just because they're based on the original and have similarities. They retain some core elements, but it's it's a re-imagining to the extent of a new game.

You are literally defining a new edition. Not a new game.

Epic 2nd ed is brutally different from 3rd edition. Like total different games, just minis in common. Yet both are called Epic, 2nd ed and 3rd ed respectively.

Same with 5th and 6th WHFB.

You just cannot not agree to that. There's history on that.

I'm surprised to see it doesn't appear that GW cut all that much... just the luminark and hurricanum it seems from what I can tell. Unless there's a weird "legacies of the old world" extended army list pdf for each faction and some of the units I thought might be cut end up being from there rather than a rulebook proper.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

really? Do you know anything we don't or how are you counting those?

??? It's all public information. Look at the preorder list for HH on release day and compare to the ones out there now for TOW.

well, TOW is a new Edition of Warhammer Fantasy the very same way 10th 40k is a new Edition
despite 10th Edition has different rules, different setting, different teams and just some overlaps in naming

There's a clear continuity in setting, narrative, factions, and development team for 40k. There is not for TOW, half the factions are cut (and there are additional cuts within the factions that remained), a whole new narrative with zero continuity from what was there before (it's in fact a prequel), the setting is in fact different (just because it's the same universe doesn't make it the same setting), and it's an entirely different team with no real overlap from the previous WHFB design team.

The only thing that 40k 10th has in common with TOW is some different rules, on its own that's not enough to warrant it being a new game.

I might make time and compare what has changed to what hasn’t from the leaked lists. That would be super helpful.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mallo wrote:

Goblins on 25s are going to look tiny, unless we are only going to see hill goblins back and night goblins are gone. (Though I'd love for the Brian Nelson plastics to return in place of the newer night goblins )

This was my issue with the rebasing from the start. Goblins, dwarfs, and most human-sized models look ridiculous on ranked 25mm bases.

Maybe the goblins but I can say that Ironbreakers filled up 25mm rounds quite nicely and will fit well on squares. Given that the plastic dwarf warrior kit and the crossbow kit rank up pretty terribly on 20s is a good reason to bump them. That way I don't have to play mix and match with the stuff I bought and then number the bottoms of bases.....

Skavens are going to look weird af in 25x25, Seb Perbet & co designes them to look like a uniform mass of rats going on the same direction. Separate them and the design loses a bit.

But of course, the ninja gaking monkeys are still fethed, no matter the base sizes

Dudeface wrote:
What do you want? You gave an opinion, it doesn't need or require a rebuttal. Contrarily, you're more than happy to aimlessly argue with people.

My stance was that you clearly dislike the entire game, products, marketing and company ethos behind it. Am I wrong? If not, what is there to "counter argue" if you do not wish to have your mind changed.

I have stated the reasoning for forming that opinion, and a lot of folk have told me not 'I disagree with your opinion' but 'Your reasoning is wrong', hence the need for counter argument. The fact that I intently dislike it is not the point of discussion in of itself.
Whether you agree with me or not, if you've nothing to contribute beyond an attempt to portray yourself as 'above' the argument, I'm not sure why you felt the need to do so.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, no. TOW is not WHFB any more than Kings of War is, or for that matter Black Powder is Warmaster or Dropfleet Commander is Battlefleet Gothic. Different rules, different settings, different teams, even where there's overlaps or similarities. I'm not interested in having this dumb ass ship of theseus debate.

The rules are no more different than a new edition would be, by the teams' own admission they are trying to use the "best" (citation needed) of WHFB's old rulesets. The setting is not drastically different enough that the game itself would be affected in a meaningful way and a lot of any fluff they create already has a solid basis in established material - far more than HH would have before GW started venturing into it directly with the Black Library.
Just because GW call it a 'new game' doesn't make it true, and it certainly is a poor excuse for the result. If you arn't willing to debate it, don't try to use it as a point.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

We arn't talking about SKU's, though, because that is misleading. Battle for Skull Pass and Island of Blood are one SKU each, but contained more new models than the entirety of TOW's launch. Likewise Age of Darkness or Legions Imperialis, for more recent examples. Additionally, five of the SKU's for TOW are books.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for.

It's already been pointed out that people arn't a hive mind, but amusingly I have never personally 'moaned that I wanted WHFB back'. I've seen how GW treated it the first time, so I'd prefer they left it alone rather than try this nostalgia-bait tactic. It's funny how many games thrive when GW is no longer meddling with them.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
If you don't want to play TOW, then don't play it. GW aren't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy the minis or play the game.

Not being forced to purchase or become involved with a product does not equal a complete lack of right to criticise it.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
And people complaining about random-but-not-really-that-random charges is silly. If you want every single thing in your game to be predetermined and assured then you probably want to try some games that aren't wholly reliant on dice.

A classic reductio ad absurdum that I'm almost surprised to see again. Suffice it to say that not wanting certain aspects to be random does not equate to wanting absolutely no randomness altogether.

Few things to note here on the skaven list:

-Yeap, everything up in size, and now i have to change like 300-350 bases, ******

-No chieftains? Unless the "Commanders Of The Warlord Clans " option has standard options, i guess heroes wont be a thing in TOW

-NO SLAVES

-No FW stuff

-No spetial characters in sight

-Packmasters and Master Moulders? Will one of them be a character?

-No Verminlords

-No Stormfiends (that one was expected, tho)

...are any of the Skaven SC meant to be 100's of years old?

 MalusCalibur wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What do you want? You gave an opinion, it doesn't need or require a rebuttal. Contrarily, you're more than happy to aimlessly argue with people.

My stance was that you clearly dislike the entire game, products, marketing and company ethos behind it. Am I wrong? If not, what is there to "counter argue" if you do not wish to have your mind changed.

I have stated the reasoning for forming that opinion, and a lot of folk have told me not 'I disagree with your opinion' but 'Your reasoning is wrong', hence the need for counter argument. The fact that I intently dislike it is not the point of discussion in of itself.
Whether you agree with me or not, if you've nothing to contribute beyond an attempt to portray yourself as 'above' the argument, I'm not sure why you felt the need to do so.

Because some of what you stated isn't opinion, you're presenting assumptions or outright fabrications as facts:

 MalusCalibur wrote:

GW wrote it. - fact
They are releasing ancient plastic kits at a markup. - fact
The rules follow 40k's model (multiple overpriced books rendered obsolete in short order). - fact

It's as obvious a minimum effort nostalgia cash-grab as one can get. Don't fall for it. - opinion

You picked multiple arguments in bad faith, you managed to get H.B.M.C actually sticking up for GW books because you falsely presented your conjecture as fact. I'm not above it or I wouldnt be replying, I was asking people to respect your contempt for the product and to move on as to not have pages of people bickering over something that you'll never agree on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
...are any of the Skaven SC meant to be 100's of years old?

Not so much, but you'd expect the verminlords to be present by virtue of being daemons.

insaniak wrote:

 Mallo wrote:

Goblins on 25s are going to look tiny, unless we are only going to see hill goblins back and night goblins are gone. (Though I'd love for the Brian Nelson plastics to return in place of the newer night goblins )

This was my issue with the rebasing from the start. Goblins, dwarfs, and most human-sized models look ridiculous on ranked 25mm bases.

I actually quite like humans on 25s. I started using them back when Oathmark was almost out. But yeah, goblins look tiny. I thought dwarves would be ok on 25s, I'd gotten used to how big oathmark & 8th Ed ones were but having just got a whole bunch of 6th Ed thunderers they are going to be tiny.

I had intended to go up a base size for most things, expect for my goblins & VC. But I might have to stick to 20s for some of my older dwarves as well now.

Q: if all models in the front rank now fight, regardless of how many, though only "supporting" attacks for those out of actual base contact

how much difference will it actually make for the likes of goblins anyway?

as in if they stay on 20mm are they suddenly going to turn into awesome killing machines that break the game?

