It seems that you cannot discuss new WHFB in the context of the current times without comparing KOW and WHFB. I used to play WHFB a lot, but when they killed the game I, like many others, switched to KOW. Both systems have their positives and negatives, but if I'm being honest, if WHFB were still in production today and having new editions come out, I would have never switched to KOW. KOW positives: Clean rules, freedom to base models on scenic bases, and I suppose, inexpensive models. KOW negatives: Non-sensical rules (being able to disengage from an opponent who just charged you and charge another opponent), everything is vanilla, and Mantic models (with the possible exception of some of the new stuff) are terrible, Background was an afterthought (Mantica!). Units do not degrade through taking casualties. Also, probably most importantly, .player interaction in a given players turn is almost zero. WHFB negatives: Models used as wound counters, scenic bases are not a thing, some rules could be complex or too powerful, Heroes and Magic tended to dominate the game. WHFB positives: GW models are overall the best in the industry, Psychology rules were far more interesting (it was fun to break a unit and run it down). Casting Magic was far more fun. Units degrade during the game, so even chaff units can do some damage. Both players get to fight in the fight phase, so your beautifully painted unit gets do something before it is removed. Deeply developed background, every army felt different, had it's own unique spells, magic items, heroes. Nothing was vanilla. Most people take chocolate or strawberry over vanilla.
I have discovered that most people who play KOW do so for one of three reasons 1) It's the only RF game they know, having entered the hobby after WHFB was discontinued. 2) They were former WHFB players that didn't want to continue playing WHFB if it was not going to get continuous updates and new content, and their friends all switched to KOW (I am in this category), and 3) They are extremely bitter over the betrayal by GW of their favorite hobby by killing WHFB (like the guy in the video that lit his Dark Elf army on fire), and they have vowed never to support GW again (I know a few of those).
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
Seeing lots of comments about KoW and scenic regiments.
I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?
Good examples I’ve seen in the past from display level armies include a couple of Trolls packing out a Night Gobbo regiment.
And as I suggested elsewhere, why not ‘Easy To Build’ style kits for rear ranks? Let’s them go all out on the front two ranks, for extra sparkly command section. And offers us Nerds a more cost effective way to put together fair sized regiments.
I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?
At this point we need to introduce a reality check. This is GW we're talking about. The only thing that changed since Kirby days is they are better at distracting people's attention from the prices. Why would they want to sell fewer/cheaper stuff? This is not a tear-eyed reunion of old lovers, this is a corporate entity coming to realization there might be a chance to sell the same people new models again.
I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?
At this point we need to introduce a reality check. This is GW we're talking about. The only thing that changed since Kirby days is they are better at distracting people's attention from the prices. Why would they want to sell fewer/cheaper stuff? This is not a tear-eyed reunion of old lovers, this is a corporate entity coming to realization there might be a chance to sell the same people new models again.
Well, that`s a grim outlook. i won`t list all the things i thinks, that have changed, but when it comes to prices - many boxes have come out with double the amount of models with a 50% price increase. And other companies maybe cheaper, even some minis are better, but in reality you have to choose one, You like Malifaux/Infinity models better? Good luck getting the same amount of minis cheaper, than what GW offers. OH! you want the numbers? Have fun scraping off horrendous mold lines and painting horrible minis of mantic.
And blaming the biggest company in the industry for trying to make money of what fans have been crying about ever since the WFB apocalypse - that`s just plain nonsence.
I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?
At this point we need to introduce a reality check. This is GW we're talking about. The only thing that changed since Kirby days is they are better at distracting people's attention from the prices. Why would they want to sell fewer/cheaper stuff? This is not a tear-eyed reunion of old lovers, this is a corporate entity coming to realization there might be a chance to sell the same people new models again.
I politely disagree.
GW are in the market to make money. And to make the most money, you need to price it about right.
Previously, complaints about WHFB pricing, where what, 60%+ of your purchases were just fancy wound markers rung true. Much as I like my big units (three units of 18 Ogres were ace in 8th Ed), if they offered me a cheaper way to do it, I’d be more likely to invest in say, Skaven, Empire or Greenskins, which traditionally required a higher buy-in price, just to get regiments that could function in the game.
If it makes financial sense to GW to do ETB rank fillers? Then I’ll expect they’ll do so. Better to take (numbers for description only) £60 from 20 players, than £100 from 10, no? Especially if it helps a new system get off the ground.
Did I blame them anywhere? I just stated that people thinking GW will somehow not charge the absolute maximum they think they can get away with is unrealistic. If they would sell you unit fillers, they'd price them to make sure you spend the same amount as if they sold you equivalent number of models. Realistically, if they go for "WFB but new" way of reboot, the best one can hope for is they bring down the needed/practical units sizes back to 6th ed 30, not 50+ from 8th.
Better to take (numbers for description only) £60 from 20 players, than £100 from 10, no?
I can think of very few instances of that thinking in GW. The only ones off the top of my head was when they repacked basic Stormcast units from 5 to 10 per box at 50% discount cause it was clear they didn't sell at that price and the fyreslayer SC! box for the same reasons (the price of the individual kits stayed the same I think) . They had the chance to repack DoK witch elves at 20 per box, but they kept them at 10 and the same price as before.
They also showed steady price increase trend with their recent big boxes. The truly baffling price of Blood of Phoenix, the higher than usual cost of Feast of Bones (where 50% of the box were old ogre kits), and the eye-watering Necromunda box they are releasing do not show a tendency to go for high sales at lower profit per unit.
First Edition AoS, with the first new factions, they tried to keep the old pricing, which was also a reason why it failed (Fireslayer never were a popular army)
But they went a step back to a still expensive but more reasonable price point for larger units
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
There are 8th editions of WFB out in the wild. An unofficial 9th edition in constant review. A passionate OldHammer community. Dozens of different tournament documents for lots of editions to clean them up and balance them.
Why in the name of God can you not play WFB if that is what you want to do?
Having to play a 'fully supported' game I will never understand. 99% of war-games have no miniature support at all. Most miniature companies have no 'official' rule-set.
Not to mention, if you want to play WHFB with unit fillers, there really isn't anything to stop you. When I started playing, in about 2007 or so, I recall seeing people do it. If your opponent objects, don't play them. As long as you have enough "loose" models to accurately represent you unit's current model count, there really is no rules reason why it doesn't work.
It seems to me that when people want to talk about what this, or that, or the other system is, but all they really tend say is what it isn't. That's not the same conversation, at all. It's also not very productive, in reality.
OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.
Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.
People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.
Yodhrin wrote: OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.
Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.
People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.
A company sized battle is a skirmish. Id play it with Song of Drums or another skirmish system. Unplayable with an Rn'F system without heavy modification. Battalion with each company a block is about as low as Rn'F games go. Even that is very small level to be playing at.
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
There are 8th editions of WFB out in the wild. An unofficial 9th edition in constant review. A passionate OldHammer community. Dozens of different tournament documents for lots of editions to clean them up and balance them.
Why in the name of God can you not play WFB if that is what you want to do?
Having to play a 'fully supported' game I will never understand. 99% of war-games have no miniature support at all. Most miniature companies have no 'official' rule-set.
Because there is a large, dare I say majority, number of people who will only ever play with A) the current and B) officially supported ruleset of a given game. This is especially true with GW products, wherein people might gripe and moan about an edition or a system, but still play it because... well, what exactly is the alternative when there's more than enough people - again, a majority - who for whatever reason will only ever touch what is official? I don't get the mindset either, but unfortunately, the harsh reality is wargaming is a niche and being a niche within a niche is rarely feasible.
GW could take an axe to 8th tomorrow and release a 'new' edition that was literally a copy/paste of 7th. Oh for sure the forums would explode with disdain for it, but most people would still grumble and play it, with a number of people saying "If you don't like 9th, just play 8th bro."
This is especially true of the UK where LFGS are a lot less prominent compared to the US, depending on where you are of course, and more people end up playing at official GW stores where obviously you can only play what's current.
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
There are 8th editions of WFB out in the wild. An unofficial 9th edition in constant review. A passionate OldHammer community. Dozens of different tournament documents for lots of editions to clean them up and balance them.
Why in the name of God can you not play WFB if that is what you want to do?
Having to play a 'fully supported' game I will never understand. 99% of war-games have no miniature support at all. Most miniature companies have no 'official' rule-set.
Because there is a large, dare I say majority, number of people who will only ever play with A) the current and B) officially supported ruleset of a given game. This is especially true with GW products, wherein people might gripe and moan about an edition or a system, but still play it because... well, what exactly is the alternative when there's more than enough people - again, a majority - who for whatever reason will only ever touch what is official? I don't get the mindset either, but unfortunately, the harsh reality is wargaming is a niche and being a niche within a niche is rarely feasible.
GW could take an axe to 8th tomorrow and release a 'new' edition that was literally a copy/paste of 7th. Oh for sure the forums would explode with disdain for it, but most people would still grumble and play it, with a number of people saying "If you don't like 9th, just play 8th bro."
This is especially true of the UK where LFGS are a lot less prominent compared to the US, depending on where you are of course, and more people end up playing at official GW stores where obviously you can only play what's current.
I get the whole GW ecosystem thing. Even though I've always been jelious of the club wargaming scene in the UK which seems well developed.
The poster I was replying to though was playing KoW and would switch in the morning to a new GW WFB supported edition. Like why not just play it now? They aren't playing KoW in the nearest GW store.
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...
That has to be the most ridiculous accusation so far. GW sucked joy out of hobby of some poor soul (FOR 3 YEARS) by announcing a game. Smellingsalts is a victim now, is he, Gomgamgoo?
Some wild and wonderful ideas being thrown about...
I really don't see why it can't/won't be just a copy and paste of an earlier WHFB system... It's the one thing that makes the most sense to me, and fits in their HH /40k Comparison and would be the safest bet from a risk perspective. It existed before and people spent money on it.
I guess they have to call it "Warhammer old world" so it doesn't get confused with "Warhammer age of sigmar" The much-beloved "Warhammer" logo died sadly, and I can see why they'd have to go with a new logo, it's essentially a re-brand.
I also don't understand why are people so against this being a WHFB reboot with R&F playstyle and individual models all... Heres why I think it will be a WHFB reboot ala 6th ed:
1. There are plenty mentioned alternatives available out there for people who don't like that style of game (KOW, Conquest, ASOIF, historicals) 2. But. there aren't alternatives for people that do want their individual dudes models are there? Don't ask me why, yes it does seem masochistic to want to build to rank & paint xxx amount of dudes...And no it won't be quick.. That's fine by a lot of people.. I think the target market will be fine with that and spend a lot of £££ on their army long term project. Therefore a ££ barrier to entry isn't something that's relevant. I don't think this product will be aimed at a 9 year old timmy who has £40 to spend for his birthday or pocket money... Or someone who wants to blast £300 on a new meta army to kick some names and take some ass... Little timmy will have 40k/AOS worth toys to pick from. Building, ranking up a lot of same looking dudes is not for lil timmy... But I don't think they would go back to 50 dudes per regiment. A Box worth of 20-30+ dudes is the sweet spot. 3. As per the FW comparison - Correct me if I'm wrong but last I looked HH uses a previous 40k system with vehicle facing, armour values and templates no? Despite being told repeatedly thats too much admin and nobody wants it in their games.. well somebody wants it clearly because they are buying it so its either aesthetic for some, or rules, or both or something in between. SO it makes sense this would be similar. 4. WHFB existed as a game and although not as successful as its 40k counterpart in terms of raw sales.. it still made money right? So its a tried and tested system and as per point 2 there is a market for it, as nothing is still filling it adequately. Low-risk additional revenue stream, sounds like good business sense. 5. AOS can keep being AOS and doing its thing... WHFB can be WHFB and do its thing... Why do the two need to interact? Does it matter which system sells models as long as models get sold?
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...
Mate.
21 pages of discussion about WHFB returning.
That’s not a delusion. That’s a plan in action.
WHFB has been announced?
Or there has been 21 pages of speculation about the pictures showing a square base?
I really don't see why it can't/won't be just a copy and paste of an earlier WHFB system...
It might be... but that doesn't seem like something that would take 3+ years (plus however long they've already been working on it prior to the announcement) to produce, and old WHFB simply isn't the style of game that GW are making these days.
Carlovonsexron wrote: Personally, I would love if the return of the old world is basically just a big "F-you" to Kirby and those who supported his choice to kill off fantasy because it didn't sell enough.
Because the massive turn around in GW finances wasn't enough already.
Kirby is still there in GW, still making money off every single "f-u Kirby" purchase you will make of the "Return to Old World" line. I doubt he will weep hot tears of rage because he gets paid more per share if TOW turns up to be a huge seller.
He still has shares, but several years worth of GW yearly financial reports by Roundtree seem to refer to him, warning people not to listen to him.
I really don't see why it can't/won't be just a copy and paste of an earlier WHFB system...
It might be... but that doesn't seem like something that would take 3+ years (plus however long they've already been working on it prior to the announcement) to produce, and old WHFB simply isn't the style of game that GW are making these days.
Which is precisely why they will be making it in 3 years time imo... why even bother with square bases if it will be anything but that? HH ruleset is also the type of game GW dont produce these days, and yet it is.
I dont think the dev time of 3 years is to do with rules.. I really dont. Whatever the final ruleset will wind up to be, i think its almost inconsequential to models in GW mind... I think they are starting from zero in terms of minatures to make it a full blooded te-boot/rebrand. Yes some kits are still probably fine, but to use any of those exact same kits would undermine the new brand imo. They need it to feel lile the old world but be all new and shiny.
Maybe its just crazy ramblings.... who knows what GW is really up to.
I for one am not bitter towards GW because I understand why they did it. I will simply continue to play KOW without buying any of their figures until WHFB comes back, and then I will switch to that (assuming it is not a train wreck, but I think they have learned a few things since the AOS release). And I am not knocking KOW players. They have the right to like what they like, I'm just saying if I had a choice, I'd play WHFB.
And this is exactly why GW produced a teaser for something possibly 3 years off.
They've actually stopped you from enjoying a hobby for 3 years of your life, on some deluded idea that the grass is greener...
Mate.
21 pages of discussion about WHFB returning.
That’s not a delusion. That’s a plan in action.
I think what he's saying is, just the announcement may have cost KoW sales at least of their rules, as people now are saying " Hey, I'll just wait for WHFB to come back now ! "
I agree with him, it seems awfully telling to be coming out so soon to their 3rd edition release. I don't think people should put their lives on pause for something that may or may not be years off and may or may not even be the return of WHFB. For all we know could be square based but different kinds of models, or game system based in the old world. We could be arguing over nothing at all that will matter to anyone involved.
If WHFB gets remade in the future, great, I'm in so long as I can use my old stuff, if not, they can go to hades, I'm not buying in after they burned me once already. If its a new type of game in the old world but not WHFB, good for who gets in, still won't be. If it's going to be 3 years before we know anything, play whatever games make you happy.
I really do agree GW is clever with how they make their announcements. This made good logical sense to them especially since they've never been fond of Mantic. Saying it wasn't made to force a reaction is pretty daft as most could imagine what reactions it would stir up. GW isn't the fresh faced cuddly buddy who looks after our best interest. Same as Legends is the kiss of death for many models wrapped in a smile, so to is this announcement done to attack competition and make people think to wait for the " New " WHFB.
Just my theory but to say they only have good and pure and sweet motivations for what they do I think is really making them out to be something they aren't. They aren't our arch enemy either but neither are they our friend. They are a company and want just our money, and will say and do almost anything for that.
My bet is that they will release the game next year. People will be craving for it and they will serve them after they have done the Sisters of Battle treatment, with an article every couple of weeks.
Yodhrin wrote: OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.
Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.
People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.
A company sized battle is a skirmish.
Whoosh. That point that just sailed over your head was that's not how most people see the term in this context. We're not at military school, we're on a casual wargaming forum - "skirmish" means something specific here, and it isn't "a company-sized combat scenario". I genuinely can't think of a clearer way to explain this.
Id play it with Song of Drums or another skirmish system. Unplayable with an Rn'F system without heavy modification. Battalion with each company a block is about as low as Rn'F games go. Even that is very small level to be playing at.
Except, you know, Warhammer Fantasy exists, so we know with 100% certainty that you're wrong and a rank & flank system can work at that size. Because it did, for thirty years.
Yodhrin wrote: OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.
Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.
People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.
A company sized battle is a skirmish.
Whoosh. That point that just sailed over your head was that's not how most people see the term in this context. We're not at military school, we're on a casual wargaming forum - "skirmish" means something specific here, and it isn't "a company-sized combat scenario". I genuinely can't think of a clearer way to explain this.
Id play it with Song of Drums or another skirmish system. Unplayable with an Rn'F system without heavy modification. Battalion with each company a block is about as low as Rn'F games go. Even that is very small level to be playing at.
Except, you know, Warhammer Fantasy exists, so we know with 100% certainty that you're wrong and a rank & flank system can work at that size. Because it did, for thirty years.
If WFB simulated battles of a hundred or so fighters in a 1 to 1 ratio in your own head so be it. It's your game as well as mine.
In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
niall78 wrote: In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?
The rules have always, so far as I'm aware, been written with the principle that a model is just that - a single model.
Like in 40k, my Fantasy battles were always the focal point of a bigger battle.
For example, my Grim'gor with his inmortulz with 60 goblins and 50 orcs wasn't the full Waaagh!, but only the units in the centre (Or a flank or on top of a hill or trying to capture a vital fort ) fighting agaisnt Karl Franz and his retinue.
Just like the battle of Blackfire Pass in the Empire 6th edition army book, were the different flanks are described (One comanded by the Mad Count that end ups killed by the orc warboss) and Karl Franz ends up dueling the Greenskin Warboss and being imbued with Sigmar essence to win in the end. You can basically visualize the different parts of the battle as their own Fantasy games.
There was some discussion of this topic waaaaaay back in the early days. And the attitude the studio took at the time was “hey if you want to imagine that each model represents a score or more of fighters, go for it. But if you’re fine not doing that, well that’s cool too.” And that’s as it should be. You can imagine your hobby to be what you’d like.
Galas wrote: 6th-7th edition is also my favourite. If only they could make cavalry a little less powerfull and infantry a little more usefull without the absurdity of 8th.
5th and herohammer was something I greatly dislike. I know Fantasy has always had a ton of very powerfull heroes but... I prefer an equilibrium between all parts of an army. Greenskins can't really play hero hammer. Your slow orcs die before hitting and goblins are goblins.
Herohammer came lot from a) misplaying rules like hydra sword to suddenly kill like 30 guys with your 6 attack guy(no that's no max 6*6=36 models. That's max of 6 models you kill). Also artificial limits like removing black gem of gnar that was effective tool at discouraging at huge heroes.
Don't cheat with hydra sword and don't ban anti-hero hammer items straight from rules and it became lot less of an issue.
niall78 wrote: In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?
I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders
I think that’s definitely something GW could adopt. People tended to do it anyway, so why not ‘sanction’ it at a rules level?
At this point we need to introduce a reality check. This is GW we're talking about. The only thing that changed since Kirby days is they are better at distracting people's attention from the prices. Why would they want to sell fewer/cheaper stuff? This is not a tear-eyed reunion of old lovers, this is a corporate entity coming to realization there might be a chance to sell the same people new models again.
Dunno. You tell why they have provenly made things actually cheaper. I have cheaper than I have had in years in my main GW game as GW has been making it cheaper and cheaper and keeps doing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote: Did I blame them anywhere? I just stated that people thinking GW will somehow not charge the absolute maximum they think they can get away with is unrealistic. If they would sell you unit fillers, they'd price them to make sure you spend the same amount as if they sold you equivalent number of models. Realistically, if they go for "WFB but new" way of reboot, the best one can hope for is they bring down the needed/practical units sizes back to 6th ed 30, not 50+ from 8th.
So on that logic if they make new box that has 2xmodels of old box they charge up 2x the price...which is provenly false.
niall78 wrote: In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?
I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders
I totally remember reading something like this in a Fantasy rulebook, maybe for 6th or 7th. But maybe is the Mandela Effect in action.
Yodhrin wrote: OK, I'll say this and nothing more, because this kind of semantic guff is pointless.
Rank & flank refers to the style of play, whether or not it has individual casualty removal or not has nothing to do with that. To argue that because most R&F games don't use Mechanic A, a game that does use Mechanic A cannot be R&F is sheer, unadulterated, unmitigated farce. Most ice creams don't have raisins in them, that doesn't mean rum & raisin is not ice cream.
People keep referring to WHF as "skirmish", but this is the same problem as "army" - you're using one definition of the word to argue a point with people using a completely different definition. To I would wager the vast majority of non-Historical wargamers(and most of them too), "skirmish" means games that aren't based on ranked formations. It has nothing to do with the size of the battle, as evidenced by the fact that people will describe games as "small skirmish" or "platoon skirmish" or "company+ skirmish", which would be completely redundant if "skirmish" was about the size of the forces.
A company sized battle is a skirmish.
Whoosh. That point that just sailed over your head was that's not how most people see the term in this context. We're not at military school, we're on a casual wargaming forum - "skirmish" means something specific here, and it isn't "a company-sized combat scenario". I genuinely can't think of a clearer way to explain this.
The problem is that "Skirmish" can be the size of the encounter (small = Skirmish, large = battle, eg: Gettysburg started as a skirmish but developed into a full scale battle over the first day)
or the type of the formation, skirmishing units VS ranked up units, usually meaning that Skirmish are units in lose formation or no formation at all
Skirmish games usually have a low amount of models and are more focused on the basic model types with the big stuff being off the table support
For Example Infinity, or Malifaux
Larger games are called Mass-Battle games or Command/Platoon/Division Level games.