 Dysartes wrote:
...are any of the Skaven SC meant to be 100's of years old?

Ikit Claw dates back to the civil War, Throt is so old that half of clan Moulder are his sons and anything on Snikch and mostly Skrolk is ambiguous enough

Base increases were urgently needed for some units, but a lot of this feels like change for change's sake.

Goblins were fine. Black Orcs were not.

Lots of goalpost moving and arbitrary nonsense being peddled about. Fallout 4 is clearly the same game as Fallout 1 and was disappointing when it launched because it didn't have day 1 dlc like previous games in the series.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, no. TOW is not WHFB any more than Kings of War is, or for that matter Black Powder is Warmaster or Dropfleet Commander is Battlefleet Gothic. Different rules, different settings, different teams, even where there's overlaps or similarities. I'm not interested in having this dumb ass ship of theseus debate.

Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

Ok. Was warhammer 40k 7th edition totally different game to warhammer 40k 3rd ed?

If not then you are having double standards.

40k 7th is just as much new game to 3rd ed as TOW is to FB. So if you claim 7th edition was just new edition, same game then same goes for TOW.

Interesting to see that the Hellcannon is on the list. I half expected them to say it was an End Times model and therefore not include it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Not too happy about the base size list for Lizardmen though. Getting the new saurus on to 30mm ranked squares is going to be challenging, but should be possible. Getting the slann on to a 50mm base is going to need some surgery on the basing elements though.

I think that models like chaos warriors and saurus would have benefitted from 35mm bases. They could then have used 70mm for models like the slann that get placed in the unit.

Garrac wrote:
Few things to note here on the skaven list:

-Yeap, everything up in size, and now i have to change like 300-350 bases, ******

-No chieftains? Unless the "Commanders Of The Warlord Clans " option has standard options, i guess heroes wont be a thing in TOW

-NO SLAVES

-No FW stuff

-No spetial characters in sight

-Packmasters and Master Moulders? Will one of them be a character?

-No Verminlords

-No Stormfiends (that one was expected, tho)

Way back when I first considered trying Skaven the Skaven Slaves were a huge negative to building an army. Even if you just used regular clan rat models (instead of the woeful 3 or so metal models in a blister for slaves - or something like that); you still needed insane numbers of them. Plus for the most part they were pure chaff - they just existed to die on the table in droves. A neat mechanic, but for a tabletop game meant a LOT of upfront building

Tyel wrote:
Base increases were urgently needed for some units, but a lot of this feels like change for change's sake.

Goblins were fine. Black Orcs were not.

I had 120 State Troops built back in 8th edition, plus 20 Archers and some other units. It was an absolute nightmare trying to get them to fit together on 20mm bases, let alone sticking a hero in with them. I had to do a ton of rejiggering, and at the end of the day, they could only ever rank up a certain way. If I messed up the order, I was screwed.

I recently bought 20 State Troops and built them as spearmen on 25mm bases. It wasn’t perfect, but getting them to rank up was significantly easier than it was when they were on 20mm bases. I can actually shuffle individual soldiers around and not have to worry about them no longer fitting because someone’s spear is clipping someone else’s hat, or whatever.

I actually kind of hope they rerelease the old Empire Knights plastic kit now, as I want to see how they fit on 30x60 bases. Before, on their 25x50 bases (actually, 22x50), they didn’t work in either ranks or files. Their feet stuck out from beyond their base and clipped the riders next to them, and the horse tails got in the way of the horse heads of the riders behind them. I had to do some tab cutting and sliding them back and forth to get them to fit together. I’d love to see how they fit together now on the bigger bases.

But yeah, I’ve got a stack of old 5th edition Skinks lying around. It’s going to be weird putting them on the 25mm bases intended for the Saurus Warriors.

tneva82 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, no. TOW is not WHFB any more than Kings of War is, or for that matter Black Powder is Warmaster or Dropfleet Commander is Battlefleet Gothic. Different rules, different settings, different teams, even where there's overlaps or similarities. I'm not interested in having this dumb ass ship of theseus debate.

Likewise the insistence that TOW has a smaller edition launch is mind boggling false when there are more SKUs coming out on launch for TOW than there have been for any edition of AoS, or any recent edition of 40k, or even HH.

Ok. Was warhammer 40k 7th edition totally different game to warhammer 40k 3rd ed?

If not then you are having double standards.

40k 7th is just as much new game to 3rd ed as TOW is to FB. So if you claim 7th edition was just new edition, same game then same goes for TOW.

Age of Sigmar is the same game as WHFB. Same team, same setting, same minis, just a new edition.

And this line of conversation has gone on long enough, make a post in dakka discussions if you want to continue arguing about what defines an edition etc. Leave this to the N&R of TOW.

fryguy49 wrote:
I don't know if this would be helpful but here is the Base Sizes that were posted today
Kingdom of Bretonnia

Spoiler:

Lords of Bretonnia 25 x 25mm
Handmaidens of the Lady 25 x 25mm
Sergeants-at-arms 25 x 25mm
Knights of the Realm on foot 25 x 25mm
Squires 25 x 25mm
Men-at-arms 25 x 25mm
Peasant Bowmen 25 x 25mm
Battle Pilgrims 25 x 25mm Grail Reliquae
Knights Errant 30 x 60mm
Mounted Knights of the Realm 30 x 60mm
Questing Knights 30 x 60mm
Grail Knights 30 x 60mm
Pegasus Knights 40 x 60mm
Mounted Yeoman 25 x 50mm
Hippogryph 50 x 50mm
Field Trebuchet 60 x 100mm Crewmen 25 x 25mm
Bretonnian Mounts
Bretonnian Warhorse 30 x 60mm
Warhorse 25 x 50mm
Barded Pegasus 40 x 60mm
Royal Pegasus 50 x 50mm
Unicorn 40 x 60mm

Tomb Kings of Khemri

Spoiler:

Monarchs Of Nehekhara 25 x 25mm
Royal Heralds 25 x 25mm
Liche Priests 25 x 25mm
Necrotect 25 x 25mm
Tomb Guard 25 x 25mm
Skeleton Warriors 25 x 25mm
Skeleton Archers 25 x 25mm
Skeleton Skirmishers 25 x 25mm
Ushabti 40 x 40mm
Tomb Swarms 40 x 40mm
Carrion 40 x 40mm
Skeleton Horsemen 25 x 50mm
Skeleton Horse Archers 25 x 50mm
Necropolis Knights 50 x 100mm
Sepulchral Stalkers 50 x 100mm
Skeleton Chariots 50 x 100mm
Necrolith Bone Dragon 100 x 150mm
Khemrian Warsphinx 60 x 100mm
Tomb Scorpion 75 x 50mm
Necrolith Colossus 50 x 50mm
Necrosphinx 60 x 100mm
Screaming Skull Catapult 60 x 100mm Crew - 25 x 25mm
Casket of Souls n/a
Tomb Kings Mounts
Skeletal Steed 25 x 50mm
Skeleton Chariot 50 x 100mm

Ogres

Spoiler:

Standard ogres 40s
Gnoblars 25s
Ogre Lords 40s,
Butchers are 40s, but 50x100 with their cauldron,
Hunters are 50s,
Maneaters are 40s
Yheties are 40s
Gorgers are 50s.

High Elf

Spoiler:

High elf standard infantry 25s
Dragons 60x100
All High Elf Cavalry 30x60s
All High Elf ground Chariots 50 x 100
Skycutter Chariot 60 x 100
Griffon 50
Pheonixs 50x100
Great Eagle 50s
Eagle-Claw Bolt Thrower 50s

Lizardmen

Spoiler:

All Saurus 30s
All skinks 25s
Slann 50s
Cold Ones 30x60
All aerial cav 40s
Kroxigor 40s
Jungle Swarm 40s
Stegadon and Bastiladon 60x100
Salamander/Razordon 50x75
Carnosaur /Troglodon 50x100

Vampire Counts Legacy List

Spoiler:

Vampire 25 x 25mm
Necromancers 25 x 25mm
Strigoi Ghoul Kings 25 x 25mm
Cairn Wraiths 25 x 25mm
Wights 25 x 25mm
Tomb Banshees 25 x 25mm
Grave Guard 25 x 25mm
Skeleton Warriors 25 x 25mm
Zombies 25 x 25mm
Crypt Ghouls 25 x 25mm
Crypt Horrors 40 x 40mm
Bat Swarms 40 x 40mm
Vargheists 40 x 40mm
Fell Bats 40 x 40mm
Spirit Hosts 40 x 40mm
Blood Knights 30 x 60mm
Black Knights 30 x 60mm
Dire Wolves 25 x 50mm
Hexwraiths 30 x 60mm
Coven Throne 50 x 100mm
Mortis Engine 50 x 100mm
Corpse Cart 50 x 100mm
Black Coach 50 x 100mm
Zombie Dragon 100 x 150mm
Terrorgheist 100 x 150mm
Abyssal Terror 50 x 100mm
Varghulf 50 x 50mm
Vampire Counts Mounts
Skeletal Steed 30 x 60mm
Nightmare 30 x 60mm

Dwarfen Mountain Holds (Beards mandatory for entry)

Spoiler:

Dwarf Lords 25 x 25mm
Shield Bearers 50 x 50mm
Anvil of Doom n/a
Dwarf Runesmiths 25 x 25mm
Slayers of Legend 25 x 25mm
Dwarf Engineers 25 x 25mm
Dwarf Warriors 25 x 25mm
Longbeards 25 x 25mm
Quarrellers and Thunderers 25 x 25mm
Rangers 25 x 25mm
Hammerers 25 x 25mm
Ironbreakers 25 x 25mm
Irondrakes 25 x 25mm
Miners 25 x 25mm
Slayers 25 x 25mm
Gyrocopters 50 x 50mm
Gyrobombers 50 x 50mm
Bolt Throwers 50 x 50mm
Grudge Throwers 50 x 75mm
Cannon 50 x 50mm
Organ Guns 50 x 50mm
Flame Cannon 50 x 75mm

Skaven Legacy List (Cheese board size not included)

Spoiler:

Commanders Of The Warlord Clans 25 x 25mm
Grey Seers 25 x 25mm
Clan Skryre Warlock Engineers 25 x 25mm
Clan Eshin Master Assassins 25 x 25mm
Clan Pestilens Plague Priests 25 x 25mm
Stormvermin 25 x 25mm
Clanrats 25 x 25mm
Weapon Teams 25 x 50mm
Warplock Jezzails 25 x 50mm
Poisoned Wind Globadiers 25x25mm
Rat Swarms 40 x 40mm
Packmasters & Master Moulders 25 x 25mm
Rat Ogres 50 x 50mm
Giant Rats 25 x 25mm
Night Runners 25 x 25mm
Gutter Runners 25 x 25mm
Plague Monks 25 x 25mm
Plague Censer Bearers 25 x 25mm
Screaming Bell 60 x 100mm
Plague Furnace 60 x 100mm
Doomwheel 50 x 100mm
Hell Pit Abomination 60 x 100mm
Warp Lightning Cannon 50 x 100mm
Plagueclaw Catapult 50 x 100mm

Orks And Goblins

Spoiler:

Black Orc Bosses 30 x 30mm
Orc Bosses 30 x 30mm
Orc Shamans 30 x 30mm
Goblin Bosses 25 x 25mm (All goblins are the best thing ever)
Goblin Shamans 25 x 25mm
Night Goblin Bosses 25 x 25mm
Night Goblin Shamans 25 x 25mm
Black Orc Mobs 30 x 30mm
Orc Mobs 30 x 30mm
Goblin Mobs 25 x 25mm
Nasty Skulkers 25 x 25mm
Night Goblin Mobs 25 x 25mm
Fanatics 25mm round base
Night Goblin Squig Herds 25 x 25mm
Troll Mobs 40 x 40mm
Orc Boar Boy Mobs 30 x 60mm
Goblin Spider Rider Mobs 25 x 50mm
Goblin Wolf Rider Mobs 25 x 50mm
Night Goblin Squig Hopper Mobs 25 x 25mm
Orc Boar Chariots 50 x 100mm
Goblin Wolf Chariots 50 x 100mm if two wolves 60mm x 100mm if three wolves
Snotling Pump Wagons 50 x 75mm
Wyverns 50 x 100mm
Arachnarok Spider 100 x 150mm
Mangler Squigs 50 x 75mm
Giants 50 x 50mm or 50 x 75mm
Goblin Bolt Throwas 50 x 50mm Crew - 25 x 25mm
Doom Diver Catapults 50 x 75mm Crew - 25 x 25mm
Goblin Rock Lobbers 60mm x 10mm Crew - 25 x 25mm
Orc Bullies 30 x 30mm

Wood Elf Realms

Spoiler:

Wood Elf Nobles 25 x 25mm
Wood Elf Mages 25 x 25mm
Shadowdancers 25 x 25mm
Waystalkers 25 x 25mm
Treemen Ancients 50 x 50mm or 50 x 75mm
Branchwraiths 30 x 30mm
Wood Elf Archers 25 x 25mm
Eternal Guard 25 x 25mm
Wildwood Rangers 25 x 25mm
Wardancers 25 x 25mm
Waywatchers 25 x 25mm
Dryads 30 x 30mm
Tree Kin 50 x 50mm
Glade Riders 30 x 60mm
Sisters of the Thorn 30 x 60mm
Wild Riders 30 x 60mm
Warhawk Riders 50 x 50mm
Forest Dragons 60 x 100mm
Great Eagles 50 x 50mm
Treemen 50 x 50mm or 50 x 75mm
Wood Elf Mounts
Elven Steed 30 x 60mm
Great Stag 50 x 50mm
Unicorn 40 x 60mm
Warhawk 50 x 50mm

The Empire of Man (For Sigmar? Nah, for Squigmar!)

Spoiler:

Commanders of the Empire 25 x 25mm
Empire Wizards 25 x 25mm
Witch hunters 25 x 25mm
Warrior Priests Of Sigmar 25 x 25mm
Priests Of Ulric 25 x 25mm
Engineers 25 x 25mm
Empire State Troops 25 x 25mm
State Missile Troops (Crossbowmen/Handgunners) 25 x 25mm
Free Company Militia 25 x 25mm
Empire Greatswords 25 x 25mm
Flagellants 25 x 25mm
Pistoliers 30 x 60mm
Outriders 30 x 60mm
Empire Knights 30 x 60mm
Inner Circle Knights 30 x 60mm
Demigryph Knights 50 x 75mm
War Altar of Sigmar 60 x 100mm
Empire Steam Tank 60 x 100mm
Griffons 60 x 100mm
Great Cannon 50 x 75mm
Mortars 50 x 75mm
Helblaster Volley Guns 50 x 75mm
Helstorm Rocket Batteries 50 x 75mm
Empire Mounts
Barded Warhorse 30 x 60mm
Empire Warhorse 30 x 60mm
Pegasus 40 x 60mm
Demigryph 50 x 75mm

Warriors of Chaos (BOO HISS)

Spoiler:

Champions of Chaos 30 x 30mm
Daemon Princes 50 x 50mm
Sorcerers of Chaos 30 x 30mm
Chaos Warriors 30 x 30mm
Chosen Chaos Warriors 30 x 30mm
Chaos Marauders 25 x 25mm
Forsaken 30 x 30mm
Chaos Ogres 40 x 40mm
Chaos Trolls 40 x 40mm
Chaos Spawn 50 x 50mm
Chaos Knights 30 x 60mm
Chosen Chaos Knights 30 x 60mm
Marauder Horsemen 30 x 60mm
Chaos Warhounds 25 x 50mm
Chaos Warhound Handler 30 x 30mm
Chaos Chariots 60 x 100mm
Gorebeast Chariots 60 x 100mm
Manticore 60 x 100mm
Chaos Dragon 60 x 100mm
Chimera 60 x 100mm
Hellcannon 100 x 150mm
Warriors of Chaos Mounts
Chaos Steed 30 x 60mm
Daemonic Mount 40 x 60mm/50 x 75mm

Porting this excellent post to the new page.