Individual Model basing/mechanics are usually seen as a 1:1 scale (model to real soldiers) while everything with unit bases is seen as 1:X
(exceptions are with smaller models, as 15 or 6mm can be a 1:1 scale but because it is easier to move/handle the models units bases and mechanics are used)
Rank & File would be a game with fixed units in blocks/bases, and while it can have less models than a Skirmish game, it is usually scaled that 1 unit/block/base represents a higher number of real soldiers, making it always a bigger Battle instead of a smaller Encounter
Yodhrin wrote: Except, you know, Warhammer Fantasy exists, so we know with 100% certainty that you're wrong and a rank & flank system can work at that size. Because it did, for thirty years.
Flames of War uses a 1:1 scale in 15mm is a Mass Battle game not an R&F game, while most Napolonics in 15mm would be an R&F Battle game, is the units still have a scale of 1:20, then there are SciFi games with single based models that uses Flank/Rare mechanics for units and a 1:1 scale which then would be still a Skirmish game
Just because something is using Ranks and Flanks does not necesarrily make it a Rank & File game
So 40k, same as AoS, WM/H, or Warhammer would be something like a Mass-Skirmish, Mass-Battle or Platoon-Level games as something in between a Skirmish and a Battle with Skirmish-Game rules but small Battle size, that is focused on individual Heros and Monsters instead of the basic (Rank & File) units
I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders
Multiple shots being represented by a single die roll is not the same thing as single models representing hundreds, though...
niall78 wrote: In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?
The rules have always, so far as I'm aware, been written with the principle that a model is just that - a single model.
It's in the 5th edition Battle Book (in the section about campain rules IIRC). Something about needing to play in a parking lot if ranges and model counts were scaled realistically.
I'm at work so I don't have access to the book currently.
tneva82 wrote:Herohammer came lot from a) misplaying rules like hydra sword to suddenly kill like 30 guys with your 6 attack guy(no that's no max 6*6=36 models. That's max of 6 models you kill). Also artificial limits like removing black gem of gnar that was effective tool at discouraging at huge heroes.
Don't cheat with hydra sword and don't ban anti-hero hammer items straight from rules and it became lot less of an issue.
Wasn't a misinterpretation.
4th Edition had the Hydra Sword only being able to target models in base-to-base with the wielder.
5th Edtition had no such restriction. Each hit was D6 hits.
I managed 22 hits with a Blood Dragon Vampire once
I literally just gave up the Ghost that this would ever happen after Adepticon. I had a feeling it was coming, but figured if it didn’t happen there, my feeling was just gas. Anyway, I moved on from GW. AOS just doesn’t do it for me.
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes. Hope SOMETHING comes out before 3 years. Hope to hear the plans much earlier, such as will this use older models, or will the be remaking the old world from scratch (my guess).
I always wanted to play WFB in the old days, but the hard core tourney style and multiple editions put me off. I’m hoping they bring the game back to earlier editions where it was more narrative wargame, less tourney style like the days of Bloodbath at Orcs Drift, etc.
Interested in seeking JG what happens to the background as well as far as how they avoid painting themselves into a corner with Chaos again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and I really don’t care if the figures have square or round bases. Don’t care if it’s ranked or open. Just make it FUN.
Even though it says “old” in the title, it’s not. The real old world is dead and gone. No way around that. From here on it’ll always be the new old world.
niall78 wrote: In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?
The rules have always, so far as I'm aware, been written with the principle that a model is just that - a single model.
It's in the 5th edition Battle Book (in the section about campain rules IIRC). Something about needing to play in a parking lot if ranges and model counts were scaled realistically.
I'm at work so I don't have access to the book currently.
tneva82 wrote:Herohammer came lot from a) misplaying rules like hydra sword to suddenly kill like 30 guys with your 6 attack guy(no that's no max 6*6=36 models. That's max of 6 models you kill). Also artificial limits like removing black gem of gnar that was effective tool at discouraging at huge heroes.
Don't cheat with hydra sword and don't ban anti-hero hammer items straight from rules and it became lot less of an issue.
Wasn't a misinterpretation.
4th Edition had the Hydra Sword only being able to target models in base-to-base with the wielder.
5th Edtition had no such restriction. Each hit was D6 hits.
I managed 22 hits with a Blood Dragon Vampire once
It was clarified in WD, can't remember what issue but reasonably 200-something, that if a weapon multiplied hits the multiples could only be allocated to a single model.
Argive wrote: Genuine question, do people expect WHFB r&F style game to have the simplicity of AOS/40k?
You already have AOS/40k to get that easy simple rules fix. Why want another clone of those ?
At the moment I don't have any expectations about warhammer the old world, there just isn't enough information. Based on the time frame, it looks like they're making new rules and models
I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.
For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders
Cronch wrote: Did I blame them anywhere? I just stated that people thinking GW will somehow not charge the absolute maximum they think they can get away with is unrealistic. If they would sell you unit fillers, they'd price them to make sure you spend the same amount as if they sold you equivalent number of models. Realistically, if they go for "WFB but new" way of reboot, the best one can hope for is they bring down the needed/practical units sizes back to 6th ed 30, not 50+ from 8th.
So on that logic if they make new box that has 2xmodels of old box they charge up 2x the price...which is provenly false.
I...don't really know how you came from that statement to your "EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS 2X MORE EXPENSIVE", but sure.
I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders
Multiple shots being represented by a single die roll is not the same thing as single models representing hundreds, though...
Arnizipal wrote:
insaniak wrote:
niall78 wrote: In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?
The rules have always, so far as I'm aware, been written with the principle that a model is just that - a single model.
It's in the 5th edition Battle Book (in the section about campain rules IIRC). Something about needing to play in a parking lot if ranges and model counts were scaled realistically.
I'm at work so I don't have access to the book currently.
5th Edition rulebook, Appendix 2 (page 111, German version)
Scale
It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to bring regiments made up of hundreds of models into play.
Battles in Warhammer are usually with fewer models than there would be in reality. The ten or twenty models of a unit are equal to one hundred or two hundred warriors, and therefore also move like larger units.
As both players use in size reduced units, the outcome is the same anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Genuine question, do people expect WHFB r&F style game to have the simplicity of AOS/40k?
You already have AOS/40k to get that easy simple rules fix. Why want another clone of those ?
Simple rules do not mean that the game is less complex but can be less bloated and complicated
Not that GW ever managed to remove bloated and complicate rules by adding simplicity to the core
But than there is a difference between a simple R&F game and a simple Skirmish game
So the question would be more like, why would one want to have simple rules for R&F Warhammer when there is Kings of War already doing it
Whoa! How did anyone get from my post that I was some kind of masochist who would feel no joy in life until WHFB came back. I thought I had a very pragmatic approach. Play KOW until WHFB came out, and then switch back to WHFB if it wasn't a train wreck. As for why not play WHFB 8th now without support or updates? Because none of my friends are. Support constantly adds cool and new things to the game, which I think most people like. Aside from a group of grognards who continue to play the same game at 60 that they did at 15, I think most people gravitate to the new new. Also, the ecosystem of gaming says that people play what is being played in their LGS, and that is just a fact. In that space GW destroys Mantic, it's not even close. Game stores support the best selling games/models, and the others can run a marathon.
I think it was in one of the 5th Edition books, to explain the immersion. Writen as unit fireing arrows are not 10 but hundreds of arrows and the time between phases and rounds models doing nothing are like several hours were messenagers move around and units awaiting orders
Multiple shots being represented by a single die roll is not the same thing as single models representing hundreds, though...
Arnizipal wrote:
insaniak wrote:
niall78 wrote: In reality what WFB simulated was a mass battle. Each block potentially representing hundreds if not thousands of troops. Just like every other Rn'F block game on the market. That was the whole point of the game from its very inception.
I've never seen anything in any of the WHFB rulebooks to suggest that this is the case. Got a quote to back it up?
The rules have always, so far as I'm aware, been written with the principle that a model is just that - a single model.
It's in the 5th edition Battle Book (in the section about campain rules IIRC). Something about needing to play in a parking lot if ranges and model counts were scaled realistically. I'm at work so I don't have access to the book currently.
5th Edition rulebook, Appendix 2 (page 111, German version)
Scale It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to bring regiments made up of hundreds of models into play. Battles in Warhammer are usually with fewer models than there would be in reality. The ten or twenty models of a unit are equal to one hundred or two hundred warriors, and therefore also move like larger units. As both players use in size reduced units, the outcome is the same anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Genuine question, do people expect WHFB r&F style game to have the simplicity of AOS/40k? You already have AOS/40k to get that easy simple rules fix. Why want another clone of those ?
Simple rules do not mean that the game is less complex but can be less bloated and complicated Not that GW ever managed to remove bloated and complicate rules by adding simplicity to the core
But than there is a difference between a simple R&F game and a simple Skirmish game
So the question would be more like, why would one want to have simple rules for R&F Warhammer when there is Kings of War already doing it
I think simple rules mean exactly that.. I don't think you can have complexity and depth achieved through simplicity... Is it bloat to have a couple additional mechanics/rules which may or may not do much and be situational? Maybe..Maybe not.. That depends on personal preference and over arching execution. I personaly like rules in mechanics. Terrain, facing or wot have you..The more the merrier. So naturally that sort of game takes a while to play/learn. We found this this with new board games where the first session is always about learning to play. If it takes 3-4 hours to learn a modern board game(they get fairly complex these days), why would it be reasonable to assume it take the same amount of time to learn a table top game involing 10s-100s of models one has spent 100's of hours painting is beyond me.
Its only bloat when there is very little core rules mechanics, and you end up with unit X that has 15 abilities/traits/special rules that mean core rules xyz don't apply in certain phases, apply partially in others, there are x amount of modifiers and you re-roll everything which you have to take into account. (looking at you 40k)
To me personally formations mean battles... Lack of formations mean skirmish.. If WHFB is technically a "skirmish battle R&F simulator" so be it All I know Is I fell in love with 6th ed WHFB after taking a break from 40k way back and none of the other things I looked at since filled that spot. Hail Ceasar being the top contender because Im all about the romans/antiquity history. But I also want my High Elf Prince riding into battle on a massive dragon side by side with his footmen
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arnizipal wrote: I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.
For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition. Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic. I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders
This guy gets it!
If I have painstainkly converted built and painted a bad ass dragon and have a whole bunch of fluff imagined for, My dragon Faraam the Breaker of armies should damn well be mad/fly off greatly upset when his Long time friend and rider gets killed and knocked off his back by some goblin arrows.
I think simple rules mean exactly that.. I don't think you can have complexity and depth achieved through simplicity... Is it bloat to have a couple additional mechanics/rules which may or may not do much and be situational? Maybe..Maybe not.. That depends on personal preference and over arching execution. I personaly like rules in mechanics. Terrain, facing or wot have you..The more the merrier. So naturally that sort of game takes a while to play/learn. We found this this with new board games where the first session is always about learning to play. If it takes 3-4 hours to learn a modern board game(they get fairly complex these days), why would it be reasonable to assume it take the same amount of time to learn a table top game involing 10s-100s of models one has spent 100's of hours painting is beyond me.
this maybe also a cultural thing, but there is a difference between complicated and complex
simple rules are the opposite of complicated rules but not the opposite of complex rules (and also not the opposite of detailed rules or a lot of rules)
learning the rules should never take more time than reading them twice, while learning to play the game can take forever (= simple rules but a complex game)
if it takes more time learning the rules than actually learning to play the game, the rules are complicated but not complex.
In other words, easy to learn but hard to master
not the other way around and GW games often have the problem that they pretend to be complex by having complicated rules that not everyone understand at first, while still are not very detailed and don't deliver a complex game
PS: we once took the 7th Edi 40k book and wrote our own version to make it easier for beginner/newcomers. Cleaned up the language, included Erratas and we ended up with a little more than 1/3 of the pages from the original book
some people think that complicated language and a lot of rules are guaranty for a complex and detailed game while this often only results in a game that just needs much more time to learn the rules while being very boring to play as soon as you understand everything
Yeah, but the reason they made dragons and riders a single stat line is that in the event of a cannon ball smacking into a dragon the rider would get punched off the mount and the dragon would separately be gravely injured. It wasn't a good experience to spend all that time painting up your dragon to have to take him off the table on turn 1.
5th Edition rulebook, Appendix 2 (page 111, German version)
Scale
It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to bring regiments made up of hundreds of models into play.
Battles in Warhammer are usually with fewer models than there would be in reality. The ten or twenty models of a unit are equal to one hundred or two hundred warriors, and therefore also move like larger units.
As both players use in size reduced units, the outcome is the same anyway
Interesting. Although in true GW style, that section also starts out by pointing out that a single model represents a single warrior.
Interesting. Although in true GW style, that section also starts out by pointing out that a single model represents a single warrior.
Yeah, so that a single character model is still a single warrior character or hero, but units are scaled down (and as soon as you remove the heroes the scaling starts working as intended as 100 Elves VS 100 Goblins is the same result as with 10 Elves VS 10 Goblins, it is just that 1 Hero VS 100 Goblins will end up different than 1 Hero VS 10 Goblins)
I think simple rules mean exactly that.. I don't think you can have complexity and depth achieved through simplicity... Is it bloat to have a couple additional mechanics/rules which may or may not do much and be situational? Maybe..Maybe not.. That depends on personal preference and over arching execution. I personaly like rules in mechanics. Terrain, facing or wot have you..The more the merrier. So naturally that sort of game takes a while to play/learn. We found this this with new board games where the first session is always about learning to play. If it takes 3-4 hours to learn a modern board game(they get fairly complex these days), why would it be reasonable to assume it take the same amount of time to learn a table top game involing 10s-100s of models one has spent 100's of hours painting is beyond me.
this maybe also a cultural thing, but there is a difference between complicated and complex
simple rules are the opposite of complicated rules but not the opposite of complex rules (and also not the opposite of detailed rules or a lot of rules)
learning the rules should never take more time than reading them twice, while learning to play the game can take forever (= simple rules but a complex game)
if it takes more time learning the rules than actually learning to play the game, the rules are complicated but not complex.
In other words, easy to learn but hard to master
not the other way around and GW games often have the problem that they pretend to be complex by having complicated rules that not everyone understand at first, while still are not very detailed and don't deliver a complex game
PS: we once took the 7th Edi 40k book and wrote our own version to make it easier for beginner/newcomers. Cleaned up the language, included Erratas and we ended up with a little more than 1/3 of the pages from the original book
some people think that complicated language and a lot of rules are guaranty for a complex and detailed game while this often only results in a game that just needs much more time to learn the rules while being very boring to play as soon as you understand everything
I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.
Its like HH rules compared to 40k 8th rules … I don't see why this new thing would be anything similar to either AOS or 40k rules design if is meant to be the HH of AOS era..
I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.
why to you think that an easy to understand and easy to remember mechanics mean that you need to take mechanics away.
a rider and a dragon having their own profile and the dragon will keep on fighting with a Leadership test each turn, is not harder to understand or remember than a single profile and removing the whole model
it just gets hard to remember if the rules are inconsistent or contrary, like some monsters have combined profiles while others do not and some need an LD test while others need a Strength test and the third have their own chart for random dice rolls, or monsters only have combined profiles if fighting specific other monsters
than the rules are going to be complicated without adding any complexity or detail to the game
I have never seen a complicated ruleset that took me hours or even days to really learn the rules, turning out as a more complex demanding game
While there are a lot of games around with easy to learn rules that are hard to master on the table (looking at X-Wing, it is much easier to learn and remember the rules than to learn to move your units the right way)
Kill off a fan favourite fantasy setting of 30 odd years.
Release a god awful USA styled fantasy game, with the promise that your armies can be used in it.
Kill off two factons/miniature ranges from the get go.
Slowly kill off availability of the WFB kits.
Annouce a re-release of the original after it being dead for 4 years.
GW fandom reacts with joy.
In 3 years time I'm sure we'll see that this has made GW a lot of money and is a financial success.
Sometimes I think GW fans deserve what they get, this stunt honestly reminds me of the battered wife syndrome.
Personally I am glad I jumped over to KoW during 8th edition... not only is it a great system, it also allows me near unlimited scope for models. I'm toying with the idea of buy a Napleonic force and using it as a Kingdom of Men list. I can use nearly every Historical range of miniatures, and any of the wonderful fantasy stuff we are seeing now. Rank & File fantasy is well and truly going through a great period, it'd be a same for people to miss out on this as they are too transfixed by GW's PR.
Arnizipal wrote: I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.
For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders
I always hated the monster and rider being separate. Riding a horse gave you a better save and you couldn't be sniped, but for some reason riding a monster worked completely differently. Silly and arbitrary. Not to mention that you needed to have a separate model for the unmounted rider (and if you want hardcore WYSIWYG for the riderless mount as well) and usually no such thing was provided in the kit.
Interesting. Although in true GW style, that section also starts out by pointing out that a single model represents a single warrior.
Yeah, so that a single character model is still a single warrior character or hero, but units are scaled down (and as soon as you remove the heroes the scaling starts working as intended as 100 Elves VS 100 Goblins is the same result as with 10 Elves VS 10 Goblins, it is just that 1 Hero VS 100 Goblins will end up different than 1 Hero VS 10 Goblins)
I've never actually met anyone who approached the game in that way.
5th Edition rulebook, Appendix 2 (page 111, German version)
Scale
It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to bring regiments made up of hundreds of models into play.
Battles in Warhammer are usually with fewer models than there would be in reality. The ten or twenty models of a unit are equal to one hundred or two hundred warriors, and therefore also move like larger units.
As both players use in size reduced units, the outcome is the same anyway
Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.
The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.
I think it's important to remember that whatever this game ends up being, it's going to be a Forgeworld project. And let's be honest, enthusiasm for their designs just sort of keeps dropping. 30k is a shadow of what it was at its height. Necromunda has been a rules editing mess. Prices for their starter boxes are now at 175 GBP.
Do people really think that Forgeworld could roll out a proper version of warhammer set in the old world with all the armies you might want being playable and fun on day 1? It's likely going to launch with a expensive plastic starter with a small amount of miniature for two armies. Then they'll be inundated with emails and comments like "where are my high elves?" "what about my dwarves?" and maybe they'll release get you buy lists for some of them, but they'll be barely (or not at all) playtested.
Then if you're lucky your army might get a tiny bit of stuff in the next release. Maybe it'll be in a full colour super expensive hardcover rulebook but then be all forgeworld resin.
This isn't going to be what people are hoping for. If you don't already play a Forgeworld game, remeber that the same team who hasn't been able to convince you to try their current offerings is going to be working on this game. If you do play a Forgeworld game, then you're very aware of the phoned in approach their garbage tier studio takes these days when it comes to rules and making sure the factions get their releases in a timely fashion.
Arnizipal wrote: I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.
For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders
I always hated the monster and rider being separate. Riding a horse gave you a better save and you couldn't be sniped, but for some reason riding a monster worked completely differently. Silly and arbitrary. Not to mention that you needed to have a separate model for the unmounted rider (and if you want hardcore WYSIWYG for the riderless mount as well) and usually no such thing was provided in the kit.
Luckily WHFB was not WYSIWG and the regular model sufficed just fine for both situations.
Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.
The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.
There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.
Too little, too late
My friends have all cashed out, having sold off their WHFB armies (and in some cases the 40K Armies too) and are not only disinterested in returning, but found other gaming options.
As for me, I have kept what I did buy, but won’t be returning to a GW ruleset. Plenty of other companies to choose from who didn’t decide to burn their bridges first.
Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.
The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.
There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.
And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.
It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.
Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.
The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.
There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.
And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.
It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.
It's amazing how you always seem to have an objection or characterisation that requires you to be the clever worldly-wise gamer and everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily either a moron or a GW HHHhhobbyist.
Has it genuinely never occurred to you that people simply disagree with your position? That they don't see anything that needs to be "handwaved away"?
if one spear man represents 50 of his equivalents, Does one Karl Franz on Death Claw represent 50 Gryphon riding heroes?
That's sort of where that whole concept falls apart. I think the intention is that characters nd other 'big' models would be singular, but that units are supposed to represent larger blocks of troops. All of which is needlessly convoluted... easier to just say that the 10 guys on the table are 10 guys and get on with it.
Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.
The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.
There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.
And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.
It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.
It's amazing how you always seem to have an objection or characterisation that requires you to be the clever worldly-wise gamer and everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily either a moron or a GW HHHhhobbyist.
Has it genuinely never occurred to you that people simply disagree with your position? That they don't see anything that needs to be "handwaved away"?
It could be worse. I could be getting really emotional about the whole issue.
I'm just going on what GW have stated over the years. As a mass battle game WFB was not a 1 to 1 miniature to fighter ratio. How people want to view their own games is their own business and if it works for them fair play.
I'm just going on what GW have stated over the years.
Except of course, in the places they stated it was just heroes and a small retinue, so was 1 to 1, and no handwaving that maybe 'secretly each model = X models, except the ones that don't.'
I think the fact that they relegated the explanation on scale to an appendix rather than something people were actually going to read suggests that it just wasn't meant to be that big a deal. It certainly doesn't make any practical difference to gameplay.
insaniak wrote: I think the fact that they relegated the explanation on scale to an appendix rather than something people were actually going to read suggests that it just wasn't meant to be that big a deal. It certainly doesn't make any practical difference to gameplay.
It wasn't in an appendix for 3rd ed - it was right near the front.
You remember how people went gaga for the reprint of the old Rogue Trader 40K? I would love to see a reprint of 3e WHFB. My old one is living in a three ring binder - the binding having long since given up the ghost.