 KidCthulhu wrote:
There's base sizes for Forsaken? You think there's any chance they're gonna resell that kit?

I’m really hoping. Weird kit, perfect bits.

I’m wondering if the dwarfs will get a anvil of doom/throne bearer kit as their release. The old anvil of doom was specifically Thoreks, though I guess they could just say he’s a generic runelord. Honestly, I’d rather get an actual kit for dwarf rangers

While weird I honestly think Forsaken was a decent kit. Like they were an 8e plastic kit, not sure why they were even discontinued.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Still have a box and a half of Forsaken unbuilt.

Now I need to get some square bases for my Lizardmen units.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for.

I'm the opposite. I was done with GW games. Hadn't bought or played for years, having moved on to other things. I was planning on ignoring TOW, but I've found I've been suckered right back in. I preordered the main three books and the Bretonnia journal too.

I'm a sucker

I for one will be buying the TK box because I want a classic looking TK army without having to pay the ridiculous eBay prices. Goofy bobblehead skeletons and all.

I prefer the old Citadel aesthetics to the new style. The old TK look better than (almost) all the new AoS minis as far as I'm concerned.

Forsaken are just a bit too mutated for my tastes. Like, they're crazy miniatures, and I can see people liking that, but dang.

The Black Adder wrote:
Interesting to see that the Hellcannon is on the list. I half expected them to say it was an End Times model and therefore not include it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Eh? Hellcannons go back to at least 6th edition and Storm of Chaos. Background goes back even further, iirc, with roots in the Chaos Dwarf Mortars and 'Bazukas' in the original Slaves to Darkness army list for Khorne.
Nice of them to keep the last base size for it, however.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I for one will be buying the TK box because I want a classic looking TK army without having to pay the ridiculous eBay prices. Goofy bobblehead skeletons and all.

To be fair, with everything back in print, those ridiculous eBay prices will likely go away as supply outstrips demand.

I mean, I've had a Necrosphinx still sealed in its box since Feb 2016. I paid AUD$60 for it. Between then and now I could have sold it for excess of AUD$300. In a few months time, I doubt I'll even be able to get $100 for it.

Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back? I hope in this earlier iteration of the empire they downplay the magic and lean more into smoke belching war engines or something else.

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back?

I had repressed that the Hurricanum was in WFB and was convinced it was a CoS unit for AoS.


With each new faction release do you think there will be an army box with Book + whippy sticks or will that just be for these first two to kick off ToW?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back?

I had repressed that the Hurricanum was in WFB and was convinced it was a CoS unit for AoS.


With each new faction release do you think there will be an army box with Book + whippy sticks or will that just be for these first two to kick off ToW?

Given GW's increasingly army / multi unit box set release model and inability to keep standard unit box sets in stock, I'd be willing to bet a piece of anatomy on it.

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back?

I imagine the people who have those units, and especially those that have lovingly painted them, might not be all that hot on the idea of their units being invalidated.

I have both units...it's life. Just use them as unit fillers.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I still can't believe that people spent ages moaning that they wanted WHFB back, and then stamp their feet and complain that it isn't good enough when they get back exactly what they asked for.

Different people want different things, and angry gamers are louder than content gamers. I am absolutely thrilled with everything shown for ToW: I like the rules as previewed, I like the new base sizes that allow models room to rank, I like the new models shown and I don't care one bit that GW is re-releasing old models, I'll be VERY happy to pay retail MSRP for some Dragon Princes instead of the $120+ that new boxes often go for on ebay. I may be starting a new Bretonnian army since I sold my old 7th ed one years ago, perfectly happy with the old plastic Knights box coming back, prefectly happy with the old plastic Pegasi Knights and Men at Arms returning.

Haters gonna hate, and they're gonna hate LOUDLY, but many of us are simply quietly happy. ToW is far from perfect, but my gripes are minor.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...are any of the Skaven SC meant to be 100's of years old?

Not so much, but you'd expect the verminlords to be present by virtue of being daemons.

Having reviewed the base size lists, there aren't any SCs listed for any faction (including other "legacy" factions), so that specific complaint is currently null and void.

Verminlords are an odd one, though - do we have a reference for when they first manifested? Trying to figure out if it is a timeline thing, though it is possible that whoever posted the list just didn't include them for some reason.

Ikit is around at this time as he was active in 1813 IC, he is probably travelling.
Nurglitch is always the name of the leader of Clan Pestilens not a single Skaven
Queek may be too young - not sure same with Snitch and Throt

 Ahtman wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back?

I had repressed that the Hurricanum was in WFB and was convinced it was a CoS unit for AoS.


With each new faction release do you think there will be an army box with Book + whippy sticks or will that just be for these first two to kick off ToW?

I was hoping they would cut these silly flying boats from HE too...

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back? I hope in this earlier iteration of the empire they downplay the magic and lean more into smoke belching war engines or something else.

Not really. I have four of them to paint and intend to use TOW as an excuse to finally get around to doing them.

Their removal of them, after hinting that we should expect anything from 8th edition to return, stinks a bit as they are fantastic models.

I have every intention of still using them, I'll either port the rules over or use them as stand ins for some sort of 'mystical steam tank'. I suspect many others will do the same.

 Dysartes wrote:
Having reviewed the base size lists, there aren't any SCs listed for any faction (including other "legacy" factions)

I know I'm in an extreme minority on this but I hope special characters are relegated to lore and not battlefield units. Unless I'm playing Necromunda or Mordheim I don't really like special characters in games.

Spetial characters not being on the rest of thel ists doesn't make the conversation about including them "null and void" but more relevant for the matter. Theyve allways been a hot topic in Fantasy since the herohammer days.

About Throt, his age is never stated, but we know half of clan Moulder are his genetical heirs, so that takes some time going around. We know less about Snikch and Skrolk, but if Ikit is around, they also should be there as theres not a lot of lore about their true ages. That said, Queek wasn't around, he starts kill-killing when Belegar is already old.

 Dysartes wrote:

Verminlords are an odd one, though - do we have a reference for when they first manifested? Trying to figure out if it is a timeline thing, though it is possible that whoever posted the list just didn't include them for some reason.

Skreech dates back to the days a little after Nagash. Alltho, if youve read the 4th ed armybook there was one verminlord summoned during the Black Death war, and in that tale the grey seer shows that the knowledge on how to summon them comes from ancient.

The hurricanum is an area where GW can’t win:

OMG the Hurricanum is in, it’s a massive retcon to exist in this time period, GW doesn’t care about lore, I quit, I hate GW

OMG the hurricanum is out, GW don’t care about the models I have, I quit, I hate GW

Garrac wrote:
Spetial characters not being on the rest of thel ists doesn't make the conversation about including them "null and void" but more relevant for the matter. Theyve allways been a hot topic in Fantasy since the herohammer days.

About Throt, his age is never stated, but we know half of clan Moulder are his genetical heirs, so that takes some time going around. We know less about Snikch and Skrolk, but if Ikit is around, they also should be there as theres not a lot of lore about their true ages. That said, Queek wasn't around, he starts kill-killing when Belegar is already old.