For that matter McDeath....
The Auld Grump - it really wasn't that big a deal... then. As I mentioned, it was kind of the norm for wargames of the period.
I’ve never been able to make the ‘that bloke is actually fifty blokes’ concept work in my head. It causes too many questions in my brain (is that hedge fifty hedges?) and yoinks me out of the setting.
I think that’s why I don’t like playing with named characters either, I can never make peace with Nagash, supreme lord of the undead, marching to war with 30 dire wolves.
All the narratives to my battles are quite petty really, I can’t believe the fate of the universe hinges on a clash between 100 dudes!
Luke82 wrote: I’ve never been able to make the ‘that bloke is actually fifty blokes’ concept work in my head. It causes too many questions in my brain (is that hedge fifty hedges?) and yoinks me out of the setting.
I think that’s why I don’t like playing with named characters either, I can never make peace with Nagash, supreme lord of the undead, marching to war with 30 dire wolves.
All the narratives to my battles are quite petty really, I can’t believe the fate of the universe hinges on a clash between 100 dudes!
I find it easier to rationise that one mini is 50 or whatever men as it explains the tiny amount of minis on the field and the same boards (even when they are much bigger than 6x4 feet.
Like I said above it could be because of more expose to historical Rn'F games where ground scale, figure to fighters ratio and the reasons these were chosen usually the second chapter after "- What is a wargame". It isn't as well explained in fantasy rules as it simply isn't as important. Not just WFB but KoW I think doesn't give solid numbers either. Just different experiences depending on what sides of the hobby you are involved with over the years.
Makes sense. People that think a Rn'F game like WFB is played at a 1 to 1 ratio have to hand wave away the fact that their battles are little more than skirmishes with what amounts to a small town militia sized force.
The leader of the Empire takes to the field with 150 fighters and fights the great invasion of 100 elves. Not so massed battle anymore in that case.
There's very little hand waving required. The general perception has usually been that the battle being fought on the table was just a small part of a larger engagement.
And the size of the units on the field have to be hand waved away as well. You have pike regiments with forty fighters in them - a front rank consisting of ten fighters. Archer regiments that fire twenty arrows a turn. Elite cavalry units that consist of ten horses. And on and on.
It's more the lack of contact with any other type of Rn'F mass combat game by a non-GW company that had players thinking like this. That suited GW as when players added more miniatures they thought their armies were 'bigger' i.e. getting more realistic to scale. Even if they were still stupidly small at a 1 to 1 ratio.
It's amazing how you always seem to have an objection or characterisation that requires you to be the clever worldly-wise gamer and everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily either a moron or a GW HHHhhobbyist.
Has it genuinely never occurred to you that people simply disagree with your position? That they don't see anything that needs to be "handwaved away"?
It could be worse. I could be getting really emotional about the whole issue.
Nah, just judgemental and smug. That's so much better.
I'm just going on what GW have stated over the years. As a mass battle game WFB was not a 1 to 1 miniature to fighter ratio. How people want to view their own games is their own business and if it works for them fair play.
You mean, you're going by what GW stated 25 years ago and have directly contradicted on several occasions.
According to Wikipedia; in the Battle of Hastings the Normans were 7000 to 12000 strong; in the Battle of Agincourt the English were 6000 to 9000 strong. To represent these battles it would not be feasible to have 1 to 1, especially at 28mm Heroic Scale - One can dream though.
I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.
Not table top but games like Chess and Go, both of which have really simple rules, are incredibly hard to master.
Arnizipal wrote: I like complexity if it can be justified in the background.
For example, I disliked the multipart mounted monster models receiving one single statline in 8th edition.
Not because it didn't work well, but becuase it felt too simplistic.
I want heroes knocked of their steeds (or vice versa) and creatures going berserk after having lost their riders
I always hated the monster and rider being separate. Riding a horse gave you a better save and you couldn't be sniped, but for some reason riding a monster worked completely differently. Silly and arbitrary. Not to mention that you needed to have a separate model for the unmounted rider (and if you want hardcore WYSIWYG for the riderless mount as well) and usually no such thing was provided in the kit.
Something to do with that lone horse is not going to be killing anybody(ever seen horses go on deliberate killing spree following orders?) while lone dragon can mayhap? That was hardly silly and arbitary. Now having hero on top of it get dragon toughness and then some more now THAT is arbitary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: Each miniature represented multiple warriors in WHFB 3rd edition as well (still my favorite edition of the game).
Ditto for 5th, probably others as well.
This... does not bother me, but I started wargaming with Napoleonics - where that was very much the norm.
I think the exact same way with KoW, and did so with the old TSR Battle System to boot.
Battles are big, and minis cost money - so... each figure represents 10 men? Okay!
The Auld Grump
In 5th at least it wasn't hard coded "this is how it is" and certainly not supported by actual mechanics. It was just random note in designer's commentary how you can see it if you want bigger battles. But that concept then breaks up completely by mechanics. Sorry but 1 model=100 guys would have to actually somehow show up in rules. As it was all immersion was broken if you went by that while maintained if you go 1=1
I would just drop the monster reaction rules, tbh.
It doesn't really add anything to the game and was just another random variable.
If you want monsters going berserk I'd rather have it replace the stupidity rule; if you fail the morale test, the monster immediately attempts to make a charge move towards the nearest enemy regiment.
Stupidity is another rule that won't be missed; did anyone seriously enjoy not being able to use a unit for a turn because of a bad roll? Again, it doesn't really add anything tactically, it was just annoying.
Fear and Terror were fine; they were debuffs that made monsters and undead actually dangerous. At least, in theory.
The 1 model = 10 / 100 soldiers system only works if you ignore monsters, lords and heroes.
If you consider those unit types it quickly falls apart.
CA tried being faithful to that sort of system, and it results in oddities. Like, a hero can basically tank a regiment by himself if he's well equipped and has enough levels. Regiments in TWWH are proper sized too, about 80-160 models, depending on regiment size settings and unit type.
If you tried doing that in the earlier games you just end up with a dead general, even with retinue.
Luke82 wrote: I think that’s why I don’t like playing with named characters either, I can never make peace with Nagash, supreme lord of the undead, marching to war with 30 dire wolves. All the narratives to my battles are quite petty really, I can’t believe the fate of the universe hinges on a clash between 100 dudes!
I've always done the same. Never needed my battles to be world changing events and was always happier with the lesser clashes that go unrecorded, making my own ascendant heroes as I go.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I would just drop the monster reaction rules, tbh.
It doesn't really add anything to the game and was just another random variable.
If you want monsters going berserk I'd rather have it replace the stupidity rule; if you fail the morale test, the monster immediately attempts to make a charge move towards the nearest enemy regiment.
Stupidity is another rule that won't be missed; did anyone seriously enjoy not being able to use a unit for a turn because of a bad roll? Again, it doesn't really add anything tactically, it was just annoying.
I like those little things that are just there to add flavour.
I've seen many people complain about animosty over the years, but I like the idea that my greenskins have a chance to start fighting each other.
Sure it's annoying but it is characterful
The 1 model = 10 / 100 soldiers system only works if you ignore monsters, lords and heroes.
If you consider those unit types it quickly falls apart.
You could handwave it and say a character is actually not only the character itself but also his retainers and bodyguards.
So 1 dude is 10 dudes and 1 hero is 1 hero + 9 dudes.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I would just drop the monster reaction rules, tbh. It doesn't really add anything to the game and was just another random variable.
If you want monsters going berserk I'd rather have it replace the stupidity rule; if you fail the morale test, the monster immediately attempts to make a charge move towards the nearest enemy regiment.
Stupidity is another rule that won't be missed; did anyone seriously enjoy not being able to use a unit for a turn because of a bad roll? Again, it doesn't really add anything tactically, it was just annoying.
I like those little things that are just there to add flavour. I've seen many people complain about animosty over the years, but I like the idea that my greenskins have a chance to start fighting each other. Sure it's annoying but it is characterful
The 1 model = 10 / 100 soldiers system only works if you ignore monsters, lords and heroes. If you consider those unit types it quickly falls apart.
You could handwave it and say a character is actually not only the character itself but also his retainers and bodyguards. So 1 dude is 10 dudes and 1 hero is 1 hero + 9 dudes.
Animosity is a race specific rule, so it should stay. I have nothing against race / faction specific special rules, that's where the flavor should be coming from. Other rules like stupidity and monster reactions aren't that necessary. I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?
Why not, he's the freaking Emperor.
If he takes to the field he should have the best, most expensive protection available
I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables.
Obviously that's just my opinion.
Not table top but games like Chess and Go, both of which have really simple rules, are incredibly hard to master.
I find that, in wargames also, the thickness of the rulebook tends to be inversely proportional to the depth of the play experience.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?
Why not, he's the freaking Emperor. If he takes to the field he should have the best, most expensive protection available
Fair enough. Griffins are consider to be prized mounts for Imperial Nobles. I guess it would make sense for Karl Franz to have a personal retinue of Griffin Knights, handpicked from the best of the Reiksguard or Demigryph riders. There would probably be just like, 10 or them or so. Or even fewer. Apparently a single Griffin rider can break an entire enemy regiment by itself. I guess monsters in WHFB are super dangerous or something.
Border Patrol (up to 1,000 points with additional doodad rules)
Engagement (up to 2,500)
Battle Royale (2,500+).
Limit units available in the smaller scales somehow. Different rules. Let us play multiple styles of game using the one rule tome.
They could go back to limiting the numbers of certain slots (or changing the percentages if they keep the percentage based system, e.g. a small scouting force will have proportionally more scouts/light cavalry than heavy infantry compared to a large army going to meet an enemy in the field) at different point levels. Might also be a good idea to expand the existing slots out.
Instead of Lords, Heroes, Core, Special, Rare you could have: Lords Heroes Core (your base blocks of infantry) Scouts (this is where stuff like skirmishers and light cavalry go) War Machines (Cannons, Catapults etc. things which are mostly stationary and manned by crews) Special (Elite infantry, heavy cavalry etc.) Monsters (speaks for itself) Rare (powerful magical devices like the Anvil of Doom or Cauldron of Blood, wonders of engineering like steam tanks etc.)
Then at say the <1000pts level there will be zero allowance for Rare (such devices are not brought to a battle of such small significance short of narrative scenarios), zero allowance for Lords (not worth the attention of those of such high rank), X allowance of Heroes, Y mandatory minimum of Core, Z allowance for Scouts, N allowance for War Machines, etc.
Balancing out all the limits will be tricky and require very good inter-army balance to account for differences in ability and availability of options within each slot (if using slots then taking massive units in the Special slot and minimum units in core could be abused, if using percentages then armies with weaker Core units are penalised by having to spend more of their points on them) but should be doable.
I think anything table-top grade that you can learn quickly by reading twice will not be hard to master... As you take away mechanics and moving parts you take away more and more variables. Obviously that's just my opinion.
Not table top but games like Chess and Go, both of which have really simple rules, are incredibly hard to master.
I find that, in wargames also, the thickness of the rulebook tends to be inversely proportional to the depth of the play experience.
Yup. Many designers seem to get complexity and depth mixed up and so think that adding a load of complex rules will increase the depth of choices available to the player.
Complexity should only be added when it adds more depth in the form of giving the player more meaningful choices they can make.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?
Why not, he's the freaking Emperor.
If he takes to the field he should have the best, most expensive protection available
Fair enough. Griffins are consider to be prized mounts for Imperial Nobles.
I guess it would make sense for Karl Franz to have a personal retinue of Griffin Knights, handpicked from the best of the Reiksguard or Demigryph riders.
There would probably be just like, 10 or them or so. Or even fewer. Apparently a single Griffin rider can break an entire enemy regiment by itself.
I guess monsters in WHFB are super dangerous or something.
And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
Albino Squirrel wrote: And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
Albino Squirrel wrote: And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
That would be silly.
It would be a 10 on 10 battle
Now I'm just imagining Nagash to just be a big matroshka.
Like, he just opens his chest and a smaller Nagash comes out, and then an even smaller one, and it continues until he gets the desired number of Nagashes.
Albino Squirrel wrote: And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
That would be silly.
It would be a 10 on 10 battle
Now I'm just imagining Nagash to just be a big matroshka.
Like, he just opens his chest and a smaller Nagash comes out, and then an even smaller one, and it continues until he gets the desired number of Nagashes.
Don't be silly.
Nagash is just 10 skeleton warriors standing on each others shoulders in a big cloak.
Albino Squirrel wrote: And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
That would be silly.
It would be a 10 on 10 battle
Now I'm just imagining Nagash to just be a big matroshka.
Like, he just opens his chest and a smaller Nagash comes out, and then an even smaller one, and it continues until he gets the desired number of Nagashes.
Don't be silly.
Nagash is just 10 skeleton warriors standing on each others shoulders in a big cloak.
Albino Squirrel wrote: And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
That would be silly.
It would be a 10 on 10 battle
Now I'm just imagining Nagash to just be a big matroshka.
Like, he just opens his chest and a smaller Nagash comes out, and then an even smaller one, and it continues until he gets the desired number of Nagashes.
Don't be silly.
Nagash is just 10 skeleton warriors standing on each others shoulders in a big cloak.
Those pesky undead halfling skelingtons....
Dude's bigger than a Daemon Primarch, it's clearly 10 Ogre Skeletons pretending to be a combiner.
Albino Squirrel wrote: And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
That would be silly.
It would be a 10 on 10 battle
Now I'm just imagining Nagash to just be a big matroshka.
Like, he just opens his chest and a smaller Nagash comes out, and then an even smaller one, and it continues until he gets the desired number of Nagashes.
Don't be silly.
Nagash is just 10 skeleton warriors standing on each others shoulders in a big cloak.
That explains the giant hat... it is actually a skeleton in there.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I thought of the retainer explaination, but it still doesn't really work when you consider flying mounts. What, does Karl Franz have a bodyguard of griffin riders?
Why not, he's the freaking Emperor.
If he takes to the field he should have the best, most expensive protection available
Fair enough. Griffins are consider to be prized mounts for Imperial Nobles.
I guess it would make sense for Karl Franz to have a personal retinue of Griffin Knights, handpicked from the best of the Reiksguard or Demigryph riders.
There would probably be just like, 10 or them or so. Or even fewer. Apparently a single Griffin rider can break an entire enemy regiment by itself.
I guess monsters in WHFB are super dangerous or something.
And then you issue a challenge, and fight a 1 on 1 combat between Karl Franz and his retinue of 50 griffin riding nobles against Nagash and his retinue of 50 other Nagashs.
I thought that, canonically, Nagash's robes were writhing with the enslaved souls of vanquished foes. They seem like a good retinue to fight against griffin riders.
On the 'how many men does one man represent' question, I seem to recall Rick Priestley saying in an interview that WFB abstracted the basic troops, but went 1:1 for the heroes/leaders. So one soldier might be 10 or 100 men, but one Karl Franz was always one Karl Franz.
In the 5th ed rulebook it mentions the troop abstraction, but not the heroes.
On a related subject, it's amusing to note that even in Warmaster (10mm scale), also by Priestley, the rulebook says right at the start that the 30-40 little metal men in each little metal regiment actually represents hundreds of men plus baggage, camp followers and so on.
(I like to think a similar principle applies to all troop and organisational numbers in 40K fluff. Whenever GW writes '1000 Space Marines' they actually mean 100 000 because historical wargaming is so deep in their DNA that even the actual galactic background for their tabletop wargame is abstracted to a tabletop wargame. )
Incidentally, I've never played a game of WFB in my life... but collected all the original 4th/5th ed army books a few years ago, along with quite a few from 6th, because the fluff from that era is great. Especially 4th/5th. Finding the Undead book was the hardest for some reason. I felt like the classic would-be Necromancer seeking a forbidden tome and constantly chasing false leads.
I cannot be having with the 'twenty men walk around in a rectangular block' thing, though. It only makes sense to my brain at smaller scales like Warmaster. At 28mm scale, I keep thinking of that Discworld book where Colon is recalling his army days; they 'all formed up into them squares, and then all formed up into them arrows', because his commander thought a proper battle should look like the maps in books. Still, I'll admit that the block regiments look impressive on the table.
Zenithfleet wrote: On the 'how many men does one man represent' question, I seem to recall Rick Priestley saying in an interview that WFB abstracted the basic troops, but went 1:1 for the heroes/leaders. So one soldier might be 10 or 100 men, but one Karl Franz was always one Karl Franz.
This is how I've always interpreted it. The heroes fight with the skill/strength/ferocity/cunning/etc. of many times their number.
Well that doesn't make much sense either. Are we really supposed to imagine that Karl Franz is personally killing dozens or even hundreds of men on his own, and in the same amount of time a regular soldier can kill at most one?
Albino Squirrel wrote: Well that doesn't make much sense either. Are we really supposed to imagine that Karl Franz is personally killing dozens or even hundreds of men on his own, and in the same amount of time a regular soldier can kill at most one?
Yes kinda yes. I mean have you seen the Grifin he rides into battle? Go play Warhammer TW for a good flavour of how leaders can be smashing enemies left and right whilst regular troops are parrying and holding the line. Heck many of the GWBL books are the same - You'll see Gotrek slice dozens of beastmen for every one that a regular soldier manages to down (and that's often working in a team against one).
Albino Squirrel wrote: Well that doesn't make much sense either. Are we really supposed to imagine that Karl Franz is personally killing dozens or even hundreds of men on his own, and in the same amount of time a regular soldier can kill at most one?
Yes kinda yes. I mean have you seen the Grifin he rides into battle? Go play Warhammer TW for a good flavour of how leaders can be smashing enemies left and right whilst regular troops are parrying and holding the line. Heck many of the GWBL books are the same - You'll see Gotrek slice dozens of beastmen for every one that a regular soldier manages to down (and that's often working in a team against one).
This. Heroes in GW games are Dynasty Warriors characters, carving their way through hundreds of peasants.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Well that doesn't make much sense either. Are we really supposed to imagine that Karl Franz is personally killing dozens or even hundreds of men on his own, and in the same amount of time a regular soldier can kill at most one?
Yes kinda yes. I mean have you seen the Grifin he rides into battle? Go play Warhammer TW for a good flavour of how leaders can be smashing enemies left and right whilst regular troops are parrying and holding the line. Heck many of the GWBL books are the same - You'll see Gotrek slice dozens of beastmen for every one that a regular soldier manages to down (and that's often working in a team against one).
This. Heroes in GW games are Dynasty Warriors characters, carving their way through hundreds of peasants.
*nods head in approval*
I love 6th ed tyrion fluff about turning the battle on whichever flank he joined, as he went slaying enemy champions like wheat with each swing of his sword! Mofo is Anearion reborn. Of course hes worth like a 1000 men!
TW is awesome enough. The animations have gotten absolutely sick. (Looking at you abomination fighting a dragon/hydra ripping huminoids into tiny bits)
Now to have that in DW scale? Its too much! My Gf wouldn't see me for weeks and we'd end up breaking up and Id wake up 20 years later thinking what the eff I've done with my life.
Yep it can be jarring if you come from a historical background to see fantasy heroes carving up armies by themselves, but thats a distinct angle that a lot of people love and want.
I don't know, I think that's even worse than imagining that Karl Franz has a bodyguard of nobles on griffins that he fights with. Even at a modest ratio of 1:10, meaning you'd still be representing a pretty small battle, as your 20 man unit would only be representing 200 men, that makes the characters ridiculous.
Let's forget about the top tier characters. What about a low level like Empire hero character? If he's got 3 attacks, you're saying he's actually 30 times as killy as a regular soldier? That seems like a big jump. Let alone if you're talking about a 100:1 scale so you're closer to representing a real battle, with units of 2-3 thousand men. Then your regular empire hero is 300 times as deadly as a regular soldier, and he's killing a hundred men at a time.
I guess this is why they were never very specific about a model scale.
auticus wrote: Yep it can be jarring if you come from a historical background to see fantasy heroes carving up armies by themselves, but thats a distinct angle that a lot of people love and want.
Naw Warhammer Heroes don't tend to carve up whole armies; just regiments. Now if you want whole armies jump over to Malazn Book of the Fallen book series for army shattering spells.
Also don't try and ever take wargames and scale them up perfectly. The numbers just won't work at all. They are representational and its likely that a trooper might equally represent 200 warriors one moment and 2 the next depending on context of what they are fighting. Same for leaders. In the end its a game not an accurate simulation experience.
Characters in Rn'F fantasy pose an issue that isn't seen in historical games. Named characters in historical wouldn't really fight as great heros. They might fight as part of a larger unit or have their own base but perform a command and control function rather than a combat function.
I'm my mind the hero figure represents the hero and his or her retinue. So the Emperor is not a single fighter but the Emperor and his chosen band of elite fighters.
What bothers me most in all Rn'F games isn't the fighters to figures ratio but buildings. 28mm scale buildings on boards give me mild OCD. Is that a single house or does it represent a village?
to be fair in 28mm if you start to put down accurately scaled buildings you can pretty much only run Infinity/malifaux scale skirmish games. Wargames go out the window because you can't easily fit them on the table.
I think things like villages and such become more practical with 15mm to 6mm games.
Zenithfleet wrote: On the 'how many men does one man represent' question, I seem to recall Rick Priestley saying in an interview that WFB abstracted the basic troops, but went 1:1 for the heroes/leaders. So one soldier might be 10 or 100 men, but one Karl Franz was always one Karl Franz.
In the 5th ed rulebook it mentions the troop abstraction, but not the heroes.
On a related subject, it's amusing to note that even in Warmaster (10mm scale), also by Priestley, the rulebook says right at the start that the 30-40 little metal men in each little metal regiment actually represents hundreds of men plus baggage, camp followers and so on.