 Dysartes wrote:

Verminlords are an odd one, though - do we have a reference for when they first manifested? Trying to figure out if it is a timeline thing, though it is possible that whoever posted the list just didn't include them for some reason.

Skreech dates back to the days a little after Nagash. Alltho, if youve read the 4th ed armybook there was one verminlord summoned during the Black Death war, and in that tale the grey seer shows that the knowledge on how to summon them comes from ancient.

Special Characters are in the Arcane Journals not the main army lists. GW has been pretty clear on this.

There was a question on if the same would apply for the legacy pdfs, but it seems it does, so no Special Characters for non-core races.

Though it does look like some of them have been genericised- e.g. in the OK base list it mentions butchers with cauldron, which was a special character (Skrag) in previous editions.

 Mallo wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back? I hope in this earlier iteration of the empire they downplay the magic and lean more into smoke belching war engines or something else.

Not really. I have four of them to paint and intend to use TOW as an excuse to finally get around to doing them.

Their removal of them, after hinting that we should expect anything from 8th edition to return, stinks a bit as they are fantastic models.

I have every intention of still using them, I'll either port the rules over or use them as stand ins for some sort of 'mystical steam tank'. I suspect many others will do the same.

But they're anachronistic to the setting of the game, they have no place existing at that time was my understanding. I suspect there'll be "legends" rules for them eventually though.

 Dysartes wrote:

Having reviewed the base size lists, there aren't any SCs listed for any faction (including other "legacy" factions), so that specific complaint is currently null and void.

It makes sense for the time period they chose. For many factions, the special chars aren’t around, so they had the choice of just some long lived factions getting them and others not, or leave ‘em out of the initial books and build them up in the Journals.

Ahtman wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Having reviewed the base size lists, there aren't any SCs listed for any faction (including other "legacy" factions)

I know I'm in an extreme minority on this but I hope special characters are relegated to lore and not battlefield units. Unless I'm playing Necromunda or Mordheim I don't really like special characters in games.

We know there are special characters in the Arcane Journals for Bretonnia and Tomb Kings - Settra was mentioned in the TK one, and there's a named Damsel in the Bret one, IIRC, with the descriptions mentioning three in each, off the top of my head.

Garrac wrote:Spetial characters not being on the rest of thel ists doesn't make the conversation about including them "null and void" but more relevant for the matter. Theyve allways been a hot topic in Fantasy since the herohammer days.

I wasn't negating other points, just the complaint about no SCs in the Skaven basing list - if there are no Special Characters in the base size lists for any of the factions we've been given information about (presumably because they're from the general army lists), then the Skaven aren't suffering uneven treatment in that regard, which is what you appeared to be complaining about.

 kodos wrote:
people should know by now the risk of doing a GW game and that models are randomly removed, no matter if it is just a new edition or a new game

Would you say the same thing to a Chaos player who wants his Jump Pack Lord back? A Tyranid player who'd like non-flying Tyranid Primes back? What about the Marine players who just had vast swathes of their Marine armies completely removed from the game?

MaxT wrote:
It makes sense for the time period they chose. For many factions, the special chars aren’t around, so they had the choice of just some long lived factions getting them and others not, or leave ‘em out of the initial books and build them up in the Journals.

*grumbles in immortal High Elf and Slann*

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kodos wrote:
people should know by now the risk of doing a GW game and that models are randomly removed, no matter if it is just a new edition or a new game

Would you say the same thing to a Chaos player who wants his Jump Pack Lord back? A Tyranid player who'd like non-flying Tyranid Primes back? What about the Marine players who just had vast swathes of their Marine armies completely removed from the game?

yes?
everyone who is with GW for more than 2 Editions of the main game should know that whatever they buy it is just for the current version of the rules and no matter how many will tell them that only with GW games everything they buy will always be valid, it is not

bad for those who thought otherwise, yes but does not change it

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kodos wrote:
people should know by now the risk of doing a GW game and that models are randomly removed, no matter if it is just a new edition or a new game

Would you say the same thing to a Chaos player who wants his Jump Pack Lord back? A Tyranid player who'd like non-flying Tyranid Primes back? What about the Marine players who just had vast swathes of their Marine armies completely removed from the game?

It's not quite the same though in this case. It's like asking why someone can't use Tau minis in Horus Heresy. They chose to move the setting back to avoid the end times mess, as a result this means some events that leads to some of the units existing haven't happened. Ironically the strength of the setting and fluff if a massive positive for the setting and part of the reason this should be a successful release.

Edit: not saying this makes it easier to swallow for people, but it's not the same as "you randomly lost jump packs".

I’m guessing as they’re on 32mm rounds anyway, the new Saurus sculpts probably won’t rank up on 30mm squares?

Dudeface wrote:
It's not quite the same though in this case. It's like asking why someone can't use Tau minis in Horus Heresy. They chose to move the setting back to avoid the end times mess, as a result this means some events that leads to some of the units existing haven't happened. Ironically the strength of the setting and fluff if a massive positive for the setting and part of the reason this should be a successful release.

the irony here is that in the very same article they designer said that those models are not used in TOW for fluff reason, they also said they decided against changes for weapons according to fluff because for not invalidating peoples model collections

 kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It's not quite the same though in this case. It's like asking why someone can't use Tau minis in Horus Heresy. They chose to move the setting back to avoid the end times mess, as a result this means some events that leads to some of the units existing haven't happened. Ironically the strength of the setting and fluff if a massive positive for the setting and part of the reason this should be a successful release.

the irony here is that in the very same article they designer said that those models are not used in TOW for fluff reason, they also said they decided against changes for weapons according to fluff because for not invalidating peoples model collections

There is a significant difference between core troops that should arguably have cosmetic changes to their weapons* and a rare wagon whose lore is firmly tied up with events after the time period.

*though Mordheim is set earlier and the black powder weapons there aren’t hugely different, just rarer

it is a stupid argument, as the troops have had those weapons 200 years earlier, so there is no real need to change them at all
in addition depending on how old your models are, the weapons they use are already looking very different and no model has been invalid just because their weapons are looking 50 years newer in a setting were technology did not change for 300 years

so very generous of them not changing something were no change was needed to keep valid that would have been valid anyway
yet deciding to take background very strict for models that are still used in the other game
(not like the background could have been altered to make it possible to use, same as they altered the background for Flagellants to make them rare instead of common, specially as they mention lost technology for the imperium so they could be that same model but different background)

Dudeface wrote:

 Mallo wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back? I hope in this earlier iteration of the empire they downplay the magic and lean more into smoke belching war engines or something else.

Not really. I have four of them to paint and intend to use TOW as an excuse to finally get around to doing them.

Their removal of them, after hinting that we should expect anything from 8th edition to return, stinks a bit as they are fantastic models.

I have every intention of still using them, I'll either port the rules over or use them as stand ins for some sort of 'mystical steam tank'. I suspect many others will do the same.

But they're anachronistic to the setting of the game, they have no place existing at that time was my understanding. I suspect there'll be "legends" rules for them eventually though.

I agree this is probably why they removed them. The other reason is likely to keep the TOW 'brand' and AoS 'Brand' more unique compared to each other.

But this time period would have been fully playable/supportable had they set the game up as the same kind of sandbox that old editions of WFB were. Especially since these models are still for sale! Its just another reason I can't see why anyone with an existing collection would want to push their group to take TOW on as the 'standard' ruleset when it goes out of its way to exclude so many things that WFB already offers. Its not like TOW is going to be supported in official stores and requires people to adopt it to play with strangers/newbies regularly.

I guess GW want to box people into this timeline/setting, rather than letting people dip in and out of the different wfb timeline 'eras' as before.

Just a shame that tow has less to offer and so far shows nothing that is new or unique about this version.

I think the Freeguild Fusiliers would make perfect ToW handgunners, because the use the predecessor of handguns which is handcannons.