(I like to think a similar principle applies to all troop and organisational numbers in 40K fluff. Whenever GW writes '1000 Space Marines' they actually mean 100 000 because historical wargaming is so deep in their DNA that even the actual galactic background for their tabletop wargame is abstracted to a tabletop wargame. )
Incidentally, I've never played a game of WFB in my life... but collected all the original 4th/5th ed army books a few years ago, along with quite a few from 6th, because the fluff from that era is great. Especially 4th/5th. Finding the Undead book was the hardest for some reason. I felt like the classic would-be Necromancer seeking a forbidden tome and constantly chasing false leads.
I cannot be having with the 'twenty men walk around in a rectangular block' thing, though. It only makes sense to my brain at smaller scales like Warmaster. At 28mm scale, I keep thinking of that Discworld book where Colon is recalling his army days; they 'all formed up into them squares, and then all formed up into them arrows', because his commander thought a proper battle should look like the maps in books. Still, I'll admit that the block regiments look impressive on the table.
Rn'F games can be played down to quite low levels. So in not defining a proper scale WFB or KoW kind of scale to whatever sized battle you want to play.
1 to 10 ratio you are playing a very minor battle. 1 to 100 you are playing fairly major engagements. The scale is as you need it. I imagine the big battles in WFB to be like the biggest battles from our own ancient history. I can also imagine a near 1to 1 ratio if I'm playing a raid on a village.
niall78 wrote: Characters in Rn'F fantasy pose an issue that isn't seen in historical games. Named characters in historical wouldn't really fight as great heros. They might fight as part of a larger unit or have their own base but perform a command and control function rather than a combat function.
I'm my mind the hero figure represents the hero and his or her retinue. So the Emperor is not a single fighter but the Emperor and his chosen band of elite fighters.
What bothers me most in all Rn'F games isn't the fighters to figures ratio but buildings. 28mm scale buildings on boards give me mild OCD. Is that a single house or does it represent a village?
Indeed in historical your hero as awesome as he may be, and as well trained is not going to have a legendary magical sword calling down bolts of lightining or riding a mythical fire breathing monster... His job is to give the order for feigned retreat at the right time or inspire his centre to hold until the ambush force arrives at the rear etc. Human are but mere mortals.
I like the way people assume GW will call a hypothetical next version of WHFB version 9.
We all know they'll do an apple and skip 9 and call this Warhammer X.
I can remember drunkenly arguing with my roommate in college decades ago about how great a Warhammer musou/ Dynasty Warrior game could be.
His counterpoint was that there wouldn't be enough of a Japanese fanbase to get a company like Omega Works involved. Oh, how we can dream though!
It baffles me we don't see more cross promotion between the models and the various video games they've made over the years.
All those sweet Lizardmen units from Total War, character models like Kholek Suneater... it just pains me they aren't capitalizing on those. Yet, at least.
Gimgamgoo wrote: I like the way people assume GW will call a hypothetical next version of WHFB version 9.
We all know they'll do an apple and skip 9 and call this Warhammer X.
The name is literally the only thing that we allready know about this.
It baffles me we don't see more cross promotion between the models and the various video games they've made over the years.
All those sweet Lizardmen units from Total War, character models like Kholek Suneater... it just pains me they aren't capitalizing on those. Yet, at least.
I'd like to see it, too, but the main issue is video games take a long time to make, especially if you don't already have the assets to use. By the time a video game is released, the design any unit featured in that game is at least 2-3 years old, and GW is usually more about promoting their new models (it should be noted that the webstore did have a search filter for models that appeared in Total War when the game first came out, but several of them were out of production by then). The other option would be for GW to including the game developers in the design process, and we all know that's not likely.
The speculation was a bit fun, but honestly the hyperbole from some posters is even more fun. NOBODY has laid out any "AOS has failed" crap, yet AOS players are already in the thread making sure you know that they think that this won't be Warhammer like you remember it, it won't possibly have square bases, and you better DAMN well know that AOS isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is taking your game, people. We're getting another game. Period. A new release of BFG isn't suddenly going to negate 40K, nor would an actual MOW release negate WFB or AOS.
Just Tony wrote: The speculation was a bit fun, but honestly the hyperbole from some posters is even more fun. NOBODY has laid out any "AOS has failed" crap, yet AOS players are already in the thread making sure you know that they think that this won't be Warhammer like you remember it, it won't possibly have square bases, and you better DAMN well know that AOS isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is taking your game, people. We're getting another game. Period. A new release of BFG isn't suddenly going to negate 40K, nor would an actual MOW release negate WFB or AOS.
I'm not sure what this post is on reaction to.
The new game won't be like 8th edition or even 7th edition because despite the evident popularity of both the setting and Rank and File games, neither 7th nor 8th edition were particularly popular.
It is self evident that gw will change the game from 8th. The new game is not called Warhammer Fantasy Battles. The natural question is how gw will change it.
You raise a good point. What WAS the most popular WFB ruleset? If they are going to go back to the board with it like they've been trying to cram 2nd Ed. 40K back into the main game for the last three editions, I'd love to speculate on whether they'd go 5th WFB or 6th WFB.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: It baffles me we don't see more cross promotion between the models and the various video games they've made over the years.
All those sweet Lizardmen units from Total War, character models like Kholek Suneater... it just pains me they aren't capitalizing on those. Yet, at least.
Well, obviously, there hasn't been a lot of overlap. AoS doesn't have any major video game titles. Total War and Vermintide are set in the old setting. Although there has been some promotion and coverage via White Dwarf and online, advertising any of it is a bit tricky the way things currently are.
Do you want to defend the Empire against the invading Greenskins, Undead or hordes of Chaos? -Well, do it in this video game, because the Empire doesn't exist anymore, but about half the models are still available depending on what units you like best. Free Company and Knights you say? Ah, that's a shame...
How about this widely acclaimed DLC focussing on the Tomb Kings? -Yeah, about those...
Hmm, Vampire Coast then? Zombie pirates and crabs the size of a house? -Well, we never actually made many models for those. Aside from some characters, there was a nifty set combining zombies and.. oh, never mind, those same Free Company militia...
It sure would have been interesting to see what effect the Total War games might have had on WHFB. But it arrived too late for that. If the new classic Warhammer is released in 3 years time, the last instalment of the Total War trilogy will have been released a good while prior, though quite likely still ongoing with some regular DLC support.. but again, hardly great timing. It will be interesting to see if, probably not at release, but within the years after, GW will be using any unit redesigns, new unit designs or indeed underdeveloped factions that were popular in Total War for their new classic Warhammer game. In that sense, the apparent popularity of the Vampirates and perhaps soon Kislev could well prove to be relevant but I suppose we won't know until half a decade from now, unless they tease things early (but I imagine any previews will focus on things we can expect, and things people most look forward to seeing return. It can't be a coincidence that their own memes feature Tomb Kings several times).
Gimgamgoo wrote: I like the way people assume GW will call a hypothetical next version of WHFB version 9.
We all know they'll do an apple and skip 9 and call this Warhammer X.
GW stopped using Edition numbers long ago, they won't call it 9th as there already was no 8th
Just Tony wrote: The speculation was a bit fun, but honestly the hyperbole from some posters is even more fun. NOBODY has laid out any "AOS has failed" crap, yet AOS players are already in the thread making sure you know that they think that this won't be Warhammer like you remember it, it won't possibly have square bases, and you better DAMN well know that AOS isn't going anywhere.
This is their own insecurities really (which is a natural human response so not a criticism). GW have had success with older titles like Blood Bowl, Necromunda etc and hence have now recognised that a significant market share didn't transfer over from WFB to AoS - you can't force people to playing a certain type of game. This was a business decision of GW that was flawed. AoS is fundamentally the same as 40K but in a different setting. Those that preferred ranked battles hence looked elsewhere. GW want to try and capture those people again to increase their market. Any game will stand on its own as to whether it is continued (and will also be partially how expensive they make it). If people continue to buy into AoS then it will continue, if not then it will slowly be reduced in importance.
My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.
Whirlwind wrote: My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.
This is why I think they should base it off an existing edition and dial up/down the minutia that needs to be dialed to get it in as sweet a spot as possible. Once it's in and done, then model support and FOR ASURYAN'S SAKE ADVERTISE AND PROMOTE THE DAMN THING!!!!!!!!!!! That is what GW should do. I have a pet edition, and one that I think needs the least dialing, but I would defer to the popular consensus and play the older edition if they chose something that doesn't check my boxes. I'm blessed that I can do that.
Rules are a potential concern, I think that’s largely what killed WHFB in the first place. Take Aeronautica as an example, they already had a really good rule set and the changes (though mostly minor) for the most part only made it worse.
Argive wrote: Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?
7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,
not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release
Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.
Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.
Argive wrote: Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?
7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,
not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release
Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.
Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.
In fairness, AoD being 7.2.5 always seemed more about HAVING a purchasable 7th Edition book on the market for newblood to keep playing 30k than meant as a radical new thing.
Argive wrote: Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?
7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,
not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release
Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.
Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.
Ahh I see thanks. That was the concern I was raising. Fingers crossed they will pick the best parts of previous editions. Wouldn't it be something if they got something spot on this one time...
Argive wrote: Which ruleset 40k does HH use for the most part? Id it 3rd/4th?
7th. It used the same rules as 40k when it was released,
not really the same, some of the core rules were changed for the FW re-release
Nothing massive though. Just little tweaks.
Yeah, they changed two, maybe even three, minor rules. They had all of the editions of 40K to pick and choose the best rules from...and they didn't. That would be my concern for a new version of WFB, that they won't really do much beyond reprinting the last version and calling it good.
I think we'll see something closer to 40K and it's relationship to apocalypse, no reason to wait two years to release an older edition of a game and their recent voxcast videos have talked more about wanting to create different games that are focused on different scales.
So will probably be something new, probably with some nods to warmaster and old WFB, but focused more around blocks of infantry in mass combat and less on the individual warriors.
I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.
Wunzlez wrote: I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.
Wunzlez wrote: I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.
For example ?
Naming some that I’d like to see
- Hippogryph Knights
- Dwarf Rangers
- Chaos dragons
- Hierotitan
- everything related to the Vampire Coast
- War Wagons
- Everything Norsca Related
- Squires
- Peasants
- Horned Ones
Some of the top of my head.
Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.
Wunzlez wrote: I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.
For example ?
Naming some that I’d like to see
- Hippogryph Knights
- Dwarf Rangers
- Chaos dragons
- Hierotitan
- everything related to the Vampire Coast
- War Wagons
- Everything Norsca Related
- Squires
- Peasants
- Horned Ones
Some of the top of my head.
Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.
Beat me to it.
Although Hierotitan was just lacking a model rather than being entirely new. War Wagons would be a welcome return as well.
Also not sure if the skaven death-runners ever existed with distinct models.
Wunzlez wrote: I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.
For example ?
Naming some that I’d like to see - Hippogryph Knights - Dwarf Rangers - Chaos dragons - Hierotitan - everything related to the Vampire Coast - War Wagons - Everything Norsca Related - Squires - Peasants - Horned Ones
Some of the top of my head.
Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.
A lot those already existed. The only things that are unique to Total War are Vampire Coast, Norsca, and Hippogryph knights. Norsca's unit roster isn't really anything new; a lot of it are taken from Forge World ranges.
Dwarf Rangers were in the 8th ed army book Horned Ones were a cavalry unit for the Southlands list in the 6th ed lizardman army book, and then a special mount in the 8th ed book. Pretty sure squires and peasants were options in the Bretonnian army book Dunno when War Wagons were around, but there was definitely a model for them at one point. I think 4th ed? Hierotitans were in the 8th ed army book, but there was no model for it.
Wunzlez wrote: I'd be interested to see if they sculpt some of the new(ish) units that have been introduced in TW:W 1&2, that were invented in order to balance out some of the armies in the game.
For example ?
Naming some that I’d like to see
- Hippogryph Knights
- Dwarf Rangers
- Chaos dragons
- Hierotitan
- everything related to the Vampire Coast
- War Wagons
- Everything Norsca Related
- Squires
- Peasants
- Horned Ones
Some of the top of my head.
Though I would actually love to see them. Tapping into stuff related to the Rpg books. Kislev got much more in depth because of those.
A lot those already existed.
The only things that are unique to Total War are Vampire Coast, Norsca, and Hippogryph knights.
Norsca's unit roster isn't really anything new; a lot of it are taken from Forge World ranges.
Dwarf Rangers were in the 8th ed army book
Horned Ones were a cavalry unit for the Southlands list in the 6th ed lizardman army book, and then a special mount in the 8th ed book.
Pretty sure squires and peasants were options in the Bretonnian army book
Dunno when War Wagons were around, but there was definitely a model for them at one point. I think 4th ed?
Hierotitans were in the 8th ed army book, but there was no model for it.
Right, but they didn't have models, which TW:W 'gave' them.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Rules are a potential concern, I think that’s largely what killed WHFB in the first place. Take Aeronautica as an example, they already had a really good rule set and the changes (though mostly minor) for the most part only made it worse.
the rules didnt kill WHFB, the ridiculous unit cost in $$ did. need 4-5 50$ boxes to make a single 150-200 point unit was stupid
Kanluwen wrote: Dwarf Rangers had models, Squires had models(mounted Yeomen and Yeoman), hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.
I might be mistaken, but did the Brets have foot squires with great weapons in past editions?
Kinda/sorta?
Are they wearing full armor and the like? If so, it might be them playing with the idea of the "Virtue of Empathy" trait that was available to Bretonnian heroes. It let them go on foot, cause they were 'Of the People!'.
If not, it might just be a weird thing of showcasing the halberd wielding peasants again.
Kanluwen wrote: hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.
That's a bit misleading. GW sold a conversion pack consisting of sprues for Free Company and Zombies, and much later did a "Sartosa Vampire" model (which was not related to the VC armylist). It's something, but only technically counts as "had models".
Kanluwen wrote: hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.
That's a bit misleading. GW sold a conversion pack consisting of sprues for Free Company and Zombies, and much later did a "Sartosa Vampire" model (which was not related to the VC armylist). It's something, but only technically counts as "had models".
If we're talking unit designs however, those did exist for a larger group of models (which clearly inspired the Total War faction) in the form of conversions in a White Dwarf article.
Some pics here: https://twitter.com/games_workshop1/status/740256350337388545 Plus the Mourngul from Forge World.
That said, there still exist a bunch of completely new units in especially that faction, and a few others besides. Not a fan of all of them (latest Kroxigors with powerfists...), but overall they've done a smashing job and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing GW borrow some ideas back.
That is another sense in which I am quite looking forward to Kislev in Total War - there's a large list of units in one of the Citadel Journals, few of which were subsequently created as models (although again, a few published conversions exist). If the Total War team fleshes these out, it could be a great starting point for a more complete model range by GW. Although I'd settle for a Made-to-Order wave of the existing sculpts too, they're pretty gorgeous...
Kanluwen wrote: hell even the Vampire Coast had models for a time.
That's a bit misleading. GW sold a conversion pack consisting of sprues for Free Company and Zombies, and much later did a "Sartosa Vampire" model (which was not related to the VC armylist). It's something, but only technically counts as "had models".
If we're talking unit designs however, those did exist for a larger group of models (which clearly inspired the Total War faction) in the form of conversions in a White Dwarf article.
Some pics here: https://twitter.com/games_workshop1/status/740256350337388545 Plus the Mourngul from Forge World.
There is also the Necrofex Colossus - that walking shipwreck giant - which had concept art and rules in "Monstrous Arcanum" by FW. But "having model design" is quite something else than "having models".
My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.
GW still have Jervis Johnson, don't they?
(That may be a good or bad thing depending on the style of game you prefer. Jervis's rulesets can be divisive because he prefers 'elegant' rules--streamlined, but with a lot of hidden depth. Many players prefer rulesets with more chrome--lots of options and special rules and details to fiddle with, even if they're actually shallower. But he knows what he's about.)
My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.
GW still have Jervis Johnson, don't they?
(That may be a good or bad thing depending on the style of game you prefer. Jervis's rulesets can be divisive because he prefers 'elegant' rules--streamlined, but with a lot of hidden depth. Many players prefer rulesets with more chrome--lots of options and special rules and details to fiddle with, even if they're actually shallower. But he knows what he's about.)
Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.
I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.
All I can say is that this WHFB reboot will be just another opportunity for them to not update my Brets..
I'm ready for whenever this releases, my Bret army is in it's case untouched since the old world went boom.
Assuming that the rules are a reiteration of 8th ed, the main points I hope they address are
- The likes of laser-guided canons making any monster useless. The phrase "6 inches from the rear of your unit" when firing a canon is burnt into my memory.
- Ridiculous death star units towards the end of 8th ed - i.e. horde of Phoenix Guard with Teclis and Banner of World Dragon lol.. Only option is to bait that unit and try to avoid for the entire game.
- Rework the magic phase completely. Using 40k/AoS as a base would be a good starting point. each spell has a casting value on 2d6 with a dispel on 2d6. Removes the stupidity of 6 dicing the likes of Purple Sun and Dwellers - whilst on this topic, tone down those OP spells to have a cap on how many models etc rather than EVERYTHING
- Steadfast must go or at least provide a different bonus to basically being immune to morale
- If not removing Steadfast, remove the BSB reroll. One or the other must be done. Make psychology actually mean something again. BSB could be a +2 to LD or something. Either way, if a unit is mulched in single round it should be a miracle that they stick around.
- ASF rework, either go first or reroll hits. Pick one.
My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.
GW still have Jervis Johnson, don't they?
(That may be a good or bad thing depending on the style of game you prefer. Jervis's rulesets can be divisive because he prefers 'elegant' rules--streamlined, but with a lot of hidden depth. Many players prefer rulesets with more chrome--lots of options and special rules and details to fiddle with, even if they're actually shallower. But he knows what he's about.)
Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.
I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.
I look at his 3rd Ed. Imperial Guard book as a nice metric. Elite troops who are priced like Elite troops but are statted almost identical to the Troop troops. I pay for value, not the ability to "go nuts" with converting an overpriced unit.
Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.
I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.
- The likes of laser-guided canons making any monster useless. The phrase "6 inches from the rear of your unit" when firing a canon is burnt into my memory.
About cannons, and their "laser" accuracy, they weren't as accurate as some people think. Against the monsters etc that use 4" (100mm) long chariot base you had a 50% chance to hit if aiming 6" from back and 75% chance if aiming (better choice) 10" from back. 2+ to hit is 83.33% chance and 3+ to hit is 66.67% chance. So 2.5+ to hit? Around BS3.5. Good odds, but as accurate as people think.
6" from rear you will overshoot a third of the time. If your knights were 4 ranks deep that would be an (4 ranks x 2" base) = 8" deep target. Which would be hit on anything but a misfire (a laser guided 2+ effectively); if aimed 10" from back. But the number of models hit in the unit would vary of course.
As an Empire player, I remember wishing I could get bolt-throwers. Against large monsters (+1 to hit for being large) they were almost as accurate, and only around half the cost of a great cannon. I would have liked it if cannons were treated like bolt-throwers.
For steadfast you just need a way to cancel it. If a flank charge or rear charge could cancel steadfast, then that big death star blob would be very risky because if they got flank or rear charged, all of those points could vanish.
That by itself would make fielding those type of units more risk than players would be rewarded with and remove them. Additionally it does so by adding a tactical element to the game (again)... pushing maneuver to the forefront of whats important as opposed to lulz and throwing a mega unit together and just plowing it forward (because players WILL aim toward the path of least resistance if given the opportunity and that was about as mindless as it got and one reason I really did not like 8th edition at all)
My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.
GW still have Jervis Johnson, don't they?
(That may be a good or bad thing depending on the style of game you prefer. Jervis's rulesets can be divisive because he prefers 'elegant' rules--streamlined, but with a lot of hidden depth. Many players prefer rulesets with more chrome--lots of options and special rules and details to fiddle with, even if they're actually shallower. But he knows what he's about.)
Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.
I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.
I look at his 3rd Ed. Imperial Guard book as a nice metric. Elite troops who are priced like Elite troops but are statted almost identical to the Troop troops. I pay for value, not the ability to "go nuts" with converting an overpriced unit.
When I think of Jervis Johnson's elegant rules I think of the second half of 4th ed 40k and how it all went downhill from there.
I'm sure he's a nice guy and has some good ideas, but I don't believe you should put him in charge and let his ideas go unchallenged and unchecked. He seems more like a team player contributing ideas than a project lead to me.
- The likes of laser-guided canons making any monster useless. The phrase "6 inches from the rear of your unit" when firing a canon is burnt into my memory.
About cannons, and their "laser" accuracy, they weren't as accurate as some people think. Against the monsters etc that use 4" (100mm) long chariot base you had a 50% chance to hit if aiming 6" from back and 75% chance if aiming (better choice) 10" from back. 2+ to hit is 83.33% chance and 3+ to hit is 66.67% chance. So 2.5+ to hit? Around BS3.5. Good odds, but as accurate as people think.
6" from rear you will overshoot a third of the time. If your knights were 4 ranks deep that would be an (4 ranks x 2" base) = 8" deep target. Which would be hit on anything but a misfire (a laser guided 2+ effectively); if aimed 10" from back. But the number of models hit in the unit would vary of course.
As an Empire player, I remember wishing I could get bolt-throwers. Against large monsters (+1 to hit for being large) they were almost as accurate, and only around half the cost of a great cannon. I would have liked it if cannons were treated like bolt-throwers.
The way GW has written rules in recent years I'd be worried that things are only going to get more accurate. Rampant re-rolls and across the board increase to deadliness would be very much expected, but not particularly good for the hypothetical new edition.