Is it also already known if Dogs of War get a Legacy PDF? The whole Cities of Sigmar range would make for a great Mercenary army.

It's an argument made because of the realities that lore has to serve the models not the other way around. And this isn't a new game; its an old game with old models that GW are selling and which people own.

Even if technology didn't change you'd expect fashions and design asthetics and such to shift around over long spans of time; but we don't see that on the models.


It's something we are sacrificing to get the GAME back. Sure GW could have just plunked it nearer to the End Times, but I get the feeling they wanted some future design space to work with. Plus lets face it that period was well covered and it would likely have sparked a lot of "End Times" drama on its own.

As time passes and if the game sells well enough we will likely see multiple units updated to modern plastics with new design elements. Similar to how AoS armies have slowly updated.

Note on the Hurricanum and Luminark:
You can also use it as a Wizard version of a War Altar and play as the latter.

Wasn't the War Altar commissioned after the Great War by Magnus? That one shouldn't be here either AFAIK.

Have they said any more about the armies not included, I thought at one point there was going to be a 'legends' style PDF at launch for them but they weren't going to get any continued support across the project as currently envisioned.

I was suprised to see that they didn't bundle them in a book or that everyone also got basic 'as of 8th ed' PDF.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Wasn't the War Altar commissioned after the Great War by Magnus? That one shouldn't be here either AFAIK.

}

GW quoted a base size for it on facebook. Doesn't mean its coming back, or it could be being replaced with a new version that isn't the volkmar version but I'd say chances are fairly good if the social media team have base details it should be in the FoF book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tastyfish wrote:
Have they said any more about the armies not included, I thought at one point there was going to be a 'legends' style PDF at launch for them but they weren't going to get any continued support across the project as currently envisioned.

I was suprised to see that they didn't bundle them in a book or that everyone also got basic 'as of 8th ed' PDF.

That would have been nicer than the pity pdfs.

If I do find I play tow with an sort of regularity, I will get my own version printed with the rules for all the 'missing' armies. That way I at least will feel like I have a single complete collection of rules to play this edition with.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Wasn't the War Altar commissioned after the Great War by Magnus? That one shouldn't be here either AFAIK.

Some models might just be considered generic enough that they are repurposed. So its no longer the War Alter but the Alter of War etc....

 Overread wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
Wasn't the War Altar commissioned after the Great War by Magnus? That one shouldn't be here either AFAIK.

Some models might just be considered generic enough that they are repurposed. So its no longer the War Alter but the Alter of War etc....

In what way is it generic?
It's a totally unique, one-of-a-kind artefact. It is absolutely plastered in religious paraphernalia that is currently fuelling an Empire-wide civil war. It has a 10ft tall, solid gold statue of a Griffon. It is being ridden by the pope, who incidentally won't be born for 200 years. It also has a plaque with the words 'Emperor Karl Franz' emblazoned on them, another element that is 200 years premature.
On the other hand, why can't the Luminark just be rejiggered? Maybe it's now a War Wagon with Von Retcon's Magnificent Magnifying Array?

To clarify my point, if you're allegedly going to set something at a particular time, then you should actually go to the effort of making sure all elements fit the setting. *Neither* the War Wagon nor the Magic Altars should be present. If expecting a new model range to fit the period is unrealistic, and in my opinion it is, then just don't set it in the past. This could have very easily been a WFB 9th Edition and just continue as it was, but instead they've taken an approach whereby the lore will be used to prop up management decisions and dropped when inconvenient.

In fairness, the War Altar could feasibly appear ~30 years after the date set in the rulebook, and given what GW has said about jumping around the timeline a bit I can certainly see this as a nod towards "the next time period we'll tackle is in the aftermath of the Great War Against Chaos"


EDIT: It could also just a lot easier to justify retconning the War Altar into existance in this time period and not the Magic ones because the Colleges of Magic do not exist yet and that's a lot larger of a retcon than "Actually Magnus wasn't the one the commissioned the Altar, that was a mistruth told to add more prestige to it by tying it together with such a legendary Hero of the Empire"

 Tastyfish wrote:
Have they said any more about the armies not included, I thought at one point there was going to be a 'legends' style PDF at launch for them but they weren't going to get any continued support across the project as currently envisioned.

I was suprised to see that they didn't bundle them in a book or that everyone also got basic 'as of 8th ed' PDF.

Word is that the PDF is still coming, maybe not on launch day but soon enough. They've included some base sizes for those factions in their random postings. Some of the scuttlebutt from content creators who have seen the PDF is that they're not phoned in and are competitive alongside the supported factions. Remains to be seen how that pans out but the initial impression appeared cautiously optimistic on their viability.

Is anyone else curious what Skeleton skirmishers might be?
I hope they have javelins...

 Astmeister wrote:
Is anyone else curious what Skeleton skirmishers might be?
I hope they have javelins...

Be nice to have some new units like that - fits with the lore - the armies of the various cities had very diffferent troops

I don't get why the are calling the 2200s a Golden age - the Empire is split and at war with itself and part of the entire point of the Great War against Chaos is that it unites under Magnus....

Bretonnia seems to be having fun though.

Voss wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
Interesting to see that the Hellcannon is on the list. I half expected them to say it was an End Times model and therefore not include it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Eh? Hellcannons go back to at least 6th edition and Storm of Chaos. Background goes back even further, iirc, with roots in the Chaos Dwarf Mortars and 'Bazukas' in the original Slaves to Darkness army list for Khorne.
Nice of them to keep the last base size for it, however.

Anything Storm of Chaos/ Archaon related is end times, no? It certainly isn't pre siege of Prague.

Whilst there was certainly chaos artillery/ warmachines prior to the creation of the Hellcannon, both in the fiction and as physical models, I remember the Hellcannon as being something created at Archaon's request.

Did I miss something or did GW's Facebook page omit sharing Dark Elf base sizes (other "legacy" armies were all previewed).

Also, should I be concerned?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfRUV9KA1ZM

Battle report for free on youtube

Dudeface wrote:
Because some of what you stated isn't opinion, you're presenting assumptions or outright fabrications as facts

Then let's review the points you find contentious:

'GW wrote it'
Indisputably a fact, and definitely qualifies as a red flag (as per the original request) given GW's rules quality.

'They are releasing ancient plastic kits at a markup'
Also a fact. While old kits returning was expected, I for one hoped for some measure of awareness from GW about their pricing for these, given the age and quality difference - as well as the fact that any costs for producing them short of the plastic and time used would be long since paid off by now.
Coupling this with the lack of new models made for the release, compared with older editions of WHFB and other specialist games, I argue that this too qualifies as a red flag.

'The rules follow 40k's model (multiple overpriced books rendered obsolete in short order)'
Alright, this one I will grant you is a touch presumptuous - I should instead have said 'likely rendered obsolete in short order', since we have seen this happen mutliple times with GW publications; spelling errors, formatting errors, outright rules errors/contradictions etc that require day one correction. These kinds of errors happen, but for a company of GW's size and that charges the prices they do for these 'premium' books, it is not acceptable.
The 'multiple overpriced books' part, though, is a fact. Folk can argue til they are blue in the face that you don't need the Arcane Journals, but the fact remains that you do need two others at minimum, and the Journals are quite literally day one DLC that have no reason to exist, beyond greed, as part of the launch. Blindingly scarlet flag.

'It's as obvious a minimum effort nostalgia cash-grab as one can get. Don't fall for it.'
Yes, this one is the opinion - and one that I believe is sound given the evidence at hand.

Dudeface wrote:
you managed to get H.B.M.C actually sticking up for GW books because you falsely presented your conjecture as fact.

Something that surprises me just as much as you, given that I can particularly remember him calling GW out for the exact kinds of error-driven obsolesence I'm talking about with the latest Tyranid book. I don't think it's conjecture to expect the same sort of thing here given that the book sales model is identical.