Assuming they go the old rank and flank with this Old World setting, I'm anticipating the shooty volumes and killiness of current 40k (along with CCG style buffs and synergies out the wazoo) being ported over to the close combat/melee portions of the Old World.
One of the game directions GW has moved toward is making the game "faster" at higher points values. I don't see anything that would make me think a new version of WHFB, at this point in time, would look anything like the original.
And since its 3 years out or so, I'll stick with 5th/6th ed WHFB, and Warhammer Ancients for my rank and flank games. Fortunately I have a game group who doesn't chase the newest rules and has slowed on GW, and they are perfectly happy to play older or alt rulesets.
And, since I have a huge 5th edition Bret army (old plastic knights and metal MAA), and never upgraded to the new plastics, I'm not GW's target audience for any Bret update. Though they may stay squatted for all I know.
malfred wrote: If I were feeling cheeky I'd play this game using Mantic sculpts,
but their line is so inconsistent it's like they have 1-2 sweet
models and then they poop the bed.
Why torture yourself with meh rules and meh models? Play great KoW rules with great GW models
Since you keep shilling the same post over and over again, I'll bite.
Why would I want to play a checkers version of WFB?
malfred wrote: If I were feeling cheeky I'd play this game using Mantic sculpts,
but their line is so inconsistent it's like they have 1-2 sweet
models and then they poop the bed.
Why torture yourself with meh rules and meh models? Play great KoW rules with great GW models
Since you keep shilling the same post over and over again, I'll bite.
Why would I want to play a checkers version of WFB?
Don`t encourage him, or we`ll get the same old "KoW is a better ruleset, than GW has ever written, and undead minis don`t look too bad"
If I had a rouble for every time I`ve read/heard that...
auticus wrote: For steadfast you just need a way to cancel it. If a flank charge or rear charge could cancel steadfast, then that big death star blob would be very risky because if they got flank or rear charged, all of those points could vanish.
That by itself would make fielding those type of units more risk than players would be rewarded with and remove them. Additionally it does so by adding a tactical element to the game (again)... pushing maneuver to the forefront of whats important as opposed to lulz and throwing a mega unit together and just plowing it forward (because players WILL aim toward the path of least resistance if given the opportunity and that was about as mindless as it got and one reason I really did not like 8th edition at all)
There was a risk if people actually played with proper terrain rules, as in the random amount rolls. I know that's not always convenient for people based on what they have at hand, but I vividly remember Mr Malorian's earlier videos with his O&G hordes and 5-wide ranked anvils**** and complaining about the hordes and 5-ranks making the game very boring, but also playing on tables with sparse terrain. Later on in his battle reports there seemed to be more terrain on the videos, but what I remember most is the army with the big 100-man NG units backed up by 50-man Orc 5-wide units. I'm not picking on him though, I always enjoyed his videos, but that part stood out to me and it's as good an example as any.
For example dividing up placement of terrain between players as evenly as possible can easily result in a canny opponent placing bottlenecks for larger units. Wych elf and savage orc big un hordes aren't nearly as scary when they have to manuever through tiny areas using reform and are forced to only fight with a fraction of their ranks and attacks. And another extremely important rule that always seemed to be forgotten in games I witnessed (though not in the ones I played) was that if a unit has a majority of it's footprint within a wood, then it loses the rank bonus and cannot benefit from steadfast. Woods being one of the most ubiquitous types of terrain in most fantasy and historical wargaming collections. I've never had an issue with dealing with steadfast or hordes (outside of a few exceptional death-stars) due to this fact, as if someone relies upon that I tended to make use of the terrain as best I could to lead them on and trap them.
And that's not to mention the horribly broken instant death spells.
However, yes it was by no means an edition without flaws, there were a lot of things I would change, but claiming a use of hordes and larger units is a mindless tactic is an extreme bent to what is a minor issue compared with other problems in the game, army book creep being the main offender as usual.
Take it from someone who played O&Gs, Brets and TKs, as both on the using and receiving end of them; hordes are one of the last issues on my mind.
****It's important to make this distinction since hordes are the 10 wide, or 6 if monstrous, units and not the deep 5-ranked ones that are hard to shift due to steadfast.
People seem to be assuming this will just be WHFB 9th or 10th edition (I don't know if end times counts as 9th or not) but I'm guessing it'll probably be a lot closer to something like a fantasy version of the new apocalypse. The same detachments/orders/datasheet style ported on over to fantasy stuff.
cole1114 wrote: People seem to be assuming this will just be WHFB 9th or 10th edition (I don't know if end times counts as 9th or not) but I'm guessing it'll probably be a lot closer to something like a fantasy version of the new apocalypse. The same detachments/orders/datasheet style ported on over to fantasy stuff.
Dread Master wrote: I imagine it will be similar to the plastic boxed sets released for HH. A Self contained rule set for the encounter represented in the box.
Nah. Those were board games, but you could use the models for the proper Horus Heresy game. I don’t see them releasing an Old World board game with no full game to use the models in - especially not announcing it 3 years in advance.
My greatest concern for WFB is that GW no longer really have excellent game rules designers even if they have fairly decent artistic rule designers (Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc are all based on historic rule sets, AoS and 40K are relatively straightforward). That brings concerns that if they try and completely redo the game then they may make the game worse rather than better.
GW still have Jervis Johnson, don't they?
(That may be a good or bad thing depending on the style of game you prefer. Jervis's rulesets can be divisive because he prefers 'elegant' rules--streamlined, but with a lot of hidden depth. Many players prefer rulesets with more chrome--lots of options and special rules and details to fiddle with, even if they're actually shallower. But he knows what he's about.)
Does he banjo. I mean, this is sarcasm, right? Because there's no way someone would seriously argue Jervis "who needs points anyway" Johnson's preference is for "elegant" rules, right? Hidden depth? Yes, very well hidden indeed. In that it's yet to be found.
I mean jeezo man, this is the guy who thought AoS 1.0 was an unappreciated work of genius.
Aaaand that's exactly the sort of reaction I was alluding to when I said Jervis's rules were 'divisive'.
I can't comment on AoS as I've never played it. But Jervis also did the rules for:
-the original Blood Bowl (enough said)
-The 'Wargames Series' boxed map-and-counter games from the early 90s: Battle for Armageddon, Horus Heresy and Doom of the Eldar (all of which are solid light wargames and worth tracking down, assuming you don't mind working out combat ratios in proper old-school fashion)
-Epic 40,000 (lots of innovative and indeed elegant mechanics such as blast markers, but famously unpopular for being too streamlined and different to the previous edition... think the reaction of many WFB players to AoS and you've pretty much got it)
-Epic Armageddon (the happy halfway house between 2nd and 3rd edition Epic).
Technically speaking, Jervis was also partly responsible for Battlefleet Gothic's core rules. (Spoilered because it's a bit off topic for this thread.)
Spoiler:
The BFG rules were based on Epic 40,000, which in turn was apparently based on an early system called Heresy that Jervis had devised back in the AT/TL days. Andy Chambers had worked with him on Epic 40K and then adapted the rules to represent spaceship battles for his Piscina IV campaign with his mates. That later became the Storm of Vengeance campaign/terrain set for 2nd ed 40K... along with BFG.
Of course, Andy's success with BFG versus the failure of Epic 40K, even though both used pretty much the same rules, led Jervis to do some deep pondering and take some lessons from BFG's approach. This included making units feel more special and unique, with dedicated fluff entries and the like, rather than just barebones stat lines. Which led to Epic Armageddon. What goes around comes around, etc.)
Those are all actual games, not just Codexes.
I'm not saying he'd be ideal for WFB, mind you. Just that he's the first name that springs to mind when talking about actual proper experienced GW game designers still with GW.
Anyway, I don't recall him having much involvement with Warhammer Fantasy. Apart from, y'know, the whole AoS thing.
The issue with Jervis is that a) he likes 'elegant and streamlined' whereas players often prefer bling, and b) he's always been partial to the 'gentlemen's game' approach. He generally assumes both players will be sensible and agree on limits, refrain from taking obviously broken or unfair lists, and so on. The gentlemenly historical wargamer's approach. That attitude seems to be where the whole 'no points in AoS 1.0' came from. But players out in the wild often disagree. It's not exactly helpful for pickup games, for instance.
Enough about JJ. Who's for dragging Tuomas Pirinen back in for a remake of 6th ed? (It was Tuomas, wasn't it? I embarrassed myself once by saying it was Alessio. ) He can give Mordheim a spring cleaning while he's there.
Nah, see the trouble isn't whether Jervis is "divisive", it's with your characterisation as to why he's divisive.
You define his work as "elegant and streamlined" but full of "hidden depth", and say people who don't favour his work prefer "bling chrome, but shallower".
My contention is his work is simplistic and has all the depth of a puddle, while the preference of people who dislike his work is for well-explained crunchy, substantive rules, with actual depth. Blood Bowl is a fun game, but you could hardly call it deep, it's almost pure RNG and player input is largely limited to listbuilding and odds management. Never played his "boxed games". Epic 40K...yeah. At one point I was actually tempted by it, then I saw a game actually being played.
As to your wee spoilered box - erm, doesn't that rather prove that Andy Chambers is responsible for Epic: Armageddon, rather than that Jervis was responsible for BFG? Jervis had a bad idea, Andy fixed it, Jervis subsequently copied Andy's fix.
Bringing back Tuomas though? Yeah, that I can get behind. Whether or not they'd offer him terms he's interested in these days is another thing - he has a lot of love for his work from GW(he still pops into the Mordheim FB group on occasion), but these days he does his own thing and GW aren't exactly renowned for paying well.
Depending on what you're looking for, you might want Priestley for the WHFB reboot. He did Warmaster, and also the Hail Caesar historical rules stable for Warlord, based on the Warmaster system, but in 28mm.
Either way, with Jervis, or Priestley, or Tuomas, you pretty much know what you're going to get - more of the same as before, but tweaked. There is so much legacy stuff tied up in how GW does rules, that I don't think the studio would be given too much latitude for a miniatures game (not board game), outside of the LOTR SBG, 40k, AOS, Epic/Gothic/Warmaster mold. Remember Starship Troopers by Chambers, which was supposedly the new edition of 40k, but the powers that be said nope?
So if we see anything, it'll be "familiar" and "streamlined" and deep enough for a 12 year old to grasp so that they can keep churning the new blood into the GW universe. If its too different, people don't get the connection, and there is less cross pollination.
Like I say in all my posts, my age clearly makes me not the target demographic for GW's rules, approach, and now CCG-like system of buffs and synergies. I prefer my games with more crunch, and the odd look up chart, which is why I play many of the older versions of WHFB, still play Mordheim and Gothic, and play a bunch of historicals from all eras (I should say I have bought and read a metric ton of rulebooks of all types of TT games, and I play the ones I can find opponents for :-)
Dread Master wrote: I imagine it will be similar to the plastic boxed sets released for HH. A Self contained rule set for the encounter represented in the box.
Nah. Those were board games, but you could use the models for the proper Horus Heresy game. I don’t see them releasing an Old World board game with no full game to use the models in - especially not announcing it 3 years in advance.
I know they’re board games, that goes without saying.I was suggesting that the Old world is the Setting for a new series of board games that will be self contained encounters based on historical battles in the Warhammer world. Just as the Horus Heresy is the setting for Betrayal at Calth and The Burning of Prospero.
I could see that. Lots of boxed sets like the Isle of Blood, or the Battle for Skull Pass. Those were all akin to the Heresy boxed sets (even though they just used WHFB rules where the Heresy games used unique mechanics).
Mr Priestley has already written an updated version of WHFB - it's called Warlords of Erewhon. It's streamlined with crunchy bits, if that's what you like. It's not turn based, or phase based either, so traditionalists would probably dislike it. It's also d10 based. Most shocking of all (put your pipe down and sit down), it's on round bases. It's not really rank and flank as so many seem to want, but it certainly captures the flavour of WHFB without all the fiddle.
Huginn wrote: Mr Priestley has already written an updated version of WHFB - it's called Warlords of Erewhon. It's streamlined with crunchy bits, if that's what you like. It's not turn based, or phase based either, so traditionalists would probably dislike it. It's also d10 based. Most shocking of all (put your pipe down and sit down), it's on round bases. It's not really rank and flank as so many seem to want, but it certainly captures the flavour of WHFB without all the fiddle.
Round bases is a clear no go for me. I have a Night Goblin, Lahmian Vampire and Khemri army in my cabinet and only a complete fool would assume it is a good idea to move each mini on it's own. Besides, models organized in R&F look simply amazing.
Warlords of Erehwon is excellent, does everything I want for a way to play with my old world toys. I’m looking forward to the new shiny stuff this game brings so it can go straight on a round base (the irony) for WoE!
Huginn wrote: Mr Priestley has already written an updated version of WHFB - it's called Warlords of Erewhon. It's streamlined with crunchy bits, if that's what you like. It's not turn based, or phase based either, so traditionalists would probably dislike it. It's also d10 based. Most shocking of all (put your pipe down and sit down), it's on round bases. It's not really rank and flank as so many seem to want, but it certainly captures the flavour of WHFB without all the fiddle.
Wait?
So it's and "update of WHFB", except no rank & file, no square bases, not turn based, etc..
Doesn't sound like an update of WHFB to me as it just sounds like just a different game.
Bases don’t matter in WoE either, and we always use movement trays, albeit for 5 / 10 man groups. Well worth Old Worlds fans giving a go given how cheap the buy in is.
@wunzlez: I very much remember trees effecting the game a lot. I often avoided random trees because of all the bad things they had in em but if you can force large units halfway in it would do that if the forest was big enough. I also recall skirmishers being steadfast in woods, flyers and cavalry taking Dt and yet another thing that ruined ballistic skill weapons.
As far as something far better than woods was rivers. If a rank and file was even partially in a river and lost a fight no steadfast happened at all. You have no idea of facing an enemy gun-line which is superior just waiting on the other side of that river preventing you from charging because you'll be partly in the river and your combat resolution sucks.
That said worse comes to worse chaff and super spells could destroy those death stars.
Strg Alt wrote: I am not thrilled for GW ruleset but "Warhammer The Old World" will be compatible with 9th Age.
9th age is a dead trainwreck
thanks for killing the thread.
altough 95% was rubbish already about wat size the mini's will be (28mm, duh!), how many 1 mini represent (why? who cares? doesn't make a difference in playing the game right?) of it actualy be on square bases if not of round in a movement tray (they specificly say all thing comes around, even SQUARE bases)...
On topic:
I hope it will be an update like 40k got 8th edition as update.
make it a bit more simplyfied but still cool. hopefully they explain the rules better then before because that was one of the major problems!
also maybe make the to hit and to wound like 40k. (i went from fantasy to 40k when AOS came in)
they should also make it possible to charge a unit between 2 obstacle. like before a horde (10wide) couldn't move between 2 buildings if the gap wast wide enough.
they should make it possible to move of even charge inbetween, by free reforming to a smaller format. (a horde storming in between just adapts to the space they have.)
they should just loose the horde rule (and maybe get a small debuff for 1 round for the possible people running against the building)
also i do like the armor and AP rules of 40k instead of binding it to your strength.
magic shouldn't be as OP as it was in the end of 8th (fantasy) but also shouldn't be so lame as psychic powers in 40k either)
how do you all feel about charging in movement phase instead of charging after movement, magic and shooting phase (again, like in 40k)
i wouldn't mind if they keep it like it was. i wouldn't have a problem if they changed it either.
ok, i know how you all going to react: go play 40k if you want to change fantasy to 40k.
it is just idea's of improving old fantasy and where they might have struggled for newcomers and/ or some rules where not that great (although i did not have a problem with the to hit and to wound roster, but to explain it to newcomers was hard)
If you look back at actual historical regimental combats like WFB is supposed to represent, most of the killing was done during one army routing. I think that's what was lost with WFB, that psychological press of combat. The second you had regiments of troops with 3 or more attacks per model as standard infantry, you passed that bridge. Uber killy was the big issue from mid 7th on, THAT is what needs to be addressed in any edition of WFB from here on out. You want mass casualty Fantasy gaming, you have AOS.l
Yodhrin wrote: Nah, see the trouble isn't whether Jervis is "divisive", it's with your characterisation as to why he's divisive.
You define his work as "elegant and streamlined" but full of "hidden depth", and say people who don't favour his work prefer "bling chrome, but shallower".
My contention is his work is simplistic and has all the depth of a puddle, while the preference of people who dislike his work is for well-explained crunchy, substantive rules, with actual depth. Blood Bowl is a fun game, but you could hardly call it deep, it's almost pure RNG and player input is largely limited to listbuilding and odds management. Never played his "boxed games". Epic 40K...yeah. At one point I was actually tempted by it, then I saw a game actually being played.
As to your wee spoilered box - erm, doesn't that rather prove that Andy Chambers is responsible for Epic: Armageddon, rather than that Jervis was responsible for BFG? Jervis had a bad idea, Andy fixed it, Jervis subsequently copied Andy's fix.
Bringing back Tuomas though? Yeah, that I can get behind. Whether or not they'd offer him terms he's interested in these days is another thing - he has a lot of love for his work from GW(he still pops into the Mordheim FB group on occasion), but these days he does his own thing and GW aren't exactly renowned for paying well.
No depth to blood bowl. Congratulations on my biggest wtf moment in all my years browsing this site.
I think that it might be set in terms of HH with specific historical campaigns with specific books linked to areas of Fantasy history. For example:
Black fire pass
The Sundering
War of the beard
Vampire wars
Great War against chaos
The war against Nagash in Khemri
It would be awesome to have rules for human Sigmar, Alcadizzar, Gotrek Starbreaker, Caledor the Conqueror
Yodhrin wrote: Nah, see the trouble isn't whether Jervis is "divisive", it's with your characterisation as to why he's divisive.
You define his work as "elegant and streamlined" but full of "hidden depth", and say people who don't favour his work prefer "bling chrome, but shallower".
My contention is his work is simplistic and has all the depth of a puddle, while the preference of people who dislike his work is for well-explained crunchy, substantive rules, with actual depth. Blood Bowl is a fun game, but you could hardly call it deep, it's almost pure RNG and player input is largely limited to listbuilding and odds management. Never played his "boxed games". Epic 40K...yeah. At one point I was actually tempted by it, then I saw a game actually being played.
As to your wee spoilered box - erm, doesn't that rather prove that Andy Chambers is responsible for Epic: Armageddon, rather than that Jervis was responsible for BFG? Jervis had a bad idea, Andy fixed it, Jervis subsequently copied Andy's fix.
Bringing back Tuomas though? Yeah, that I can get behind. Whether or not they'd offer him terms he's interested in these days is another thing - he has a lot of love for his work from GW(he still pops into the Mordheim FB group on occasion), but these days he does his own thing and GW aren't exactly renowned for paying well.
No depth to blood bowl. Congratulations on my biggest wtf moment in all my years browsing this site.
Well, there isn't? It's a fun game, but it's the most RNG/diceapalooza game I've ever played, and once someone learns a few basic methods of influencing odds it trends in a particular way pretty much every time. I've seen quite a few BB groups form over the years, and they always end up with everyone doing the same RNG the kick > pick up the ball > turtle around the ball carrier > RNG until you break through the opposing line or you fumble the ball > repeat. One or two of the factions have the capacity to try riskier/showier plays, but when people are playing "seriously" rather than just as a larf, they rarely bother. There's a reason some players hit "feth it" and start playing Halflings - it's at least funny.
Well, there isn't? It's a fun game, but it's the most RNG/diceapalooza game I've ever played, and once someone learns a few basic methods of influencing odds it trends in a particular way pretty much every time. I've seen quite a few BB groups form over the years, and they always end up with everyone doing the same RNG the kick > pick up the ball > turtle around the ball carrier > RNG until you break through the opposing line or you fumble the ball > repeat. One or two of the factions have the capacity to try riskier/showier plays, but when people are playing "seriously" rather than just as a larf, they rarely bother. There's a reason some players hit "feth it" and start playing Halflings - it's at least funny.
Blood Bowl's not just about dice. You would know if you really played it on a competitive level. It is about placement and activating your players in the right order. Those have nothing to do with luck.
There is a reason why the game was played for so long even after GW left it behind so many years ago. There is more than just the fun, and it is depth even so you deny it. The tactic you describe is a very basic one and not the only one you see on veterans playing a tournament.
You're too focused on trying to make all of Jervis' work look bad that you are putting yourself into a corner showing your ignorance.
Huginn wrote: Mr Priestley has already written an updated version of WHFB - it's called Warlords of Erewhon. It's streamlined with crunchy bits, if that's what you like. It's not turn based, or phase based either, so traditionalists would probably dislike it. It's also d10 based. Most shocking of all (put your pipe down and sit down), it's on round bases. It's not really rank and flank as so many seem to want, but it certainly captures the flavour of WHFB without all the fiddle.
Round bases is a clear no go for me. I have a Night Goblin, Lahmian Vampire and Khemri army in my cabinet and only a complete fool would assume it is a good idea to move each mini on it's own. Besides, models organized in R&F look simply amazing.
Agreed. R&F regiments arrayed across the table is what got me into WHFB many years ago and why I couldn't quite get into AoS.
Just Tony wrote: If you look back at actual historical regimental combats like WFB is supposed to represent, most of the killing was done during one army routing. I think that's what was lost with WFB, that psychological press of combat. The second you had regiments of troops with 3 or more attacks per model as standard infantry, you passed that bridge. Uber killy was the big issue from mid 7th on, THAT is what needs to be addressed in any edition of WFB from here on out. You want mass casualty Fantasy gaming, you have AOS.l
As Galas mentioned, this was actually one of the better rules of 8th Ed and also how I won most of my games with Brets. I'd never be able to outgrind them in combat so would have to rely on throwing a few lances into key combats and bait to try for flanks to break and pray for the overrun.
I'm not getting my hopes up on this reboot until more details come out in the next few years. If it's in essence 8th Ed with a cleaned up ruleset similar to how they converted 7th Ed into Horus Heresy then colour me intrigued, but it just as easily be a AoS port with tweaks to accommodate square bases in which case it's a pass from me.
The real bummer is that with Warcry being out, there's no way a "return to the Old World" could be a skirmish setting like Mordheim. I could have sworn that when we saw things like Titanicus and Necromunda rebooted, we'd see a a return trip to the Cursed City.
Also a bit off topic; regardless of creator, Battlefleet Gothic is a work of legend.
There’s no reason Mordheim and Warcry can’t run concurrently like they do with Kill Team and Necromunda, especially if ForgeWorld does end up making all of the new Old World stuff like people suspect.
Well, there isn't? It's a fun game, but it's the most RNG/diceapalooza game I've ever played, and once someone learns a few basic methods of influencing odds it trends in a particular way pretty much every time. I've seen quite a few BB groups form over the years, and they always end up with everyone doing the same RNG the kick > pick up the ball > turtle around the ball carrier > RNG until you break through the opposing line or you fumble the ball > repeat. One or two of the factions have the capacity to try riskier/showier plays, but when people are playing "seriously" rather than just as a larf, they rarely bother. There's a reason some players hit "feth it" and start playing Halflings - it's at least funny.
Blood Bowl's not just about dice. You would know if you really played it on a competitive level.
Yuh-huh.
It is about placement and activating your players in the right order.
So, erm, those basic methods of odds management I mentioned right there in the post you're quoting then?
There is a reason why the game was played for so long even after GW left it behind so many years ago.
Yup, it's an entertaining game. Right up to the point it makes you want to punch a wall
There is more than just the fun, and it is depth even so you deny it. The tactic you describe is a very basic one and not the only one you see on veterans playing a tournament.
And yet, it is one I've seen used in tournaments, repeatedly, over decades of being in this hobby.
You're too focused on trying to make all of Jervis' work look bad that you are putting yourself into a corner showing your ignorance.
No, I'm focused on pointing out that the idea Jervis' work is focused on depth is genuinely laughable when the man has been renowned as the king of casual/simplification for as long as I can remember, and when the prime example people point to here as being indicative of his like super deep brah rules writing is Blood Bowl, a system so dice-based that they make a joke out of it in the setting of the game itself I don't see what is supposed to be convincing me otherwise.
AegisGrimm wrote:The real bummer is that with Warcry being out, there's no way a "return to the Old World" could be a skirmish setting like Mordheim. I could have sworn that when we saw things like Titanicus and Necromunda rebooted, we'd see a a return trip to the Cursed City.
Will Warcry still be heavily supported three years from now? I could see a few more supplements, but not sure it's supposed to be a long-running series.
Mordheim reboot could be interesting. Certainly in terms of models; for the game it really depends what direction they want to take it. Sigmar knows it could use some clarifications and rebalances on weapons and wargear, but I'd hate it if they made the injury or exploration tables even a bit shorter and more simplified. I want my one-legged one-eyed frenzied veteran going down a well, slip on a fish and miss the next game.
Not sure how the current style of GW's illustrations would work for Mordheim, or whether people mimicking the original will not make it look like a cheap knockoff version.
Don't think it will be a skirmish thing though, even if it's financially more viable (for players to get into, as well as for GW to support).
The logo features large armies. The memes feature legendary characters. And to a lesser extent, Mordheim hardly requires square bases.
zend wrote: There’s no reason Mordheim and Warcry can’t run concurrently like they do with Kill Team and Necromunda, especially if ForgeWorld does end up making all of the new Old World stuff like people suspect.
Sorry to pounce dude, and this isn’t personal. But peeps need to start reading the articles. Warhammer The Old World is confirmed to be a Warhammer Studio product. Not a Forgeworld or Specialist Games product.
Sorry again. Pet peeve of mine. Like how people still refer to the C’Tan ‘The Dragon’ as They Void Dragon’, when there’s no such conflation anywhere in canonical print.
Well, there isn't? It's a fun game, but it's the most RNG/diceapalooza game I've ever played, and once someone learns a few basic methods of influencing odds it trends in a particular way pretty much every time. I've seen quite a few BB groups form over the years, and they always end up with everyone doing the same RNG the kick > pick up the ball > turtle around the ball carrier > RNG until you break through the opposing line or you fumble the ball > repeat. One or two of the factions have the capacity to try riskier/showier plays, but when people are playing "seriously" rather than just as a larf, they rarely bother. There's a reason some players hit "feth it" and start playing Halflings - it's at least funny.
Blood Bowl's not just about dice. You would know if you really played it on a competitive level.
Yuh-huh.
It is about placement and activating your players in the right order.
So, erm, those basic methods of odds management I mentioned right there in the post you're quoting then?
There is a reason why the game was played for so long even after GW left it behind so many years ago.
Yup, it's an entertaining game. Right up to the point it makes you want to punch a wall
There is more than just the fun, and it is depth even so you deny it. The tactic you describe is a very basic one and not the only one you see on veterans playing a tournament.
And yet, it is one I've seen used in tournaments, repeatedly, over decades of being in this hobby.
You're too focused on trying to make all of Jervis' work look bad that you are putting yourself into a corner showing your ignorance.
No, I'm focused on pointing out that the idea Jervis' work is focused on depth is genuinely laughable when the man has been renowned as the king of casual/simplification for as long as I can remember, and when the prime example people point to here as being indicative of his like super deep brah rules writing is Blood Bowl, a system so dice-based that they make a joke out of it in the setting of the game itself I don't see what is supposed to be convincing me otherwise.
I don't care about JJ, the current game is not only his work. BB is simply a game with huge depth - and anyone that's played to any of serious level will know that.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: I think that it might be set in terms of HH with specific historical campaigns with specific books linked to areas of Fantasy history. For example:
Black fire pass
The Sundering
War of the beard
Vampire wars
Great War against chaos
The war against Nagash in Khemri
It would be awesome to have rules for human Sigmar, Alcadizzar, Gotrek Starbreaker, Caledor the Conqueror
I can understand the appeal of that but personally that's far from the approach I'd want. I'd rather avoid the 'historical' or 'Time of Legends' style setting; leave that to the AoS ruleset or as special campaigns rather than a general trend. Go full nostalgia and re-create the setting as it was (or rather; as it was before Storm of Chaos and the End Times events....)
RNG here probably just means that it's heavily dice based rather than play based. A lot of GW side games boil down to rolling a couple dice but needing 5+ or 6+, so there's a lot of "dead" rolls where nothing happens until you finally get a hit, but also you sometimes hit it off right away. It's one of my issues with Kill Team, there's a LOT of dead rolls where you hit and wound, but they pass an armor save, or you hit but don't wound etc. As opposed to other systems where it's easy to hit/wound, but you have more hit points to slowly chunk away at.
BB has a lot of rolls where you do nothing, but sometimes you get that good roll right away at the start of a turn and follow it up with a couple good rolls. As a player, there's only so much you can do to maximize the modifiers, a lot of it comes down to dice
zend wrote: There’s no reason Mordheim and Warcry can’t run concurrently like they do with Kill Team and Necromunda, especially if ForgeWorld does end up making all of the new Old World stuff like people suspect.
Sorry to pounce dude, and this isn’t personal. But peeps need to start reading the articles. Warhammer The Old World is confirmed to be a Warhammer Studio product. Not a Forgeworld or Specialist Games product.
Sorry again. Pet peeve of mine. Like how people still refer to the C’Tan ‘The Dragon’ as They Void Dragon’, when there’s no such conflation anywhere in canonical print.
I wouldn't apologise for it and it's certainly not just a pet peeve, it's actually a quite important point that a lot of people seem to be ignoring. Being a Warhammer Studios product suggests a) plastic rather than resin and b) much more support than if it was a Forge World project. It's fairly major for it's long term prospects/support and how big a product GW sees it as.
BB has a lot of rolls where you do nothing, but sometimes you get that good roll right away at the start of a turn and follow it up with a couple good rolls. As a player, there's only so much you can do to maximize the modifiers, a lot of it comes down to dice
It does come down to the dice but a skilled BB player will absolutely minimise the chances of the dice screwing them over, through correct activation order, taking the lowest risks first, maximising block dice, using players with certain skills to do certain actions. There are a number of players both in the online and TT world that consistently are amongst the best players in tournaments, if it was pure RNG then they wouldn't be regularly winning.
There’s a job opening on the Warhammer jobs site at the moment for a digital illustrator that seems to imply that the Old World game is part of the Forge World/Specialist Games umbrella.
As Digital Illustrator you will be originating, designing and producing high quality digital artwork that will feature within the pages of the Specialist Design Studio range of books; such as The Horus Heresy, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, and going forwards Warhammer – the Old World.
Just Tony wrote: If you look back at actual historical regimental combats like WFB is supposed to represent, most of the killing was done during one army routing. I think that's what was lost with WFB, that psychological press of combat. The second you had regiments of troops with 3 or more attacks per model as standard infantry, you passed that bridge. Uber killy was the big issue from mid 7th on, THAT is what needs to be addressed in any edition of WFB from here on out. You want mass casualty Fantasy gaming, you have AOS.l
Complicated and inaccessible for most as it is (ruleset wise), Mierce Miniature's Darklands has an interesting mechanic that sort of, but not quite, represents this. Basically, where a unit would flee from an engagement, you both roll your D10 and add the unit's basic movement, this is done before you move models. If the chaser beats the fleeing unit's roll they have been caught (same as WFB) the difference is that you then compare the strength of the units involved. If the chasing unit is bigger then it runs down and destroys the fleeing unit before it can get away, if it is smaller then it gets to make another round of attacks before the moves are made (with modifiers).
Then the fleeing unit moves and the chaser moves just behind them. This stops a smaller unit from completely routing something bigger while still getting to do some more damage as they flee. Although it is also because of how the combat results are worked out in Darklands as well, where a unit can generate what is known as blood from the damage they inflict and which they then retain in further combats and is used to work out who won, representing a unit getting worked up with bloodlust and confidence as they succeed and kill things.
ImAGeek wrote: There’s a job opening on the Warhammer jobs site at the moment for a digital illustrator that seems to imply that the Old World game is part of the Forge World/Specialist Games umbrella.
As Digital Illustrator you will be originating, designing and producing high quality digital artwork that will feature within the pages of the Specialist Design Studio range of books; such as The Horus Heresy, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, and going forwards Warhammer – the Old World.
If The Old World ends up being a Horus Heresy style forge world product, meaning primarily resin, I have absolutely no interest in it. If it is pushed out in the style of Necromunda, meaning primarily plastic kits, with some resin support, then I will give it a chance.
AegisGrimm wrote: The real bummer is that with Warcry being out, there's no way a "return to the Old World" could be a skirmish setting like Mordheim. I could have sworn that when we saw things like Titanicus and Necromunda rebooted, we'd see a a return trip to the Cursed City.
Also a bit off topic; regardless of creator, Battlefleet Gothic is a work of legend.
Don't worry, I'm sure Warcry won't make it to the end of 2020 let alone 2022/3.
No way GW awaits the full 3 years to release this game...
(...I hope.)
You better hope they take 3 years to come up with something or this could be an epic train wreck as from what I have heard the first thing anyone below upper management knew about this was 2 hours before the post went up on community aka just long enough to knock up the logo.
Well, that job description certainly settles the question of whether it's Forge World or not. It doesn't really tell us what to expect, though, since Forge World has been pretty successful with plastic kits for Specialist Games lately. Worrying about the cost of a full resin army is still premature.
AegisGrimm wrote: The real bummer is that with Warcry being out, there's no way a "return to the Old World" could be a skirmish setting like Mordheim. I could have sworn that when we saw things like Titanicus and Necromunda rebooted, we'd see a a return trip to the Cursed City.
Also a bit off topic; regardless of creator, Battlefleet Gothic is a work of legend.
Don't worry, I'm sure Warcry won't make it to the end of 2020 let alone 2022/3.
And how are they going to sell you a Warcry annual every December if the game won't make it to the end of next year?
Necro/AT etc. certainly are plastic, but I think this makes it more likely to be a small side venture than full relaunch of whfb as some hoped, at least until they get sales data that'd prove it's worth expanding.
We've no idea what their plans are and some of the FW/GW division is purely which staff do something. Whilst there seems to be some internal politics regarding FW and classic lines of 40K/AoS and HH model lines; the new stuff FW is clearly working with all the plastic casting machines that GW has. The bulk of AT, AN and Necromunda are all plastic models with FW only selling some alternative weapon/head/part options.
I'm sure that GW knows that making a rank and file wargame would fail on the first step if they made every model out of resin in todays market based on the prices alone; not even considering the increased back-end cost for GW to produce mass market resin models through resin casting.
GW has enough market clout that they can make the core models from plastic and recoup the investment in the moulds.
Then again we are making assumptions on the plan when we as yet don't know the plan. Again its a game of wait and see (and play AoS whilst we wait)
When they created a new Middle-earth team, they were also nominally FW/Specialist. No new plastic models were planned to be created at all; the only plastic release being the Lake-town house that was already partially into production.
Even so, they brought back a bunch of miniatures that had been out of production, and are still bringing old kits back and releasing others as made-to-order waves. When it proved popular enough, they started creating brand new plastics too, in addition to resin figures via FW.
The Old World is largely about nostalgia. I reckon they don't have to make many new kits really, just bringing most of the squatted ranges back will be sufficient for a start. Depending, of course, on what this entire venture is supposed to entail anyway...
I'm not sure that's entirely comparable. Lord of the Rings had unified designs to draw on from the beginning thanks to the movie license and model quality only started to drop off with the Hobbit when, I guess, GW considered the game effectively dead Like, just look at those faces. Poor Orlando!
Old World has a model range that has a wild mix of plastic models with varying sculpting and casting quality. Put Spearmen and Sea Guard next to each other, or Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings skeletons. Difference like day and night. Then there are obvious duds like making Tomb Guard match the old bobblehead skeletons instead of doing something sensible with them.
I don't think that if they want to bring back a game akin to the ranked mass combat that we know and possibly even love, they'll get away with as low an effort as they had to put into Middle Earth simply because half of Warhammer Fantasy got neglected for so long.
Eh I dont' think they can just bring back old sculpts because AoS is chock full of them already. Furthermore many of those sculpts are very old- older than all the Lord of the Rings line of models.
So not only are they mostly still for sale under another range (which are likely to get updates steadily over the coming years); but many of the old plastics and such really won't stand up well. Heck Bretonnia has some nice cavalry models, but he sculpts are clearly years behind the current crop of mounted characters and poses that GW is capable of making. Even accounting for rank and file poses there's a lot more that can be done. Just look at the new Ossiarch Deathriders, they aren't extreme sculpts, but they are very clearly in 5 very good poses of motion and could easily rank up. The only thing that really stops them is the tails sticking out the back (unless you stagger them); Make the base a few mm longer or adjust the tails to sweep left and right to avoid muzzles of the horse behind and you've got a rank and file in great poses.
Plus that's not even considering all the billowing quilted armour and plated armour and chain mail that GW can put on a full knight type model.
If you look at all the other games they've brought back GW has gone head on with new sculpts taking full advantage of the years of improvement in casting and sculpting that they've got. The old Warlord Titan is, honestly, whilst a great design, pitiful compared to the detail and design and even posing options with the brand new one. They are worlds apart.
More importantly, they want to make a profit. Which, for GW, can only be achieved by selling new kits. The whole thing is clearly aimed at people with nostalgia for the old world, so a customer group that is incredibly likely to have their old armies still. It'd make no sense to bring back kits people already have. AT didn't bring back Epic 40k models back either.
Cronch wrote: More importantly, they want to make a profit. Which, for GW, can only be achieved by selling new kits. The whole thing is clearly aimed at people with nostalgia for the old world, so a customer group that is incredibly likely to have their old armies still. It'd make no sense to bring back kits people already have. AT didn't bring back Epic 40k models back either.
GW games have already seen a lot of new blood since 2015 and likely more by 2023.
Also, new plastic moulds are expensive. As this point, reusing those old ones is more or less pure profit.
They could literally re-release the Island of Blood/Spire of Dawn starter with different rules as a good first kit. All of those models hold up to modern standards.
AegisGrimm wrote: They could literally re-release the Island of Blood/Spire of Dawn starter with different rules as a good first kit. All of those models hold up to modern standards.
Also roll out Battle For Skull Pass as a separate set. Those starters, if GW still has the molds in house, are pure print money.
Lets not forget, that GW will have and uprageded factory capacity by the time the game hits. So there is no real reason t think that they will do resin armies.
Cronch wrote: More importantly, they want to make a profit. Which, for GW, can only be achieved by selling new kits. The whole thing is clearly aimed at people with nostalgia for the old world, so a customer group that is incredibly likely to have their old armies still. It'd make no sense to bring back kits people already have. AT didn't bring back Epic 40k models back either.
GW games have already seen a lot of new blood since 2015 and likely more by 2023.
Also, new plastic moulds are expensive. As this point, reusing those old ones is more or less pure profit.
That implies that new blood will have a significant interest in a sidegame to the main fare, and also that GW kept the old moulds. They just finished pruning a lot of their Whfb kits from production, why would they go through the trouble of bringing them back into commission instead of keeping them running? Again, why risk people going for 2nd hand market when releasing new models has only advantages- old players might be tempted to buy new armies, especially if they do the sane thing and keep current scale so the really old 6/7th ed models look tiny, so people will be bothered into buying whole new armies to "fit", and no risk of 2nd hand market that gutted sales of WFB.
Cronch wrote: More importantly, they want to make a profit. Which, for GW, can only be achieved by selling new kits. The whole thing is clearly aimed at people with nostalgia for the old world, so a customer group that is incredibly likely to have their old armies still. It'd make no sense to bring back kits people already have. AT didn't bring back Epic 40k models back either.
Also considering how they're trending toward lighter rules most of this development time is probably spent creating new models.
The Old World is, in theory, a relatively ‘shake and bake’ release.
The rules structure exists, and has done for nearly 40 years. And the base mechanics work very nicely.
The main flaw is that over the years, they expanded to service ever larger armies, in theory to match ever growing collections. Eventually, that raised the entry level to the point it was daunting for a newbie, and expensive to start a new army.
That’s relatively easy to fix. Certainly easier than starting entirely from scratch.
Rather, I expect the projected three years to be getting Army a Books developed, and possibly balanced together. Even if it’s largely an ‘Index’ type release ala 8th Ed 40k.
As for the models? You want the game to hit the ground running? Use the existing scale and existing kits. Because many still have their old armies in storage. Change that up, and you’ll upset quite a few peeps.
It’s also the most cost effective route. Use what you’ve got with a bit of spit and polish. Means you can focus whatever resources are allocated to update older kits, such as say, Empire Knights. A little something for each army to drive sales, and give returning players an excuse to drop some initial cash.
Or they may feel that the major appeal of the old world is the wealth of lore development, not a ruleset which was hardly loved (hero hammer, monster hammer, huge block unit hammer etc) and not really suited to a large scale 28mm game
so marry that up with the 8mm scale stuff they'll be doing for titanicus in 3 years time (hopefully)
and I do wonder if we'll see the old world setting being used for a 8mm (or smaller than 28mm anyway) scale game which is set up for large rank and fie units, actual maneuverers etc
new armies for everybody, new plastic small scale terrain, rules that work (hopefully), a way to tell bigger stories,
& clearly separated from AoS (there will always be pressure to pull the old armies back into AoS, and possibly AoS stuff into the old world from thrifty gamers who just want to battle and don't care much about the lore)
Seeing as it’s been pitched as “Horus Heresy but for Fantasy” there’s absolutely no way it’s not in the regular scale. 8mm is just wishlisting, and niche-beyond-niche wishlisting at that.
lord_blackfang wrote: Clearly the game will feature currently stocked WHFB models that have never been repackaged with round bases, like Ironguts and Shadow Warriors.
Why would GW hold onto stock for 3 years?
Most of those models were sold out of stock when GW shut down sale of them - they've likely nothing left barring some models in some local stores that never sent them back and the moulds in storage. Otherwise they wont' sit on stock for 3 years.
3 Years is a very long time to develop a rules set, esp as GW has a LOT of material on them already. It's a release pattern far more in tune with them developing new models with new moulds. Also for HHGW didn't just make rules, they released actual models dedicated to that line.
I read an interestng theory the other day with the idea it could be set during the End Times (Horus Heresy equivalent and all). It would give them a clean sweep to keep dead characters gone and those destined to be in AoS already sucked into the warp.
After all, we don't know how long it took for the world to be eaten by the warp. Could have taken centuries, a chance for running battles against the chaos forces, new characters to be created, factions that were enemies previously could now be forced together out of desperation and a new story could be told.
AT is 8mm if I recall. Anyway, I still don't see the answer to question "who will buy new models", if as people want, they just largely restart production of old moulds? Not from people with 2000 or 10000 points of models collected over years, which is what most of the fanbase that still wants TOW consists of.
We don't know anything about it except the name at the moment. So assuming it is 32mm scale is also wishlisting at this point. Any discussion of it is wishlisting.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: I read an interestng theory the other day with the idea it could be set during the End Times (Horus Heresy equivalent and all). It would give them a clean sweep to keep dead characters gone and those destined to be in AoS already sucked into the warp.