Dudeface wrote:
I was asking people to respect your contempt for the product and to move on as to not have pages of people bickering over something that you'll never agree on.

Inviting respect for my position is not how your post came across. As for the 'pages of bickering', I'm defending my viewpoint and the evidence that led me there. Being told that the evidence I'm seeing is not correct, and those counterpoints being based on flawed or outright incorrect premises, compels me to respond. For example, I'm yet to see a convincing rebuttal to the fact that other specialist games produced more at their release than TOW has, when the onus on GW to win people back with TOW is, or at least should be, higher.

The Black Adder wrote:

Voss wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
Interesting to see that the Hellcannon is on the list. I half expected them to say it was an End Times model and therefore not include it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Eh? Hellcannons go back to at least 6th edition and Storm of Chaos. Background goes back even further, iirc, with roots in the Chaos Dwarf Mortars and 'Bazukas' in the original Slaves to Darkness army list for Khorne.
Nice of them to keep the last base size for it, however.

Anything Storm of Chaos/ Archaon related is end times, no?

No. End Times (particularly capitalized as you first did) is specifically the series of books/releases at the end of the WFB's lifespan (8th edition). Its also a ~20 year old model (Storm of Chaos was 2004), so even without that context it still read really strange.

Oh you can apparently with a command check reform your unit after killing an opponent unit.
Deathstars incoming?

Also strength does not modify armour.

 Thargrim wrote:
Anyone else glad the celestial hurricanum isn't coming back? I hope in this earlier iteration of the empire they downplay the magic and lean more into smoke belching war engines or something else.

Agreed. Does not look like something anyone would drag to the battlefield.

I heard from German retailer Taschengelddieb that stock allocations for tomorrow's preorders will be low.

I expect most stuff to sell out quickly, especially the army sets. Preorder starts tomorrow at 10am BST, so please plan accordingly.

Afaik the products will get reprinted, but judging from the Legions Imperialis release, it might take a couple of months.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/05/old-world-almanack-what-exactly-is-an-arcane-journal/

Bit on Arcane Journals and this bit:

Arcane Journals are not required to play your chosen faction in Warhammer: The Old World . The two main army lists contain a complete set of rules for each army, including unique spells that supplement the eight lores in the core rulebook (for instance, the Lore of Nehekara or the Lore of the Lady), unique abilities (like Knightly Vows and Resurrecting the Fallen), and faction specific special rules (Arrows of Asaph, Blessings of the Lady, etc) and magic items.

So Arcane Journal does not include unique lores but those are in Army Books.

 Astmeister wrote:
Oh you can apparently with a command check reform your unit after killing an opponent unit.
Deathstars incoming?

Also strength does not modify armour.

That’s always been in the rules I think? Pretty sure it was in 6th.

Dudeface wrote:
It's not quite the same though in this case. It's like asking why someone can't use Tau minis in Horus Heresy.

Your argument is unrelated. Kodos' is "You knew what you were getting into, so have no one to blame but yourself!", and I'm not ok with that line of reasoning.

Yours is closer to "The Skaven aren't around as they're not that big of a deal in the setting!", which I'm not arguing against.

 stahly wrote:
I heard from German retailer Taschengelddieb that stock allocations for tomorrow's preorders will be low.

I expect most stuff to sell out quickly, especially the army sets. Preorder starts tomorrow at 10am BST, so please plan accordingly.

Afaik the products will get reprinted, but judging from the Legions Imperialis release, it might take a couple of months.

Seems to be a common thread popping up from FLGS from across lots of regions.

Chances are, there will be no reprints of the cards, as per Necromunda releases. I might abandon purchasing anything but the two main sets so nothing that goes out of stock holds up the rest of the order up (and thus seeing more items go out of stock in the meantime)

I'm sure someone will put up a custom version of the cards in due time and the books will have to be reprinted if GW want to continue to sell the game going forward.

 Dreamchild wrote:
Did I miss something or did GW's Facebook page omit sharing Dark Elf base sizes (other "legacy" armies were all previewed).

Also, should I be concerned?

They weren't planning to reveal base sizes yet but it kind of snowballed after they answered few specific questions. FB guys were updating base sizes in real time and will likely continue to do so today.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain why the game not being available to buy is a good thing.

Why is Waaaaagh magic one of the eight core lores but Lore of the Lady and Nekehara is army specific lore? Weird.

Also Tomb Kings look very weak still. They still cannot march. They still cannot flee. They crumble which is much worse now that all other armies are virtualy stubborn. Their core units are still all gak, even the chariot impact hits seem to have lost AP.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain why the game not being available to buy is a good thing.

You'll appreciate it more if you have to fight like a rabid animal to get hold of a copy.

Anyone else notice in the free pdf download recreation from the Arcane Journal, ' The Battle of Matorea', the little date code down the bottom of the page, right hand side? It says 30/06/23. That's the pdf generation date. That's 6 months ago. Wonder if that helps determine or estimate when these books were written, finished, sent to the printers, and/or how long distribution takes. I find that interesting.

Also the recreation scenario references internally other pages of info needed to make your army composition. Interesting as well.

I mean considering every single new boxed set by GW has sold out pretty fast these days the idea that 3d party stores "won't get enough stock" isn't too shocking.


We can argue that GW not over-producing and selling out isn't a bad thing as far as GW's bottom line is concerned and if GW do sell out then it at least means the game is meeting or exceeding GW's estimated demand. That means more chance of continued investment beyond the first development and release cycle.

Restocking really depends though - too slow and some regions might stall growth so what starts out positive ends up negative.




The second hand will also be curious to watch. On the one hand GW producing again means prices on what GW is making should come down; but if GW's stocks dry up fast those prices could go even higher as there's active demand.

Ah good, "Skeleton and Tomb Guard chariots". I was hoping there'd be a more elite version of chariots (hopefully not limited to that specific list)

I just saw element games has announced they will not be doing online pre-orders due to low allocation.

Was that leaked photo of flat-packed tomb kings boxes seriously the entire first print run of product as some joked?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
In fairness, the War Altar could feasibly appear ~30 years after the date set in the rulebook, and given what GW has said about jumping around the timeline a bit I can certainly see this as a nod towards "the next time period we'll tackle is in the aftermath of the Great War Against Chaos"

The time period that GW is jumping around in is the 100 year period befire the Siege of praag. They made clear they won't be doing the Siege of praag itself for a very long time and they are not working towards it, they will not jump to a point after it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ah good, "Skeleton and Tomb Guard chariots". I was hoping there'd be a more elite version of chariots (hopefully not limited to that specific list)

Disappointing semi-reveal to me. Was hoping tomb guard would be core in the Royal Host but seems I ts a chariot focused army instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also another article up, GW is endorsing unit fillers

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/05/old-world-almanack-how-to-bulk-out-your-regiments-with-unit-fillers/

Isn't that redundant when they say they'll sell you enough for a full regiment in a box?

A bit, but if you're trying to stretch your box of 30-40 dudes out into 2 units, a couple fillers can be the difference between that box being 1 big unit or 2 medium/large ones.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Isn't that redundant when they say they'll sell you enough for a full regiment in a box?

I think it is rather for players to run their imagination free = you could use minis for all members or add some fluffy elements to the regiment.

Yeah but GW has always had low traction with selling terrain kits and such - this might be their new slant after "Faction terrain"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkqXFins_rc

Youtubers are playing the game!

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Isn't that redundant when they say they'll sell you enough for a full regiment in a box?

I think it is rather for players to run their imagination free = you could use minis for all members or add some fluffy elements to the regiment.

It's one of those articles where GW gets free content by showing off what some dude in the community did.

It's not really GW peddling the idea. Endorsing the idea has no impact on what they're officially trying to sell model kits on.

 Geifer wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Isn't that redundant when they say they'll sell you enough for a full regiment in a box?

I think it is rather for players to run their imagination free = you could use minis for all members or add some fluffy elements to the regiment.

It's one of those articles where GW gets free content by showing off what some dude in the community did.

It's not really GW peddling the idea. Endorsing the idea has no impact on what they're officially trying to sell model kits on.

Plus they are all from GW kits so its potentially upselling - which GW is usually awful at

So how do pre-orders work by region?

I assume there is a different stock stateside than their is for say the UK and that is why they release at different times. Or is it all just one large pool?

Is there a way to login to the GW website during the UK release and place an order to the states?

I am anxious about the stock situation. I fear GW might've underestimated how popular Fantasy was, and how popular this game is going to be. Personally, I just want to get the rulebooks - Brets and TKs aren't my thing.

However, I am cautiously optimistic about the game rules.

Grail Seeker wrote:
So how do pre-orders work by region?

I assume there is a different stock stateside than their is for say the UK and that is why they release at different times. Or is it all just one large pool?

Is there a way to login to the GW website during the UK release and place an order to the states?

Separate stock pools by region. You can't order GW to the US from the UK, GW doesn't allow it from its website and forbids its retailers from selling out of region. Most independent retailers have their sites set up to stop you from placing orders for GW goods outside of the UK/EU, those that don't will manually cancel your order after the fact.

I'm predicting dead websites tomorrow as a storm of geeks bombard them with pressure. I wonder if that might be Element's trick. Instead of a Saturday of their webstore breaking down and getting double or worse charges because things slip up they might be holding it all for in-shop.

Then a day or two later when the fever has worn off they will put the rest of the stock online. Knowing it will sell and that it won't break their site like a Saturday prelaunch will.



I know when I ordered Leviathan, Firestorm's website lost communication with their pay site and I wound up paying 3 times for 1 box. So of course FA had to refund two of those purchases. Now imagine how many times that might happen to the store which means paying out in processing refunds; spotting them in the first place and also any fines/fees for refunds from their card processing partner.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain why the game not being available to buy is a good thing.

Good, no. But unlike some people think GW can't just snap a finger and products appear out of thin air.

And as is GW can't keep up with demand with 24/7 production. So increasing supply here would mean other games will suffer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Isn't that redundant when they say they'll sell you enough for a full regiment in a box?

Seeing there's no maximu size...That's kind of difficult. How do you sell box of infinite models?

What's full for you is not full for others. And with couple box and couple unit filler you can do even more full units anyway.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/05/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-the-past-and-future-of-a-stone-cold-classic/

Final round table.

Discussing how TOW is a new game, and reinforcing that the 7 factions they cut won't be featured.

Chaos Dwarves and Dark Elves are the only oddities in the "cut" 7 factions. Chaos Dwarves don't feature in any game at present so perhaps that's a hint of the future of AoS (and honestly they'd do fantastic being let loose with Chaos engines and such in AoS).

Dark Elves are tricky and I really wish GW would just flat out tell us or commit to a clear plan with them.


Are they going to be their own army; are they getting a Cities of Sigmar book; are they rolling formally back into the Daughter's of Khain; is Malarion's "shadow elves" going to be quietly shifted around lore wise and become the Dark Elves. Are they just going to kind of sit there doing not very much.

The legacy factions will not be tournament legal they state.
Dogs of war unfortunately not on there.

 Overread wrote:
I'm predicting dead websites tomorrow as a storm of geeks bombard them with pressure. I wonder if that might be Element's trick. Instead of a Saturday of their webstore breaking down and getting double or worse charges because things slip up they might be holding it all for in-shop.

Then a day or two later when the fever has worn off they will put the rest of the stock online. Knowing it will sell and that it won't break their site like a Saturday prelaunch will.



I know when I ordered Leviathan, Firestorm's website lost communication with their pay site and I wound up paying 3 times for 1 box. So of course FA had to refund two of those purchases. Now imagine how many times that might happen to the store which means paying out in processing refunds; spotting them in the first place and also any fines/fees for refunds from their card processing partner.

Have Wayland/Element/the usual suspects made any comments about how they're going to handle tomorrow? Doesn't seem to be anything on their social media.

 Londinium wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'm predicting dead websites tomorrow as a storm of geeks bombard them with pressure. I wonder if that might be Element's trick. Instead of a Saturday of their webstore breaking down and getting double or worse charges because things slip up they might be holding it all for in-shop.

Then a day or two later when the fever has worn off they will put the rest of the stock online. Knowing it will sell and that it won't break their site like a Saturday prelaunch will.



I know when I ordered Leviathan, Firestorm's website lost communication with their pay site and I wound up paying 3 times for 1 box. So of course FA had to refund two of those purchases. Now imagine how many times that might happen to the store which means paying out in processing refunds; spotting them in the first place and also any fines/fees for refunds from their card processing partner.

Have Wayland/Element/the usual suspects made any comments about how they're going to handle tomorrow? Doesn't seem to be anything on their social media.

Someone earlier in the comments above said Element were withholding for physical sale only. I don't think the others have said.

In the end the only things like cards are likely to outright vanish (because GW never seems to like keeping them in stock). Everything else might vanish but we can hope it will return fairly swiftly.
It might mean hunting down a copy of the rule book on ebay/fb from those who buy more than one army set.

chaos0xomega wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/05/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-the-past-and-future-of-a-stone-cold-classic/

Final round table.

Discussing how TOW is a new game, and reinforcing that the 7 factions they cut won't be featured.

Calling it a new game is just branding, everyone and his dog knows it's WHFB, hell it's promoted as a revival of that. It's like when they reboot video games like Tomb Raider, yes it's not a direct sequel or in continuity but everyone knows it's the same series. Hell they even slip up and call it the 'same game' in the very same article:

It’s very strange, bringing back an old game and old ranges that people know and love

As for saying the cut factions won't be featured, they barely say anything more than they have already said repeatedly, other than them not being tournament legal:

A few of the factions from the previous Warhammer Fantasy Battle game will not feature in Warhammer: The Old World – this is in terms of game rules, model ranges, and the ongoing background narrative. These ‘Legacy’ factions will however get free, downloadable army lists so people can try out the new system using their older model collections. More about this in the coming weeks, though please note that they won’t be considered legal for tournaments, and won’t receive ongoing support.

If you want to come on this long-term journey with us, the factions in the Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes books are the ones to collect and play – and we want to be pretty clear about that

I would bet my house on their being a 'New World' supplement with the missing factions in 2-4 years if the core game is a success. There are some of the most iconic and unique WHFB races within those legacy factions, if they truly wanted to jettison them for now and for forever, they wouldn't have held out the figleaf of pdf rules. They're just being very clear right now that those armies aren't in their plans to try and prevent nerd outrage and ongoing complaints, ultimately commercial logic will dictate if they are ever returned to. If Kislev and Cathay can be worked on, those factions will be eventually.

Elements announcement is literally on their homepage:

"A Notice Regarding Warhammer: The Old World.

We are disappointed to report that stock allocations are very low for all products in this release. Therefore we will not be able to offer them for online sale, and will have very limited stock in our physical stores. We have been made aware that most of the products are planned to be restocked in the future, but we haven’t yet been given a firm date.

Kind regards, The EG Team"

That Legacy factions list is such a fat, excrement smeared horsefly in what could possibly be a decent dish down the line.

 Londinium wrote:

I would bet my house on their being a 'New World' supplement with the missing factions in 2-4 years if the core game is a success. There are some of the most iconic and unique WHFB races within those legacy factions, if they truly wanted to jettison them for now and for forever, they wouldn't have held out the figleaf of pdf rules. They're just being very clear right now that those armies aren't in their plans to try and prevent nerd outrage and ongoing complaints, ultimately commercial logic will dictate if they are ever returned to.

Denial is a hell of a thing.