After all, we don't know how long it took for the world to be eaten by the warp. Could have taken centuries, a chance for running battles against the chaos forces, new characters to be created, factions that were enemies previously could now be forced together out of desperation and a new story could be told.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: I read an interestng theory the other day with the idea it could be set during the End Times (Horus Heresy equivalent and all). It would give them a clean sweep to keep dead characters gone and those destined to be in AoS already sucked into the warp.
After all, we don't know how long it took for the world to be eaten by the warp. Could have taken centuries, a chance for running battles against the chaos forces, new characters to be created, factions that were enemies previously could now be forced together out of desperation and a new story could be told.
Why set it in the Old World at all, then?
Because it would still be the old world. Just in a different story telling period.
Not if all the heroes are dead or missing, the world is falling apart like a Michael Bay movie, and the factions are desperate enough to act out of character. That sounds much more like a setting that could better fit in the Age of Sigmar.
tneva82 wrote: Why 8mm? GW has never done 8mm so why now? Why not 6mm(epic, AT) or 12mm(warmaster)?
How many scales GW needs
The new adeptus titanicus and aeronautica imperialis are both 8mm scale. If GW decide to redo epic, it will likely be at 8mm as well.
I thought the old 15mm warmaster was a pretty good scale, and could look quite good.
We pretty much know this isn’t going to happen in any scale other than the usual, so seems pointless to speculate otherwise.
I wasn’t really speculating so much as stating fact.
If it’s several years off, it could really be anything. All we know is it’s set in te old world and uses square bases. A reduction in scale might be good as it could allow people to reproduce battles of the scale they have played in the total war games.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Not if all the heroes are dead or missing, the world is falling apart like a Michael Bay movie, and the factions are desperate enough to act out of character. That sounds much more like a setting that could better fit in the Age of Sigmar.
Just a theory i read dude. The possibility to do something old world without necessarily repeating themselves.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Not if all the heroes are dead or missing, the world is falling apart like a Michael Bay movie, and the factions are desperate enough to act out of character. That sounds much more like a setting that could better fit in the Age of Sigmar.
Just a theory i read dude. The possibility to do something old world without necessarily repeating themselves.
But we want them to "repeat themselves". Or at least, everyone I've seen or spoken to who's interested in the idea of bringing back WHF in whatever form is. For a lot of us, the mere existence of AoS and WHFB no longer being actively developed wasn't actually the problem, the problem was the End Times, the problem was they purposefully tried to kill the WHF setting presumably to try and kill or convert the WHFB community, and worse still they did it with a shoddy, half-arsed cashgrab.
Folk seem to be hoping they don't even mention the End Times, using it as the entirety of the setting? It'd be dead on arrival for many - I'd wager most - WHF fans. And maybe GW are happy with that, maybe they think they can sell The Old World just to existing AoS players and entirely new hobbyists, but it seems like a really dumb theory to me because - just as with the square base thing - why pitch it as a nostalgia product if you're then going to turn out a product that actively pisses on people's fond memories?
I can't see them covering the End Times - it was just be pouring petrol on bad marketing. Instead I think eariler ideas such as them covering something like the War of the Beard would be neat.
Dipping into the history of the Old World would give them a chance to tell new stories; add depth to the original creation; create new heroes whilst all having quite a lot of freedom to do as they please in those ancient times.
It means they can roll out totally new models and even change some of the old design asthetics.
I can't see them just re-releasing the old models, they might for some; but I'd wager we'd see them focus on new models for a new market. Asides many of the Old World factions have old stuff that just shows its age against newer models by GW. Sure Tomb Kings and High Elves actually had some pretty modern stuff that was lost; but the majority of Old World factions were running around with quite old sculpts; some even still using metal quite extensivly within their range.
Plus in 3 years that's a lot more AoS armies that will get updates to those old sculpts (one hopes). It would be daft to on the one hand be retiring sculpts; only to open the other hand and bring them back when GW would already sell "superior" versions.
How many people would buy the old chaos Warrior models when GW releases the updated multi-part versions akin to the new start collecting set versions?
I have a high feeling that none of the old models are coming back. I don't see on what logical plane of existence GW would go back to that, especially since a good portion of moving to AOS was to get rid of generic fantasy models that could be obtained cheaper elsewhere.
tneva82 wrote: Why 8mm? GW has never done 8mm so why now? Why not 6mm(epic, AT) or 12mm(warmaster)?
How many scales GW needs
The new adeptus titanicus and aeronautica imperialis are both 8mm scale. If GW decide to redo epic, it will likely be at 8mm as well.
I thought the old 15mm warmaster was a pretty good scale, and could look quite good.
We pretty much know this isn’t going to happen in any scale other than the usual, so seems pointless to speculate otherwise.
uses square bases.
Don't even know that, TBF. We know they used the image of a square base, but that could ultimately just be a visual shorthand.
The scale thing is wide open though, the 40K/HH analogy doesn't have to be perfect 1:1 match, it is nowadays comparing two systems with totally different core rules to the point that one can't play them against one another any more, and arguable the scale is drifting apart too.
auticus wrote: I have a high feeling that none of the old models are coming back. I don't see on what logical plane of existence GW would go back to that, especially since a good portion of moving to AOS was to get rid of generic fantasy models that could be obtained cheaper elsewhere.
Well I have no idea what they could do but, going back to generic fantasy could be good. Gets back players they lost, and means little start up with kits they can just dust off and run out. As well they can rob the returning crowd with rules books. Could even sell the old fantasy kits a bit cheaper if they are selling them in larger amounts. I know cheaper and GW , not things that go together but they could do it.
This will be one of those times I hope for the best but am well aware this is probably wishful thinking.
Cronch wrote:AT is 8mm if I recall. Anyway, I still don't see the answer to question "who will buy new models", if as people want, they just largely restart production of old moulds? Not from people with 2000 or 10000 points of models collected over years, which is what most of the fanbase that still wants TOW consists of.
Why the assumption that people would only ever own one army? Look at 40K, most players on these boards alone own three or more armies for that game. Why assume any different with W:TOW?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote: They won’t just remake old stuff. It’ll be new stuff so they can sell you new stuff.
tneva82 wrote: Why 8mm? GW has never done 8mm so why now? Why not 6mm(epic, AT) or 12mm(warmaster)?
How many scales GW needs
The new adeptus titanicus and aeronautica imperialis are both 8mm scale. If GW decide to redo epic, it will likely be at 8mm as well.
I thought the old 15mm warmaster was a pretty good scale, and could look quite good.
We pretty much know this isn’t going to happen in any scale other than the usual, so seems pointless to speculate otherwise.
I wasn’t really speculating so much as stating fact.
If it’s several years off, it could really be anything. All we know is it’s set in te old world and uses square bases. A reduction in scale might be good as it could allow people to reproduce battles of the scale they have played in the total war games.
It won't be Warmaster. At all. GW lost their ass once on Warmaster, I can't see them trying to pitch the same thing again. WFB wasn't losing money, it was still the 3rd top selling mini game. Given all press releases suggest squares set in the Old World, I don't see it being anything short of exactly that: squares in the Old World. Not clumps of asteroids at the End Times, not fly speck small models despite the 7 people who actually played Warmaster wishing REALLY hard for it, Squares in the Old World.
Albino Squirrel wrote: We don't know anything about it except the name at the moment. So assuming it is 32mm scale is also wishlisting at this point. Any discussion of it is wishlisting.
No, assuming 32mm is a very, very safe assumption. The idea that GW will create some random new fantasy scale just wont happen.
auticus wrote: I have a high feeling that none of the old models are coming back. I don't see on what logical plane of existence GW would go back to that, especially since a good portion of moving to AOS was to get rid of generic fantasy models that could be obtained cheaper elsewhere.
If the style will not be the generic fantasy that WHFB was, then bringing that setting back is pointless. Vampire Counts without gothic aesthetics are not Vampire Counts anymore; High Elves without tall hats and silver armour are not High Elves.
So if they are not bringing back previous (or still-existing-in-AoS) kits, how would they remake them? What would a box of Skaven Clanrats look like if they made a new one - would it really differ much from the existing kit? Enough to make it anew?
GW's output of plastic is pretty impressive, but there is no way they can afford to make 10+ plastic kits for about 15 factions, nor would be willing to invest that much for a side-venture, nor would they have the time to develop those (Sisters took how long for just 1 range?).
It's true that there would, at present, be considerable overlap with the AoS range. Perhaps the next few years will see some new kits come out with the AoS aesthetics, replacing sets made for WHFB and re-releasing them later, packaged just for W:TOW. Some core set may be repackaged with both logos on the box, just like various Daemons have been Fantasy and 40k.
In addition to a new rules set, I expect that a poster above was correct in thinking they'll create a little something or two for all factions. Entice players to add to their existing collections and start new armies by updating the kits who most need it: Tomb King's basic skeleton warriors, Rat Ogres, zombies, Chaos Marauders, Kroxigors, Tree kin, Slayers, etc. I reckon every army has a few sets that really could do with an update, while also having a decent range of sets that are still excellent or at least good enough. Three years seems a realistic timescale to create something along these lines, maybe with a larger overhaul for some headlining factions (e.g. High Elves, redoing their basic core units that haven't aged well), if they release them in waves focussed on particular factions/battles/areas. They certainly could also invest in more niche things they know would be popular with veterans no matter how grumpy they are, like Teutogen Guard.
If the style will not be the generic fantasy that WHFB was
whfb never was generic? They made use of generic races, but aside from Empire and Brets (so the two historical human factions that just got some sprinkles of fantasy dusted on them) they had fairly unique looks. At the very least the skull density per model made it unique to other lines. Their art was always far more elaborate than what the models of the time could handle, so expect more bling, more in like with art than with the barebones pre-8th models that dominated the line.
I mean, IF they decided to launch a new line like they did with every single returning Specialist game to date.
If the style will not be the generic fantasy that WHFB was
whfb never was generic? They made use of generic races, but aside from Empire and Brets (so the two historical human factions that just got some sprinkles of fantasy dusted on them) they had fairly unique looks. At the very least the skull density per model made it unique to other lines. Their art was always far more elaborate than what the models of the time could handle, so expect more bling, more in like with art than with the barebones pre-8th models that dominated the line.
I mean, IF they decided to launch a new line like they did with every single returning Specialist game to date.
Nevermind that people like to use 'generic' to describe 'historical influences'. How many wargames or even fantasy settings have their mainstay human faction's aesthetic based off the Holy Roman Empire? None that immediately come to mind.
To be honest, this just seemed like more of a marketing ploy to take some of the wind out of Mantic's sails than anything concrete. 3+yrs down the track isn't something GW mentions on the regular. And to be honest, since they blew up the world, I've not had much interest in returning or playing AoS.
8th ed was needlessly complex and took ages to play, even at 2k sized games. For them to have something which would be more streamlined would mean taking a leaf from Kings of War and having a universal ruleset which each group uses, but I can't see that happening. Pairing back from 8th ed would still see some of the poor ruleset remain, and I really don't want to go back to that, even for nostalgia's sake.
The main buster of all this is that going back to square bases when AoS is round divides your player group unnecessarily. Those who made the choice to swap over are likely to be upset about either having to rebase or figure out some way to represent their troops on the field, which won't be easy due to ranking problems and base size difference. And the old school people aren't likely to want to cross over, seeing AoS as a bad decision made by GW.
If they do bring back the Old World, at least let them have their old names back. I can't be bothered with trying to figure out what the name is now for the different factions now they've moved away from calling things "High Elves" or "Dark Elves". I don't think the names help them as much as they think, as you can still make something which looks like a High Elf, no matter what it is now called, and have people buy it to proxy in their games. Waste of time.
I think I'll stick to KoW's much easier to play ruleset, the fun of multibasing units, and keep using the lore I like from Warhammer to make my armies. If I want to see some game breaking units, spells and abilities, I can always load up Total War Warhammer 2 and drop a Skaven nuke in-game on somebody.
tneva82 wrote: Why 8mm? GW has never done 8mm so why now? Why not 6mm(epic, AT) or 12mm(warmaster)?
How many scales GW needs
The new adeptus titanicus and aeronautica imperialis are both 8mm scale. If GW decide to redo epic, it will likely be at 8mm as well.
I thought the old 15mm warmaster was a pretty good scale, and could look quite good.
Eh no. Measure them if you wish but they match fluff size in 6mm pretty much spot on(well 5.7mm or so).
8mm comes from misunderstanding when designers noted MARINES would be 8mm. But funny that, space marines are taller than humans and the Xmm tends to refer to humans. Now of course if we make it Xmm refers to space marine size it's 8mm allright. It's just more understandable if we assume Xmm refers to human size like every other use of Xmm tends to be
And when you measure titans and match them to fluff size(32m for warlord etc) you'll find out 8mm is way off the mark.
tneva82 wrote: Why 8mm? GW has never done 8mm so why now? Why not 6mm(epic, AT) or 12mm(warmaster)?
How many scales GW needs
The new adeptus titanicus and aeronautica imperialis are both 8mm scale. If GW decide to redo epic, it will likely be at 8mm as well.
I thought the old 15mm warmaster was a pretty good scale, and could look quite good.
Eh no. Measure them if you wish but they match fluff size in 6mm pretty much spot on(well 5.7mm or so).
8mm comes from misunderstanding when designers noted MARINES would be 8mm. But funny that, space marines are taller than humans and the Xmm tends to refer to humans. Now of course if we make it Xmm refers to space marine size it's 8mm allright. It's just more understandable if we assume Xmm refers to human size like every other use of Xmm tends to be
And when you measure titans and match them to fluff size(32m for warlord etc) you'll find out 8mm is way off the mark.
I don’t have any AT stuff to measure, but the AI stuff is definitely 8mm, and yes I’ve measured it, and AT is supposed to be the same scale as AI.
tneva82 wrote: Why 8mm? GW has never done 8mm so why now? Why not 6mm(epic, AT) or 12mm(warmaster)?
How many scales GW needs
The new adeptus titanicus and aeronautica imperialis are both 8mm scale. If GW decide to redo epic, it will likely be at 8mm as well.
I thought the old 15mm warmaster was a pretty good scale, and could look quite good.
Eh no. Measure them if you wish but they match fluff size in 6mm pretty much spot on(well 5.7mm or so).
8mm comes from misunderstanding when designers noted MARINES would be 8mm. But funny that, space marines are taller than humans and the Xmm tends to refer to humans. Now of course if we make it Xmm refers to space marine size it's 8mm allright. It's just more understandable if we assume Xmm refers to human size like every other use of Xmm tends to be
And when you measure titans and match them to fluff size(32m for warlord etc) you'll find out 8mm is way off the mark.
I don’t have any AT stuff to measure, but the AI stuff is definitely 8mm, and yes I’ve measured it, and AT is supposed to be the same scale as AI.
Is that 8mm referencing humans or Marines?
I can tell you for a fact that if you compare a Primaris Marine (aka the size a Marine should be in relation to human sized models) with an Imperial Knight, in Titanicus that translates to an 8mm tall Marine next to a Knight with the same pose as the 40k one.
It's stupid and cliched, yes, but GW's 8mm statement for Adeptus Titanicus is only correct if you assume the point of reference is Marines. If it's normal people, Titanicus is 6mm scale.
Because of GW's Marine fetish it's unfortunately quite necessary to define terms or else we may be talking about different things.
One advantage to keeping the old scale is a ready made playerbase. There are old grognards like me with dusty shelves who would slap an army down on the table given half a chance.
I always enjoyed WHFB when I played it (5th-6th ed). I said at the time that Fantasy was won in the movement and psychology phases, while 40k was won in the shooting/assault. AoS (while fun) never scratched that same itch. I liked the blocks of troops maneuvering around. I think a smaller scale might help with that playstyle, but I didn’t invest in Warmaster when it came out, as it didn’t have an established base, nobody had armies, and none of the locals were going to invest in it.
Selling new models to new players is great, and changing the scale would ensure new sales. But it also means that there is a lag time getting the game up and running, as people collect new armies and get them painted. Keeping things the same as before would let them leverage legacy players to hit the ground running.
And honestly, seeing what they are doing with modern plastics, most of us older players would probably pick up the new models anyway.
I can tell you for a fact that if you compare a Primaris Marine (aka the size a Marine should be in relation to human sized models) with an Imperial Knight, in Titanicus that translates to an 8mm tall Marine next to a Knight with the same pose as the 40k one.
It's stupid and cliched, yes, but GW's 8mm statement for Adeptus Titanicus is only correct if you assume the point of reference is Marines. If it's normal people, Titanicus is 6mm scale.
Because of GW's Marine fetish it's unfortunately quite necessary to define terms or else we may be talking about different things.
They have clearly stated that AT/AI models are one fourth of their 40K size, and this has been true for all models they have released thus far. Modern 40K humans are 32(ish) mm tall. 32/4=8. Thus AT/AI is 8mm scale.
If they would make a fantasy game in a smaller game, 8mm for that too would be a good bet, but I really doubt that this will be a Warmaster redux, and if it were many people would be understandably pretty annoyed.
I can tell you for a fact that if you compare a Primaris Marine (aka the size a Marine should be in relation to human sized models) with an Imperial Knight, in Titanicus that translates to an 8mm tall Marine next to a Knight with the same pose as the 40k one.
It's stupid and cliched, yes, but GW's 8mm statement for Adeptus Titanicus is only correct if you assume the point of reference is Marines. If it's normal people, Titanicus is 6mm scale.
Because of GW's Marine fetish it's unfortunately quite necessary to define terms or else we may be talking about different things.
They have clearly stated that AT/AI models are one fourth of their 40K size, and this has been true for all models they have released thus far. Modern 40K humans are 32(ish) mm tall. 32/4=8. Thus AT/AI is 8mm scale.
If they would make a fantasy game in a smaller game, 8mm for that too would be a good bet, but I really doubt that this will be a Warmaster redux, and if it were many people would be understandably pretty annoyed.
Age of Sigmar has a lot of really big stuff invovled in the lore and battles so would work well for a smaller scale - I find the old 6mm epic models look really good next to the "8mm" AT models.
It does seem likely its more 28/32mm rather than any other scale.
I can tell you for a fact that if you compare a Primaris Marine (aka the size a Marine should be in relation to human sized models) with an Imperial Knight, in Titanicus that translates to an 8mm tall Marine next to a Knight with the same pose as the 40k one.
It's stupid and cliched, yes, but GW's 8mm statement for Adeptus Titanicus is only correct if you assume the point of reference is Marines. If it's normal people, Titanicus is 6mm scale.
Because of GW's Marine fetish it's unfortunately quite necessary to define terms or else we may be talking about different things.
They have clearly stated that AT/AI models are one fourth of their 40K size, and this has been true for all models they have released thus far. Modern 40K humans are 32(ish) mm tall. 32/4=8. Thus AT/AI is 8mm scale.
If they would make a fantasy game in a smaller game, 8mm for that too would be a good bet, but I really doubt that this will be a Warmaster redux, and if it were many people would be understandably pretty annoyed.
I'll take your word for it, but if the choice is between what GW says and what my ruler indicates...
Besides, has GW ever officially switched to calling their models 32mm scale? If so, that has completely passed me by. I assumed they just silently dropped the scale reference when the ever increasing size of them made reference to 28mm farcical.
Plus, GW can't even keep scale straight at a single scale. A fixed conversion rate may be the most accurate thing they've ever done, and it doesn't do a damn thing if the foundation for the reference is flawed.
I'm not looking for a Warmaster remake myself, but it does have its bright side. When you assume that GW wants you to buy fully new armies for Old World and they'll do their best to make it happen, at least changing up the scale ensures that they have to release completely new, modern sculpts instead of making you use the same zombies for another twenty years. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, it would facilitate the epic army sizes at a more palatable price.
But realistically I doubt GW will go with anything but their main scale. Titanicus has a really good reason to be smaller scale in its titans. The Old World doesn't have many things of titanic size, and those that it has don't commonly make an appearance. That's more of an AoS thing.
I can tell you for a fact that if you compare a Primaris Marine (aka the size a Marine should be in relation to human sized models) with an Imperial Knight, in Titanicus that translates to an 8mm tall Marine next to a Knight with the same pose as the 40k one.
It's stupid and cliched, yes, but GW's 8mm statement for Adeptus Titanicus is only correct if you assume the point of reference is Marines. If it's normal people, Titanicus is 6mm scale.
Because of GW's Marine fetish it's unfortunately quite necessary to define terms or else we may be talking about different things.
They have clearly stated that AT/AI models are one fourth of their 40K size, and this has been true for all models they have released thus far. Modern 40K humans are 32(ish) mm tall. 32/4=8. Thus AT/AI is 8mm scale.
If they would make a fantasy game in a smaller game, 8mm for that too would be a good bet, but I really doubt that this will be a Warmaster redux, and if it were many people would be understandably pretty annoyed.
They've also clearly stated that the "8mm" scale reference they used was Marines, which were also 32(ish)mm tall in 40K at the time they started this project.
The fact is the game doesn't have a scale, beyond "1/4 40K size in any given instance", because 40K doesn't have a consistent scale. Sometimes that works well(Titans & Knights being the size the models are and Marines being ~8mm tall actually match the in-setting size numbers quite well in 1:260 scale - or "6.8mm" if you want to describe it by the size a regular human would be - but the more models GW add the less consistent that will be), sometimes it doesn't(AI, which is all over the joint).
Carlovonsexron wrote: I think the real question is what models might find their way into both systems.
In theory anything can make it into AoS; the setting is so vast that heck you could proxy Space Marines into it and have them as counts-as Stormcast without much trouble.
Going the other way there's pretty much anything from the current armies with an Old World connection. I'd say Skaven would likely be pretty interchangeable since they've pretty much escaped the Old World almost totally in-tact. They basically don't change at all. Orruks could actually benefit as their model line is very bland right now - heck before GW removed Greenskins they had 3 variations all doing the same thing. All with a big warboss; a changing warlock; a basic grunt with axes; a basic board riding unit etc... Basically they were all themes along the same line spit into 3 forces. It's even more apparent now that Gloomspite broke away and Orruks don't even have goblin elements to diversify their force as much.
Elves are oftne shown to have very strict and long lasting design views so they might well be pretty similar in the AoS and Old World setting - cone head helms etc....
Albino Squirrel wrote: We don't know anything about it except the name at the moment. So assuming it is 32mm scale is also wishlisting at this point. Any discussion of it is wishlisting.
No, assuming 32mm is a very, very safe assumption. The idea that GW will create some random new fantasy scale just wont happen.
No, it's really not. 32mm means you could use your old models, and we can already see GW would rather not see that happen from their rescaling of AT and AI.
There is also no reason for a 3 year development schedule if they let you use existing models. At their standard rules quality, it would take GW one weekend to poop out a new rulebook. 3 years means they're doing a new miniature line.
Although, now that it seems confirmed that this is a Forge World thing, that means they will have more limited production capacity. So I can't see them making entire new ranges for the large number of Fantasy factions. But obviously they are doing this to sell some new models, so it will be interesting to see what direction they decide to go in,
Albino Squirrel wrote: Although, now that it seems confirmed that this is a Forge World thing, that means they will have more limited production capacity. So I can't see them making entire new ranges for the large number of Fantasy factions. But obviously they are doing this to sell some new models, so it will be interesting to see what direction they decide to go in,
Uhh thats bad news - unless the Horus Heresy Marine range is concluded soon then its unlikely they will have much capacity (or interest) in doing other things.
Yodhrin wrote: They've also clearly stated that the "8mm" scale reference they used was Marines, which were also 32(ish)mm tall in 40K at the time they started this project.
The fact is the game doesn't have a scale, beyond "1/4 40K size in any given instance", because 40K doesn't have a consistent scale. Sometimes that works well(Titans & Knights being the size the models are and Marines being ~8mm tall actually match the in-setting size numbers quite well in 1:260 scale - or "6.8mm" if you want to describe it by the size a regular human would be - but the more models GW add the less consistent that will be), sometimes it doesn't(AI, which is all over the joint).
Well, given that in 40k a marine is much the same height as a 40k human, being 8mm marine is still going to be roughly 8mm human as well.
If we say 40k is 28 to 32mm (which is true of the humans in the game, not just the Marines) then divide that by 4 and you get 7 to 8mm for AT / AI.
I think AI is actually reasonably consistent, not sure why you say it's all over the joint? It's roughly 1/200 scale, which is close to 8mm human scale. The old AI was, from memory, about 1/270 to 1/300 depending on which aircraft, which is the ballpark for a 6mm human. The only thing that I think was an outlier was the old Fighta Bommers, which were pretty small, but I don't believe they had a fluff size anyway so you couldn't pull a scale off them, but the new Fighta Bommers have grown so I think it's all pretty consistent now.
I think the problem comes from 40k, if a Warlord Titan has been undersized in 28-32mm scale, then when it's shrunk by 1/4 for AT, it's also going to be a bit undersized for 7-8mm, but it still seems to me that the target is ~7-8mm humans rather than 8mm marines and 6-7mm humans.
But anyway, it would be pretty cool to have a reduced scale WHFB. You could have 1 sprue with a few different unit types represented, and 2 or so sprues per faction (not dissimilar to Epic 40k, where you'd buy an "ork" sprue that would give you the parts to make a whole range of different ork units).
GW are doing that thing where they promise a release in the future that will be amazing and fix things, but never actually does. Just stringing people along.
The scale and audacity is the greatest I've seen from them, but still that old trick.
Fenriswulf wrote:To be honest, this just seemed like more of a marketing ploy to take some of the wind out of Mantic's sails than anything concrete. 3+yrs down the track isn't something GW mentions on the regular. And to be honest, since they blew up the world, I've not had much interest in returning or playing AoS.
Could be. I've given up on GW because of how they treat their game and customers (would rather be treated like a player who happens to buy stuff), rather than a grudge about how they treated their own IP.
Nevelon wrote:One advantage to keeping the old scale is a ready made playerbase. There are old grognards like me with dusty shelves who would slap an army down on the table given half a chance.
I always enjoyed WHFB when I played it (5th-6th ed). I said at the time that Fantasy was won in the movement and psychology phases, while 40k was won in the shooting/assault. AoS (while fun) never scratched that same itch. I liked the blocks of troops maneuvering around.
um... Ever try Kings of War? I really recommend it and it sounds like you would too.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Although, now that it seems confirmed that this is a Forge World thing, that means they will have more limited production capacity. So I can't see them making entire new ranges for the large number of Fantasy factions. But obviously they are doing this to sell some new models, so it will be interesting to see what direction they decide to go in,
Uhh thats bad news - unless the Horus Heresy Marine range is concluded soon then its unlikely they will have much capacity (or interest) in doing other things.
Unless this is some validation that they will about have to use old kit to bulk out production. Just because the writing is headed up by FW doesn't mean the minis won't be pressed at GW proper.
Argive wrote:My money is on a dark elf vs high elves sundering boxed game and faction support.
You erd eet eere first nobz.
I would hit that like it was my job. A Hel Fenn boxed set would be nifty too.
Yodhrin wrote: They've also clearly stated that the "8mm" scale reference they used was Marines, which were also 32(ish)mm tall in 40K at the time they started this project.
The fact is the game doesn't have a scale, beyond "1/4 40K size in any given instance", because 40K doesn't have a consistent scale. Sometimes that works well(Titans & Knights being the size the models are and Marines being ~8mm tall actually match the in-setting size numbers quite well in 1:260 scale - or "6.8mm" if you want to describe it by the size a regular human would be - but the more models GW add the less consistent that will be), sometimes it doesn't(AI, which is all over the joint).
Well, given that in 40k a marine is much the same height as a 40k human, being 8mm marine is still going to be roughly 8mm human as well.
If we say 40k is 28 to 32mm (which is true of the humans in the game, not just the Marines) then divide that by 4 and you get 7 to 8mm for AT / AI.
I think AI is actually reasonably consistent, not sure why you say it's all over the joint? It's roughly 1/200 scale, which is close to 8mm human scale. The old AI was, from memory, about 1/270 to 1/300 depending on which aircraft, which is the ballpark for a 6mm human. The only thing that I think was an outlier was the old Fighta Bommers, which were pretty small, but I don't believe they had a fluff size anyway so you couldn't pull a scale off them, but the new Fighta Bommers have grown so I think it's all pretty consistent now.
I think the problem comes from 40k, if a Warlord Titan has been undersized in 28-32mm scale, then when it's shrunk by 1/4 for AT, it's also going to be a bit undersized for 7-8mm, but it still seems to me that the target is ~7-8mm humans rather than 8mm marines and 6-7mm humans.
But anyway, it would be pretty cool to have a reduced scale WHFB. You could have 1 sprue with a few different unit types represented, and 2 or so sprues per faction (not dissimilar to Epic 40k, where you'd buy an "ork" sprue that would give you the parts to make a whole range of different ork units).
The point is that by accident or design, quartering a 32mm Marine and a 40k scale Titan/Knight results in an 8mm-ish Marine and an AT scale Titan/Knight that are "correct" relative to each other based on their sizes in the setting at 1:260 scale, the Titans aren't undersized. As soon as you start adding other things from 40K at that same 1/4 size reduction such as the AI planes, it goes wonky because the 40K sizes aren't consistent with each other. And I don't see why the target would be 8mm humans when they explicitly used 8mm Marines.
And I still think GW would be daft to do Old World as a smaller scale - Warmaster was cool, but it wasn't all that popular and I doubt it's what most people would wish for as the only revival of WHF.
Yodhrin wrote: And I don't see why the target would be 8mm humans when they explicitly used 8mm Marines.
My point was that 8mm Marine is 8mm human if all you're doing is 1/4 of 40k scale, because at 40k scale there's not a significant height difference between Marines and humans.
How tall is a 40k Warlord compared to an AT one? Does the 40k Warlord match what it should (roughly) be in 40k scale, or is it undersized as well? If you say the Warlord is 1/260, that would make it about 5" tall, so is the 40k one about 20" tall?
Given they've said AT is 1/4 of 40k scale, that to me still puts it closer to 8mm scale than 6mm scale for a human, because there's no chance in hell that 40k humans are only 6x4 = 24mm scale models. 40k vehicles are roughly in the 1/48 to 1/56 range (closer to 1/48 I think), which when quartered puts you at roughly 1/200-ish.
I still don't think the AI stuff is wonky. Thunderbolts are big, they're supposed to be big, they're big in the fluff. If you measure the old resin Thunderbolts you get pretty close to 6mm (for a human) and if you measure the new ones you get about 8mm (for a human). I think it's more likely the Warlord has been overshrunk relative to its fluff size (given it's such a big model in 40k) than the AI aircraft are too big. EDIT: Though from what I've been reading, I'm just wondering if it's an issue of the Warlord not having a well defined fluff height.
And I still think GW would be daft to do Old World as a smaller scale - Warmaster was cool, but it wasn't all that popular and I doubt it's what most people would wish for as the only revival of WHF.
To be honest I wasn't really collecting when Warmaster came out (period of hiatus), was it well managed by GW and just unpopular, or was it mismanaged, because that's what's killed a lot of specialist games IMO?
Simple stuff can sometimes put people off as well, like I remember Warmaster units were often presented as being in narrow formations with deep ranks that weren't terribly aesthetically pleasing to my eye.
I can only comment from my own local area on warmaster. It was cool. But no one wanted to play it because they didn't want to get into another main game, and also did not want to have to collect another scale's worth of terrain to play the game.
Combined with a lot of people hated the command rules because they didn't have god-power over their units and didn't like that a unit could fail a leadership roll and thus bring your turn to an end and do nothing.
Nevelon wrote:One advantage to keeping the old scale is a ready made playerbase. There are old grognards like me with dusty shelves who would slap an army down on the table given half a chance.
I always enjoyed WHFB when I played it (5th-6th ed). I said at the time that Fantasy was won in the movement and psychology phases, while 40k was won in the shooting/assault. AoS (while fun) never scratched that same itch. I liked the blocks of troops maneuvering around.
um... Ever try Kings of War? I really recommend it and it sounds like you would too.
This reinforces my point about a good playerbase being important. I’ve read good things about KoW. Would probably enjoy playing it. I know zero people in the area who play. It can be the best ruleset ever written, with minis so beautiful angels shed tears of joy to gaze upon them. But if nobody plays in your area, it doesn’t mater. The closer of the FLGS I have in the area has zero fantasy presence. If I even want to get a game of AoS in, it’s an hour drive down to the store with a better community. Sigmar scratches the same itch as 40k though, so I’m not willing to invest the time to get down there to play.
But breaking out the movement trays and wheeling into the charge? I might make the trip.
Do you want to write engaging background for the Specialist Brands range of games?
Are you excited about working collaboratively within a team of professional miniatures designers, artists, editors and writers to produce new background for Adeptus Titanicus, Necromunda, Warhammer: The Old World, Horus Heresy and other games and supplements?
Seems to confirm that it'll be a Specialist Game, despite the slightly vague wording in the initial post. Also that'd be a sweet job if you got it.
The rumor that most retailers have heard is that GW is bringing Forgeworld into the fold, so it's not so much that Warhammer the Old World will be a "specialist game", it's more like all "specialist games" will now be fully GW, not Forgeworld. This is already apparent in the Titanicus and Aeronautica releases that have plastic sprue models rather than resin models. GW is moving away from resin because it is too easy to create the molds by thieves in Russia and China. I expect that the Old World release will feature plastic miniatures.
Smellingsalts wrote: The rumor that most retailers have heard is that GW is bringing Forgeworld into the fold, so it's not so much that Warhammer the Old World will be a "specialist game", it's more like all "specialist games" will now be fully GW, not Forgeworld. This is already apparent in the Titanicus and Aeronautica releases that have plastic sprue models rather than resin models. GW is moving away from resin because it is too easy to create the molds by thieves in Russia and China. I expect that the Old World release will feature plastic miniatures.
Tbh, even if it did end up being a traditional 'Specialist Game' I was still expecting plastic miniatures, much like Blood Bowl. Given the massively expanded factory space they have now, I'd expect more 'sidelines' to be done in plastic. Which tallies with your comments regarding blurring the lines between GW and Forge World.
GW is moving away from resin because it is too easy to create the molds by thieves in Russia and China
Because it's impossible to make resin moulds for plastic sprues and elements. Plain can't be done, resin
repels plastic on onthological level
Nice snark. If the choice is resin or resin, then I guess it won’t matter to most who manufactures it, if you can save a buck.
If the choice is well made plastic kits and pirated resin, I suspect most would likely prefer the well made plastic kits. I think that’s the point of the choice to bring Forge world into the fold.
GW is moving away from resin because it is too easy to create the molds by thieves in Russia and China
Because it's impossible to make resin moulds for plastic sprues and elements. Plain can't be done, resin
repels plastic on onthological level
Nice snark. If the choice is resin or resin, then I guess it won’t matter to most who manufactures it, if you can save a buck.
If the choice is well made plastic kits and pirated resin, I suspect most would likely prefer the well made plastic kits. I think that’s the point of the choice to bring Forge world into the fold.
People buy recasts of FW because the resin kits are often hideously expensive for what you get. They buy recasts of plastic kits less often because the price difference between them often isn't enough to justify the bother, but there are still plenty of GW plastic kits that have almost as big a differential as FW resin does.
Switching to plastic in and of itself will do zero, zilch, nada, nowt and nuffink to combat recasting, because with GW switching to plastic is no guarantee the prices will be appreciably better.
They can go 100% plastic and make the kits as fiddly as they like, recasts will continue to be a thing so long as the recasters can sell stuff for less a than a third the price of 25% online discounted GW kits and make a profit doing it(and, for the benefit of the mods and those rushing off to saddle their white chargers - I'm not saying that's a good thing, or that anyone should buy it, it's just reality).
I think so long as GW engages in regional pricing for their miniatures, upping the cost when it isn't warranted by the exchange rate, then there will always be a market for resin recasts, even of plastic sprues. I think GW wishes it had an easy solution to this problem, rather than having to deal with a root cause.
All of this is assuming the rumour is even true, of course. Forge World is still putting out weekly resin releases, including some pricy tanks that recasters will probably be all over.
I really hope they go for plastic. I've somehow developed an intolerance of some sort to super glue that makes me feel ill for several hours the day after I do some resin assembling. The GW plastic glue is fine and even though the plastic technically has less detail, I find it looks nicer as a whole compared to resin.
I bought a bunch of plastic High Elf stuff still on sprue, and I can't wait to see what the Old World is gonna be so I can start assembling and painting. 3 years is going to feel like forever...
The way this has been previewed I suspect the idea is to very much base it on what we once had, an old world with several different races and factions all at war with one another. Possibly even focusing starter sets on battles we once knew about, a boxed set based on the War of the Beard for example with starter forces for Elves and Dwarves, I'm not sure whether they'll release new kits or not. That would depend if GW are going to create this themselves and have it in their stores or more likely I'd guess it'll end up with Forgeworld and already shudder at the potential costs.
Hopefully we get some more snippets of official info to add fuel to our conjecturing.
Orodhen wrote: I really hope they go for plastic. I've somehow developed an intolerance of some sort to super glue that makes me feel ill for several hours the day after I do some resin assembling. The GW plastic glue is fine and even though the plastic technically has less detail, I find it looks nicer as a whole compared to resin.
I bought a bunch of plastic High Elf stuff still on sprue, and I can't wait to see what the Old World is gonna be so I can start assembling and painting. 3 years is going to feel like forever...
Well, if they go for resin you can probably still use the exelent plastic high elves. And you can use these waiting years trying to figure out how to place units of phoenix guard base to base.
I honestly think the date is set so far in the future (3 or 4 years) because every thing is going to be re-imagined in plastic and in modern GW style, quality... and price. (gulp).
The only question is goig to be how much will be compatible between it and AoS. I'm really only expecting the Lizardmen and Chaos warriors to be.
It's just too expensive on both ends of the scale. Resin is more hands-on casting which ups production costs. If GW makes a mass battle rank and file game out of resin its going to require a LOT of production time for them, even as a niche product.
At the customer level needing 30 or 40 resin warriors per unit and having multiple units would put the prices up so high that very few would be willing to buy into the actual models.
It would be a daft choice on both ends and would basically kill itself very fast, save for a very small niche of customers able and willing to pay those kinds of costs, which might not even be all that profitable for GW.
I'd expect it to be plastic for all the infantry and cavalry. Maybe upgrade parts and characters in resin - ergo smaller scale production stuff
It could be a testament to GW's expectations, if they do indeed make a mass battle game in resin.
Or it won't be mass battle game at all, at this point they could make a card game, with a pack of square bases for nostalgia's sake thrown in. Or gummy bears.
I know they said it's like three years out and it's not realistic to expect anything concrete for a long while, but I really hope they follow up on the announcement with the occasional article. Otherwise this early announcement is just bogus. Waiting for Sisters news for that first year without much to go on was bad enough, and that was just 18 months of wait.
I kind of wish they hadn't announced it. I was contemplating a new AoS army, and now I'm debating the merits of polishing up an existing square base army instead. But that of course assumes it will take off again, and I don't really want to waste the work if it doesn't.
Sort of feel like a salesman has talked me out of a sale, and rather than deal with it, encouraged me to do something else entirely.
I sincerely doubt they will do this in resin. Part of the problem with WFB, according to some, was the massive buy in price. I don't see them quadrupling it for a relaunch. I also don't see them doing Warmaster, so what I think is going to happen is some universal sprue for the older armies they do, that way customers will have to buy multiple copies of whatever boxed sets to make their army. Recoup mold costs rather quickly.
I honestly can't see Warmaster returning until after Epic 40K returns and if it does financially REALLY well upon returning. Even then I don't see Epic returning for a very very long time.
Voss wrote: I kind of wish they hadn't announced it. I was contemplating a new AoS army, and now I'm debating the merits of polishing up an existing square base army instead. But that of course assumes it will take off again, and I don't really want to waste the work if it doesn't.
Sort of feel like a salesman has talked me out of a sale, and rather than deal with it, encouraged me to do something else entirely.
Just Tony wrote: I sincerely doubt they will do this in resin. Part of the problem with WFB, according to some, was the massive buy in price. I don't see them quadrupling it for a relaunch. I also don't see them doing Warmaster, so what I think is going to happen is some universal sprue for the older armies they do, that way customers will have to buy multiple copies of whatever boxed sets to make their army. Recoup mold costs rather quickly.
As someone who was getting into Fantasy at the end of its life the buy in was a huge issue. For example my army would have cost over £100 and that was at half the standard point limit for my area.
Just Tony wrote: I sincerely doubt they will do this in resin. Part of the problem with WFB, according to some, was the massive buy in price. I don't see them quadrupling it for a relaunch. I also don't see them doing Warmaster, so what I think is going to happen is some universal sprue for the older armies they do, that way customers will have to buy multiple copies of whatever boxed sets to make their army. Recoup mold costs rather quickly.
As someone who was getting into Fantasy at the end of its life the buy in was a huge issue. For example my army would have cost over £100 and that was at half the standard point limit for my area.
100 quid for an army? That was filthy cheap by the end, chuck another zero on there. Some single regiments cost more than that.
No matter what else they do they're either going to have to steer back towards 6th edition-sized armies, or make the individual boxes much better value than they were by the end of WHFB's life. Ideally they'd be doing both.
Just Tony wrote: I sincerely doubt they will do this in resin. Part of the problem with WFB, according to some, was the massive buy in price. I don't see them quadrupling it for a relaunch. I also don't see them doing Warmaster, so what I think is going to happen is some universal sprue for the older armies they do, that way customers will have to buy multiple copies of whatever boxed sets to make their army. Recoup mold costs rather quickly.
As someone who was getting into Fantasy at the end of its life the buy in was a huge issue. For example my army would have cost over £100 and that was at half the standard point limit for my area.
100 for half the points played is the current price for AoS if you go for the cheap stuff
For Old World, expect something like the Necromunda Box, ~15 Sprues (less terrain, more models) ~200-250 as starting price
I wish someone would edit the the topic title to get rid of the stupid woooot in effffff etc .
No one actually knows beyond a few at GWHQ.
Most of the predictions now will go on to live alongside the hard plastic blood bowl pitch, 28mm inquisitor game, plastic thunder hawks from multiple years , reissued plastic original Marines etc
I know we'll just theorycraft in circles, but I sincerely believe this will be a 15mm(ish) game using roughly 6th Edition WHFB rules. I think it is about the only way to make it viable from a production and profit stand-point.
Anything else would require it being a proper third-pillar game for them.
I think early 6th edition was just the most fun the game ever was, for a variety of reasons. You had regiments of around 16-20 troops which were more manageable on the tabletop than the huge hordes of 8th edition, normal infantry and cavalry were the core of the game, and heroes and magic were more like fantasy flavour on the core game. Monsters were scary but could be managed with good tactics. The size of the game was more reasonable.
There were issues of course, but to my mind, the game was the best it ever was in that period (for reference, I played 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th editions.
I think as a game, Kings of War was a better successor than 8th edition, but if you want old school old world, 6th is the best. (7th was not that different, but it had issues due to some of the army books being unbalanced).
) He can give Mordheim a spring cleaning while he's there. 
